Volume 43 wwwextensioniastateedudairyteam January 2018

Larry Tranel Jenn Bentley Fred Hall

Best Dairy Wishes in 2018 Dairying in 2017 was a tough year for many Iowa dairy producers and 2018 may go down as being just as tough or even tougher unless markets and prices improve beyond current expectations As ISU Extension and Outreach field specialists we have been involved assisting dairy producers make tought decisions about their future in the dairy industry andor consider alternatives if deciding to exit the industry in the near future At the end of this publication is the 2016 financial data analysis of the Millionaire Model Dairy Farms which show a comparative analysis of conventional grazing organic and organic-no grain dairies It is hoped these Iowa model dairy farms who have so graciously shared their financial data can provide good benchmarks for other dairy producers to learn from As we move into the future of dairy labor efficiency seems to have a very strong relationship with profitability maybe even moreso than production per cow depending on the data set As mentioned last year the relationship is happening enough that it should make all dairy producers put at least as much emphasis on labor efficiency as we do milk production

per cow

Join Us for Winter Dairy Programs Inside this newsletter is program information for our winter dairy programs Again best wishes to you in the New Year Please contact us with any questions and concerns we can help you with Sincerely Jenn Bentley and Larry Tranel ISU Extension Dairy Field Specialists NE and SE Iowa Fred Hall ISU Extension Dairy Field Specialist NW Iowa

Newsletter edited by Larry Tranel

ISU DAIRY RESEARCH UPDATES Leo Timms ISUEO Dairy Specialist

Electric heat blankets winter to heat stress

Winterrsquos here -120F this morning as I write this Oh the warmth of an electric heat blanket (EHB) What about using that EHB as a novel way to research heat stress Heat stress (HS) negatively affects production parameters including milk yield and composition growth reproduction and dairy farm profitability worldwide Studying HS typically requires expensive climate controlled facilities often inaccessible to most researchers Mohmmad AL-Qaisi (a PhD student under Lance Baumgard and Leo Timms) has developed evaluated and validated a novel cost effective HS model using EHB and implemented it in HS mitigation studies Mohmmadrsquos cutting-edge research evaluated an electric heat blanket (EHB) as an alternative and cost-effective method to study HS and determine whether EHB-induced hyperthermia affects production parameters similar to natural HS This was the first proof of concept study examining this model Data generated from this EHB experiment showed increased rectal temperature and respiration rate and reduced DMI and milk yield similar to natural HS and chamber studies Using a paired fed model he estimated DMI reduction induced by the EHB only accounted for ~ 50 of milk yield reduction validating previous environmental chambers HS work Mohmmad recently completed an EHB trial evaluating dietary electrolyte supplementation with a similar yeast supplement trial planned Mohmmad completed a project utilizing behavior monitors to assess behavior and ear temperature changes during an EHB induced HS and showed excellent identification of behavioral changes in moderate and severe HS This heat stress model using EHB provides an excellent new platform for researchers and the dairy industry to evaluate and implement new effective HS mitigation strategies

DAIRY News amp Views from the ISU Extension Dairy TEAM

ldquoBringing Profits to Liferdquo

ISU Extension Dairy Team

ldquoBringing Profits to Liferdquo

2018 Dairy Days-Agenda amp Locations Please join us for Dairy Days 2018 to hear the following topics and speakers Double Cropping Small Grain amp Sorghum Forages on Your Dairy Brian Lang or Rebecca Vittetoe ISUEO Agronomist Alternative Forages for Dairy Cows ndash What Else is There Besides Corn Silage and Alfalfa Dr Hugo Ramirez ISUEO campus dairy specialist Transition Cow Success ndash Managing Pain Weight amp Milk Dr Leo Timms ISUEO campus dairy specialist Dairy System Profit Performance Comparison in 2016 Larry Tranel ISUEO dairy field specialist LUNCH Itrsquos More Than Just Checking the Markets ndash Powering Up Your Smartphone for Better Farm Management Fred Hall ISUEO dairy field specialist Research Update ndash Speed Round Jenn Bentley ISUEO dairy field specialist Common Feed Additives for Dairy Cows ndash What are They and What They Do Dr Hugo Ramirez ISUEO campus dairy specialist A $15 registration fee covers the noon meal and proceedings costs Pre-registration is requested by the Friday before each event to reserve a meal For more information contact your ISU Extension and Outreach county office or your dairy specialist listed on back 930 am-Registration 1000 am-Program Start Riceville Monday January 15 Windy Tree Cafeacute101 E Main St Waukon Tuesday January 16 Farmers amp Merchants State Bank 201 West Main Street Waverly Wednesday January 17 Civic Center 200 1st Street NE Bloomfield Monday January 29 ISU Extension and Outreach Davis County Office 402 E North St Kalona Tuesday January 30 Chamber of Commerce 514 B Ave Ryan Wednesday January 31 River Valley Coop 605 Franklin St Holy Cross Thursday Feb 1 Neumannrsquos Bar amp Grill 927 Main St

I-29 Moo University Winter Workshops

From Field to Bunk Growing and Feeding Dairy Quality Forages Dates and locations

January 8th ndash Baymont Inn amp Suites 2611 Old Red Trail Northwest Mandan North Dakota 58554 January 9th ndash Codington County Extension Complex 1910 West Kemp Avenue Watertown SD 5720 January 10th ndash Pipestone Veterinary Services 1801 Forman Drive Pipestone MN 56164 January 11th ndash Sioux County Extension Office 400 Central Ave NW Suite 700 Orange City IA 51041 January 12th ndash Lifelong Learning Center at NECC 601 East Benjamin Ave Norfolk NE 68701

Program Agenda 930 am ndash RegistrationRefreshments

1000 am ndash New forage genetic lines and how they impact the dairy industry - Bruce Anderson UNL Extension Forage Specialist 1045 am ndash Cover Crops ndash incorporating them into your forage production system ndash Sara Berg SDSU Extension Agronomy Field Specialist

1145 am ndash Incorporating cover crops into dairy rations ndash James C Paulson

200 pm ndash Silage pile safety training for you amp your employees ndash Keith Bolsen PhD Professor Emeritus Kansas State University ldquoThe Silage Manrdquo Nationally known speaker in silage production and safety practices

245 pm ndash Evaluating dairy diets from the nutritionist to the employee to the cowndash Co-presented - Fernando Diaz DVM PhD ndash Dairy Nutrition and Management Consultant ndash Rosecrans Dairy Consulting amp Tracey Erickson SDSU Extension Dairy Field Specialist 330 pm ndash Evaluation amp adjourn

Cost $50 per person before December 29 2017 $65 per

person after December 29 Students $25 per person before December 29 2017 $30 per person after December 29

Registration Discounts will be offered as follows

SDDP (SD Dairy Producer Association) ndash 1

registrationmember farm NSDA (Nebraska State Dairy

Association) ndash 1 registration member farm WIDA

(Western Iowa Dairy Association) ndash 1 registration

member farm MN Milk - $25 off 1 registration member

farm for first 20 participants and Iowa State Dairy

Association (ISDA) will pay $10 of the registration fee per member farm

Have you looked at your Electrolyte label (Excerpts taken from ldquoElectrolytes for Dairy Calvesrdquo found at

httparticlesextensionorgpages11361electrolytes-for-dairy-calves )

When we get sick doctors recommend making sure we get plenty of fluids not just any fluid but something that will rehydrate and replenish lost minerals carbohydrates and amino acids We then go to the grocery store and look through the overwhelming drink aisle Gatorade Powerade Body Armour Pedialyte Ginger Ale flavored water the list goes on Which one do you choose Do you look at the label before you buy it Will it replenish your needed minerals and amino acids What other ingredients have been added does it taste good how much does it cost These same questions can be asked of electrolytes needed to replenish fluids in our baby calves during incidences of scours Like our grocery store drink aisle there are many products on the market that offer the chance to rehydrate calves By taking a closer look at the label it will help you decide which one is right for your dairy Below are the necessary components of any rehydration solution for calves It is also important to recognize signs of dehydration early enough to deliver appropriate oral therapy You can read more about ldquoRecognizing Calf Dehydrationrdquo here httpswwwextensioniastateedudairyteamcalves-heifers

1 WATER Water is the essential ingredient to any rehydration solution Read and follow label for appropriate solution mix

2 SODIUM-While having low amounts of sodium due to diarrhea can cause problems high amounts of sodium will increase the amount of water needed to consume which can be difficult when a calf is already weak A range of 70 to 145 mmolL should be included in the solution and at a ratio of one to one with glucose to be absorbed efficiently

3 GLUCOSE-Known as an energy source and

aids in sodium absorption with no more than

200 mmolL A solution higher than this will

draw water out of the intestine instead of into

the intestine

4 GLYCINE-Non-essential amino acid that

enhances the absorption of glucose The

amount of glycine should be added to the

sodium level and the total should not exceed

145 mmolL The total of glycine and sodium

should also equal a one to one ratio with

glucose

5 ALKALINIZING agents-These are added to

decrease metabolic acidosis and provide some

energy fed at 50 to 80 mmolL They are

attached to sodium and include bicarbonate

citrate lactate acetate or propionate

Bicarbonate is a very common alkalinizing

agent and should not be fed directly or within a

few hours of whole milk Bicarbonate and

citrate inhibit the formation of the casein curd in

the abomasum It is recommended to feed

about 4 hours after the milk feeding Acetate is

the most easily metabolized

6 Other additions include Gelling Agents (guar

gum pectin etc) While more research is

needed to determine efficacy they have been

shown to reduce diarrhea within a few hours of

feeding and help coat inflamed intestinal

mucosa Gelling agents allow the passage of

the solution to slow down and allow nutrients to

be absorbed through the intestinal wall

However this may reduce the bodyrsquos ability to

flush toxins out as needed

7 Direct-fed microbials-These are meant to re-

establish correct ratios of gut microflora

working against E Coli and good for the

intestinal environment There is no published

research currently of its effects in electrolyte

solutions Electrolyte solutions should be

chosen based on rehydration abilities

Visit with your veterinarian to establish a protocol for appropriate electrolyte therapy and usage All employees working with calves should be trained in identifying sick or dehydrated animals along with proper administration of oral therapy solutions

