MULTICRITERIA DECISION AID TO IMPLEMENT AN ON-FARM STORAGE SYSTEM FOR SOYBEANS

Bocca, Lucas S.; Galves, Maria L.

doi:10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v36n6p1250-1260/2016

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Technical Papers, Agricultural Building and Environment • Engenharia Agrícola 36 (06) • Nov-Dec 2016 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1809-4430-Eng.Agric.v36n6p1250-1260/2016 copy

MULTICRITERIA DECISION AID TO IMPLEMENT AN ON-FARM STORAGE SYSTEM FOR SOYBEANS

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT:

Implementing an on-farm storage system for agricultural products becomes a complex decision problem when considering risks, benefits, uncertainties and alternatives. This study aimed at applying the multicriteria decision aid (MCDA) approach to select the infrastructure to be implemented, taking into account variables and farmer's goals. As a result, we concluded that the adopted approach was useful since it allowed a better understanding of the problem and provided decision-making support.

KEYWORDS:
grain storage; investment; multicriteria decision aid

Fundamental objective	Attribute	Description	Best level	Worst level
Avoiding environmental impacts	Severity of impacts	Impact levels according to the severity potential to the production and as a cause of legal problems	Insignificant	High
Avoiding quality loss	Quality control	Capacity to ensure product quality until the sale	High	None
Avoiding inappropriate classification	Classification control	Capacity to ensure a proper classification of the product	High	None
Avoiding inability to segregate grains	Segregation capacity	Existence of warehouses, control that the farmer has on them and on maintenance activities (cleaning), number of silos	High	None
Avoiding noncompliance of harvest planning	Harvest control	Capacity to ensure the harvest planning	High	None
Avoiding inability to handle transport contingencies	Storage capacity in contingencies	Capacity to storage near the production area	100%	0%
Maximizing commercialization window	Static storage capacity	Farmer storage capacity in relation to his production	250%	0%
Maximizing investment in recoverable assets	Recoverable investment	Invested capital that can be recovered in case of the rural property be directed to another type of production	100%	0%
Minimizing capital allocated	Annual cost of capital	Total cost of implementation	R$ 0.00	R$ 340,000 per year
Reducing costs in transshipment	Cost reduction–transshipment	Cost reduction with transshipment operations	R$ 17,000 per year	R$ 0.00
Reducing costs in storage, transport and losses	Cost reduction–storage	Savings obtained per ton stored/moved, as well as that due to the reduction of technical losses	R$ 260,000 per year	R$ 0.00
Increasing revenue–direct sale	Capacity for direct sales	Capacity to sell the product directly to the end consumers	High	None
Increasing revenue–providing services	Capacity for providing services	Capacity to provide services to third parties (drying, classification and storage)	High	None
Increasing revenue–use of residues	Use of residues	Possibility of using residues (sale or feed)	Total	None

Alternatives	Risks	Profitability	Global value
1) Not building warehouses	69.5	60.1	64.3
2) 4 metal silos of 50,000 bags (12,000 tons)	88.7	62.4	74.1
3) 3 metal silos of 30,000 bags (5,400 tons)	82.3	66.9	73.7
4) Increasing the participation in commercial warehouse (20%)	77.1	47.8	60.9
5) 4 metal silos of 50,000 bags (12,000 tons) outside the rural property	84.9	45.8	63.1
6) Installation of 30 silobags (5,400 mil tons)	84.2	66.6	74.4

PROFITABILITY
Alternatives	Global value
	+10%	−10%	Initial
Alternative 1	63.7	64.8	64.3
Alternative 2	72.6	75.6	74.1
Alternative 3	72.9	74.6	73.7
Alternative 4	59.2	62.5	60.9
Alternative 5	61.0	65.3	63.1
Alternative 6	73.4	75.4	74.4
OPERATIONAL PROBLEMS
Alternatives	Global value
	+10%	−10%	Initial
Alternative 1	63.7	64.8	64.3
Alternative 2	74.4	73.8	74.1
Alternative 3	74.0	73.4	73.7
Alternative 4	60.1	61.6	60.9
Alternative 5	62.7	63.6	63.1
Alternative 6	74.6	74.2	74.4
COSTS
Alternatives	Global value
	+10%	−10%	Initial
Alternative 1	63.3	65.2	64.3
Alternative 2	74.2	74.0	74.1
Alternative 3	73.4	74.0	73.7
Alternative 4	59.7	62.0	60.9
Alternative 5	62.8	63.4	63.1
Alternative 6	74.4	74.3	74.4

Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola SBEA - Associação Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola, Departamento de Engenharia e Ciências Exatas FCAV/UNESP, Prof. Paulo Donato Castellane, km 5, 14884.900 | Jaboticabal - SP, Tel./Fax: +55 16 3209 7619 - Jaboticabal - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revistasbea@sbea.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] * Corresponding author. Banco Central do Brasil / Brasília - DF, Brasil. E-mail: lucas.scatulin@bcb.gov.br

Current strategy	At each crop season, the soybean storage site is chosen from the minimum cost calculation, in which: – The closer the port is, the lower the discount in the price of the product; – The farther away from the farm, the higher the cost of freight at harvest.
Alternative	There is the possibility to deposit the soybean in trading companies. In this case, there is no storage cost, but costs for processing/receiving the material (cleaning, drying and classification), as well as depreciation costs and technical losses (discount of 0.25% per month). Adopting such an option, the product must be sold to the custodian warehouse (trading), and the price to be paid is the “market price”. Note: the price is within the range of what can be considered as “market price”. However, it embeds increases or reductions related to the storage and logistics premium of the trading—positive or negative regarding the location of the farm/soybean production area.
Existing project	Construction of 4 silos with a capacity of 50,000 bags each (total of 12,000 tons) in one of the farms.
Alternative project	Construction of 3 silos with a capacity of 30,000 bags each (total of 5,400 tons) in one of the farms.