8-976 APRIL I961 Planning for Profitable Dairging LIBRARY IFOCUMENTS DIVISION A 8T M COLLEGE OF TEXAS CQLSIMEGE SLLATIOIN, TEXAS THE AGRICULTURAL ANU MECHANICAL CULLECE 0F TEXAS TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATIIIN - - - TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXTENSIUN SERVICE College Station, Texas "flu '21P}!!! xterm"! l .. i. Contents Summary 2 Introduction J _ 3 Purpose and Procedure .- 4 Requirements for Dairying ...................................... .. 4 Capital Requirements ........................................ .. 4 Land-East Texas .......................................... -. 4 Land-Central Texas .................... ..'. ............. .. 5 Improvements .................................. .4 .............. -. 5 Dairy Equipment ............................................ .. 6 Farm Machinery and Other Equipment...“ 6 Milking Herd .................................................. .. 6 Dairy Production Requirements .................... .. 7 Feed Requirements ______ ,, 7 Labor Requirements ...................................... .. 9 Seed and Fertilizer ........................................ -. 9 Breeding and Herd Replacement Costs .... .. l0 Milk Hauling and Association Dues ........ .. 10 Sanitary Supplies and Veterinary and Medicine .......................... .. l0 Utilities l0 Farm Taxes l0 Machine Operating Expense and Custom Work .................................... .. l0 Repairs and Upkeep ...................................... .. ll Depreciation ll Interest on Investment ................................ .. ll Miscellaneous Requirements ...................... .. ll Dairy Production and Sales ...................................... .. ll Factors That Affect Dairy Profits .................... l2 Milk Production Per Cow Related to Profits .... .. l2 Relation of Cow Numbers to Profits... ......... .. l3 Feeding Concentrates According to Production . l6 Type of Roughage in Relation to Costs ...... .. l6 Regularity of Freshening .................................. .. 17 Date of Freshening 18 Other Considerations ........................................ .. 18 Conclusions 8 Cover Picture Cows in the A8cM College of Texas dairy herd on good Sudan pasture. Summary Six factors influence greatly the profits from G milk production, as shown by this study of dairy farm o in East and Central Texas, with additional data from ex tal dairy herds at Substation No. 2 at Tyler, Texas. 1. High average production is extremely importan fitable dairying. At the average price paid for milk A percent butterfat in 1959, each 1,000 pounds increase in. tion per cow increased gross sales by $501 With a well herd of 100 cows, the added cost of producing and mark milk was only about $15 per cow. I 2. An increase in the number of good cows offers ' tunity to reduce unit costs and improve income for m r Costs per hundred-weight of milk for improvements I t ment decrease with larger herds. Such savings spreading overhead costs, such as interest and deprecia a larger milk volume. Efficient labor utilization always- portant consideration. Lowest production costs are with milking herds of 100 and 150 cows among ~- that include silage usage. These herds are operated and three full-time workers, respectively. Without si “ ing herds up to 120 and 175 cows are operated by two _ men, respectively. In each case there is efficient use t ments and equnpment and full utilization of labor. 3. Milk production costs are lowered by fee' trates according to individual cow performance. This ' good cows getting enough feed to maintain their pr ll. ‘ tential. It avoids waste of high-priced nutrients on‘ would not profit from them. 4. In Central Texas, the highest profits usually A - with the use of silage regardless of the milking herd l, study indicated that, at the prices used, the practice s silage is not profitable with small herds in East T annual cost of owning and operating silage harves ' ment and the inability to hire this equipment are sponsible for the relatively high milk costs associat use of silage for herds of 60 cows or less. When 80 or; are involved, it is profitable for East Texas dairymen p’ and feed silage. 5. It is recommended that cows freshen every l2 t’ that the lactation period be 305 days for profitab f‘ Lengthening the interval of freshening reduces milk f Each month added to the freshening interval redu about $13 per cow with cows freshening every 12 milking 10,000 pounds annually. Each month a’ freshening interval decreases income by approxima i cow for cows that averaged 12,000 pounds of milk w‘ ing every 12 months. j 6. Normally, prices paid for Grade “A” mi practice of breeding cows for fall freshening. i On the basis of milk prices that prevailed d v 10,000 pounds of milk from a cow freshening Oct $15 more than the same amount of milk from a c March l. For cows milking at the l2,000-pound a vantage in favor of October freshening amounts to w ly $18 per cow. i RMING IN TEXAS shifted rapidly to Grade troduction during World War II and the period. Production of Grade “A” milk concentrated in the eastern half of the we most of the large centers of population Y‘ Figure l. ng demand for fresh fluid milk encouraged ers with little or no dairy experience to _'e enterprise. Frequently, these new pro- e inefficient, and milk production costs g high. Even so, favorable milk prices prying profitable at the time of rapid the past several years production costs Tppward at the same time that milk prices ing. These trends have focused attention portance of efficient management and inning for profitable milk production. ling costs is frequently mentioned as one ease the profits in dairying. If the price same, the dairyman who can lower his _ lucing 100 pounds of milk will have a profit per hundredweight but a much profit. The individual dairy farmer _ily, however, are usually more interested income than in profit per production Slough measures that reduce costs are very ‘gdairymen must look for additional means their individual situation. . h was undertaken to study various man- ioblems associated with milk production gctors that contribute to efficient and dairying. udy included detailed information about and production practices from approxi- irepresentative East Texas dairies. These in Hopkins, Franklin, Titus, Wood, ur, Smith and Nacogdoches counties. hcovered 1954-59, and a summary of the fbeen published in MP-486 entitled “Pro- oduction Requirements and Costs—East Farms.” lar study was conducted in McLennan, ll and Bosque counties in Central ~Texas. _ professor and junior economist, Department of Economics and Sociology; professor, Department i cc; and associate dairy husbandman, Substation , Texas. Planning for Profitable Dairging A. C. Magee. B. H. Stone, R. IE. Leighton and S. IE. Carpenter* This work included approximately 60 Grade “A” dairies and was completed in 1958. These studies indicate several possibilities for improving profits on Texas dairy farms. For ex- ample, the average cow on the farms studied in East Texas was fed l pound of concentrate feed for each 1.9 pounds of milk produced. Roughages were fed at a relatively low level. Even the most profitable l0 percent of the herds studied averaged only 2.3 pounds of milk for each pound of concentrate fed. The feeding practices recommended by dairy scientists were for more liberal use of good quality - roughage and called for less concentrates than were common among Texas dairymen. Normally, the recommended ration was considerably cheaper than that fed on the farms studied in both East and Central Texas. Closely associated with the proportionate use of concentrates and roughage are the problems con- nected with the production and use of forages, par- ticularly in East Texas. Here high quality forage can readily be grown, but harvesting, storing and feeding pose some troublesome problems. For ex- ample, climatic conditions make it difficult to har- vest hay without extensive loss in quality. Although STATE TOTAL‘ 688,888 I DOT EOUALS |,000 Figure l. Distribution of cows kept primarily for milk production in Texas, 1954 (U.S. Census). About three-fourths of the milk cows are in the eastern third of the State near the large population centers. there is risk from‘ weather, the