Iowa State Dairy Association Annual Meeting has been scheduled for Jan 4 and 5th at Quality Inn and Suites 2601 E 13th St Ames IA wwwiowadairyorg for information

ISDA Speakers on January 4th

Larry Tranel ISU Econ of Iowa Millionaire Model Dairy Farms Bert Strayer LaCrosse Seed Forage Opp with Cover Crops

ISDA Speakers Jan 5th

Bill Northey and Mike Naig Secretaries of Agriculture Lance Baumgard ISUmdashldquoDietary Mythsrdquo Adam Gregg Lt Govenor of Iowa Lucas Lentsch CEO Midwest Dairy NE Iowa Dairy Foundation Annual Meeting Calmar Thursday March 15th at 10am Rm 115 Dairy Center ISU and NICC Updates Producer Panel Social Media Master Hoof Care Program at Calmar May 8-9 For information please call or email 5635623263 x380 bellrichardkniccedu

Manage Rained-on Alfalfa for Haylage Dan Undersander Forage Agronomist University of Wisconsin Extension

When alfalfa is rained on after mowing forage quality and dry matter are lost Rain amount and intensity are the significant factors affecting the amount of loss

A light drizzle will have little effect (other than to lengthen drying time and increase respiratory losses of starch and sugar)

A prolonged rain additionally will leach out some of the soluble nonstructural carbohydrates (sugars) and soluble protein

An intense rain will additionally cause leaf loss resulting in dry matter loss and quality loss since the leaves are low in fiber and the stems remaining are higher in fiber

Some common questions about rained-on alfalfa are Is it better to have alfalfa in a wide swath or a windrow when rain occurs Generally leaching loss is highest on freshly cut material while leaf shattering is low on wet forage and highest on drier forage (shattering is more of an issue for hay making than haylage at 60 moisture graph at right from Scarbrough et al 2005) Leaching and leaf loss will generally be less in a windrow On the other hand the windrow must be turned or spread out to dry again after a prolonged or intense rain which will cause leaf loss A swath many also be compressed by moderate to heavy rain and need to be turned to enhance drying Thus when making haylage it is often best to leave forage in a wide swath and rakemerge into windrow just ahead of chopping

How long can I leave alfalfa in the field to dry and still harvest for haylage (Alternatively when do I decide to chop the alfalfa back onto the field rather than harvest) The major concern with harvesting rained-on forage is accumulation of mold and mycotoxins and ability of forage to ferment in silo Generally alfalfa is worth harvesting (at least for heifer feed) as long as slime molds have not developed on the forage When such molds have developed palatability and fermentability of forage are reduced and likelihood of secondary microorganisms producing

mycotoxins is increased Therefore recommendation is to chop slimy forage back onto the field This will at least return nutrients to the soil for regrowth Forage left in the field for more than 3 days will have lost much of the nonstructural carbohydrates (starch and sugars) which are the foodstuffs of silage fermentation bacteria

Applying Foliar Fungicides to Reduced-Lignen Alfalfa Pays Fae Holin MFA Communication Specialist Much of the university research on applying foliar fungicides to conventional alfalfa shows inconsistent yield increases and usually little financial gain Thatrsquos largely because alfalfarsquos typical 28- to 30-ay cutting schedule does a good job of controlling foliar iseases says Damon Smith University of Wisconsin Extension field crops pathologist But using fungicides on reduced-or low-lignin alfalfa systems that lengthen their cutting schedules can pay off he says

Since 2011 Smith has been studying the use of foliar fungicides on alfalfa ndash first on conventional varieties then on varieties with reduced lignin

Some of his research has been funded through the Midwest Forage Associationrsquos Midwest Forage Research Program (MFRP) ldquoWhen you go to a 35-or maybe a 40-day cutting interval (using reduced-lignin alfalfa) you run the risk of higher disease pressure That can result in more defoliation and offset yield to a certain extent and more substantially quality if you have leaf lossrdquo he says ldquoThe work over the last three years has actually shown that if yoursquore going to go the longer interval with the reduced lignin system thatrsquos where fungicides actually give you a pretty consistent return on investmentrdquo His research has centered on HarvXtra reduced- lignin alfalfa but Smith will likely expand it next year to include Alforexrsquo Hi-Gest low-lignin varieties now that he can obtain the seed HarvXtra was planted alongside a conventional alfalfa and three fungicides ndash Headline Priaxor and Quadris ndash were compared The milk return on investments were positive for all three fungicides on a 35-day cutting interval but Priaxor ($16586acre for the season) brought more than double the return of Headline ($7277acre for the season) Quadrisrsquo return on investment was $1684acre for the season

New Hires Enhance ISU Dairy Team

Two new ISU Animal Science hires (animal breeding and ruminant nutrition) will greatly enhance an already exceptional ISU Dairy Team

Dr James Koltes is an assistant professor specializing in animal breeding and genetics He grew up on dairy farm near DeForest Wisc James received his BS in Dairy Science and Genetics at the University of Wisconsin- Madison and PhD from Iowa State University in Genetics He has a wide array of experience in genetics genomics and bioinformatics Recently much of his work has focused on using big datardquo such as public DNA sequence information The dairy industry generates a lot of data including automated milking systems and on farm sensors (ie cow pedometers) that could be used to help manage animal efficiency and health James is investigating how these technologies could be used to select for healthier more profitable animals He is also studying the genetics of feed efficiency James is looking for partnerships to explore how data generated on the farm can be combined with DNA information for use in selection to improve animal health and efficiency It is hoped that this research will help develop genetic tools and information that will help in the selection of more efficient and healthier animals as well as the ability to better monitor and manage animals in real-time to prevent losses Dr Ranga Appuhamy comes from the University of California-Davis where he focused on dairy cattle nutrition and sustainability of dairy industry Ranga conducted experiments and developed several mathematical models to quantify the impact of nutritional strategies on methane emissions and efficiency of protein utilization by dairy cows Prior to UC-Davis he was at the University of Guelph in Canada studying impact of lifestyle interventions such as dietary modifications and improvements in physical activity on risk of developing type 2 diabetes Ranga received a BS in agriculture from the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka and MS and PhD from Virginia Tech in Dairy and Animal Science respectively His MS research examined relationships between common health disorders and persistency of milk and milk component yields of dairy cows Ranga studied the roles of individual amino acids insulin and glucose in regulating milk protein synthesis rates in the mammary glands of dairy cows during his PHD At present his primary research goal at Iowa State

University is exploring the roles of individual amino acids in improving production performance health and wellbeing and environmental friendliness of dairy cattle Other research interests include quantifying drinking water requirements of dairy cattle and its impact on production and modeling nitrogen excretions and greenhouse gas emissions from dairy systems

You Can Select Bulls for Gestation Length The Council for Dairy Cattle Breeding (CDCB) has just released data that allows producers to evaluate sires based upon gestation length to aid reducing calving challenges This also aids researchers to better understand and study additional data in the important areas of calving ease age at first calving and percentage stillbirths As we look back the past few decades helping reduce calf losses from difficult births has improved and the more data available like this summary will continue us our the road of improvement Heres how the data can be interpreted based upon the average gestation length of these breeds

Ayrshiremdash281 days Brown Swissmdash286 days Guernseymdash284 days Holsteinmdash277 days Jerseymdash278 days Milking Shorthornmdash279 days

For example----females bred to a Brown Swiss sire with a Predicted Transmitting Ability (PTA) of +3 we would expect their calves to be born around 289 days while a Brown Swiss sire with a -4 we would expect them to calve around 282 days

Artificial Insemination Training This is a 3-day intensive hands-on class for those who wish to AI their own cattle or gain experience to work for others The class will cover all aspects of bovine reproduction from anatomy and hormones to heat detection Support materials such a ldquoBreeding Betsyrdquo and an endoscope will be available for practice before going to the barn Students have actual insemination practice on cattle at Iowarsquos Dairy Center Please bring clean farm work clothes and boots each day Date Tuesday--Thursday March 13 14 15 2018

Time 9 am ndash 3 pm Cost $199

Instructor Select Sires Location Calmar IowaIowarsquos Dairy Center

This is a 3-day intensive hands-on class for those who wish to AI their own cattle or gain experience to work for others The class will cover all aspects of bovine reproduction from anatomy and hormones to heat detection Support materials such a ldquoBreeding Betsyrdquo and an endoscope will be available for practice before going to the barn Students have actual insemination practice on cattle at Iowarsquos Dairy Center Please bring clean farm work clothes and boots each day

Seating limited preregistration is required

Letrsquos Take A Closer Look At Teat Health This Winter by Fred Hall ISUEO Dairy Specialist NW Iowa

This morning the temperature is minus 11O F and the high is expected to be 8OF with winds at 15 miles per hour Last week temperatures were bumping 50OF and we arenrsquot predicted to hit 25OF this week In the milk barn one of the biggest challenges during extreme cold weather is teat health The teat has naturally occurring oils that help to prevent skin chapping cracking and damage in cold weather but washing plus pre and post dips can remove those oils and expose wet teat tissue to frigid temperatures

Unfortunately mammary injury of some type is inevitable in many dairy operations Teat skin damage opens cows up to mastitis Avoiding injury is more economical than treatment Research supports that wind chill is more important than actual ambient temperature When wind chills stay above zero frozen teats are unlikely but if wind chills remain at or below -25OF teats especially if wet can freeze in less than one minute The best recommendations are those of basic animal husbandry Keeping the dairy cow clean dry and out of the wind are imperative to avoid damage To control mastitis regardless of injury the dairy farm operator has to control what gets on those teat ends which means sanitation A loafing or free stall bedding area must be cleaned regularly Eliminate the fecal material and provide clean bedding daily

Since the teat orifice is the first line of defense in protecting a cow from mastitis infection it is important to remember that the teat end condition changes increase based upon exposure to milking machines chemical damage environmental and temperature exposure

