欢迎访问《中国农学通报》，
中国农学通报

中国农学通报 ›› 2017, Vol. 33 ›› Issue (14): 147-152.doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb16110103

所属专题： 现代农业发展与乡村振兴； 畜牧兽医

• 三农研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

“种草养牛”循环农业模式效益比较分析

江南,邹冬生,肖和艾,李明德,刘琼峰,谷雨   

  1. 湖南农业大学生物科学技术学院,湖南农业大学,中国科学院亚热带农业生态研究所,湖南省土壤肥料研究所,湖南省土壤肥料研究所,湖南省土壤肥料研究所
  • 收稿日期:2016-11-20 修回日期:2016-12-13 接受日期:2016-12-19 出版日期:2017-05-25 发布日期:2017-05-25
  • 通讯作者: 肖和艾
  • 基金资助:
    国家支撑计划项目课题(2012BAD14B17)。

Benefit Comparative Analysis of“Grass-cattle”Circular Agriculture Model

邹冬生,肖和艾,, and   

  • Received:2016-11-20 Revised:2016-12-13 Accepted:2016-12-19 Online:2017-05-25 Published:2017-05-25

PDF (PC)

411

摘要： 笔者以位于湖南省长沙县金井镇的循环农业研究基地为例，对“单一养牛”、“种草养牛”和“种草养牛产肥”3 种模式的比较效益进行了分析。结果表明：与“单一养牛”模式比较，“种草养牛产肥”模式的总产值、净产值和利润分别提高18.3%、76.7%和88.4%。从成本和投资两方面分析结果表明，无论是成本利用率与利用效率，以及投资利用率与投资效果，均呈现“种草养牛产肥”模式最好，“种草养牛”模式其次，“单一养牛”模式最差。但单纯从劳动投入的角度分析，“种草养牛产肥”和“种草养牛”模式的劳动成本占总成本的26.8%和25.9%，较“单一养牛”模式高57.7%和56.2%，说明“种草养牛产肥”和“种草养牛”模式的人工投入成本较高，需加快机械化技术应用。与“单一养牛”模式相比，“种草养牛产肥”模式的总产值和净产值提高1.2 倍和4.3 倍，扣除劳动成本后，“种草养牛产肥”模式的纯收益分别比“单一养牛”和“种草养牛”模式提高8.60 倍和1.16 倍。阐明“种草养牛产肥”模式不仅可有效地防止牛场废弃物对环境的污染，而且具有更好的经济效益，值得大力推广应用。

关键词: 硅钙镁磷钾肥, 硅钙镁磷钾肥, 油菜, 产量, 磷钾利用, 土壤养分

Abstract: The authors took the circular agriculture research base in Jinjing Town of Changsha County in Hunan Province as an example, analyzed the comparative benefits of“only cattle”,“grass-cattle”and“grasscattle-fertilizer”model. The results showed that compared with“only cattle”model, the gross output value, net output value and profit of“grass-cattle-fertilizer”model increased by 18.3%, 76.7% and 88.4%, respectively. The results of cost and investment analysis showed that cost use ratio, utilization efficiency, investment use ratio and investment results of“grass-cattle-fertilizer”model were the best, then was“grass-cattle”model and“only cattle”model was the worst. Analysis of labor input showed that the labor cost of“grass-cattlefertilizer” and“grass-cattle”accounted for 26.8% and 25.9% of the total cost, which were 57.7% and 56.2% higher than that of“only cattle”model, and it indicated that the labor cost of“grass-cattle-fertilizer”and “grass-cattle”was relatively high, it was imperative to accelerate the application of mechanization technology. Compared with“only cattle”model, the total output value and net output value of“grass-cattle-fertilizer” model increased by 1.2 times and 4.3 times, after deducting labor cost, the net return of“grass- cattle-fertilizer”model increased by 8.60 times and 1.16 times compared with that of“only cattle”and“grasscattle” model. Therefore, the clarification of“grass- cattle- fertilizer”model could not only prevent the environmental pollution caused by the wastes in cattle farms effectively, but also have better economic benefits.