save the date arizona dairy production conference hilton...
TRANSCRIPT
ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICODAIRY NEWSLETTER
COOPERATIVE EXTENSIONThe University of Arizona
New Mexico State University
February 2009
SAVE THE DATE
Arizona Dairy Production ConferenceHilton Garden Inn
Phoenix, AZOctober 8, 2009
THIS MONTH’S ARTICLE:
Factors Affecting Profitability of Western Dairies
L. A. Rodriguez and J. M. DeFrainZinpro Performance Minerals
Reprinted from the Southwest Nutrition and Management Conference ProceedingsPhoenix, Arizona
February 2009
79
Factors Affecting Profitability of Western Dairies
L. A. Rodriguez and J. M. DeFrain Zinpro Performance Minerals
Correspondence author: [email protected]
SUMMARY
• Besides milk price, milk yield is one of the most important factors affecting profitability of California dairies.
• Higher milk yield maximized milk income in high milk price years and minimized losses in low milk price years.
• Larger herds are more consistent but not necessarily more profitable. • At similar milk yields, herds milked 2X or 3X had similar profitability. • Management decisions based on sound research provide for more profit. • Choosing to focus all management decisions on reducing feed cost or total cost
compromise the financial position of the operation if that decision affects any of the variables that support high milk production.
INTRODUCTION
In the last ten years milk price volatility has increased tremendously. Frequent milk price peaks and valleys have become repetitive trends over time in the dairy industry. During times of high milk prices, dairy owners are quite satisfied but when prices plummet, many dairy owners quickly become quite stressed due to a compromised financial position. As you can see in Figure 1, there have been four periods of stress in the last eight years in the western dairy industry. Three of them have been due to low milk prices and the last one has been due to a high feed price.
PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Historic CA Blend Milk And US Farm Corn Price
Milk price source: California Department of Food and AgricultureCorn Price source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
0.00
5.00
10.00
15.00
20.00
25.00
1 13 25 37 49 61 73 85 97
Cor
n Pr
ice
$/bu
shel
Milk
Pric
e $/
cwt
Milk Price Corn Price
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Figure 1. Historic California State blend (quota and over-base) price and US corn price pay to corn growers.
This extreme market volatility has resulted in many dairy owners putting a renewed emphasis on cutting costs whenever and wherever possible. Cutting costs is generally a good idea provided milk yield is not sacrificed. Any cost-cutting, management or feeding decision made that lowers milk yield is likely to decrease the profitability of the herd. Reducing milk output in the herd has direct consequences on the financial position of many areas of the operation.
Many dairy owners have taken drastic measures to cut costs during low milk prices which have occurred over the past couple of years. The effect of these drastic cost-cutting measures on the financial position of the dairy was likely appealing at first glance. However, the ramifications of these cost-cutting decisions on the herd performance and ultimately the financial position of the dairy needs to be considered but data demonstrating these cause and effect relationships was largely unavailable.
80
81
For over 50 years, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CADFA) has been collecting cost of production information from several dairies across the state of California on a quarterly basis. Their analysis reports the average cost of production for individual dairies, a comparison of these dairies within their region and across the state and compares it to the prior year.
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to collaborate with the CADFA to evaluate the cost of production on California dairies using regression analyses to find financial trends that could lead to improved profitability within the CA dairy industry.
METHODOLOGY
We used the database from the CADFA that consisted of 166 herds for the year 2006 and 148 herds for the year 2007. This represents nearly 8% of the herds in California and close 200,000 dairy cows. The database was divided into four California regions, North Coast, North Valley, South Valley and Southern California. Organic herds were excluded from the dataset due to differences in pricing relative to conventional dairies in the state. Herds were categorized as Holsteins, Jerseys and Crossbreds. The herd size analyses included both lactating and dry cows.
Profit on these dairies was defined as milk income. Milk income consisted of the mailbox price paid to each dairy less the total cost of producing milk for each dairy. The total cost included feed cost (forage, concentrate and supplements), labor cost, herd replacement cost (value of cows entering the herd less the total receipts for the same number of cows culled and dead), operating cost (utilities, supplies, veterinarian, nutritionist, medicine, outside services, repairs and maintenance, bedding, manure haul, fuel and oil, interest, insurance, taxes, depreciation and miscellaneous), and milk marketing cost.
The total cost did not include management costs (manager’s salary) since manager salaries are quite variable. Heifer replacement costs were accounted as a separate enterprise and were not used in the dataset. Income from the sale of heifer replacements and bulls was also excluded to further unify the data set, removing income from sale of genetics.