Teat end changes often occur in winter with rapid changes in temperature To counter such effects the use of salves and teat dips with extra skin conditioners have been promoted as a means of maintaining soft and pliable skin and healthy teat ends ISU research indicates that several barrier teat dips are equally able to maintain good teat skin condition as well as help improve teat end condition over the winter period especially Pre- and post-milking teat dips containing skin conditioners like glycerin and lanolin

Planning for the cold weather allows the opportunity to have best management practices in place before the damage is done Cold weather guideline from the National Mastitis Council include

In very cold weather it may be advisable to dip just the teat end

When teats are dipped dip only the end and blot off any excess with a single-use paper towel

Teats should be dry before turning cows out

Warming the teat dip reduces drying time Windbreaks in outside holding areas provide

some protection Fresh cows with swollen udders are more

susceptible to chapping

For more information go to the ISU Extension Dairy Team website at httpswwwextensioniastateedudairyteam

Are Bigger Dairies Always Better by Larry Tranel ISUEO Dairy Specialist NESE Iowa Data from 2016 in an Organic Dairy Study of 10 herds in Wisconsin compare four larger herds (LH) averaging 365 cows per herd with six smaller herds (SH) averaging 104 cows per herd Analyzing the herds on a per cow basis the milk sold per cow was 16044 for the LH and 15815 for the SH Total cash income per cow was $6615 for the LH and $5994 for the SH Total cash expense per cow was $4468 for the LH and $3782 for the SH Net Cash Income per cow was $2147 for the LH and $2212 for the SH After adjusting for inventory changes Net Farm Income from Operations per cow was $1878 for the LH and $2223 for the SH a $345 difference per cow favoring the SH Interest expense is not included in the above numbers After subtracting a 4 equity charge across all assets owned or borrowed the Returns to Unpaid Labor per cow was $900 for the LH and $1585 for the SH But comparing these numbers is like figuring out who wins a basketball game at halftime The UNPAID labor hours per cow for the LH is only 25 hours but 52 hours for the SH Thus dividing the Return to Unpaid Labor by the unpaid hours worked gives an advantage to the LH with $3758 versus $3185 for the SH However if the Returns to Labor plus the hired labor expense were added then divided by TOTAL labor hours worked the LH had a Return to ALL Labor of $2265 for the LH and $2485 for the SH The SH also had a higher Return on Assets at 1175 relative to the LH at 697 The Operating Profit Margin was 2539 for the SH and 248 for the LH The Asset Turnover Ratio was 478 for the SH and 2792 for the LHmdashA Huge Difference Bottom line--except for Return to Unpaid Labor per Hour the SH outshined the LH in all labor efficiency factors An FTE (full-time labor equivalent) is 3000 hours worked annually The SH had a Return to All Labor per FTE of $79335 versus $67559 for the LH Pounds of milk sold per FTE was 636900 for the SH and 606600 for the LH Number of cows per FTE was 41 for the SH and 37 for LH One herd achieved 70 cows per FTE All labor cost per cow was $1010 for the SH and $1233 for the LH Thus the SH showed that economies of scale may not always be an advantage in both labor andor capital efficiency on dairy farms The full article can be found at wwwextensioniastateedu

New Hires Enhance ISU Dairy Team

Two new ISU Animal Science hires (animal breeding and ruminant nutrition) will greatly enhance an already exceptional ISU Dairy Team

Dr James Koltes is an assistant professor specializing in animal breeding and genetics He grew up on dairy farm near DeForest Wisc James received his BS in Dairy Science and Genetics at the University of Wisconsin- Madison and PhD from Iowa State University in Genetics He has a wide array of experience in genetics genomics and bioinformatics Recently much of his work has focused on using big datardquo such as public DNA sequence information The dairy industry generates a lot of data including automated milking systems and on farm sensors (ie cow pedometers) that could be used to help manage animal efficiency and health James is investigating how these technologies could be used to select for healthier more profitable animals He is also studying the genetics of feed efficiency James is looking for partnerships to explore how data generated on the farm can be combined with DNA information for use in selection to improve animal health and efficiency It is hoped that this research will help develop genetic tools and information that will help in the selection of more efficient and healthier animals as well as the ability to better monitor and manage animals in real-time to prevent losses Dr Ranga Appuhamy comes from the University of California-Davis where he focused on dairy cattle nutrition and sustainability of dairy industry Ranga conducted experiments and developed several mathematical models to quantify the impact of nutritional strategies on methane emissions and efficiency of protein utilization by dairy cows Prior to UC-Davis he was at the University of Guelph in Canada studying impact of lifestyle interventions such as dietary modifications and improvements in physical activity on risk of developing type 2 diabetes Ranga received a BS in agriculture from the University of Peradeniya in Sri Lanka and MS and PhD from Virginia Tech in Dairy and Animal Science respectively His MS research examined relationships between common health disorders and persistency of milk and milk component yields of dairy cows Ranga studied the roles of individual amino acids insulin and glucose in regulating milk protein synthesis rates in the mammary glands of dairy cows during his PHD At present his primary research goal at Iowa State

University is exploring the roles of individual amino acids in improving production performance health and wellbeing and environmental friendliness of dairy cattle Other research interests include quantifying drinking water requirements of dairy cattle and its impact on production and modeling nitrogen excretions and greenhouse gas emissions from dairy systems

You Can Select Bulls for Gestation Length The Council for Dairy Cattle Breeding (CDCB) has just released data that allows producers to evaluate sires based upon gestation length to aid reducing calving challenges This also aids researchers to better understand and study additional data in the important areas of calving ease age at first calving and percentage stillbirths As we look back the past few decades helping reduce calf losses from difficult births has improved and the more data available like this summary will continue us our the road of improvement Heres how the data can be interpreted based upon the average gestation length of these breeds

Ayrshiremdash281 days Brown Swissmdash286 days Guernseymdash284 days Holsteinmdash277 days Jerseymdash278 days Milking Shorthornmdash279 days

For example----females bred to a Brown Swiss sire with a Predicted Transmitting Ability (PTA) of +3 we would expect their calves to be born around 289 days while a Brown Swiss sire with a -4 we would expect them to calve around 282 days

Artificial Insemination Training This is a 3-day intensive hands-on class for those who wish to AI their own cattle or gain experience to work for others The class will cover all aspects of bovine reproduction from anatomy and hormones to heat detection Support materials such a ldquoBreeding Betsyrdquo and an endoscope will be available for practice before going to the barn Students have actual insemination practice on cattle at Iowarsquos Dairy Center Please bring clean farm work clothes and boots each day Date Tuesday--Thursday March 13 14 15 2018

Time 9 am ndash 3 pm Cost $199

Instructor Select Sires Location Calmar IowaIowarsquos Dairy Center

This is a 3-day intensive hands-on class for those who wish to AI their own cattle or gain experience to work for others The class will cover all aspects of bovine reproduction from anatomy and hormones to heat detection Support materials such a ldquoBreeding Betsyrdquo and an endoscope will be available for practice before going to the barn Students have actual insemination practice on cattle at Iowarsquos Dairy Center Please bring clean farm work clothes and boots each day

Seating limited preregistration is required

Letrsquos Take A Closer Look At Teat Health This Winter by Fred Hall ISUEO Dairy Specialist NW Iowa

This morning the temperature is minus 11O F and the high is expected to be 8OF with winds at 15 miles per hour Last week temperatures were bumping 50OF and we arenrsquot predicted to hit 25OF this week In the milk barn one of the biggest challenges during extreme cold weather is teat health The teat has naturally occurring oils that help to prevent skin chapping cracking and damage in cold weather but washing plus pre and post dips can remove those oils and expose wet teat tissue to frigid temperatures

Unfortunately mammary injury of some type is inevitable in many dairy operations Teat skin damage opens cows up to mastitis Avoiding injury is more economical than treatment Research supports that wind chill is more important than actual ambient temperature When wind chills stay above zero frozen teats are unlikely but if wind chills remain at or below -25OF teats especially if wet can freeze in less than one minute The best recommendations are those of basic animal husbandry Keeping the dairy cow clean dry and out of the wind are imperative to avoid damage To control mastitis regardless of injury the dairy farm operator has to control what gets on those teat ends which means sanitation A loafing or free stall bedding area must be cleaned regularly Eliminate the fecal material and provide clean bedding daily

Since the teat orifice is the first line of defense in protecting a cow from mastitis infection it is important to remember that the teat end condition changes increase based upon exposure to milking machines chemical damage environmental and temperature exposure

Teat end changes often occur in winter with rapid changes in temperature To counter such effects the use of salves and teat dips with extra skin conditioners have been promoted as a means of maintaining soft and pliable skin and healthy teat ends ISU research indicates that several barrier teat dips are equally able to maintain good teat skin condition as well as help improve teat end condition over the winter period especially Pre- and post-milking teat dips containing skin conditioners like glycerin and lanolin

Planning for the cold weather allows the opportunity to have best management practices in place before the damage is done Cold weather guideline from the National Mastitis Council include

In very cold weather it may be advisable to dip just the teat end

When teats are dipped dip only the end and blot off any excess with a single-use paper towel

Teats should be dry before turning cows out

Warming the teat dip reduces drying time Windbreaks in outside holding areas provide

some protection Fresh cows with swollen udders are more

susceptible to chapping

For more information go to the ISU Extension Dairy Team website at httpswwwextensioniastateedudairyteam