problem of curing hay is not as difficult in Central Texas as it is in East Texas. The weather hazard at harvest time can be overcome largely by growing silage crops. However, because of the scarcity of machinery for custom harvesting, East Texas dairymen who use silage must have their own harvesting equipment. The high cost of owning and operating this equipment, together with the large labor require- ments for both harvesting and feeding, make silage an expensive roughageyparticularly for the owners of small herds. Consequently, the choice of rough- age is an important management decision on many Texas dairy farms. The East Texas study shows the average annual milk production per cow ranged from 3,500 pounds to 10,300 pounds and the average for all cows was 6,200 pounds. In Central Texas it ranged from 5,000 pounds to nearly 11,000 pounds. Here the average for all cows studied was 6,600 pounds of milk annually. At 1959 costs and milk prices, dairying was not profitable in either area unless production was above average. The top herds in both Central and East Texas studies sold an average of approximately 9,000 pounds of milk per cow annually. Based on 1959 price relationships, returns from these herds were modest. An even higher level of production seems necessary for a consistently profitable dairy business. Dairying in Texas developed first as a family operated business and small herds were numerous. l/Vith herds of 30 cows or less, labor and equipment and facilities for dairying have not always been used effectively. Recently the trend has been toward larger herds. This has been partly the result of an effort to meet rising costs by increasing milk sales. Also, numerous dairymen have felt that more cows were needed to justify the use of bulk tanks and more modern milking systems. Research has shown that many herds are too small to provide the operator and his family with a good living. Information is needed to help dairy- men decide the optimum herd size for a particular labor supplyiand other productive resources. Purpose and Procedure A study was made of the effects that differences in levels of concentrate feeding, differences in size of the milking herd, variations in average milk pro- duction per cow and variations in forage feeding practices may have on dairy profits. Consideration was given also to ways of improving the use of labor and equipment and to other ways of increasing management efficiency. 4 In making this study, models for variou situations or systems were set up and a analysis used to evaluate each system. is a systematic way of estimating in advance’ dairy system probably would be most profita Data obtained from field studies previo scribed, together with information provided‘ experimental dairy herds atFthe Agricultu. Mechanical College of Texas land at Substati 2, Tyler, were used in setting up and evaluat, numerous dairy situations considered. Complete farm budgets were prepared if farms which included 30, 60, 80, 100, 120 l, cows in the milking herd. ‘A Dairymen with the high producing herds: those studied in Central and East Texas annual average of 9,000 pounds of milk per w? some instances herd averages of 10,000 pou cow were obtained and a few herds with ann_ production records averaging 12,000 poun observed. These three levels of producti considered in the analysis. Feeding practices recommended by dai tists were compared with those used by Two forage rations were considered also: f included silage and one that did not. Requirements for dairying in East and, Texas were sometimes quite similar. How tain important differences occurred between, areas in the practices and requirements with dairying. These differences are point; the following discussion. Separate bud prepared for each area because of these dissi Requirements for Dairgingi Requirements for dairying include ite vestment capital as well as items of anni Capital needs for land, improvements, e‘ and cows are considered. i CAPlTAl REQUIREMENTS Land—East Texas Land used for dairying in East Texas , permanent pasture, a small amount of w00' an acreage planted to oats-vetch and in ‘I stances a silage crop. Open pastureland i in Bermudagrass, whereas coarse native Y. predominant in woods pasture. Wooded 3f tributed little to the grazing resources on but almost every farm in the area had sol type of land. 1 Bermudagrass is normally expected t grazing for about 120 to 130 days annu mudagrass is at its best during the spring, l’ and until the grass becomes too mature or checked by dry weather. On the farms 2 acres of Bermudagrass were required per f her replacement since an acre of Bermuda- If ided about 60 days of grazing for one cow. A amount of grazing furnished by oats-vetch Texas varies with weather and fertilizer Cooperating farmers averaged 80 to 9O j. inter and spring grazing for one cow from if oats-vetch. T- grazing yields were used in calculating required to provide 7 months grazing iry cow, column 1, Table l. On this basis, 7: 3.8 acres of permanent pasture and oats- fneeded per cow for the milking herd and herd replacements. Hay fed to the dairy Qrally was purchased. Dairymen who fed l ized an additional .8 acre per cow in the lherd for the silage crop. When no re- ‘ts are raised, the acreage required per cow vimately 75 percent of the above amounts. } ow milking herd requires about 200 acres a based on land requirements shown in i An additional 40 acres are needed to» grow ‘supply of silage. To keep 100 cows, from ‘I acres are required, depending on whether used. A farm of approximately 700 acres to provide the grazing and silage for a erd of 150 cows. A investment in land for dairying in East lhown in Table 2. Open land was valued jracre and wooded pasture at $50 per u, calculated in this study the investment in ‘unted to $445 per cow when silage was ithout silage production, the calculated tment per cow was $365. '11 tral Texas produced on dairies in Central Texas llly limited to those grown for roughage. q all forage with the exception of alfalfa ingrown. Harvested roughages included 8' er carbonaceous hay and silage. Perma- land was grazed and oats-clover and Sudan ted for grazing. Very little homegrown used. < ent grass occupied about 30 percent of of dairy farms studied and provided good v= ing May and June. Over a 4-year period, " of 45 days of grazing for one cow was fl- acre. ‘Sudangrass was utilized largely ; y and August and often furnished some itil frost. An acre of Sudangrass furnished nths pasture for one cow. Oats and clover ed together and used for pasture also. Arable conditions oats made some grazing TABLE l. LAND USE PER COIV FOR DAIRYING IN EAST AND CENTRAL TEXAS East Texas Central Texas dairies dairies Acres per cow‘ Acres per cow‘ Land use For pasture Oats planted with legume’ 1.2 1.4 Permanent grass 2.3 2.0 Woods pasture .3 Sudangrass 1.5 Total for pasture 3.8 4.9 For harvested forage- herds fed silage Sorghum silage . .8 .8 Cane or other hay . ' .7 Total .8 1.5 Total land required with silage 4.6 6.4 Total land required without silage 3.8 5.6 ‘Includes requirements for normal number of replacement heifers. “Vetch was commonly seeded with oats in East Texas whereas clover was used in Central Texas. in the late fall, but February, March and April was the usual grazing period. Under average conditions, dairy cows had 7 months of relatively good grazing each year. The acreage of different grazing types required per cow in the milking herd is shown in column 2, Table l. Cane was the most common of the hay crops grown. Average yields of 2 tons per acre were ob- tained without fertilizer. Although some dairies did not use silage, the best results were obtained by those that did. Several crops were made into silage, but forage sorghum was the most extensively used. An acre and a half per cow were needed for silage and hay, which added to the acreage needed for pasture, made a total of 6.4 acres per cow. This acreage was sufficient for raising replacement heifers. Three hundred and twenty acres were required for a herd of 50 cows on this basis. A 150-cow dairy required nearly 1,000 acres. Land investment for dairying in Central Texas is shown in Table 2. Here all land was valued at $150 per acre making a total land investment of $960 per