Environmental sustainability and economic viability of the Compost Barn system in

Brazilian dairy farming

Franciane Gabrielle Santos1*; Alice Ranielly Chaves Santos2; Bruna Naiara Cardoso3; Fernando Colen4;

Otaviano de Souza Pires Neto5; Fabio Ribeiro dos Santos6; Sidney Pereira7

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2023.42783

Abstract

Dairy farming has great socioeconomic importance in Brazil, and the last decades have registered a constant evolution

of the production chain, seeking to increase quality and production efficiency. In this context, the production systems

have intensified and adopted new technologies. The Compost Barn system has stood out as a confinement option

for dairy cattle, for its lower implementation cost than other confinement systems and the possibility of giving an

adequate destination to the animals’ waste. Besides the search for greater production efficiency, the environmental

sustainability of agricultural systems has been increasingly discussed, and dairy cattle farming is associated with many

potential environmental impacts. It is essential to identify and mitigate them for the consolidation of a production

chain socially fair, economically viable and environmentally correct. Thus, this literature review aims to evaluate

the economic and environmental feasibility of the Compost barn system within the national dairy farming scenario.

keywords: Life cycle assessment. Milk production. Environmental impacts. Greenhouse gasses.

Sustentabilidade ambiental e viabilidade econômica do sistema Compost Barn na pecuária

leiteira brasileira

Resumo

A pecuária leiteira tem grande importância socioeconômica no Brasil e as últimas décadas tem registrado uma cons-

tante evolução da cadeia produtiva, buscando aumentar a qualidade e a eficiência produtiva. Nesse contexto, os

sistemas de produção têm se intensificado e adotado novas tecnologias e o sistema Compost Barn tem se destacado

como opção de confinamento para bovinos leiteiros, por seu menor custo de implantação em relação a outros siste-

mas estabulados e a possibilidade de dar um destino adequado aos dejetos dos animais. Além da busca por maior

eficiência produtiva, a sustentabilidade ambiental dos sistemas agropecuários tem sido cada vez mais discutida, e a

bovinocultura leiteira é associada à uma série de potenciais impactos ambientais, sendo imprescindível a identificação

e mitigação dos mesmos para a consolidação de uma cadeia produtiva socialmente justa, economicamente viável e

1Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Agrárias. Montes Claros, MG. Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7552-3266

2Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Agrárias. Montes Claros, MG. Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2870-2517

3Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Agrárias. Montes Claros, MG. Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9884-1566

4Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Agrárias. Montes Claros, MG. Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6039-1240

Faculdades Integradas do Norte de Minas (FUNORTE). Montes Claros, MG. Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1159-4559

Universidade Federal de Viçosa. Viçosa, MG. Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8822-9421

7Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais. Instituto de Ciências Agrárias. Montes Claros, MG. Brasil.

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8869-3512

*Autor para correspondência: franciane_gabrielle@hotmail.com

Recebido para publicação em 08 de janeiro de 2023. Aceito para publicação em 15 de fevereiro de 2023

e-ISSN: 2447-6218. Atribuição CC BY.

Caderno de Ciências Agrárias está licenciado

com uma Licença Creative Commons

Atribuição - Não Comercial 4.0 Internacional

Agrarian Sciences Journal

2 
Santos, F. G. et al.
 
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 15, p. 01–09, DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2023.42783 
 
 
ambientalmente correta. Sendo assim, o objetivo com essa revisão bibliográfica é avaliar a viabilidade econômica e 
ambiental do sistema Compost barn dentro do panorama da pecuária leiteira nacional. 
 
Palavras Chave: Avaliação do ciclo de vida. Produção de leite. Impactos ambientais. Gases de efeito estufa. 
 
 
 
INTRODUCTION
 
 
Dairy  farming  and  its  production  chain  are  of 
great  national  socioeconomic  importance,  generating 
employment and income in the countryside and the city 
(Rocha et al., 2020). Currently, Brazil stands out as one 
of the world’s largest producers of milk volume, and its 
production  chain  has  been  undergoing  decades  of  im- 
provements in search of higher production, productivity, 
and quality (Maia et al., 2013). 
 
The adoption of new technologies and the opti- 
mization of production systems have been a constant in 
the development process of national dairy farming. The 
transition from extensive to intensive production systems 
is gaining more and more space since intensive systems 
can  provide  gains  in  productivity.  Recent  researches 
indicate that intensive production systems tend to have 
a lower environmental impact because these are diluted 
in a greater volume of production and concentrated in a 
smaller area. In this context, the Compost Barn has been 
gaining  space  in  the  national  scenario,  offering  lower 
implementation cost compared to other confined systems 
and gains in the environment, welfare and productivity 
(Basaia, 2020; Caldato, 2019; Krüger et al., 2021; Silva, 
2022; Tomazi; Gai, 2022).
 
 
Despite its socioeconomic relevance, dairy cattle 
farming is also an activity that can cause environmental 
pollution from untreated animal waste and the emission 
of  greenhouse  gases;  for  example,  and  therefore  the 
analysis  and  mitigation  of  environmental  impacts  are 
necessary, seeking the consolidation of sustainable dairy 
farming (Amaral et al., 2012). The circular economy and 
regenerative agriculture are concepts still little explored 
that preach sustainable practices, which can be adopted 
to mitigate environmental impacts attributed to the dairy 
supply chain. Life cycle assessment (LCA) has presented 
itself as an alternative for the evaluation of production 
chains and the identification of critical points to be im- 
proved, and recent studies have made use of this tool to 
assess the environmental sustainability of farming systems 
(Basaia, 2020; Seó et al., 2017; Silva, 2022). 
 