Are Bigger Dairies Always Better by Larry Tranel ISUEO Dairy Specialist NESE Iowa Data from 2016 in an Organic Dairy Study of 10 herds in Wisconsin compare four larger herds (LH) averaging 365 cows per herd with six smaller herds (SH) averaging 104 cows per herd Analyzing the herds on a per cow basis the milk sold per cow was 16044 for the LH and 15815 for the SH Total cash income per cow was $6615 for the LH and $5994 for the SH Total cash expense per cow was $4468 for the LH and $3782 for the SH Net Cash Income per cow was $2147 for the LH and $2212 for the SH After adjusting for inventory changes Net Farm Income from Operations per cow was $1878 for the LH and $2223 for the SH a $345 difference per cow favoring the SH Interest expense is not included in the above numbers After subtracting a 4 equity charge across all assets owned or borrowed the Returns to Unpaid Labor per cow was $900 for the LH and $1585 for the SH But comparing these numbers is like figuring out who wins a basketball game at halftime The UNPAID labor hours per cow for the LH is only 25 hours but 52 hours for the SH Thus dividing the Return to Unpaid Labor by the unpaid hours worked gives an advantage to the LH with $3758 versus $3185 for the SH However if the Returns to Labor plus the hired labor expense were added then divided by TOTAL labor hours worked the LH had a Return to ALL Labor of $2265 for the LH and $2485 for the SH The SH also had a higher Return on Assets at 1175 relative to the LH at 697 The Operating Profit Margin was 2539 for the SH and 248 for the LH The Asset Turnover Ratio was 478 for the SH and 2792 for the LHmdashA Huge Difference Bottom line--except for Return to Unpaid Labor per Hour the SH outshined the LH in all labor efficiency factors An FTE (full-time labor equivalent) is 3000 hours worked annually The SH had a Return to All Labor per FTE of $79335 versus $67559 for the LH Pounds of milk sold per FTE was 636900 for the SH and 606600 for the LH Number of cows per FTE was 41 for the SH and 37 for LH One herd achieved 70 cows per FTE All labor cost per cow was $1010 for the SH and $1233 for the LH Thus the SH showed that economies of scale may not always be an advantage in both labor andor capital efficiency on dairy farms The full article can be found at wwwextensioniastateedu

Letrsquos Take A Closer Look At Teat Health This Winter by Fred Hall ISUEO Dairy Specialist NW Iowa

This morning the temperature is minus 11O F and the high is expected to be 8OF with winds at 15 miles per hour Last week temperatures were bumping 50OF and we arenrsquot predicted to hit 25OF this week In the milk barn one of the biggest challenges during extreme cold weather is teat health The teat has naturally occurring oils that help to prevent skin chapping cracking and damage in cold weather but washing plus pre and post dips can remove those oils and expose wet teat tissue to frigid temperatures

Unfortunately mammary injury of some type is inevitable in many dairy operations Teat skin damage opens cows up to mastitis Avoiding injury is more economical than treatment Research supports that wind chill is more important than actual ambient temperature When wind chills stay above zero frozen teats are unlikely but if wind chills remain at or below -25OF teats especially if wet can freeze in less than one minute The best recommendations are those of basic animal husbandry Keeping the dairy cow clean dry and out of the wind are imperative to avoid damage To control mastitis regardless of injury the dairy farm operator has to control what gets on those teat ends which means sanitation A loafing or free stall bedding area must be cleaned regularly Eliminate the fecal material and provide clean bedding daily

Since the teat orifice is the first line of defense in protecting a cow from mastitis infection it is important to remember that the teat end condition changes increase based upon exposure to milking machines chemical damage environmental and temperature exposure

Teat end changes often occur in winter with rapid changes in temperature To counter such effects the use of salves and teat dips with extra skin conditioners have been promoted as a means of maintaining soft and pliable skin and healthy teat ends ISU research indicates that several barrier teat dips are equally able to maintain good teat skin condition as well as help improve teat end condition over the winter period especially Pre- and post-milking teat dips containing skin conditioners like glycerin and lanolin

Planning for the cold weather allows the opportunity to have best management practices in place before the damage is done Cold weather guideline from the National Mastitis Council include

In very cold weather it may be advisable to dip just the teat end

When teats are dipped dip only the end and blot off any excess with a single-use paper towel

Teats should be dry before turning cows out

Warming the teat dip reduces drying time Windbreaks in outside holding areas provide

some protection Fresh cows with swollen udders are more

susceptible to chapping

For more information go to the ISU Extension Dairy Team website at httpswwwextensioniastateedudairyteam

Are Bigger Dairies Always Better by Larry Tranel ISUEO Dairy Specialist NESE Iowa Data from 2016 in an Organic Dairy Study of 10 herds in Wisconsin compare four larger herds (LH) averaging 365 cows per herd with six smaller herds (SH) averaging 104 cows per herd Analyzing the herds on a per cow basis the milk sold per cow was 16044 for the LH and 15815 for the SH Total cash income per cow was $6615 for the LH and $5994 for the SH Total cash expense per cow was $4468 for the LH and $3782 for the SH Net Cash Income per cow was $2147 for the LH and $2212 for the SH After adjusting for inventory changes Net Farm Income from Operations per cow was $1878 for the LH and $2223 for the SH a $345 difference per cow favoring the SH Interest expense is not included in the above numbers After subtracting a 4 equity charge across all assets owned or borrowed the Returns to Unpaid Labor per cow was $900 for the LH and $1585 for the SH But comparing these numbers is like figuring out who wins a basketball game at halftime The UNPAID labor hours per cow for the LH is only 25 hours but 52 hours for the SH Thus dividing the Return to Unpaid Labor by the unpaid hours worked gives an advantage to the LH with $3758 versus $3185 for the SH However if the Returns to Labor plus the hired labor expense were added then divided by TOTAL labor hours worked the LH had a Return to ALL Labor of $2265 for the LH and $2485 for the SH The SH also had a higher Return on Assets at 1175 relative to the LH at 697 The Operating Profit Margin was 2539 for the SH and 248 for the LH The Asset Turnover Ratio was 478 for the SH and 2792 for the LHmdashA Huge Difference Bottom line--except for Return to Unpaid Labor per Hour the SH outshined the LH in all labor efficiency factors An FTE (full-time labor equivalent) is 3000 hours worked annually The SH had a Return to All Labor per FTE of $79335 versus $67559 for the LH Pounds of milk sold per FTE was 636900 for the SH and 606600 for the LH Number of cows per FTE was 41 for the SH and 37 for LH One herd achieved 70 cows per FTE All labor cost per cow was $1010 for the SH and $1233 for the LH Thus the SH showed that economies of scale may not always be an advantage in both labor andor capital efficiency on dairy farms The full article can be found at wwwextensioniastateedu

Corn Silage Keeps Changing Carrie Shouse and Hugo A Ramiacuterez Ramiacuterez ISU Animal Science Department

For most dairy producers corn silage is a staple feedstuff in a dairy cow ration This feedstuff is a very good source of nutrients because it combines characteristics of forages and grains In terms of energy corn silage provides fiber and starch The former is slowly degraded in the rumen whereas the latter is more readily fermentable In order for starch to be fermented it is necessary to break the protective layer surrounding the kernel called the pericarp When a dairy cow consumes corn kernels that are properly fragmented the microbes in her rumen ferment the starch and release energy that the dairy cow can then use for biological processes including milk synthesis The number and the degree of maturity of the kernels in the corn ear determine the starch content of silage This level remains practically unchanged from the moment of harvest through fermentation and feed out However changes do occur over time during fermentation such that starch becomes more digestible over time This is because starch is arranged in granules surrounded by proteins that degrade over time under the acidic conditions of silage fermentation

After 6 to 8 months of ensiling (Figure 1) the starch is more readily available for microbial fermentation in the rumen In vitro studies show a difference of almost 20 percentage in ruminal starch digestibility after 8 months of

fermentation this translates to more energy for microbes and for the cow Although greater starch digestibility is generally a good thing from a feed quality standpoint too much starch being degraded in the rumen can also be a negative factor that can depress fiber digestibility and milk fat synthesis After 6 to 8 months producers should test corn silage for in-vitro starch digestibility and work with their nutritionist to re-balance the diet and account for the increased starch digestibility This can translate into better rumen health and even economic savings by using feedstuffs more efficiently References Ferraretto L F R D Shaver S Massie R Singo D M Taysom and J P Brouillette 2015 Effect of ensiling time and hybrid type on fermentation profile nitrogen fractions and ruminal in vitro starch and neutral detergent fiber digestibility in whole-plant corn silage Prof Anim Sci 31 146-152 2 httpdxdoiorg 1015232pas2014-01371

Boots in the Barnmdash Cow Herd Basics for Women January 4th Commercial Club Park Community Room Dyersville Dairy Herd Basics 100-300pm Milk Quality Dr Leo Timms ISU Extension Dairy Specialist will discuss milk quality explaining the howrsquos and whyrsquos of pathogens affecting udder health Beef Herd Basics 630-830pm Health amp Mgt Denise Schwab ISU Extension Beef Specialist will discuss the annual management calendar and Dr Jennifer Hosch will discuss basic cow health January 11th Three Rivers FS FASTSTOP 32199 Old Castle Rd Dyersville IA Dairy Herd Basics 100-300pm Milk Quality Beef Herd Basics 630-830pm Health amp Mgt Dr Grant Dewell ISU Extension Vet will bring ldquoFrosty the Cowrdquo for a hands on workshop of calving time management dystocia and delivery methods January 18th Commercial Club Park Community Room Dyersville Dairy Herd Basics 100-300pm Milk Quality Dr Hugo Ramirez ISU Dairy Specialist will discuss what makes a quality TMR and ways to assess a TMR before delivered Learn how to use the Shaker Box tool and Koster moisture tester and bring a sample of their farmrsquos corn silage for discussion Beef Herd Basics 630-830pm Health amp Mgt Dr Hugo Ramirez ISU Dairy Specialist will discuss Making and managing quality silage Denise Schwab will discuss feed budgeting and cost control Fee $25 for all three sessions Register at wwwextensioniastateedudairyteamboots-barn or Dubuque County Extension at 563-583-6496 or for the dairy program jbentleyiastateedu and the beef program dschwabiastateedu It is realized that women may be receiving this information after the first program is over but are still welcome to join the remaining sessions ldquoI calve out 200 cows a year but I learned so much from this programrdquo says a previous attendee sohellip Join to learn with women just like you All sessions are planned for women working on or managing dairy or beef cow herds with lots of hands-on opportunities