cow, Figure 2. Improvements For purposes of budgeting, investment in im- provements was based on the 1959 costs of modern dairy facilities in the areas studied. Included were a Grade “A” milking barn, hay storage and loafing barn, a maternity shed, a place for raising replace- ment heifer calves, a water system and fencing. Silage storage was included when that roughage was used. Improvements varied with the size of herd. 5 The estimated investment in improvements for 30, 100 and l50-cow dairies is shown in Table 2. These figures represent half of the current costs, new, of the facilities needed with each size of herd. Dairy Equipment Investment in dairy equipment included an electric milker and pipeline system and sufficient bulk storage to hold 2 days production. The number of milking units and the capacity of the bulk tank varied according to thetmilk volume handled. A water heater, wash vat, milk pump and other items used in the barn and milk room were included in the estimated investments (50 percent of new cost), Table 2. - Dairy equipment for a high producing herd normally costs more than for the same size herd of low producers. For example, a 400-ga1lon bulk tank costing about $3,100 serveda 50-cow herd averaging 6,000 pounds of milk per cow annually. This as- sumed an every-other-day pickup. An 800-gallon tank that cost about $4,650 was required for a 50-cow herd giving 12,000 pounds of milk per cow. Such differences were taken into account in the calcula- tion of the needs for dairy equipment among herds producing at different levels. The total investment was practically the same in each area, although there were minor variations in the cost of individual equipment items. TABLE 2. CALCULATED INVESTMENT ASSOCIATED WITH DAIRIES OF VARIOUS SIZES‘ Fann Machinery and Other Equipment In East Texas each dairy was equipped w' tractor, plow, fertilizer distributor, drill, m trailer and pickup truck. Machinery to plant- cultivate, as well as to harvest the crop, was, needed when silage was produced. Y A 1-row tractor was used normally on u‘ with 30 cows or less provided silage was not y. Otherwise, 2-row tractors were the rule and common for even the small dairies that pr silage. ‘ 1.. The heavy black soils of Central Texas r’ the use of sturdy machinery and tractors capa heavy work. Farms with 60 cows or less were v equipped with a 2-row tractor whereas 4-row- A ment was used on the larger farms. On farms all silage and hay were homegrown, both a 4-r01 a 2-row tractor were common among dairies cows or more. As a rule, the investment in machinery on . in Central Texas was somewhat higher than in East Texas, Table 2. a Milking Herd High-producing cows are worth more the producers. Consequently, the investment milking herd varied with the quality of well as with the quantity. Cows with the w’ to produce 10,000 pounds of milk annuall Investment per dairy 150-cow w. Item 30-cow herd 100-cow herd Fed silage Not fed silage Fed silage Not fed silage Fed silage Not _, — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -—Do11ars————————--— ——— l’ Dairies in East Texas ‘A Land’ 13,350 10,950 44,500 36,500 66,750 Improvements” 4,965 4,820 8,460 7,500 10,335 Dairy equipment“ 2,650 2,650 4,130 4,130 5,930 Machinery and other equipment 4,780 2,500 5,875 3,100 7,125 Cows-the milking herd‘ 12,000 12,000 40,000 40,000 60,000 Total 37,745 32,920 102,965 91,230 150,140 Average per cow 1,258 1,097 1,030 912 1,001 Dairies in Central Texas Land’ ' _ 28,800 96,000 145,200 Improvements’ 5,400 9,175 12,375 Dairy equipment“ 2,648 4,928 5,790 Cows-the milking herd‘ 12,000 40,000 60,000 Machinery and other equipment‘ 3,575 8,823 8,845 Total 52,423 158,926 232,210 Average per cow 1,747 1,589 1,548 ‘For herds averaging 10,000 pounds of milk per cow annually. The investment for bulk tank may be different for‘; lower levels of production. ‘Includes the acreage required to raise replacement heifers. “Investment calculated at 50 percent of the current cost new. ‘Cows with capacity to produce 10,000 pounds of milk were valued at $400 each. ‘Silage harvesting equipment not included. Field cutter hired on a custom basis. - . 6 f? terprise of this size. at $400 each. This is the basis for calcu- l, e investment in the milking herd as shown le 2. Prices of $350 and $450 per cow were ispectively, in preparing budgets for herds ' g 9,000 and 12,000 pounds of milk per cow. i. prices did not vary greatly from one part tate to another. Therefore, the above values for both East and Central Texas. j and cows made up a very large proportion étotal investment for dairying in all cases. i investment was required for dairying in than in East Texas, mainly because of t, and values. . nmnv PRODUCTION ntounztmtmrs g amount of feed, grazing, seed, fertilizer, wer and other physical requirements needed ferent dairying systems were determined for 0 g purposes. All other requirements in- either cash or overhead costs were included ‘presented in the following discussion. i! uirements gudy of the feed costs of cooperating dairy- icated opportunities for substantial savings ‘f; the recommendations of dairy scientists. * ommendations were used in calculating the ‘is in all situations described herein. The recommendations are for cows weighing 1,400 pounds and freshening at an interval ionths, and they apply in both East and Texas: eed l pound of concentrates for each 3.5 of milk produced during a 10-month lacta- 'od. Any single rule of thumb for feeding lites tends to underfeed the high producer {feed the low producer. The information by the new Dairy Herd Improvement As- e 2. A milking herd of approximately 100 cows on pasture. Anywhere from $100,000 to $160,000 is needed to finance sociation Electric Data Processing Machine program is probably the best feeding guide available. When poor quality roughages are fed, higher rates of concentrate feeding are necessary. 2. Dry cows should receive 4 pounds of concen- trates daily for the first 6 weeks of the dry period and l2 pounds daily for 2 weeks just before fresh- ening, or 6 pounds daily for the last 8 weeks before freshening, Figure 3. 3. When silage or good nonlegume hay are the principal roughage, concentrates averaging l8 to 20 percent protein should be fed. YVhen alfalfa or other good legume hay is used with silage or non- legume hay and when high rates of concentrates are fed with low quality roughage, feed a l6 percent Figure 3. Dry cows that are in good condition for fresh- ening. A dry period of 60 days is recommended between lactation periods. Liberal feeding of concentrates for 8 weeks just before freshening also is recommended. TABLE s. ANNUAL FEED REQUIREMENTS PER cow As RECOMMENDED FOR DAIRY HERDS AVERAGING‘ 10,000 AND 12,000 POUNDS or MILK PER cow ANNUALLY . Milk production per cow annually, pounds Requirements per cow—herds fed silage Requirements per cow—herds not fed z g 9,000 10,000 12,000 9,000 10,000 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——Pounds—————————--—---- Concentrates‘ 2,925 3,210 3,780 2,925 3,210 ' Alfalfa hay 2,250 2,250 2,250 4,000 i f“ 4,000 Good nonlegume hay’ 750 750 750 2,350 2,350 Other hay3 I 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 Silage 10,000 10,000 10,000 Minerals‘ 40 40 40 40 40 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——Days————-—————— ———--.’ Fair to good grazing“ 210 210 210 210 210 ‘ ‘18-20 percent protein when fed with silage or nonlegume hay and l6 percent protein when alfalfa or other good legume hay, with silage or nonlegume hay. “Good quality sorghum, Sudan or oats hay. “Bermuda or other grass hays of average quality to be fed when cows are on lush pasture. ‘Includes minerals other than that in mixed feeds. ‘All forage requirements based on cows weighing 1,200 to 1,400 pounds. TABLE 4. AVERAGE PRICES RECEIVED FOR PRODUCTS pfgtgin ratigfp The feeding of alfalfa as |r 50m) AND AVERAGE PRICES 0F ITEMS USED IN PR0‘ roughage is rarely economical in these areas. DUCTION, 1959 __ 4. As previously stated, the usual expecta§ East Texas Centralrrcxas both areas is for 7 months of grazing durif ._ Item Unit area area _ _ _ winter, spring and summer. Normally, ev - - - - Dollars - - - - 'ood asture should be su lemented wi 1i 8 P PP a, Products 801d hay. Full roughage feeding for the remaiygp Grade ‘W’ “"00 months of the year is recommended for best ‘if 4 percent butterfat cwt. 5.00 5.00 ‘p C1111 WW5 “"- 10-00 10-00 5. When feeding silage, a total of 5 i recommended per cow annually. This will Production requirements _ y 50 pounds or more daily for 5 months of full , Dairy concentrates 10 Pflcem Plmei" cw" 2'70 2'70 age feeding. The rest of the silage is for use } Dam’ 00000000“? 