Considering the socioeconomic importance and 
the environmental impacts attributed to dairy farming, the 
search for production techniques and technologies that 
maximize productivity and resource use associated with 
the least possible environmental impact is of paramount 
importance. 
 
DEPLYOMENT 
 
Overview  of  dairy  cattle  breeding  in  Brazil  and  in 
Minas Gerais 
 
The milk production chain, one of the main econo- 
mic activities in Brazil, is responsible for positive numbers 
in the economy, besides generating millions of jobs in the 
countryside and the city (Rocha et al, 2020). According 
to  data  from  the  Municipal  Livestock  Survey  (PPM)  of 
2021,  released  by  the  Brazilian  Institute  of  Geography 
and Statistics (IBGE, 2022) the, milk production was 
35.3 billion liters, similar to the 35.4 billion recorded in 
the year 2020 (IBGE, 2021). 
 
According to data from the Food and Agriculture 
Organization (FAO, 2019), Brazil is the third largest milk 
producer in the world, preceded by the United States and 
China, respectively. According to Maia and collaborators 
(2013), milk production has  grown  relatively  steadily 
in Brazil  since 1974, rising from 7.1 billion liters to  32 
billion in 2011, a growth of almost 350%. More specifi- 
cally, in the last two decades, production has increased 
by approximately 80%, while the number of milked cows 
has decreased due to increased herd productivity (Rocha 
et al., 2020). 
 
The  Municipal  Cattle  Survey  identified  a  re- 
duction in the milked herd  in  Brazil in 2020 compared 
to the  previous  year,  with a  discrete  decrease  of 0.8%, 
along  with  an  increase  of 1.5% in  production,  despite 
the challenges that 2020 brought to the milk production 
chain,  such  as  the  closing  of  production  flow  channels 
and the escalating prices of inputs such as corn and soy 
meal (IBGE, 2021). The decrease in establishments and 
milked animals and the increase in production indicate 
productivity improvements, with the average going from 
1.6 thousand liters per cow/year in 2006 to 2.6 thousand 
liters per cow/year in 2017 (Ferrazza; Castellani, 2022). 
 
Historically,  Minas  Gerais  is  the  largest  dairy 
basin in Brazil. According to IBGE data, in 2018, the state 
recorded a volume of more than 9.4 billion liters of milk, 
27.1%  of  the  national  production.  According  to  census 
surveys, from 2006 to 2017, the number of farms involved 
in dairy cattle farming in Minas Gerais fell by 2.96% and 
the number of milked animals dropped by 6.58%, while 
the  state’s  total  production  increased  by  52.9%  in  the 
same period,  with productivity jumping from 1.8 thou- 
sand liters per cow/year in 2006 to 2.9 thousand liters 
per  cow/year  in  2017,  a  growth  of  63.67%  (Ferrazza; 
Castellani,  2022). In  2021,  the  average  productivity  in 

3 
Environmental sustainability and economic viability of the Compost Barn system in Brazilian dairy farming 
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 15, p. 01–09, DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2023.42783 
 
 
the state was 3,114 liters/cow/year, an increase of 7.4% 
compared to 2017 (IBGE, 2021; SEAPA-MG, 2022). 
 
Ximenes  (2020)  points  out  that  despite  Brazil 
presenting favorable characteristics for efficient produc- 
tion,  the  dairy  chain  lacks  greater  organization  of  the 
sectors, and the heterogeneity of the production systems 
requires  the  adoption  of  local  development  policies  to 
encourage greater organization  and  access to  technical 
assistance.  The  adoption  of  new technologies is neces- 
sary  for  production  systems  to  become  more  efficient, 
sustainable and competitive, being increasingly necessary 
the  dissemination  of  knowledge  and  technical  training 
(Zoccal et al., 2011). 
 
Sustainability in dairy cattle farming 
 
Dairy  farming,  undeniably  an  activity  of  great 
economic  importance  in  Brazil  and  worldwide,  is  also 
potentially  polluting  the  environment,  likely  to  cause 
adverse environmental impacts such as soil degradation, 
indiscriminate use and/or contamination of water resour- 
ces, reduction of biodiversity, and emission of greenhouse 
gases. Animal waste, fertilizers, antibiotic residues, and 
other  veterinary  medicines  and  pesticides  are  pointed 
out as the main sources of pollution of activity (Wüst et 
al., 2015). 
 
The activity is responsible for producing a consi- 
derable amount of waste, about 317 million tons per year 
(Instituto de Pesquisa Econômica Aplicada - IPEA, 2012). 
In general, Brazil accounts for high production of waste 
from  animal  production,  waste  that  can  contribute  to 
environmental pollution. However, with a cyclical vision 
of the  systems and the  proper disposal of waste,  these 
can stop  being environmental problems,  and becoming 
sources of nutrients for the soil and / or energy sources 
(Albuquerque et al., 2022; Maciel et al., 2019). 
 
Sustainability can be understood as the develo- 
pment  that  meets  the  demands of the  Present without 
compromising the ability of future generations to meet 
theirs  (WCED,  1987).  When  applied  to  livestock  far- 
ming, sustainability should simultaneously contemplate 
environmental,  productive,  and  socioeconomic  aspects 
to meet the present population’s food demands without 
exhausting environmental resources and compromising 
the producer’s and community’s quality of life. Therefo- 
re, sustainable livestock farming should be based on the 
rational use of soil, water, and energy, the preservation 
of biodiversity, productivity and respect for human health 
(Alvez, 2011). 
 
The emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG) associa- 
ted with agricultural production are mainly related to the 
expansion of agricultural boundaries and deforestation, 
change  in  land  use,  use  of  chemical  fertilizers,  enteric 
fermentation  of  ruminant  animals  and  fermentation  of 
animal waste. It is estimated that 46% of the dairy farming 
GHG  emissions  come  from  the  production  of  pollutant 
gases, such as methane, and the waste produced by the 
animals;  36%  are  attributed  to  animal  feed  and  food 
procurement; 21% to the fertilization of crop areas and 
5%  of  emissions  are attributed  to  dairy  products,  and 
the  intensity  of  emissions  varies  according  to  the  type 
of property and the production system adopted (Basaia, 
2020). 
 
Life Cycle Assessment 
 
Life  Cycle  Assessment  (LCA)  is  a  widely  used 
technique  for  evaluating  and  quantifying  the  sustaina- 
bility  profile  of  products,  analyzing  and  measuring  the 
impacts generated both in the manufacturing processes 
and in their use, in order to consider the entire produc- 
tion  chain  and  its  relationships  with  the  environment. 
In this context, LCA  allows  a  complete  understanding 
of  the  environmental  impacts,  enabling  the  search  for 
improvement at different points of the production pro- 
cess  and  optimizing  environmental  management  and 
the reduction of impacts associated with the production 
chain (Basaia, 2020; Brandalise; Bertolini, 2015; Seó et 
al., 2017; Silva, 2022). 
 
According to the NBR ISO 14044 of the Brazilian 
Association  of  Technical  Standards  (ABNT,  2009),  LCA 
allows the assessment of points of potential improvement 
in the environmental performance of products at various 
points in their life cycle and the selection of relevant en- 
vironmental  performance indicators. LCA encompasses 
the environmental aspects and potential environmental 
impacts  of  the  entire  life  cycle  of  a  product,  from  raw 
material sourcing, production process, use, post-use treat- 
ment, recycling, and final disposal, and is referred to as 
“cradle to grave”  assessment.  The  delimitation  of  the 
boundaries of an LCA study will depend on the product 
being evaluated and the objective of the study. However, 
in general, the  study will  consist  of  the  phases of  defi- 
ning the objective and scope, inventory analysis, impact 
assessment, and finally, the interpretation phase. 
 
The life cycle inventory analysis (LCI) phase, the 
second phase of LCA, is the formation of the inventory of 
input and output data associated with the system studied, 
then involves the collection of the necessary data. In the 
third phase, the life cycle impact assessment (LCA) phase, 
the goal is to provide additional information that helps 
in the LCI assessment, aiming for a better understanding 
of its environmental significance. Finally, in the interpre- 
tation phase, the results of the LCI and/or the LCIA will 
be summarized and discussed as a basis for conclusions 
and decision-making, according to the objectives set for 
the study (ABNT, 2009). 
 
The  life  cycle  can  be  understood  as  the  con- 
secutive  and  interconnected  stages  of  the  production 
system  of a  given  product, from  the  acquisition  of  raw 
materials or its procurement through natural resources 
to its final disposal (ABNT, 2009). Thus, LCA is defined 
as the compilation and evaluation of inputs, outputs and 

Santos, F. G. et al.

Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 15, p. 01–09, DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2023.42783

potential environmental impacts of a production system

throughout its life cycle.

In a systematic review on the use of LCA in the

dairy supply chain, Seó et al. (2017) found that primary

production accounted for the majority of greenhouse

gas emissions. Enteric fermentation, production and

use of synthetic fertilizers, manure use, production and

transport of concentrates, low animal productivity, and

the low nutritional quality and yields of pastures are the

main critical control points for the activity.

Circular economy

The circular economy (CE) has been presented

as a counterpoint to traditional production systems and

the current production/consumption model, called linear

or closed-system economy. The linear economy follows a

pattern of extract-produce-dispose in a closed cycle that

repeats itself indefinitely and can produce a large amount

of waste. With population growth and the concentration

of populations in urban areas, the demand for consumer

goods and consequently the production of waste increases.

The disposal of this waste can pollute the soil, water, and

air, being a threat to the earth’s ecosystems (Abdalla;

Sampaio, 2018).

In an attempt to minimize waste production

and the environmental impacts involved, the principles,

currently called “5R’s”, have been disseminated: rethink,

refuse, reduce, reuse, and recycle. However, according to

McDonough and Braungart (2002), cited by Abdalla and

Sampaio (2018), focusing only on strategies to minimize

these impacts leads society in the same direction, only

reducing the speed of environmental degradation.

The circular economy, in turn, proposes to revo-

lutionize society’s current production and consumption

patterns. According to the Ellen MacArthur Foundation,

created to propagate the ideas of the CE, this model is

based on three principles: eliminate waste and pollution,

circulate products and materials, and regenerate nature

by adopting renewable materials and energy sources. The

adoption of CE starts from the search to preserve and

improve natural resources, optimize resource yield, and

recirculate inputs and products (Abdalla; Sampaio, 2018;

Maia et al., 2013). According to Abdalla and Sampaio

(2018), one can summarize the concept of CE into three

fundamental principles: waste is nutrients, use of solar

energy or other renewable sources, and celebration of

diversity.