Figure 1 Starch content and in vitro starch digestibility of corn silage over time Adapted from Ferraretto et al (2015)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 30 120 240

Ensiling time (days)IV Starch Dig Starch content

Economics of Conventional and Hybrid Grazing Dairies Relative to Organic and Organic No-Grain Dairies by Dr Larry Tranel Dairy Field Specialist Iowa State University Extension and Outreach NESE Iowa

The economics of various dairy production systems is a topic of frequent conversation in Extensionrsquos work with Iowa dairy producers and industry professionals This article attempts to shed further light on the economics of four dairy systems

1) ConventionalConfinement dairy (CONV) 2) Hybrid Grazing dairy (HGRAZ) 3) Organic dairy (ORG) 4) Organic No-Grain dairy (ORG-NG)

This study uses the ldquoMillionaire Model Dairy Farm Performance in Iowardquo publications and data from both 2015 and 2016 to compare relative profitability of these systems Conventional Milk Price Drives Most Profitable System The conventional and organic milk prices are one of the most important factors when comparing profitability of the various dairy systems The organic milk price changes but is more stable than conventional milk prices In both years of this study conventional milk prices were relatively lower than than a more typical 3-5 year milk price time frame A further analysis would be appropriate to show comparative system profits with milk price correlation over a longer period For instance if conventional milk prices would have been $1cwt higher in 2016 return increased by an estimated $1232 per labor hour with 178 increased return to assets to the CONV farms Thus only a $1-$2cwt increase in the conventional milk price would have made the CONV and HGRAZ farms very competitive with both the ORG and ORG-NG farms The same is true when considering the 2015 data too Above $19cwt average conventional milk price a significant advantage would seem to go to both the CONV and HGRAZ farms Non-Conventional Dairy Systems are Profitable ORG and ORG-NG dairies have earned respect as a viable and profitable dairy system as have our CONV and HGRAZ dairies In 2015 the HGRAZ system had similar profitability to the ORG and ORG-NG systems but one farm was in expansion mode in 2016 which reduced profitability In 2015 and 2016 the ORG and ORG-NG dairies were separated into two groups because all three of the ORG-NG dairies earned their way into the high profit group of organic dairies The data for each of these systems is summarized in Table 1 (last page of publication) which clearly shows a profit advantage to both the ORG and the ORG-NG systems over the CONV and the HGRAZ systems The ORG system received a milk price of $3503 with a cost of production per hundredweight equivalent (cwt eq) of

$3038 for a net profit after all costs including opportunity costs of both equity and unpaid labor of $465 The ORG-NG system received a milk price of $4117 with a cost of production per cwt eq of $3246 for a net profit after all costs of $871 Table 2 below summarizes the profit of the ORG and ORG-NG systems

The CONV system received a milk price of $1673 with a cost of production per cwt eq of $1619 for a net profit after all costs including opportunity costs of both equity and unpaid labor of $054cwt The HGRAZ system received a milk price of $1705 with a cost of production per cwt eq of $1600 for a net profit after all costs of $105cwt Table 3 below shows the 2015-16 profit of the CONV and HGRAZ systems

In a general sense the profitability of the CONV and HGRAZ systems are less than the profitability of the ORG and ORG-NG systems But again this study stems from a 24 month comparison when conventional milk prices were considered low Therefore further analysis follows to analyze possible results ldquoifrdquo conventional milk prices were $1-$2cwt higher Realize that past history at times has rewarded conventional producers with prices $6-$8cwt higher than 2015 and 2016 prices Thus the realm of conventional milk prices and profitability over a 3-4 year timeframe can vary dramatically Organic milk pay prices though more stable can also change as marketers learn to deal with supply and consumer demand The next section aims to highlight profit changes to conventional milk price increases

Table 2 Average Returns ORG Farms 2015-16 ORG-NG Farms 2015-16

2015-16 Iowa Comparison Per Cow Total Per Cow Total

Net Cash Income $2320 $197286 $2169 $168853

Inventory Change -$438 -27120 -$32 -$2503

Net Farm Income $1881 $170166 $2137 $166351

Equity 4 on all assets $708 $58387 $720 $56057

Return to Unpaid Labor $1173 $111779 $1417 $110294

Labor Earnings Per Hour $2474 $3105

Rate of Return on Assetshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip787 928

Operating Profit Marginhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip2932 3808

Asset Turnover Ratiohelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip [Efficiency]3482 2481

Table 3 Average Returns CONV Farms 2015-16 HGRAZ Farms 2015-16

2015-16 Iowa Comparison Per Cow Total Per Cow Total

Net Cash Income $1008 $291850 $918 $152597

Inventory Change -$53 -32650 $171 $16310

Net Farm Income $955 $259200 $1088 $168907

Equity 4 on all assets $447 $126148 $462 $79875

Return to Unpaid Labor $508 $133052 $627 $89032

Labor Earnings Per Hour $2155 $2258

Rate of Return on Assetshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip582 579

Operating Profit Marginhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1159 1828

Asset Turnover Ratiohelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip [Efficiency]5041 3459

Using Dairy TRANS to Compare Profits with an Increase in Milk Price

Profit differences between CONV or HGRAZ and ORG or ORG-NG seems to hinge on which side of $18-$20cwt range the conventional milk price is assuming somewhat current cost structures Within that range the systems seem to be very competitive There is probably as much variability among farms within the various systems as among the systems To give credence to this concept the combined 2015-2016 data on average was entered into the Dairy TRANS financial analysis program to gauge changes in milk price sensitivity for both the CONV and HGRAZ systems The results are in Table 4 The left half of Table 4 shows results for the CONV farm example for 2015-16 data The CONV milk price was $1673cwt The first column of numbers shows profit on a per cow basis and the second column of numbers shows total dollar value per farm The next two columns show the results if $1cwt was added to the CONV milk price per cow and per farm followed by a $2cwt increase for the CONV farms in the following two columns The right shows results for the HGRAZ farms The HGRAZ milk price was $1705cwt The Labor Earnings are for main operatormanager(s) only not paid employees

A $1cwt increase in milk price would give labor returns per hour for both the CONV and HGRAZ systems competitive with the ORG and ORG-NG farms and increase the returns to assets by 226 and 164 for the CONV and HGRAZ farms respectively At this milk price level both the CONV and HGRAZ system are very competitive with the ORG and ORG-NG farms For the CONV farms profits in general double with a $2cwt milk price increase when both return to labor and return to assets are considered Profits for the HGRAZ farms follow a similar pattern though slightly lower It is the opinion of this author that without the ldquoexpansion changerdquo of the one HGRAZ farm in 2016 alluded to earlier the results comparing the CONV and HGRAZ systems would have been very similar with both the $1cwt and $2cwt increase in milk price At a $2cwt increase in milk price this would give $1873cwt and $1905cwt milk price for the CONV and HGRAZ farms respectively Realize the CONV farms in this data set probably have annual milk production levels somewhat above an estimated average while the HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG milk production levels seem more typical of their respective systems Average milk production levels per cow in Iowa tend to be in the 22500 lbs per cow annually range with all systems included Grazing farms tend to have milk production levels in the 17000 lbs per cow annually (similar to WI data) CONV farms with lower milk production levels per cow and somewhat similar production costs as the CONV farms in this data set may need more than an additional milk price of $1-$2cwt to be competitive with the HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG systems Likewise the other HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG farms could experience the same lower levels of profitability relative to their respective system with milk production levels lower than those of the model farms represented in this data Economies of scale may also affect system differences as both cost and income variables might change significantly with larger herd sizes For example these cost variables could include labor utilities supplies depreciation interest plus other machinery equipment and milking system costs as those costs are spread over more cows The income variables could include increased volume premiums An economy of scale analysis is also beyond the scope of this study but note the ORG and ORG-NG farms milk less than half (44) of the cows on the HGRAZ farms and less than a third (29) of the cows of the CONV farms So even though all the model farms studied are significantly larger than the average farm for their system there are still economy of scale differences at play as these systems are compared or the milk price changes The increase in the conventional milk price for example will impact the CONV farms at an increasingly faster rate than the HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG farms since its impact will be spread over more cows and more milk production per cow And due to their higher levels of labor efficiency of the HGRAZ and CONV farms each $1 increase in the conventional milk price will impact their return to unpaid labor at an increasing rate as well compared to a $1 increase in the ORG or ORG-NG milk price Milk price increases may also cause feed supply and other inputs to increase milk production in response Bottom line is that ldquoeconomy of scalerdquo impacts become more evident in this system comparison as conventional milk prices increase favoring the CONV and HGRAZ farms the most But ORG and ORG-NG farms also have significant ldquoeconomy of scalerdquo that this author suspects will become more of a reality as the ORG farms continue to mature and grow Please be cautioned that this is a small data set and that the farms in each of the systems are hand-selected as good models for their respective systems Due to the small data set one farm can significantly change the results These results may or may not be exactly representative of each of the systems in the state of Iowa However in the experience of this author doing financial analysis and experience with each of the systems the conclusions seem fairly representative of the Iowa dairy industry Thus for good CONV and HGRAZ producers the $18-$19cwt range seems a comparative break-even in system comparison if ORG milk prices remain in the $34-$35cwt range

Table 4 Average Returns Average CONV Farms Plus $1cwt Milk Price Plus $2cwt Milk Price Average HGRAZ Farms Plus $1cwt Milk Price Plus $2cwt Milk Price

2015-16 Iowa Comparison Per Cow Total Per Cow Total Per Cow Total Per Cow Total Per Cow Total Per Cow Total

Net Cash Income $1008 $291850 $1297 $363251 $1552 $434651 $918 $152597 $1018 $185307 $1198 $218017

Inventory Change -$53 -3264992 -11661 -3265000 -11661 -3265000 $171 $16310 $90 $16310 $90 $16310

Net Farm Income $955 $259200 $1181 $330601 $1436 $402001 $1088 $168907 $1108 $201617 $1288 $234327