290 290 the remainder of the year. In addition, 2 18 percent protein cwt. . . d d l h If g Milk rcplacer cw‘; 191m 191m hay EIYC T€COIIIIII€II € per COW, at CHSI 3. O ; Alfalfa hay‘ ton 38.00 38.00 should be alfalfa or other legumes. G d le me ha ton 25.00 25.00 _ _ 62:55 2g,‘ gu y ton 20m 204,0 6. For herds not given silage, 2 tons of; 5a]; cwt. 1.25 1.25 hay and 3,350 pounds of high-quality no Y: Regular hired labor year 2.70000 3.00000 hay are recommended per cow annually. i Irregular hired labor hour 1.00 1.00 _ 5 Seed The total annual feed requirements i. Oats bu. 1.00 .75 for animals averaging 9,000, 10,000 and 12,000 ‘I 0W" 0W0 1200 of milk per year are shown in Table 3. Vetch cwt. 20.00 . . . . Cane for hay, cwn 10m giving 9,000 pounds of milk required aboy Sorghum for silage cwt. i 9.00 7.00 pounds of concentrates. Recommendatioiisj Slldangfass “"- 0-00 increase the rate at which concentrates are; Fertilizer-ggioéo a: 3'33 correspond to increases in production. 0464, m“ ' 781,0 tional 285 pounds of concentrates are ne‘ Anifidal each additional 1,000 pounds of milk prod insemination per cow 7.50 8.00 _ _ _ Milk hauling Wt 30 25 A few dairymen raised a small acreage- Hay baiing, or other grain for home feeding. Howev fllswm Work bah? ~25 a small part of the concentrates used w weed Qontml’ grown. The normal practice was to pur materials acre .88 _ _ concentrates. In preparing budgets for t 0 ‘Price at harvest time. concentrates are assumed to be purchased. . 8 ‘ " ANNUAL LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR DAIRYING—EAST TEXAS Labor requirements 30-cow 60-cow 80-cow 100-cow l20-cow 150-cow herd herd herd herd herd herd _. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Hours — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — f - ually per cow .1 out silage 1 milking herd 86 52 44 39 35 33 f acements 4 4 4 3.5 3.5 3.5 38c grazing crops 8 8 8 8 8 8 i»: facilities 4 s 2 2 2 2 Iioow without silage 102 67 58 52.5 48.5 46.5 with silage , ’_»- harvest silage 7.5 7 7 7 7 7 i 10 s s 7.5 7.5 7.5 {silage 17.5 15 15 14.5 14.5 14.5 . -- with silage 119.5 82 73 67 63 61 1' ually per farm yearly labor requirement g < -without silage 3,060 4,020 4,640 5,250 5,820 6,975 1-with silage 0,585 4,920 5,840 0,100 7,500 9,150 § East Texas dairymen put up grass hay ionally grow sorghum hay. However, be- high harvesting costs and the weather risk ' is cured in the field, many dairymen pre- ‘ buy the necessary hay. Consequently, in costs all hay was considered purchased Texas dairies. I e other hand, the practice among Central ' men was to grow all roughage with the of alfalfa. Here budgets were figured The 1959 prices of purchased feed in Table 4. uirements mary of labor requirements per cow for A.- dairy herds ranging from 30 to 150 cows _ in Table 5. Also, the total yearly labor H ts for each size of herd were estimated. » ormation for dairies in Central Texas is ' e in Table 6. annual cost of a year-around dairy hand ‘$2,700 and $3,000, respectively, for East jal Texas. These rates were used in fig- ' cost of regular hired hands for the re- E< cas. Irregular hired labor was hired harvesting silage and hay. The cost of A was figured at $1 per hour in all the Fertilizer i if hat different rates of seeding and fer- f tices were followed in the areas. Thus, “- ents for the two parts of the State are separately. In each instance costs were if ording to local practices. In East Texas, seed expenses were for oats and» vetch utilized as grazing and for forage sorghum planted for silage. Silage crops were seeded in rows at the rate of 10 pounds per acre. The usual prac- tice was to plant 2.5 bushels of oats with 20 pounds of vetch seed per acre. Oats-vetch was fertilized at the rate of 200 pounds of 10-20-10 and 100 pounds 33-0-0 per acre. This same rate of fertilization was used on silage crops. Also, an annual application of 100 pounds of 10-20-10 and 100 pounds 33-0-0 was used on open- pasture land. Seed requirements in Central Texas were for cane seeded broadcast for hay, forage sorghum TABLE 6. ANNUAL LABOR REQUIREMENTS FOR DAIRYING-CENTRAL TEXAS Labor requirements per cow 30-cow 60-cow 80-cow 100-cow 120-cow l50-cow herd herd herd herd herd herd — — — — — — ——H0urs———————— Annually per cow Care of milking herd‘ 95 57 49 45 41 39 Raise replacements 4 4 4 3 3 3 Upkeep of I facilities 3 3 2 2 2 2 Pasture and grazing crops 10 l0 9 7 7 7 Producing hay and silage 10 9 9 8 8 8 Total 122 83 73 65 61 59 Total annual labor per farm 3,660 4,980 5,840 6,500 7,320 8,850 ‘Includes labor feeding silage. Figure 4. Herd replacements for a dairy in East Texas. A good selection and breeding program is the most likely way t0 obtain superior heifers. planted for silage, and Sudangrass and oats-clover utilized for grazing. Usual seeding rates per acre were as follows: Cane (broadcast for hay) 40 pounds Sorghum (for silage) 12 pounds Sudan l0 pounds Oats 2 bushels Clover l0 pounds The only fertilizer used consistently on the farms studied in Central Texas was 100 pounds of 0-46-0 applied to oats-clover. This rate of applica- tion was used in budgeting. The prices used in calculating seed and fertilizer costs are shown in Table 4. Breeding and Herd Replacement Costs Data on keeping a bull indicated that there was little difference in the costs of natural and artificial breeding. Artificial insemination is rec- ommended by dairy scientists because of wide spread opportunities for herd improvement. Breeding costs were $7.50 and $8 per cow for East and Central’ Texas, respectively. On the average, one-fourth of the milking herd was replaced annually, Figure 4. TABLE 7. SUMMARY OF FEED REQUIREMENTS‘ FOR RAISING REPLACEMENT HEIFERS2 FROM BIRTH TO FIRST CALF Pounds of feed required Feed Items East Texas Central Texas Milk replacer, dry weight 50 50 Concentrates, grain and dairy ration 2,400 2,200 Alfalfa hay 700 500 Other hay or hay equivalent 1,135 2,800 ‘In addition to pasture. "Of the larger breeds. 10 Q Cash costs specifically associated with raising replacements consisted mainly of purchased i and veterinary care. Veterinary care averaged $2 per replacement. i The amounts of various kinds of feed us each heifer raised from birth to first calf are in Table 7. The 1959 costs of these feed ite shown in Table 4. . i . Milk Hauling and Association Dues These costs were based on the hundred of milk sold. Hauling costs vary from one t, the State to another depending on the distang is transported. For the farms studied in East. the average hauling charge was 30 cents per h ] weight. However, among Central Texas ,2 hauling averaged 25 cents per hundredweigh Association dues were figured at 10 cell’ hundredweight of milk sold. Charges for V“ pating in DHIA or other improvement pi were not included as a part of costs. Howe dairymen who participate, these costs sho' considered in computing total production r Sanitary Supplies and Veterinary and Medic' Sanitary supplies included washing ~52?’ > disinfectants, insecticides and other simila: used in the barns and milk room. Sanita medication expenses used for budgeting weri on the cost reported for the high-producin studied. In this instance, similar costs were p for the two areas. On the average, sanitary cost $2.80 and veterinary and medicine $5 annually. Utilities These costs were for electricity and directly with the dairy. The amounts bude utilities were based on the experience of in both areas. Because of the large milk; cooled, the cost for electricity per cow tend a little higher among high-producing he g among low producers. This cost was calc ._ $2.90 per cow for 10,000-pound producers. i Farm Taxes Farm taxes varied from county to co from one school district to another. On th, cooperating dairymen in East Texas paid t, equal to approximately 50 cents per acreé Total taxes paid by dairymen in Cen i averaged about 68 cents per acre. These g used in calculating taxes for the respec Machine Operating Expense and Custom As used here, operating expense if equipment included only the cost of fuel us the cost of license and insurance in the ‘ickups. Repairs, depreciation and interest 15 ere calculated but were included elsewhere gudget. The operating costs of different is power equipment are shown in Table 8. v cutters were numerous in Central Texas, gators of small dairies usually hired silage field in preference to investing in equip- their own. In budgeting the expenses for dairy in this area, custom harvesting of included. In Central Texas all hay baling llated on the basis of custom work and also. I d Upkeep l repairs for buildings, fences, water fa- Try barns and milk room equipment, all iinery and trucks are included in this cost. licalculating repairs on improvements and were computed from data secured from ‘fed, Table 9. i‘ p of fences and the milking barn made ' proportion of the total repair cost for l ts. Repairs for equipment tend to vary ‘ from year to year on individual farms. nual upkeep for dairy equipment, trac- pickups and all other machinery averaged 1.4 percent of the original cost. On the épair expenditures for improvements and ded to be relatively high in East Texas H with Central Texas. I,‘ ual depreciation figure was calculated ivements and equipment. These amounts lly required to replace wornout facilities. *ti0n was included for land or cows. In j- e the salvage value of cull cows ap- the cash cost of raising replacements. i rates for all improvements and for i-kup trucks and other machinery were be experience reported by cooperating verage depreciation for improvements _nt is shown in Table 9. rage life of dairy farm buildings was lly 20 years. Fences in Central Texas i, but the humid climate of East Texas glaverage life of a fence to only l5 years. p ed on limited experience, a deprecia- 7 percent was assumed for modern dairy _vestment was calculated for the investment in Table 2. Interest on land was cal- .percent and for all other capital at 6 TABLE 8. SUMMARY OF OPERATING EXPENSES FOR POWER EQUIPMENT USED ON DAIRY FARMS‘—l959 PRICES East Texas unit cost Central Texas E ' ‘t . qulpment 1 61118 unlt cost — —- — Cents per hour — — — One-row tractor 38 Two-row tractor (light) 50 50 Two-row tractor (heavy) 60 Four-row tractor 72 Pickup truck 4” 42 Silage cutter 68 68 ‘Cost of fuel andllubrication plus the cost of license and in- surance in the case of pickups. “Cents per mile. Miscellaneous Requirements The miscellaneous requirements associated with dairying included expenditures for telephone, farm magazines, social security tax for hired help and various kinds of insurance. Such costs varied greatly from farm t0 farm, but were estimated to total about $3 to $5 per cow in the milking herd. Dairy Production and Sales The price received for milk in 1959 by indi- vidual farmers (before deductions were made for hauling), varied somewhat, but averaged approxi- mately $5 per hundredweight for the farms studied. This price was applied to total milk production in calculating milk sales. One-fourth of the milking herd was replaced each year, as previously stated. Death loss amounted to l percent of the herd and the remainder of the cows replaced was normally sold for slaughter. Cows sold in East Texas averaged 1,250 pounds and those in Central Texas nearly 1,300 pounds. Cull cow sales amounted to 300 and 325 pounds liveweight per cow in the milking herd, in the respective areas. Male calves were sold at 1 or 2 days old. Some of TABLE 9. AVERAGE REPAIR AND DEPRECIATION RATES FOR IMPROVEMENTS AND EQUIPMENT ON DAIRY FARMS EXPRESSED AS PERCENTAGE OF ORIG- INAL COST Annual repairs Annual depreciation Item Percent of Percent of original cost original cost East Central East Central Texas Texas Texas Texas Fence 5.0 5.0 7.0 4.0 All other improvements 4.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 Dairy equipment 4.0 4.0 7 .0 7 .0 Tractor 3.5 3.0 10.0 10.0 Pickup truck 4.0 4.0 16.7 20.0 All other machinery 4.0 4.0 12.0 11.0 ll the least promising heifers were sold also from time 4. Type and quality of roughage fed. t t‘ . _ _ 0 lme 5. Regularity of freshening. At 1959 prices, cattle sales for dairies in East and in Central Texas were calculated to average $35 and $40 Per COW’ respecuvely- The effect of these factors on profits i considered in order. i" 6. Date of freshening. factors that Affect Dairy Profits Data concerning the requirements for dairy production were used in studying ways to increase dairy profits. These six factors were found to in- fluence greatly the profits from milk production: M|lK PRODUCTION m cowintlntn to r i Most costs per cow tend to be relative with the exception of concentrates and milk f A high-producing cow takes little if any mor: or labor than a low producer, and the cost y l. Annual milk production per cow. . . . . . . inputs are s1m1lar 1n each instance. Pr 2- The numb“ 0f CQWS in 1h‘? milking improvement per cow, aside from increased herd- trates and hauling, spreads approximately i 3. Feeding concentrates according to pro- costs over more milk, thus reducing produc, duction. per hundredweight. ' TABLE l0. SUMMARY BUDGETS FOR 100-COW MILKING HERDS AVERAGING 9,000, 10,000 AND 12,000 PO A COW ANNUALLY—1959 PRICES I Dairies in East Texas Dairies in Central Texas Average annual milk production per cow 9,000 pounds 10,000 pounds 12,000 pounds 9,000 pounds 10,000 pounds 12 _ — — - — — — — — — — — — — — — ——Do11ars—————————— ——-‘ Dairy sales " Milk 45,000 50,000 60,000 45,000 50,000 Cattle 3,500 3,500 3,500 4,000 4,000 Total . 48,500 53,500 63,500 49,000 54,000 Dairy expenses Cow feed purchased‘ 14,745 15,572 17,225 12,807 13,634 Regular hired labor 2,700 2,700 2,700 3,000 3,000 Irregular hired labor 304 304 304 1,168 1,168 Seed and fertilizer 4,808 4,808 4,808 1,537 1,537 Breeding costs’ 750 750 750 800 800 Herd replacement costs“ 3,100 3,100 3,100 2,400 2,400 Milk hauling 2,700 3,000 3,600 2,250 2,500 Association dues 900 1,000 1,200 900 1,000 Sanitary supplies 280 280 280 300 300 Veterinary and medicine 500 500 500 500 500 Utilities‘ 270 290 310 275 295 Farm taxes 230 230 230 435 435 Machine operation‘ 1,420 1,420 1,420 2,492 2,492 Repairs and upkeep Improvements 610 610 610 478 478 Equipment 942 942 942 1,059 1,424 Depreciation 3,060 3,060 3,060 3,340 3,450 Interest on investment“ 4,988 5,288 5,588 7,316 7,616 Miscellaneous expenses ' 300 300 300 300 300 Total 42,607 44,154 46,927 41,357 43,329 Cost per cwt. of milk’ 4.35 4.07 3.62 4.15 3.93 Return to family labor-management 5,893 9,346 16,573 7,643 10,671 ‘All grain and hay purchased. Silage homegrown. 2Artificial breeding at $7.50 per cow in East Texas and $8 per cow in Central Texas. “Includes veterinary and medicine and feed purchased for heifer replacements. ‘Electricity and gas. “Cost of fuel and lubrication for tractors, trucks and other fuel-using machines. “Interest on land at 4 percent and other capital items at 6 percent. ‘The cost after cattle sales were deducted from total expense. Hired labor included, but no charge for operator of f 12 i lated dairy sales and expense for 100 cows at three levels of production in two areas I in Table 10. Cows that averaged 12,000 f milk give 33 percent more than do the ind producers; yet the total estimated cost ‘ii l0 percent higher at the 12,000-pound i on 1959 prices, milk production costs for p dairy in East Texas are estimated to be 28 , 73 cents less per hundredweight with cows 1 10,000 pounds and 12,000 pounds of milk, 1y, than with herds averaging 9,000 pounds. i lationships are indicated for dairies in Texas. Data used did not reflect differences at test because only small differences were ed. _ these conditions, the return to the dairy 1 labor-management from >100 cows aver- ,0 pounds annually is calculated to be p, twice that from the same size herd milking of 9,000 pounds. estimated earnings and milk production erds of various sizes, milking at different f shown in Tables 11 and 12. The cal- ” me from 60 cows averaging 12,000 pounds i~nually is more than the income from 120 ging 9,000 pounds per cow. Also, with 100 cows managed as recommended by tists, each 1,000 pounds increase in pro- A cow adds about $35 per cow to profits, of $3,500 t0 the family income. differently, at the average price paid for ' 1959 in the areas studied, 1,000 pounds production per cow increased gross sales ,_ith a well managed herd of 100 cows, the "of producing and marketing this milk a to be only about $15. i average production per cow is extremely piin planning for profitable dairying, but asily or quickly obtained. Culling to '.