Waste is nutrients:

each product must be thought

of from its conception, prioritizing the use of healthy

inputs for humans and the biosphere, and that can have

their value recovered after each use. Thus, we seek to

replace harmful and/or unwanted substances by others

that can be used later as nutrients or raw materials;

Use of renewable energy: the use of solar ener-

gy or other renewable energy sources should always be

preferred over non-renewable sources such as fossil fuels;

Celebration of diversity: advocates harmony

between manufactured and natural spaces, the stimu-

lation of biodiversity, and the premise that there is no

single solution for any problem, proposing the search for

potential answers on a case-by-case basis, aiming at the

best use of resources and processes in different situations.

These principles are applied to production in

two distinct cycles: biological and technical (figure 1).

The biological cycle includes natural processes and the

premise is to mimic the logic of the cycles that occur in

nature, where the input is used and regenerated, with or

without human interference, and returns to the biosphere

as a nutrient. In the technical cycle, in turn, it seeks the

maintenance of materials in industrial circulation so that

they can be recovered in whole or in part after use and

reconverted into raw materials and/or products for new

uses instead of becoming waste (Abdalla; Sampaio, 2018;

Maia et al., 2013).

Countries in the European Union and China have

been pioneers in adopting circular economy concepts and

in the search for sustainable production. In Denmark, the

concept of “industrial symbiosis” has emerged, where in-

dustrial parks are diversified, and one industry is installed

near another, from which it can work with waste as raw

material. China not only adopted the industrial symbiosis

but added a new level, the industrial eco-parks, which

besides the symbiosis by the flow of materials, counts

on the sharing of structures and resources. In Brazil and

South America in general, except for Chile, the advances

of the circular economy are still incipient and walk slowly,

but there is a movement for the adoption of this concept

from universities, public agencies, and private initiative

(Abdalla; Sampaio, 2018; Maia et al., 2013).

Regenerative Agriculture

Regenerative Organic Agriculture was idealized

and defined in the 1980s by Robert Rodale. It can be

understood as a set of practices aimed at the rational

use of soil and the recovery of degraded soils, building

its structure and fertility, and allowing productivity sus-

tainably. Besides positively altering the soil’s chemical,

physical, and biological attributes, it can contribute to

reducing greenhouse gas emissions and reducing agri-

culture’s dependence on chemical inputs and fossil fuels

(Rhodes, 2017; Gazola et al., 2017; Tavares; Borschiver,

2019).

The Rodale Institute defines Regenerative Agri-

culture as “a type of agriculture that goes beyond sus-

tainable” because it contributes to the improvement of

available resources, rather than just preserving them,

being concerned with the health of the food system as

a whole, from the health of crops and humans to the

Environmental sustainability and economic viability of the Compost Barn system in Brazilian dairy farming

Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 15, p. 01–09, DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2023.42783

prospects of future generations (Rodale institute, 2021).

In addition, this model of agriculture encourages cons-

tant innovation and improvement in environmental,

economic, and social measures, being guided not only

Figure 1 – Schematic of the biological and technical cycles.

by being environmentally sustainable but also by the

social and economic sustainability of the entire system

(Ehlers, 1994).

Source: McDonough; Braungart, 2002.

According to Perez Casar (2021), the traditional

production model was based mainly on modifying the

environment to allow crops to express their genetic po-

tential to the maximum, which brought us many benefits,

but also caused environmental impacts that we have to

deal with. Now, the premise would be to adapt crops and

technologies so that the environment can express its pro-

ductive potential with minimal disturbance. Regenerative

Agriculture seeks to harmonize agricultural production

processes with natural dynamics, producing and pro-

moting biodiversity simultaneously through techniques

such as crop rotation, ground cover, no-till or reduced

tillage, and the use of organic compost for fertilization.

The rational use of water and the biological control of

pests are also among the proposals contemplated by this

system (Gazola et al., 2017; Tavares; Borschiver, 2019).

Compost Barn

In search of production and productivity impro-

vements, the intensification of production systems is a

growing trend in dairy cattle farming. Despite the higher

initial investment in facilities and machinery, confined

systems are associated with gains in animal welfare and

productivity (Caldato, 2019; Krüger et al., 2021; Tomazi;

Gai, 2022).

Created as an adaptation to the Free Stall, the

Compost Barn is a confinement system for dairy cows

that has been gaining space in Brazil. Compared to the

Free Stall, the Compost Barn demands less initial in-

vestment and can favor greater animal welfare, besides

minimizing the risk of hoof or hock problems, favored

by the time the animals spend on concrete floors in the

Free Stall (Caldato, 2019). The Compost Barn comprises

a concrete feeding lane and an area of free circulation

for the animals, consisting of a collective bed, usually

formed with an organic material rich in carbon such as

shavings, sawdust, and rice husk, among other similar

materials. The premise is the aerobic composting of the

bedding material plus animal excreta (Caldato, 2019;

Janni et al., 2007; Tomazi; Gai, 2022).

To provide the expected gains in ambience and

productivity, the project must be prepared by qualified

professionals and take into consideration a number of

criteria, including the orientation of the house, the type

of ventilation to be used, the microclimate of the region,

the number of animals housed and the availability of

bedding material. One can work with 7.4 to 15 mZ of

bedding area per animal, and it should be considered that

the smaller the area per animal, the greater the frequen-

cy of bedding replacement should be. In addition, the

microclimate of the region directly influences the drying

of the litter; colder and more humid regions demand a

6 
Santos, F. G. et al.
 
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 15, p. 01–09, DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2023.42783 
 
 
larger area per animal so that the litter is maintained at 
the appropriate humidity (Caldato, 2019). 
 