Equity 4 on all assets $447 $126148 $451 $126213 $451 $126213 $462 $79875 $438 $79768 $438 $79768

Return to Unpaid Labor $508 $133052 $730 $204388 $985 $275788 $627 $89032 $670 $121849 $849 $154559

Labor Earnings Per Hour $2155 $3310 $4467 $2258 $3090 $3920

Return on Assets 582 808 1034 579 743 907

However production costs vary greatly within each of the systems but most typically within a $3cwt range for CONV and HGRAZ farms and in the $6cwt range for ORG and ORG-NG farms from the experience of this author And producers management ability varies greatly within the various systems Which system may be most profitable for any particular producer will depend on management skills within each system But with all the systems compared the HGRAZ system can be as or more profitable as the CONV system at these herd relative sizes and production levels For good dairy managers considering transitioning to ORG the more profitable system probably depends which side of the $18-$19cwt range the milk price is on with current costs For medium or lower level dairy managers on the CONV side milk prices on higher side of $19-$20cwt may be necessary to be competitive with ORG and ORG-NG herds A Two Year Comparison of Differences among Conventional Grazing Organic and Organic No-Grain Dairies Table 1 on the next page in the experience of this author shows data very representative of the CONV HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG systems As producersmdashbeginning transitioning or establishedmdashdecide on their future in the dairy industry this data analysis should give a baseline confidence to potential profit success in each of the models systems There are variations within each of these systems the use of other dairy breeds cross-breeding higher or lower levels of grazing higher or lower levels of milk production higher or lower levels of land per cow--just to name a few To begin review of the data in Table 1 notice that the ORG milk price is approximately double the CONV milk price Cash income per cow was more similar due to higher CONV milk production per cow only $324 per cow lower for the CONV farms Though the milk price for the HGRAZ farms was only 41 of the ORG-NG milk price total cash income per cow was very similar but $86 per cow lower for the HGRAZ farms It is interesting to note that when comparing ORG versus CONV and ORG-NG versus HGRAZ the CONV and HGRAZ farms make up the majority of the milk price difference in cash income per cow with approximately double the milk production per cow But there are some crop sale and other income differences as well It should be noted that the CONV farms were considered great crop producers as well which shows in their acres owned per cow in relation to their crop sales per cow The CONV farms also had good cow husbandry skills as well as noted by their vet and medicine cost of $147 per cow Though higher than all the other groups in this study this cost is a very respectable benchmark for COVN herds In comparison the vet and med cost of the ORG farms was $65cow the ORG-NG farms was $14cow and the HGRAZ farms was $77cow All of these groups set a good industry benchmark for vet and medicine costs Feed usually represents 50-60 of the cost of producing milk The productive crop acres per cow for the CONV farms versus the ORG farms was about half (214 vs 409) but the CONV farms purchased about 40 of the feed per cow compared to the ORG farms ($1298 versus $526) The CONV farms had very similar feed purchases per cow as the HGRAZ farms ($1298 versus $1330) but ran approximately 25 less acres (214 versus 152) The HGRAZ farms ran half the acres per cow of the ORG-NG farms but the ORG-NG farms purchased only 27 of the feed compared to the HGRAZ farms ($356 versus $1330) Past typical benchmarks point to 3-35 acres needed to produce feed for both the cows and replacement heifers approximately 2 acres of forage per cow and one acre of grain Thus the CONV farms seem highly productive in crop management (raised feed costs) relative to both yields (acres per cow) and forage quality (feed purchases per cow) The ORG-NG farms milk about the same number of cows as the ORG farms but produce only 60 of the milk per cow with 25 less land and 32 less feed purchased per cow In this comparative relationship it seems a $5cwt trade-off in milk price is enough to make the ORG-NG system viable and profitable However this is not saying the ORG-NG system is more profitable it depends on the individual farm But this ORG-NG system is deserving more attention ldquoifrdquo there is a long term market for increased levels of milk sales Labor efficiency is often highly related to profit The HGRAZ farms had the highest labor efficiency with 124 million pounds of milk sold per FTE (3000 hours) and had 70 cows per FTE The CONV farms at 12 million pounds milk sold per FTE and had 47 cows per FTE The ORG farms at 444000 pounds milk sold per FTE and had 34 cows per FTE The ORG-NG at 413900 pounds milk sold per FTE and had 49 cows per FTE The ORG farms had the highest labor cost at $1249cow with the CONV farms at $851cow the ORG-NG at $807cow and the HGRAZ farms at $621cow The HGRAZ farmrsquos strength is labor efficiency with the cows harvesting much of their feed hauling their own manure onto pastures and saving equipment and facility costs relative to the CONV system often enough to make up 20-33 less milk per cow ORG and ORG-NG farms often suffer from labor inefficiency often related to milking housing or feeding facilities especially in winternon-grazing months CONV farms tend to have lower Operating Profit Margins but their strength tends to be their Asset Turnover Ratio with larger herds and higher milk production per cow Their profits shine in higher milk price years HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG farms tend to have better Operating Profit Margins The HGRAZ system tends to weather conventional milk price declines better than CONV farms The ORG and ORG-NG systems benefit greatly from the more stable milk pricing of the organic milk markets Bottom line is that depending on manager skills and desires all the systems studied have merit for the future of the Iowa dairy industry The most profitable system depends on the milk prices maintaining high levels of labor efficiency producing decent volumes of milk production per cow and per farm relative to their system ability to secure quality feed resources and managing acceptable levels of capital efficiency (depreciation and interestequity charges)

Funding for this project was provided by the North Central Extension Risk Management Education Center the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Award Number 25-6324-0119-302 Thanks to the ISU Extension and Outreach Dairy Team for their review and assistance with this project For more information visit the ISU Dairy Team at wwwextensioniastateedudairyteam

Using Dairy TRANS to Compare Profits with an Increase in Milk Price

Profit differences between CONV or HGRAZ and ORG or ORG-NG seems to hinge on which side of $18-$20cwt range the conventional milk price is assuming somewhat current cost structures Within that range the systems seem to be very competitive There is probably as much variability among farms within the various systems as among the systems To give credence to this concept the combined 2015-2016 data on average was entered into the Dairy TRANS financial analysis program to gauge changes in milk price sensitivity for both the CONV and HGRAZ systems The results are in Table 4 The left half of Table 4 shows results for the CONV farm example for 2015-16 data The CONV milk price was $1673cwt The first column of numbers shows profit on a per cow basis and the second column of numbers shows total dollar value per farm The next two columns show the results if $1cwt was added to the CONV milk price per cow and per farm followed by a $2cwt increase for the CONV farms in the following two columns The right shows results for the HGRAZ farms The HGRAZ milk price was $1705cwt The Labor Earnings are for main operatormanager(s) only not paid employees

A $1cwt increase in milk price would give labor returns per hour for both the CONV and HGRAZ systems competitive with the ORG and ORG-NG farms and increase the returns to assets by 226 and 164 for the CONV and HGRAZ farms respectively At this milk price level both the CONV and HGRAZ system are very competitive with the ORG and ORG-NG farms For the CONV farms profits in general double with a $2cwt milk price increase when both return to labor and return to assets are considered Profits for the HGRAZ farms follow a similar pattern though slightly lower It is the opinion of this author that without the ldquoexpansion changerdquo of the one HGRAZ farm in 2016 alluded to earlier the results comparing the CONV and HGRAZ systems would have been very similar with both the $1cwt and $2cwt increase in milk price At a $2cwt increase in milk price this would give $1873cwt and $1905cwt milk price for the CONV and HGRAZ farms respectively Realize the CONV farms in this data set probably have annual milk production levels somewhat above an estimated average while the HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG milk production levels seem more typical of their respective systems Average milk production levels per cow in Iowa tend to be in the 22500 lbs per cow annually range with all systems included Grazing farms tend to have milk production levels in the 17000 lbs per cow annually (similar to WI data) CONV farms with lower milk production levels per cow and somewhat similar production costs as the CONV farms in this data set may need more than an additional milk price of $1-$2cwt to be competitive with the HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG systems Likewise the other HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG farms could experience the same lower levels of profitability relative to their respective system with milk production levels lower than those of the model farms represented in this data Economies of scale may also affect system differences as both cost and income variables might change significantly with larger herd sizes For example these cost variables could include labor utilities supplies depreciation interest plus other machinery equipment and milking system costs as those costs are spread over more cows The income variables could include increased volume premiums An economy of scale analysis is also beyond the scope of this study but note the ORG and ORG-NG farms milk less than half (44) of the cows on the HGRAZ farms and less than a third (29) of the cows of the CONV farms So even though all the model farms studied are significantly larger than the average farm for their system there are still economy of scale differences at play as these systems are compared or the milk price changes The increase in the conventional milk price for example will impact the CONV farms at an increasingly faster rate than the HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG farms since its impact will be spread over more cows and more milk production per cow And due to their higher levels of labor efficiency of the HGRAZ and CONV farms each $1 increase in the conventional milk price will impact their return to unpaid labor at an increasing rate as well compared to a $1 increase in the ORG or ORG-NG milk price Milk price increases may also cause feed supply and other inputs to increase milk production in response Bottom line is that ldquoeconomy of scalerdquo impacts become more evident in this system comparison as conventional milk prices increase favoring the CONV and HGRAZ farms the most But ORG and ORG-NG farms also have significant ldquoeconomy of scalerdquo that this author suspects will become more of a reality as the ORG farms continue to mature and grow Please be cautioned that this is a small data set and that the farms in each of the systems are hand-selected as good models for their respective systems Due to the small data set one farm can significantly change the results These results may or may not be exactly representative of each of the systems in the state of Iowa However in the experience of this author doing financial analysis and experience with each of the systems the conclusions seem fairly representative of the Iowa dairy industry Thus for good CONV and HGRAZ producers the $18-$19cwt range seems a comparative break-even in system comparison if ORG milk prices remain in the $34-$35cwt range