~ producers and replacing them by pur- ter cows has been the usual method of i‘, production. This has been profitable int, but it has seldom been practical or ‘in depend entirely on buying high pro- ugh heavy culling and the purchase of cements. Gradual improvement is more iugh a good selection and breeding pro- tain superior heifers. The DHIA is of herds and with the artificial breeding fers the ‘greatest assistance to dairymen v eir own ireplacements. __ " 0F COW NUMBERS 1'0 PROFITS 10f dairy operations have shown that one cing costs is to increase the number of "e by existing facilities and labor. For example, the buildings and equipment required for a 60-cow dairy will have annual overhead costs of about $1,800, or $30 per cow. When 80 cows are milked with the same facilities, this cost is reduced to $22 per cow. Producing more total milk with a fixed cost such as this reduces that particular cost per hundredweight of milk. Labor efficiency increases as the milking herd becomes larger. Farmers with 30 cows use nearly as much time in cleaning the milking parlor, milk room and premises as do those with 60 cows. Con- sequently, the time required per cow to do the milking and care for the barn and milk room de- clines as the number of cows increases. A similar situation exists in the feeding of hay and silage. On the average, dairymen with 30 cows put in twice as much time per cow as dairymen with 100 cows, Tables 5 and 6. Because of the increased labor efficiency associated with larger herds, total labor requirements do not increase proportionately as the size of the herd increases. With a 60-cow herd, an average of about 9 hours of labor is required each day for milking, feeding] cleaning up and other necessary care. This does not include time required to feed silage to the herd. Silage feeding was by hand and required an addi- tional 2 hours daily for 60 cows. On the average, half as much time is required for the daily work of caring for 60 cows as is required for 150 cows. Like- wise, labor costs associated with dairying are re- duced when cow numbers are increased without added labor expense. Efficient use of labor con- tributes greatly to profits. Increasing the number of cows offers an oppor- tunity to reduce costs and improve income on many dairies. This must be done carefully. A substantial increase in herd size may require additional facilities and more labor and it is important that these re- sources be utilized effectively. Otherwise, per unit production costs may increase rather than decrease as cows are added to the herd. The calculated labor-management wage of the operator and the cost of producing milk for six herd sizes, ranging from 30 to 150 cows are shown in Tables ll and 12. For East Texas, calculations are for two situations: where silage is fed and where it is not fed, Table 11. All budget summaries shown for Central Texas includepsilage feeding, Table 12. Costs per hundredweight of milk for improve- ments and equipment tend to be lower with larger herds. Such savings are largely the result of spread- ing overhead costs such as interest and depreciation over a larger volume of milk._ For example, in Central Texas the investment per cow for improvements is calculated to be $180 and $92 for 30-cow and 100-cow herds, respectively. l3 TABLE 11. CALCULATED DAIRY EARNINGS AND MILK PRODUCTION COST—EAST TEXAS—1959 PRICES Operator’s labor-management wage‘ Production cost per hundredweight of I Size of milking herd Average annual milk production per cow 12, 9,000 pounds 10,000 pounds 12,000 pounds 9,000 pounds 10,000 pounds — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ——Dol1ars——————————————- Dairies fed silage ._g s0 cows 279 1,217 3,451 4.90 -», “Q4456 60 cows 834 2,906 7,210 4.84’ 4.52’ 80 cows 3,287 6,049 11,831 4.54’ 4.24’ 100 cows 5,893 9,346 16,573 4.34’ 4.07’ 120 cows 5,763 9,907 18,579 4.473 4.17“ 150 cows 9,139 14,319 25,159 4.323 4.05“ Dairies fed no silage 30 cows 440 1,496 4,624 4.84 4.50 60 cows 3,225 5,332 9,705 4.40 4.11 80 cows 2,695 5,504 11,417 4.63’ 4.31’ 100 cows 4,885 8,396 15,731 4.46’ 4.16’ 120 cows 7,051 11,264 20,073 4.35’ 4.06’ 150 cows 7,017 12,284 23,295 4.48“ 4.183 ‘The amount left the operator and his family after all costs were paid and allowance made for interest and depreciatiom. the amount of family labor utilized varied with the size of herd. I The full-time work of the operator is not included as a cost. The full-time work of the operator is not included as a cost. ’Costs include one full-time hired man. “Cost includes two full-time hired men. For 150 cows the investment per cow is $82, Table 2. Similar opportunities for savings in investment are indicated for East Texas dairies, also. Increasing the size of herd also offers oppor- tunities for effecting savings in the use of milking and bulk storage equipment. The average invest- ment per cow in such equipment is $88 for a herd of 30 cows, Table 2. With a 100-cow herd the in- vestment in this equipment averages only $41 per cow. However, further reduction in investment per cow is small between the 100 and 150-cow herd. There are additional savings in the investment for machinery and other equipment as the number of cows in the milking herd increases. The numerous savings in investment by in- creasing herd size resulted in worthwhile savings TABLE 12. CALCULATED DAIRY EARNINGS AND MILK PRODUCTION COST-CENTRAL TEXAS—l959 PR1’ in milk production costs at any particular Y production per cow. l Dairy herds of 30 cows are operated by Normally, this is considered too small a b provide a satisfactory family income. Ho; 1959 prices, labor and management wag proximately $3,500 in East Texas and j Central Texas are calculated for 30 cows i 12,000 pounds of milk annually. High * per cow is necessary to provide an adequat living for operators of 30-cow herds. l Year-round hired labor is not available quantities or on the basis of a few hours a da‘ a dairyman hires help for day-to-day world mally has to hire a full-time worker. T I labor efficiency occurs with full utilizati available labor, whether one, two, three p. workers are involved. i Operator’s labor-management wage’ Production cost per hundredweight Size of milking’ herd Average annual milk production per cow 10,000 pounds 9,000 pounds 12,000 pounds 9,000 pounds 10,000 pounds 30 cows 1,462 2,332 4,530 4.46 4.22 60 cows 2,409 4,511 8,874 4.553 4.25“ 80 cows 5,085 8,057 13,918 4.27“ 3.99’ 100 cows 7,643 10,671 17,998 4.15” 3.93“ 120 cows 8,113 12,196 20,989 4.25‘ 3.98‘ 150 cows 10,212 15,316 26,307 4.24‘ 3.98‘ ‘Includes feeding of silage. ’The amount left to the operator and his family after all costs were paid and allowance made for interest and i Normally the amount of family labor utilized varied with the size of herd. The full-time work of the operator is not included as a cost. The full-time work of the operator is not included as a cost. “Costs include one full-time hired man. ‘Costs include two full-time hired men. 14 I Texas dairymen who do not feed silage, _’ some family help with milking are caring ws with little or no hired labor. The fact f'lable labor is utilized fully on these farms i responsible for their relatively 10w cost ucing milk, Table ll. When silage is not of 120 cows were operated by two men. this size make efficient use of improvements fpment and fully utilize the labor of two is is reflected in the lowest calculated milk n costs among systems not using silage. ll-time workers are generally used for herds ~ 120 cows, even without silage. ~ silage is fed, a milking herd of less than as a rule, does not provide maximum effi- i the use of two men’s time. For example, 'me workers are required with a 60-cow p" silage is grown and fed. This results utilization of man power and high labor 'ch contribute to the relatively high cost ,1 'ng milk for this size herd, Tables ll and ‘airies using