The bed should be formed with a depth of 40 to 
50 cm, with the addition of layers of 10 to 20 cm every 
five weeks, and typically maintained for periods of 6 to 12 
months. For the composting process to occur correctly, at 
30 cm depth, the bed temperature should vary between 
40 and 50 C°, enabling the degradation of cellulose and 
the inactivation of pathogens, and the humidity should be 
kept between 40 and 60%. The carbon/nitrogen ratio of 
the bedding must be adequate for the desired stabilization 
of the manure to occur, and  a carbon/nitrogen ratio of 
25:1 to 30:1 is  recommended  (Caldato,  2019;  Janni  et 
al., 2007).
 
 
If the bed presents excess organic matter, low tempera- 
ture or high humidity, it is necessary to add a new layer 
of  the  material  that  composes  it,  renewing  the  carbon 
source consumed during composting. In a bed formed of 
fine ground particles or dust the compaction is favored, 
hindering aeration, reducing microbial activity, and may 
provide the formation of clods and areas of anaerobiosis. 
On  the  other  hand,  a  bed  of  coarsely  ground  particles 
favors  the  entry  of  air and  can  accelerate  the  compos- 
ting process, reducing the bed’s replacement time. Thus, 
using materials in different granulometries to form the 
bed is interesting. Proper bed management is crucial to 
the Compost Barn’s success and consists of making the 
bed stirring and incorporating animal waste into the bed 
material.  This  revolving should be  done  from  25  to  30 
cm deep at least twice a day and usually happens while 
the cows are in the milking parlor (Caldato, 2019; Janni 
et al., 2007). 
 
Despite being a relatively new system, the Com- 
post  Barn  has  shown promise  for  dairy  cattle  farming. 
Besides the benefits involving production, animal welfare, 
and the advantages it presents concerning the free stall 
system, another positive  point can  be attributed to  the 
system regarding environmental sustainability. The waste 
from  cattle  farming  is  a  major  concern  regarding  the 
potential polluter of the activity, and with the Compost 
Barn, most of the waste is incorporated into the bed and 
then  used  as  organic  fertilizer,  providing  then  rational 
management of waste and replacing part of the mineral 
fertilization (Caldato, 2019). 
 
Tomazi  and  Gai  (2022)  observed  that  the  use 
of compost from the Compost Barn litter contributed to 
the diameter of the stalk and number of leaves in a corn 
crop,  as  well  as  improving  the  chemical  parameters  of 
the soil in terms of phosphorus, calcium, organic matter, 
base sum, cation exchange capacity, and base saturation 
percentage, about the control treatment, which received 
only mineral fertilization. 
 
Therefore, the Compost Barn can provide, in ad- 
dition to improvements in production and animal welfare, 
the improvement of soil quality and the reduction of waste
 
production,  aligning  then  to  premises  of  regenerative 
agriculture, which aims at rational use and building soil 
fertility, and circular economy, which proposes the cycli- 
cality of materials within a productive system (Abdalla; 
Sampaio, 2018; Rhodes, 2017). 
 
Financial viability of dairy cattle farming 
 
As  one  of  the  leading  agricultural  activities  in 
Brazil,  dairy  cattle  farming  is an  important  source  of 
income.  Therefore,  the  financial  management  of  farms 
is  of utmost importance as  a  managerial  tool,  allowing 
properties to be considered as companies and for them 
to evolve along  with  the  sector.  Applying  accounting 
in the rural sector is indispensable for proper property 
management and assertive decision-making to make the 
activity more efficient (Neves et al., 2017). 
 
Rural accounting is focused on studying proper- 
ties  and/or  companies  focused  on vegetable  or  animal 
production or agro-industrial activities.  It is a tool that 
is still little used by producers, considered complex and 
of  low  practical  return,  which  can  be attributed  to  the 
deficiency of accounting systems that are reliable to the 
characteristics  of  agricultural  activities  and  the  lack  of 
trained  professionals  to  transmit  adequate  administrative 
strategies to rural producers (Krüger et al., 2021; Neves 
et al., 2017). 
 
An analysis of its feasibility should precede the 
implementation  of  a  project.  The  discounted  cash  flow 
presents itself as the most used method for assessing the 
feasibility of a project by determining through calculations 
the fair value and the risks  inherent in the investment, 
discounting a rate of cash flows expected for the future 
(Basaia, 2020; Farina et al., 2015). According to  Basaia 
(2020), to perform these analyses, it is necessary to de- 
fine  cash  flow,  gross  revenue,  net  revenue,  costs  and 
expenses,  depreciation  and  amortization,  opportunity 
cost,  minimum  rate  of  attractiveness  (TMA),  inflation, 
net  present  value  (NPV),  internal  rate  of  return  (IRR), 
discounted payback, profitability index and benefit-cost 
ratio. According to this methodology, he concluded that 
an intensive dairy farm, adept of the Compost Barn sys- 
tem,  was  economically  viable,  also  concluding  that  the 
intensification of production systems favors its financial 
viability. 
 