Table 4 Average Returns Average CONV Farms Plus $1cwt Milk Price Plus $2cwt Milk Price Average HGRAZ Farms Plus $1cwt Milk Price Plus $2cwt Milk Price

2015-16 Iowa Comparison Per Cow Total Per Cow Total Per Cow Total Per Cow Total Per Cow Total Per Cow Total

Net Cash Income $1008 $291850 $1297 $363251 $1552 $434651 $918 $152597 $1018 $185307 $1198 $218017

Inventory Change -$53 -3264992 -11661 -3265000 -11661 -3265000 $171 $16310 $90 $16310 $90 $16310

Net Farm Income $955 $259200 $1181 $330601 $1436 $402001 $1088 $168907 $1108 $201617 $1288 $234327

Equity 4 on all assets $447 $126148 $451 $126213 $451 $126213 $462 $79875 $438 $79768 $438 $79768

Return to Unpaid Labor $508 $133052 $730 $204388 $985 $275788 $627 $89032 $670 $121849 $849 $154559

Labor Earnings Per Hour $2155 $3310 $4467 $2258 $3090 $3920

Return on Assets 582 808 1034 579 743 907

However production costs vary greatly within each of the systems but most typically within a $3cwt range for CONV and HGRAZ farms and in the $6cwt range for ORG and ORG-NG farms from the experience of this author And producers management ability varies greatly within the various systems Which system may be most profitable for any particular producer will depend on management skills within each system But with all the systems compared the HGRAZ system can be as or more profitable as the CONV system at these herd relative sizes and production levels For good dairy managers considering transitioning to ORG the more profitable system probably depends which side of the $18-$19cwt range the milk price is on with current costs For medium or lower level dairy managers on the CONV side milk prices on higher side of $19-$20cwt may be necessary to be competitive with ORG and ORG-NG herds A Two Year Comparison of Differences among Conventional Grazing Organic and Organic No-Grain Dairies Table 1 on the next page in the experience of this author shows data very representative of the CONV HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG systems As producersmdashbeginning transitioning or establishedmdashdecide on their future in the dairy industry this data analysis should give a baseline confidence to potential profit success in each of the models systems There are variations within each of these systems the use of other dairy breeds cross-breeding higher or lower levels of grazing higher or lower levels of milk production higher or lower levels of land per cow--just to name a few To begin review of the data in Table 1 notice that the ORG milk price is approximately double the CONV milk price Cash income per cow was more similar due to higher CONV milk production per cow only $324 per cow lower for the CONV farms Though the milk price for the HGRAZ farms was only 41 of the ORG-NG milk price total cash income per cow was very similar but $86 per cow lower for the HGRAZ farms It is interesting to note that when comparing ORG versus CONV and ORG-NG versus HGRAZ the CONV and HGRAZ farms make up the majority of the milk price difference in cash income per cow with approximately double the milk production per cow But there are some crop sale and other income differences as well It should be noted that the CONV farms were considered great crop producers as well which shows in their acres owned per cow in relation to their crop sales per cow The CONV farms also had good cow husbandry skills as well as noted by their vet and medicine cost of $147 per cow Though higher than all the other groups in this study this cost is a very respectable benchmark for COVN herds In comparison the vet and med cost of the ORG farms was $65cow the ORG-NG farms was $14cow and the HGRAZ farms was $77cow All of these groups set a good industry benchmark for vet and medicine costs Feed usually represents 50-60 of the cost of producing milk The productive crop acres per cow for the CONV farms versus the ORG farms was about half (214 vs 409) but the CONV farms purchased about 40 of the feed per cow compared to the ORG farms ($1298 versus $526) The CONV farms had very similar feed purchases per cow as the HGRAZ farms ($1298 versus $1330) but ran approximately 25 less acres (214 versus 152) The HGRAZ farms ran half the acres per cow of the ORG-NG farms but the ORG-NG farms purchased only 27 of the feed compared to the HGRAZ farms ($356 versus $1330) Past typical benchmarks point to 3-35 acres needed to produce feed for both the cows and replacement heifers approximately 2 acres of forage per cow and one acre of grain Thus the CONV farms seem highly productive in crop management (raised feed costs) relative to both yields (acres per cow) and forage quality (feed purchases per cow) The ORG-NG farms milk about the same number of cows as the ORG farms but produce only 60 of the milk per cow with 25 less land and 32 less feed purchased per cow In this comparative relationship it seems a $5cwt trade-off in milk price is enough to make the ORG-NG system viable and profitable However this is not saying the ORG-NG system is more profitable it depends on the individual farm But this ORG-NG system is deserving more attention ldquoifrdquo there is a long term market for increased levels of milk sales Labor efficiency is often highly related to profit The HGRAZ farms had the highest labor efficiency with 124 million pounds of milk sold per FTE (3000 hours) and had 70 cows per FTE The CONV farms at 12 million pounds milk sold per FTE and had 47 cows per FTE The ORG farms at 444000 pounds milk sold per FTE and had 34 cows per FTE The ORG-NG at 413900 pounds milk sold per FTE and had 49 cows per FTE The ORG farms had the highest labor cost at $1249cow with the CONV farms at $851cow the ORG-NG at $807cow and the HGRAZ farms at $621cow The HGRAZ farmrsquos strength is labor efficiency with the cows harvesting much of their feed hauling their own manure onto pastures and saving equipment and facility costs relative to the CONV system often enough to make up 20-33 less milk per cow ORG and ORG-NG farms often suffer from labor inefficiency often related to milking housing or feeding facilities especially in winternon-grazing months CONV farms tend to have lower Operating Profit Margins but their strength tends to be their Asset Turnover Ratio with larger herds and higher milk production per cow Their profits shine in higher milk price years HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG farms tend to have better Operating Profit Margins The HGRAZ system tends to weather conventional milk price declines better than CONV farms The ORG and ORG-NG systems benefit greatly from the more stable milk pricing of the organic milk markets Bottom line is that depending on manager skills and desires all the systems studied have merit for the future of the Iowa dairy industry The most profitable system depends on the milk prices maintaining high levels of labor efficiency producing decent volumes of milk production per cow and per farm relative to their system ability to secure quality feed resources and managing acceptable levels of capital efficiency (depreciation and interestequity charges)

Funding for this project was provided by the North Central Extension Risk Management Education Center the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Award Number 25-6324-0119-302 Thanks to the ISU Extension and Outreach Dairy Team for their review and assistance with this project For more information visit the ISU Dairy Team at wwwextensioniastateedudairyteam

However production costs vary greatly within each of the systems but most typically within a $3cwt range for CONV and HGRAZ farms and in the $6cwt range for ORG and ORG-NG farms from the experience of this author And producers management ability varies greatly within the various systems Which system may be most profitable for any particular producer will depend on management skills within each system But with all the systems compared the HGRAZ system can be as or more profitable as the CONV system at these herd relative sizes and production levels For good dairy managers considering transitioning to ORG the more profitable system probably depends which side of the $18-$19cwt range the milk price is on with current costs For medium or lower level dairy managers on the CONV side milk prices on higher side of $19-$20cwt may be necessary to be competitive with ORG and ORG-NG herds A Two Year Comparison of Differences among Conventional Grazing Organic and Organic No-Grain Dairies Table 1 on the next page in the experience of this author shows data very representative of the CONV HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG systems As producersmdashbeginning transitioning or establishedmdashdecide on their future in the dairy industry this data analysis should give a baseline confidence to potential profit success in each of the models systems There are variations within each of these systems the use of other dairy breeds cross-breeding higher or lower levels of grazing higher or lower levels of milk production higher or lower levels of land per cow--just to name a few To begin review of the data in Table 1 notice that the ORG milk price is approximately double the CONV milk price Cash income per cow was more similar due to higher CONV milk production per cow only $324 per cow lower for the CONV farms Though the milk price for the HGRAZ farms was only 41 of the ORG-NG milk price total cash income per cow was very similar but $86 per cow lower for the HGRAZ farms It is interesting to note that when comparing ORG versus CONV and ORG-NG versus HGRAZ the CONV and HGRAZ farms make up the majority of the milk price difference in cash income per cow with approximately double the milk production per cow But there are some crop sale and other income differences as well It should be noted that the CONV farms were considered great crop producers as well which shows in their acres owned per cow in relation to their crop sales per cow The CONV farms also had good cow husbandry skills as well as noted by their vet and medicine cost of $147 per cow Though higher than all the other groups in this study this cost is a very respectable benchmark for COVN herds In comparison the vet and med cost of the ORG farms was $65cow the ORG-NG farms was $14cow and the HGRAZ farms was $77cow All of these groups set a good industry benchmark for vet and medicine costs Feed usually represents 50-60 of the cost of producing milk The productive crop acres per cow for the CONV farms versus the ORG farms was about half (214 vs 409) but the CONV farms purchased about 40 of the feed per cow compared to the ORG farms ($1298 versus $526) The CONV farms had very similar feed purchases per cow as the HGRAZ farms ($1298 versus $1330) but ran approximately 25 less acres (214 versus 152) The HGRAZ farms ran half the acres per cow of the ORG-NG farms but the ORG-NG farms purchased only 27 of the feed compared to the HGRAZ farms ($356 versus $1330) Past typical benchmarks point to 3-35 acres needed to produce feed for both the cows and replacement heifers approximately 2 acres of forage per cow and one acre of grain Thus the CONV farms seem highly productive in crop management (raised feed costs) relative to both yields (acres per cow) and forage quality (feed purchases per cow) The ORG-NG farms milk about the same number of cows as the ORG farms but produce only 60 of the milk per cow with 25 less land and 32 less feed purchased per cow In this comparative relationship it seems a $5cwt trade-off in milk price is enough to make the ORG-NG system viable and profitable However this is not saying the ORG-NG system is more profitable it depends on the individual farm But this ORG-NG system is deserving more attention ldquoifrdquo there is a long term market for increased levels of milk sales Labor efficiency is often highly related to profit The HGRAZ farms had the highest labor efficiency with 124 million pounds of milk sold per FTE (3000 hours) and had 70 cows per FTE The CONV farms at 12 million pounds milk sold per FTE and had 47 cows per FTE The ORG farms at 444000 pounds milk sold per FTE and had 34 cows per FTE The ORG-NG at 413900 pounds milk sold per FTE and had 49 cows per FTE The ORG farms had the highest labor cost at $1249cow with the CONV farms at $851cow the ORG-NG at $807cow and the HGRAZ farms at $621cow The HGRAZ farmrsquos strength is labor efficiency with the cows harvesting much of their feed hauling their own manure onto pastures and saving equipment and facility costs relative to the CONV system often enough to make up 20-33 less milk per cow ORG and ORG-NG farms often suffer from labor inefficiency often related to milking housing or feeding facilities especially in winternon-grazing months CONV farms tend to have lower Operating Profit Margins but their strength tends to be their Asset Turnover Ratio with larger herds and higher milk production per cow Their profits shine in higher milk price years HGRAZ ORG and ORG-NG farms tend to have better Operating Profit Margins The HGRAZ system tends to weather conventional milk price declines better than CONV farms The ORG and ORG-NG systems benefit greatly from the more stable milk pricing of the organic milk markets Bottom line is that depending on manager skills and desires all the systems studied have merit for the future of the Iowa dairy industry The most profitable system depends on the milk prices maintaining high levels of labor efficiency producing decent volumes of milk production per cow and per farm relative to their system ability to secure quality feed resources and managing acceptable levels of capital efficiency (depreciation and interestequity charges)