silage, a milking herd of 100 ‘ normal replacements fully utilizes the ftwo men. Likewise, three men are fully _in caring for a 150-cow dairy. Both sizes u efficient use of both improvements and t.» The lowest production costs are as- ith milking herds of 100 and 150 cows i’ systems that included the use of silage. there are more than 100 cows in the “erd, three men are normally needed for l] silage is fed. Four full-time men are iuired with a silage-fed herd of more than jiskilled and careful attention is required for successful dairying, the operator of '_ dairy has little opportunity for an off- fon. In comparison, a herd of sufficient ‘loy one or more additional men may be ping. By more than one person being j'th the operating routine, it is possible its of the year to free either the operator v~worker for a few days at a time. idling are the approximate numbers of that one, two or three full-time workers ' ter effectively. This includes the raising ‘placements and the field work for the 1 n. These standards are based on studies Q u operations with above average labor Dairies Feeding Silage f man 40-45 cows e men 90-100 cows e » men 140-150 cows Dairies Not Feeding Silage 50-60 cows 110-120 cows 165-175 cows One man Two men Three men The calculated cost of producing 100 pounds of milk is relatively low with a silage fed 100-cow unit. Although the overall use of productive re- sources is efficient with this size herd, the calculated labor and management wage is higher for both 120 and 150-cow herds, Tables 11 and l2. The enter- prise generally is profitable at the prices used, even though there is loss of efficiency in labor use with the l20-cow unit.’ Consequently, total earnings tend to increase with each increase in herd size. The higher the production per cow, the greater the opportunities to increase total earnings by in- creasing the herd size. For a herd of 100 cows producing at the l2,000-pound level, 20 or 50 addi- tional cows of the same quality increase expected earnings much more than the same number of cows added to herds producing at the 9,000 or 10,000- pound level. offer good opportunities for relatively high farm earnings. In line with current management practices, a sizeable increase in the number of cows in the herd involves the use of more land for roughage and grazing. Additional acreage is expensive and often impossible to find conveniently located. This problem has been solved in some instances, by renting the additional acreage needed. However, it is risky to greatly expand the dairy enterprise on the basis of rented land unless a long-term lease is obtained. Two other alternatives may be considered by dairymen who wish to increase their herds but can- not buy or rent land. First, fertilizer may be in- creased to grow more forage on the land already farmed. Advice of soil specialists in such instances should be followed for best results. Local county agents can provide assistance in this connection. A second alternative is to buy the additional roughage needed. Here the most common practice has been to buy hay. However, the dairyman who depends on buying large amounts of hay has the risk and uncertainty associated with varying supplies and prices. The great variation in hay prices that normally occurs during drouth periods should be considered before choosing this plan. There are a few instances where contracts have been made with a neighboring farmer to grow a certain silage crop acreage at an agreed price. The price per ton for harvested silage varies depending on who does the harvesting. 15 Large herds of high-producing cows FEEDING CONCIENTRATES ACCORDING TO PRODUCTION Feed is the largest single expense item for milk production and usually ranges from 40 t0 5O per- cent of total costs. Varying proportions of nutrients from concentrates, hay, silage and pasture provide the feed needs for production in different seasons of the year. Nutrient costs from these feed types differ widely. Feed cost can be influenced materially in the long run by the proportion of concentrates and roughage a dairyman uses. Pasture is usually, but not always, the cheapest source of nutrients, but it cannot be stored, Figure 5. Nutrients from con- centrates usually cost more than those from harvested forage. One objective of good dairy management is the provision of adequate feeds in suitable pro- portions as economically as possible. Harvested forages are relatively costly in both East and Central Texas, compared with some parts of the country. Dairymen in both areas tend to use a ration high in concentrates. One of the best ways to lower milk production cost is to feed concentrates according to individual cow performance and month-to-month need. This results in good cows getting enough feed to main- tain their production potential. It avoids wasting high-priced nutrients on cows that would not profit from them. A study was made of the effect of certain feeding practices on milk production costs. Estimated feed costs of high-concentrate rations commonly fed to dairy cows in East and Central Texas were compared with similar costs of feeding practices recommended by dairy scientists as shown in Table 3. A summary of these costs is shown in Table l3. At 1959 prices and with cows averaging 9,000 pounds of milk annually, the estimated feed cost per hundredweight of milk is $1.89 for the recom- Figure 5. Milk cows grazing on good spring pasture. Pasture usually is a cheap source of nutrients. 16 - TABLE 13. FEED COSTS FOR MILK PRODUCTION l cows AVERAGING 0,000 POUNDS or MILK ANNU 1959 PRICES Feed cost per 100 pounds of ° v Ration used by farmers Item Ration reco 0'0 East Central by dairy sci; Texas Texas — — — — — — — 0-‘: liollars - — — — - Concentrates 1.29 1.22 .94 Roughage .69 .75 .95 l Total 1.9a 1.07 1.89 mended ration. iThis cost is 9 and 8 cen hundredweight less than that of the average f used on the dairies studied in East and l Texas, respectively. The annual savings amofi $7 and $8 per cow, respectively. Even greater savings are possible as mil duction per cow increases. For example, with averaging 12,000 pounds of milk per cow a p and fed according to production as recom the calculated feed cost for 100 pounds of c] only $1.66. l m: or nouenns: m nmnou 10 cos Feeding recommendations for dairy cattl " monly include the use of silage. In Central? the highest profits are usually obtained wi practice, regardless of the size of the milkinl a Consequently, no other plan is included am: budget summaries shown in Table l2. However, this situation does not alwai in East Texas. Here, good yields of silage tained and this was the main roughage o dairies. But the recent trend has been aw, the use of silage. This has been most notic dairies of average size or smaller. The add required for feeding and harvesting and p’ cost of owning and operating silage equipment are the most common reasons the trend away from silage. Custom harv not commonlyavailable in East Texas be the general scarcity of this type of equip .5 Recently self-feeding bunker silos ha. used successfully with the herd of i College of Texas. This system of handli greatly reduces the labor of feeding in p trials, Figure 6. A few dairymen have gone complet “dry-lot” operation. The success of these depends largely on two important fact production per cow and contracting for oi hay during the summer when prices are f lowest. f Owning field cutters greatly increas l chinery investment for small dairies ~T pbstantially to the overhead cost of milk % ion. herds that do not have silage, dairy scien- ommend the substitution of 1 pound of high i hay for 3 pounds of silage. At least 2 tons , ay should be alfalfa. the basis of 1959 prices, Table 4, it is shown iiore profitable to feed hay than to grow and ge to either a 30 or 60-cow dairy, Table ll. jerator of a 30-cow dairy in East Texas who lage would have an average investment of in machinery, upper half of Table 2. This .1 i? $160 per cow or approximately double the ‘investment when silage is not fed. Here, iual cost of owning and operating the silage g equipment is nearly $15 per cow and is jesponsible for the relatively high milk costs with silage versus no silage for herds of cost per cow of owning and operating silage 'nt is much lower with a 6O