Krüger and collaborators (2021), in a study based 
on documentary research and interviews with the pro- 
ducer, observed that  despite the necessary investment, 
the implementation of a Compost Barn System was eco- 
nomically feasible in the property studied, because even 
implying an increase in production costs, it allowed the 
reduction  of  the  area  used  with  dairy  cattle  and  gains 
related to increases in production, productivity, and milk 
quality.  The  main  indexes  used  to  evaluate  economic 
viability  in  the  previously  mentioned  bibliography  are 
described below. 

Environmental sustainability and economic viability of the Compost Barn system in Brazilian dairy farming

Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 15, p. 01–09, DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2023.42783

Cash flow: This is understood as the behavior

(inflows and outflows) of money in the cash of a particular

company or enterprise over some time, even allowing to

estimate the cash flow for the future and it is possible to

evaluate periods in daily, monthly, semiannual or annual

intervals, depending on the purpose (Basaia, 2020; Farina

et al., 2015);

Gross revenue: Monetary value that comes into

the company’s cash flow from selling products, animals, or

services in a certain period. It is obtained by multiplying

the total produced by the amount received (liters of milk

sold per month x amount paid per liter, for example);

Net Revenue: It is calculated employing the

difference between the Gross Revenue and the expenses

implied in the production process;

Costs and expenses: Costs can be understood

as the monetary value of inputs consumed directly or

indirectly in the production process and marketing of a

particular product or service, such as the amount spent

on fuel and labor, while expenses are the spending or

decrease of resources during a period of company acti-

vities and that are necessary to obtain revenue (Farina

et al., 2015);

Depreciation and amortization: Depreciation

aims to account for the loss of value of fixed assets in

the production process, which occurs through the action

of nature, physical wear, and tear, or obsolescence. In

short, it is the difference between the purchase value of

an asset and its value at the end of its useful life (Farina

et al., 2015). The amortization covers the reduction of

some debt through partial or total discharge between the

parties involved and can be considered as a cost;

Opportunity Cost:

represents how much is renou-

nced in remuneration when choosing to apply its resources

in a particular activity instead of applying these same

resources in another, that is, it evaluates the possibility

of alternative use of resources (Basaia, 2020; Farina et

al., 2015);

Minimum Rate of Attractiveness (TMA):

repre-

sents the minimum interest rate that an investor proposes

to earn when investing his resources in a given project

or the maximum that he is willing to pay when financing

a given amount (Farina et al., 2015). To be considered

attractive, an investment must yield at least the interest

rate equivalent to the profitability offered by low-risk

investments, such as the Selic rate;

Net Present Value (NPV): is the sum of the

variations of the expected cash flow for the expected

years of investment for each period, updated year by

year and brought to zero period values (present value,

in which the analysis is made), applying an interest rate

that is equivalent to the Minimum Rate of Attractiveness

(TMA) of the market subtracted from the amount initially

invested, in period zero, i.e., in simplified form, it is the

amount that the investor will receive in the future, dis-

counting the amount invested. The higher the NPV, the

more attractive is considered the investment, and the

NPV must be greater than zero to be considered viable

(Guiducci et al., 2012);

The Internal Rate of Return (IRR): is the rate

of return that a project offers to its investor, and if the

IRR is higher than the opportunity cost rate, it is viable

for the investor to invest in that project (Guiducci et al.,

2012). The IRR shows precisely what is the periodic rate

at which the investment is remunerated and serves as a

basis for comparison with other investments;

Discounted Payback: allows you to calculate

the time (in days, months or years) required for an in-

vestment to pay off, i.e., the time required for the net

profit to equal the amount invested, recovering the initial

capital invested. This period is calculated by adjusting

the amounts invested at a given interest rate compared

to the maximum period defined as the parameter of

attractiveness, and if the Payback period is longer than

the time defined as the parameter of attractiveness, the

investment must be rejected (Farina et al., 2015; Guiducci

et al., 2012);

Profitability Index: is an indicator of the in-

vestment’s capacity to generate profits from the project

developed, showing what proportion of the gross revenue

consists of available resources after covering the total

operating costs, calculated from the present value of

the disbursements, in percentage terms, allowing us to

define whether the project is viable or not;

Benefit-cost ratio: This is the relationship bet-

ween the present value of the revenues to be obtained

and the present value of the costs.

CONCLUSION

The bibliography consulted shows the dairy pro-

duction chain’s importance and the possible challenges

and environmental impacts it can cause. It becomes clear,

therefore, the need for further studies that identify and

quantify these environmental impacts, so that it is pos-

sible to define the critical points to be worked on and

plausible alternatives to be adopted for this.

Author contributions

FGS, FC, OSPN, SP: Conceptualization, Supervi-

sion, Writing original draft preparation, writing, eviewing

and editing. ARC, BNC, FRS: Writing original draft prepa-

ration and editing. All authors gave their final approval

and agree with all aspects of the work.

8 
Santos, F. G. et al.
 
Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 15, p. 01–09, DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2023.42783 
 
 
Funding Agencies 
 
This study was financed in part by the Coordenação 
de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil 
(CAPES) - Finance Code 001”, Conselho Nacional de 
Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), Fun- 
dação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais 
(FAPÈMIG)  and Universidade  Federal  de  Minas  Gerias, 
Pro-Reitoria de Pesquisas (UFMG-PRPq). 
 
 
 
REFERENCE
 
 
Abdalla, F. A., & Sampaio, A. C. F. 2018. Os novos princípios e conceitos 
inovadores da  Economia  Circular. Entorno  Geográfico,  (15),  82–102. 
Doi: https://doi.org/10.25100/eg.v0i15.6712.
 