Funding for this project was provided by the North Central Extension Risk Management Education Center the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Award Number 25-6324-0119-302 Thanks to the ISU Extension and Outreach Dairy Team for their review and assistance with this project For more information visit the ISU Dairy Team at wwwextensioniastateedudairyteam

Note The ldquoaveragerdquo is calculated as the sum of the individual farms for each item not a previous itemrsquos sum divided by another itemrsquos sum which yields slightly different results Thanks to the many dairy producers who so graciously shared their financial data for others to learn

Table 1 Two-Year Comparison CONV HYGRAZ ORG ORG-NG

Iowa Model Dairy Farms Ave of Conventional Ave of Hybrid Grazing Ave of Organic Farms Fed Ave of Organic No Grain

2015 and 2016 Combined Farms Cow n=5 Farms Cow n=54 Grain Cow n=78 Farms Cow n=3

Productive Acres Operated 646 255 328 245

Average Number of Cows 280 182 81 78

Total Assets on Farm $3201237 $11416 $2020650 $11735 $1462684 $17752 $1417031 $18206

Milk Price $1673 $1705 $3503 $4117

Milk Hundred weight Equiv 93862 341 40468 230 13015 136 7644 98

Milk Hundredweights 71400 257 32710 178 11068 115 6567 84

Milk Sales $1197390 $4348 $559307 $3191 $386135 $4158 $264744 $3401

Cull Cow Sales $84386 $331 $43818 $279 $16474 $203 $12381 $159

Calf Sales $28965 $121 $27605 $208 $11069 $175 $8845 $114

Crop Sales $95243 $248 $1076 $12 $23312 $258 $0 $0

Other Income $111781 $455 $16643 $118 $39597 $386 $17017 $219

Total Cash Income $1517764 $5503 CwtEq $648449 $3807 CwtEq $476587 $5179 CwtEq $302987 $3893 CwtEq

Veterinary Medicine $39984 $147 $043 $13076 $77 $033 $8111 $65 $048 $1084 $14 $017

Dairy Supplies $53355 $199 $058 $24202 $137 $060 $15773 $186 $137 $13305 $171 $203

Breeding Fees $13491 $52 $015 $7820 $43 $019 $1200 $14 $010 $1237 $16 $019

Feed Purchased $364137 $1298 $380 $230325 $1330 $577 $48773 $526 $388 $27673 $356 $421

Repairs $74413 $291 $085 $21377 $136 $059 $27749 $324 $239 $19212 $247 $293

Seed Chem Fert $133687 $525 $154 $22756 $148 $064 $35885 $372 $274 $17318 $223 $264

Fuel Gas and Oil $33022 $135 $039 $13846 $92 $040 $13772 $163 $120 $10745 $138 $164

Utilities $32214 $119 $035 $11084 $57 $025 $9326 $95 $070 $6376 $82 $097

Interest Paid -- not included $0 $0 $0 $0

Labor Hired $184653 $650 $191 $59372 $345 $150 $24537 $250 $184 $10527 $135 $160

Rent Lease and Hire $218600 $782 $229 $51145 $295 $128 $62732 $477 $352 $2140 $27 $033

Property Taxes $6752 $27 $008 $4822 $27 $012 $5662 $65 $048 $6244 $80 $095

Farm Insurance $24801 $102 $030 $10954 $54 $023 $7078 $80 $059 $5848 $75 $089

Other Cash Expense $46805 $168 $049 $25073 $150 $065 $18703 $243 $179 $12426 $160 $189

Total Cash Expense $1225914 $4495 $1318 $495852 $2890 $1255 $279300 $2859 $2109 $134134 $1723 $2042

Net Cash Income $291850 $1008 $296 $152597 $918 $398 $197286 $2320 $1711 $168853 $2169 $2571

Inventory Change -$32650 -$53 -$016 $16310 $171 $074 -$27120 -$438 -$323 -$2503 -$32 -$038

Net Farm Income $259200 $955 $280 $168907 $1088 $472 $170166 $1881 $1388 $166351 $2137 $2533

Equity 4 across all assets $126148 $447 $131 $79875 $462 $200 $58387 $708 $523 $56057 $720 $854

Return to Labor $133052 $508 $149 $89032 $627 $272 $111779 $1173 $865 $110294 $1417 $1679

Labor Earnings Per Hour $2155 $2258 $2474 $3105

Gross Income per Cwt Eq $1673 $1705 $3503 $4117

Gross Expense per Cwt Eq $1619 $1600 $3038 $3246

Net Income per cwt $054 $105 $466 $871

Return to All Labor per FTE Laborhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip$46564 $58245 $59789 $78622

Number of Cows per FTE Laborhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip47 70 34 49

Cwts of Milk Sold per FTE Laborhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip12015 12394 4440 4139

Pounds of Milk Sold per Cowhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip25770 17597 13604 8266

Productive Crop Acres per Cowhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip214 152 409 30

Capital Cost per Cowhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip $692 $573 $1079 $792

All Labor Costs per Cowhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip$851 $621 $1249 $807

Fixed Cost per Cow (DIRTI) $1064 $779 $1549 $1189

Capital Invested per Cowhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip $9290 $10525 $20784 $16520

Net Farm Income per Crop Acrehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip$451 $726 $669 $802

Lbs Milk Produced per Crop Acrehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip13863 15323 3546 3071

FertChemSeed CostCrop Acrehelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip$203 $97 $102 $74

All Labor as Percent of Total Costshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1604 1834 2485 25

Fixed Cost as Percent of Total Costhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip2003 2324 3433 37

Net Farm Income From Operations (NFIFO)helliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip Net Cash Income - Accts Pay Adj+ Prepaid Expense Adj + Feed Inventory Adj + Livestock Inventory Adj - Depreciation = NFIFO$259200 $168907 $170166 $166351

Rate of Return on Assetshelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip582 579 787 928

Operating Profit Marginhelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip1159 1828 2932 3808

Asset Turnover Ratiohelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphelliphellip [Efficiency]5041 3459 3482 2481

Dairy TRANS Peformance Rating 6690 7383 6832 7667

by Larry Tranel Dairy Field Specialist Iowa State University Extension and Outreach 2016

Dairy Field Specialists Jenn Bentley 563-382-2949 jbentleyiastateedu Larry Tranel 563-583-6496 traneliastateedu Fred Hall 712-737-4230

State Dairy Specialists Dr Leo Timms ltimmsiastateedu Dr Jan Shearer jksiastateedu Dr Hugo A Ramiacuterez Ramiacuterez hramireziastateedu Iowa State University Extension and Outreach does not discriminate on the basis of age disability ethnicity gender identity genetic information marital status national origin pregnancy race religion sex sexual orientation socioeconomic status or status as a US veteran (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs) Inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies may be directed to Ross Wilburn Diversity Officer 2150 Beardshear Hall 515 Morrill Road Ames Iowa 50011 515-294-1482 wilburniastateedu

Inside This Issue

ISU Research Update

2018 Dairy Days I-29 Moo University

Have You Looked at Your Electrolytes

Rained on Alfalfa for Haylage

Foliar Fungicides for RL Alfalfa

Selecting Bulls for Gestation Length

AI TrainingBoots in the Barn Program

Corn Silage Keeps Changing

Teat Health this Winter

Are Bigger Dairies Always Better 2016 Millionaire Model Dairy Farms

Dairy Field Specialists Jenn Bentley 563-382-2949 jbentleyiastateedu Larry Tranel 563-583-6496 traneliastateedu Fred Hall 712-737-4230

State Dairy Specialists Dr Leo Timms ltimmsiastateedu Dr Jan Shearer jksiastateedu Dr Hugo A Ramiacuterez Ramiacuterez hramireziastateedu Iowa State University Extension and Outreach does not discriminate on the basis of age disability ethnicity gender identity genetic information marital status national origin pregnancy race religion sex sexual orientation socioeconomic status or status as a US veteran (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs) Inquiries regarding non-discrimination policies may be directed to Ross Wilburn Diversity Officer 2150 Beardshear Hall 515 Morrill Road Ames Iowa 50011 515-294-1482 wilburniastateedu

Inside This Issue

ISU Research Update

2018 Dairy Days I-29 Moo University

Have You Looked at Your Electrolytes

Rained on Alfalfa for Haylage

Foliar Fungicides for RL Alfalfa

Selecting Bulls for Gestation Length

AI TrainingBoots in the Barn Program

Corn Silage Keeps Changing

Teat Health this Winter

Are Bigger Dairies Always Better 2016 Millionaire Model Dairy Farms