than with a 30- ' However, this advantage is more than the increased labor costs required to grow ' silage with the larger herd. With equip- d labor costs both relatively high, it is cal- .10 be more profitable to buy good quality i} to provide silage for herds of 60 cows or ;_ ast Texas. study indicated that at the prices used, the 30f feeding silage offers a substantial ad- ito the East Texas dairyman when 80 or " s are involved, Table 11. lly alfalfa and other hay may be purchased Vi" advantage during the early summer. i price is often much higher. Good manage- i‘ ld include storage to protect the hay pur- i} insurance to reduce the risk of loss from a er damage. p en who buy hay rather than grow silage iderable risk in hay costs during drouth ell as the risk of getting low quality hay et years. It is almost impossible to avoid at such times. This should be kept in planning a forageprogram in East Texas. ge program can be planned, however, to 's risk. A reserve of silage can be built , ied over for an unfavorable year during yields are above average. This advan- i e use of silage is not included in the sys- arized in Table 11. There is also a real * that a bettergquality forage is available i herd through a silage program. REGIIlARITY 0F FRESHENING i=1 endations for profitable dairying called >to freshen every 12 months and for a ‘tation period. With this plan cows would Figure 6. The labor of feeding silage in the A8cM dairy herd has been greatly reduced by the use of a self-feeding bunker silo. A movable, electrically charged bar has been effective in controlling waste. be dry about 60 days each year. Careful planning and management are required to follow this recom- mendation. A longer freshening interval reduced milk pro- duction which in turn reduced the operator’s earn- ings. A study was made of the difference in earnings for a herd freshening at a 13-month rather than a 12-month interval. Cows that give milk for 10 months when bred to freshen in 12 months probably will milk for l1 months with a freshening interval of 13 months. Records from the dairy herd at Texas AScM College and the experimental herd at Substation No. 2, Tyler, indicate that a cow that gives 10,000 pounds of milk in a l0 months lactation period, produces 10,400 pounds when the lactation period and the freshening interval are both extended 1 month. However, av- erage production per month of the lactation is higher for the 10-month than for the 11-month milking period. Consequently, a cow freshening every 12 months gives more milk in the long run than a similar cow freshening every 13 months. The 400 pounds of milk produced during the 11th month of lactation, as indicated above, are relatively high in butterfat and averages .4 percent above the butterfat average for the previous 10 months. Cows freshening at a 13-month interval also require less feed over a long period of time than animals freshening every 12 months. On the basis of these data, it was calculated that with cows freshening every 12 months and milking 10,000 pounds annually, each month added to the freshening interval reduces profits by about $13 per cow. For cows that averaged 12,000 pounds of milk when freshening every 12 months, each month added 17 t0 the freshening- interval decreases income by ap- proximately $l6 per cow. DATE 0F FRESHENING A large proportion of a dairy herd will freshen in the spring, unless planned otherwise. Normally, more than 50 percent of the year’s milk production is obtained during the first 4 months of the lacta- tion period. Thus a heavy concentration of fresh- ening at any time of the year results in an even greater proportionate concentration of the year’s milk supply. Prices paid for Grade “A” milk normally are lower during March, April, May and June than at any other time of the year. Consequently, more than 5O percent of the annual production of cows freshening around March 1 would be marketed dur- ing this period of relatively low prices. October, November, December and January are the months when milk prices are the highest. There- fore, when cows are freshened October l, more than 50 percent of the year’s production comes during months of most favorable milk prices. On the basis of milk prices that prevailed during 1956-59, 10,000 pounds of milk from a cow freshening October 1 brought a total of $15 more than the same amount of milk from a cow freshening March 1. For cows milking at the l2,000-pound level, the ad- vantage in favor of October freshening amounted to approximately $18 per cow. On the other hand a 20-year study in the AScM College of Texas dairy herd revealed that cows 18 freshening in February and March produced a7 imately 1,000 pounds more milk in the f0 lactation than did those cows that freshe, August, September and October. a However, dairymen probably will find i essary to freshen a large proportion of the the fall because of market demand. 0mm CONSIDERATIONS Net dairy farm income can be increased p other than the cost reducing measures Many of these involve enterprises other t milking herd to which this discussion has b: ited. For example, the use of improved v’ in the production of grazing, hay and silage u have an important bearing on dairy profits’; wise there are possibilities for saving thro >0 buying and good selection of feed and 0t ‘ chased items. g CONCHISIONS There are numerous opportunities to dairy farm profits through reduction of i; duction costs on individual farms. In dairymen can profit greatly from improved: tion per cow, from feeding concentrates to production, from feeding better qualit from increasing the number of cows and tention to the breeding program. Also, should be made of other farm management ‘ to increase dairy farm income. Each dai l_ different, and expert analysis and careful are necessary if ways to increase earnings ‘ developed and applied. if [Blank Page in Original Bulletin] i was snrxou Q rArs sussn-rxous I TAES new uneven-ours 4 coorrmrmo STATIONS Location of field research units of the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station and cooperating agencies IN THE MAIN STATION, with headquarters at College Station, are l matter departments, 2 service departments, 3 regulatory serviceai administrative staff. Located out in the major agricultural areas of g 21 substations and 9 field laboratories. In addition, there are 14 c I stations owned by other agencies. Cooperating agencies include g Forest Service, Game and Fish Commission of Texas, Texas Priso I U. S. Department of Agriculture, University of Texas, Texas Te r College, Texas College of Arts and Industries and the King Ran, experiments are conducted on farms and ranches and in rural u; ORGANIZATION THE TEXAS STATION is conducting about 400 active research projec-g in 25 programs, which include all phases of agriculture in Tex A. these are: Conservation and improvement of soil Beef cattle Conservation and use of water Grasses and legumes Grain crops Cotton and other fiber crops Vegetable crops Citrus and other subtropical fruits Fruits and nuts Oil seed crops Ornamental plants Brush and weeds OPERATION Insects Two additional programs are maintenance and upkeep, and cen Research results are carried t0 Texas farmers, ranchmen and homemakers by county agents and specialtiststofthe Texas Agricultural Ex- ‘* . -\’\’-';j_ u‘ t (Y Q~ . tension Service . ,‘ _ F y 001a” ,5 K858671134 ~95 jOIWLOPPOW ,5 POQI’? State-wide Researc The Texas Agricultural Experiment St y is the public agricultural research age of the State of Texas, and is one of parts of the AcStM College of Texas. A Dairy cattle Sheep and goats Swine Chickens and turkeys Animal diseases and p 1 Fish and game Farm and ranch engin Farm and ranch busin Marketing agricultural Rural home economics; Rural agricultural eco Plant diseases Y AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH seeks the WHATS i WHYS, the WHENS. the WHERES and the HO ' hundreds of problems which confront operate wt farms and ranches, and the many industries def ing on or serving agriculture. Workers of the Station and the field units of the Texas Agric I Experiment Station seek diligently to find soluti these problems. I Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, R. D. Lewis, Director, College Station, Texas