 
Albuquerque, M. G., Sousa, S. S. O. D., Arruda, V. C. M. D., & El-Deir,
 
S. G. 2022. Impactos socioambientais dos dejetos da pecuária no âmbito 
rural: uma revisão de literatura. Revista AIDIS de Ingeniería y Ciencias 
Ambientales. Investigación, desarrollo y práctica, 15(1), 517–529. Doi: 
https://doi.org/1022201/iingen.071837xe.2022.15.1.78123.
 
 
Alvez, J. P. 2011. 10-Indicadores de sustentabilidade para pecuáriaria. 
Cadernos  de  Agroecologia,  6(1).  Available  in:  https://www.uvm. 
edu/~jfarley/publications/12728-48401-1-PB(1).pdf.
 
 
Amaral, G. F., Carvalho, F. A. A. D., Capanema, L. X. D. L., & Carvalho,
 
C. A. D. D. (2012). Panorama da pecuária sustentável. BNDES Setorial, 
n. 36, set. 2012, p. 249–288. Available in: http://web.bndes.gov.br/ 
bib/jspui/handle/1408/1491.
 
 
Associação brasileira de normas técnicas. ABNT NBR ISO 14044: Gestão 
ambiental-avaliação  do  ciclo  de  vida-requisitos  e  orientações. ABNT, 
2009. Available in: https://tinyurl.com/y767t2uj. 
 
Basaia, D. C. K. 2020. Avaliação do ciclo de vida e análise da viabilidade 
econômica de uma fazenda leiteira no estado de Minas Gerais-Brasil. 
Dourados:  Faculdade  de  Ciências  Agrárias,  Universidade  Federal  da 
Grande  Dourados,  67  f.  Dissertação  Mestrado.  Available  in:  https:// 
repositorio.ufgd.edu.br/jspui/handle/prefix/3135. 
 
Brandalise, L. T., & Bertolini, G. R. F. 2015. Matriz de classificação de 
produtos ecologicamente corretos com base na análise do ciclo de vida 
do produto. Revista Competitividade e Sustentabilidade, 1(1), 01–16. 
Doi: https://doi.org/10.48075/comsus.v1i1.11459.
 
 
Caldato,  E.  M.  R.  2019.  Manual  técnico  de  construção  e  manejo  de 
Compost  Barn  para  vacas  leiteiras.  Viçosa:  Universidade  Federal  de 
Viçosa,  41  f.  Dissertação  Mestrado.  Available  in:  https://www.locus. 
ufv.br/handle/123456789/27595. 
 
Ehlers, E. (1994). A agricultura alternativa: uma visão histórica. Estudos 
Econômicos (São Paulo), 24 (Especial), 231–262. Available in: https:// 
www.revistas.usp.br/ee/article/view/159171/154068. 
 
Farina, É., Gardin, 
J. 
A. C., & Bee, A. M. 2015. Análise de viabilidade 
econômica da atividade de bovinocultura de leite em uma propriedade 
no  município de Pinheiro  Preto-SC. In Anais do  Congresso Brasileiro 
de Custos-ABC. Available in: https://tinyurl.com/3ekpvx9r.
 
 
Ferrazza,  R. D. A.,  &  Castellani,  E. 2022.  Análise  das  transformações 
da pecuária brasileira: um enfoque na pecuária leiteira. Ciência Animal 
Brasileira,  22.  Doi:  https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-6891v22e-68940. 
 
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - FAO STAT. 
2019. Livestock Primary. Roma. Available in: https://www.fao.org/ 
faostat/en/#home.
 
 
Gazola, C.  V.,  Lopes, F.  H.  A.,  Prates,  T.  X., de  Carvalho, 
J. 
P.,  & da 
Silva, R. D. A. 2017. Benefícios das plantas de cobertura e plantio direto 
em sistemas de agricultura orgânica regenerativa-uma visão geral. Rev. 
Conexão Eletrônica, 14(1), 474–484.
 
Guiducci, R.  D.  C.  N.,  de  Lima  Filho, 
J. 
R.,  &  Mota,  M.  M.  2012. 
Viabilidade  econômica  de  sistemas  de  produção  agropecuários: 
metodologia e estudos de caso. Embrapa.
 
 
INSTITUTO  BRASILEIRO  DE  GEOGRAFIA  E  ESTATÍSTICA  -  IBGE.
 
2018.  Pesquisa  Pecuária  Municipal.  Rio  de  Janeiro,  RJ.  Available  in: 
https://tinyurl.com/54mnjsa7. 
 
INSTITUTO  BRASILEIRO  DE  GEOGRAFIA  E  ESTATÍSTICA  -  IBGE.
 
2021.  Pesquisa  Pecuária  Municipal.  Rio  de  Janeiro,  RJ.  Available  in: 
https://tinyurl.com/2p94m7yd. 
 
INSTITUTO  BRASILEIRO  DE  GEOGRAFIA  E  ESTATÍSTICA  -  IBGE.
 
2022.  Pesquisa  Pecuária  Municipal.  Rio  de  Janeiro,  RJ.  Available  in: 
https://tinyurl.com/3b9ry93t. 
 
Instituto  de  Pesquisa  Econômica  Aplicada  –  IPEA.  2012.  Diagnóstico 
dos Resíduos Orgânicos do  Setor Agrossilvopastoril e Agroindústrias 
Associadas. Brasília. Available in: https://tinyurl.com/yx62299r. 
 
Janni,  K.  A.,  Endres,  M.  I.,  Reneau, 
J. 
K.,  &  Schoper,  W.  W.  2007. 
Compost dairy barn layout and management recommendations. Applied 
engineering in agriculture, 23(1), 97–102. Doi: 10.13031/2013.22333. 
 
Krüger, C., Raddatz, J. C., da Silva, L. I., Goldschmidt, D., & Zumba,
 
N.  2021. Contabilidade rural: avaliação econômica de  um  sistema de 
produção  leiteira  em  confinamento.  Revista  Eletrônica  de  Ciências 
Contábeis, 10(1), 57–79. Available in: https://tinyurl.com/43pb92rk. 
 
Maciel, A. M., Silva, J. B. G., de Matos Nascimento, A., de Paula, V. R., & 
Otenio, M. H. 2019. Aplicação de biofertilizante de bovinocultura leiteira 
em um planossolo. Revista em Agronegócio e Meio Ambiente, 12(1), 151– 
171. Doi: https://doi.org/10.17765/2176-9168.2019v12n1p151-171. 
 
Maia, G. B. D. S., Pinto, A. D. R., Marques, C. Y. T., Roitman, F. B., & 
Lyra, D. D. 2013. Produção leiteira no Brasil. BNDES Setorial, n. 37, 
mar. 2013, p. 371–398. Available in: https://tinyurl.com/2v7rv8hn.
 
 
McDonough, W., & Braungart, M. 2002. Cradle to cradle: Remaking 
the way we make things. North point press. Available in: https:// 
tinyurl.com/mrxs733j.
 
 
Neves, F. R., Lopes, M. M., Soares, E. P., de Souza, D. R., & dos Santos 
Amaral, R. 2017. Custos de produção da pecuária leiteira: estudo em 
uma instituição federal. RAGC, 5(19). Available in: https://revistas. 
fucamp.edu.br/index.php/ragc/article/view/978.
 
 
Perez Casar, M. L. (2021). Agricultura regenerativa: aliada para un 
futuro  sostenible.  Ediciones  INTA.  Available  in:  https://repositorio. 
inta.gob.ar/handle/20.500.12123/10164.
 
 
Rhodes, C. J. 2017. The imperative for regenerative agriculture. Science 
progress, 100(1), 80–129. Doi: 10.3184/003685017X14876775256165. 
 
Rocha, D. T., Carvalho, G. R., & De Resende, J. C. 2020. Cadeia produtiva 
do leite no Brasil: produção primária. Available in: https://tinyurl. 
com/ym46t7tw.
 
 
Rodale institute. 2021. Agricultura orgânica regenerativa. Available in: 
https://rodaleinstitute.org/pt/blog/category/regenerative-organic/. 

Environmental sustainability and economic viability of the Compost Barn system in Brazilian dairy farming

Cad. Ciênc. Agrá., v. 15, p. 01–09, DOI: https://doi.org/10.35699/2447-6218.2023.42783

Secretaria de stado de agricultura, pecuária e abastecimento de Minas

Gerais - SEAPA-MG. 2021. Balanço do Agronegócio. Belo Horizonte,

MG, 2022. Available in: http://www.agricultura.mg.gov.br/images/

documentos/Balanco_Agronegocio_2021.pdf.

Seó, H. L. S., Machado, L. C. P., Ruviaro, C. F., & Léis, C. M. D. 2017.

Avaliação do Ciclo de Vida na bovinocultura leiteira e as oportunidades

ao Brasil. Engenharia Sanitaria e Ambiental, 22, 221–237. Doi: https://

doi.org/10.1590/S1413-41522016149096.

Silva, D.V. 2022. Avaliação do ciclo de vida e serviços Ecossistêmicos:

um estudo de caso aplicado a diferentes sistemas de produção. Sorocaba:

Universidade Federal de São Carlos, 116 p. Dissertação Mestrado.

Available in: https://repositorio.ufscar.br/handle/ufscar/15905.

Tavares, A. S., & Borschiver, S. 2019. Proposta de Novos Modelos

de Negócio no Contexto da Economia Circular. In 10th International

Symposium on Technological Innovation. Doi: 10.7198/S2318-

34032019000300010881.

Tomazi, C. V., & Gai, V. F. 2022. Produtividade de milho para silagem

com utilização do Compost Barn. Revista Cultivando o Saber, 15, 9–19.

Available in: https://tinyurl.com/4skm7cyw.

World Commission on Environment and Develpment United Nations -

WCED. 1987. Available in: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/

content/documents/5987our-common-future.pdf.

Wüst, C., Tagliani, N., & Concato, A. C. 2015. A pecuária e sua influência

impactante ao meio ambiente. In Congresso brasileiro de gestão

ambiental (Vol. 6, pp. 1–5). Available in: https://www.ibeas.org.br/

congresso/Trabalhos2015/V-025.pdf.

Ximenes, L. F. 2020. Bovinocultura leiteira: necessário evitar o

derramamento de leite. Available in: https://bnb.gov.br/s482-dspace/

handle/123456789/391.

Zoccal, R., Alves, e. R.; Gasques, J. G. 2012. Diagnóstico da pecuária

de leite nacional: estudo preliminar: contribuição para o plano

pecuário. Available in: http://www.cnpgl.embrapa.br/nova/Plano_

Pecuario_2012.pdf.