Dry matter intake was calculated as the amount of feed dry matter provided to the cows (orts or weigh-backs were not measured). Solids-corrected milk was calculated to 3.5% milk fat and 3.0% milk protein content. Feed efficiency was calculated using the average solids-corrected milk divided by average dry mater intake for the herd.
Each point in the figures below represents the income or cost of a single dairy for the year of analysis. The data were analyzed by fitting regression lines to the data points represented under each category. The best curve fit (highest R2) for a particular set of variables was utilized. No
82
statistical analysis was performed as our main objective was to look only for trends in the dataset.
DOES MILK YIELD AFFECT PROFITABILITY BY BREED?
Each variable was analyze for the year 2006 and 2007 (Figure 2). Total cost/cow/year increased in all breeds as milk yield increased. The range for total cost in 2006 was $1,500 to $3,500/cow/year. Total cost/cow/year increased $500 in 2007, ranging from $2,000 to $4,000/cow/year. In 2006, Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged $2,582/cow/year while high producing herds (>80 lbs/day) averaged $2,972/cow/year. In 2007, Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged $2,780/cow/year while herds producing >80 lbs/day averaged $3,483/cow/year.
There was a negative trend between total cost and milk yield when analyzed on a hundred-weight (cwt) basis. As milk yield increased, total cost/cwt decreased in all breeds. In 2006, Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged $13.17/cwt while herds >80 lbs/day averaged $11.19/cwt. In 2007, Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged $13.93/cwt while herds producing >80 lbs/day averaged $13.01/cwt. This data indicates that even though higher producing herds within each breed have higher cost/cow than lower producing herds, high producing herds had lower cost/cwt of milk produced.
The milk mailbox price in 2006 was quite low, averaging $11.46/cwt for the Holsteins herds. However milk rebounded to an average of $17.69/cwt in 2007. The relationship between milk yield and milk income/cow/year in 2006 was weak. However, there was a stronger trend between the two variables in 2007, milk income/cow/year increased as milk yield increased. More consistent trends were observed when total cost and milk income/cow were analyzed on a hundred-weight basis. As milk yield increased, total cost/cwt decreased and milk income/cwt increased regardless of year, breed or milk price.
Milk income/cwt ranged from -$6.00/cwt to $1.50/cwt in 2006 and from -$2.00/cwt to $7.00/cwt in 2007. Most herds had a negative milk income/cwt in 2006; however income losses were minimized in herds with greater milk yield. In fact, Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged ($1.80) loss/cwt while high producing herds (>80 lbs/day) averaged $0.21/cwt, even though milk price averaged $11.46/cwt during 2006. In 2007, most herds had a positive milk income/cwt with higher producing herds generally yielding the highest milk incomes. Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged $3.59/cwt while herds producing >80 lbs/day averaged $4.30/cwt. This indicates the importance of maintaining high milk yield even when low milk prices are experienced. High producing herds minimize their losses in low milk price years and maximize their returns in high milk price years.
PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Total Cost/Cow By Milk Yield
R² = 0.5995
R² = 0.6556
R² = 0.3745
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Cos
t/cow
/yea
r
Milk Yield (lbs/day)
Holsteins Jerseys Cross-Bred
Power (Holsteins) Poly. (Jerseys) Poly. (Cross-Bred)
R² = 0.5159
R² = 0.2081
R² = 0.6491
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Cos
t/cow
/yea
r
Milk Yield (lbs/day)
Holsteins Jerseys Cross-Bred
Power (Holsteins) Linear (Jerseys) Poly. (Cross-Bred)
2006 2007
As milk production increases: Cost/cow/year increases
Figure 2. Total production cost per cow per year by milk yield
IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MILK INCOME, FEED COST AND TOTAL COST?
During low milk price years, dairy owners rely more heavily on nutritionists to take drastic measures to reduce feed cost/cow/day. Milk yield and composition, herd health, reproductive performance and other factors are derived from nutrients ingested by the cow. Nutritional advisors are always striving to determine how to reduce feed cost without sacrificing herd performance. Using the data provided by CADFA, we were able to examine the relationship between feed cost/cow/year and milk income/cow/year as an indicator of profitability.
As expected, regardless of breed, higher milk yields were accompanied by greater feed cost/cow/year. Feed cost/cow/year ranged from $1,000 to $2,000 in 2006 and from $1,250 to $2,250 in 2007, a $250/cow increase from 2006 to 2007 representing half of the total 83
84
cost/cow/year increase of $500 as previously noted. In 2006, Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged $1,428/cow/year while high producing herds (>80 lbs/day) averaged $1,704/cow/year. In 2007, Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged $1,618/cow/year while herds producing >80 lbs/day averaged $1,995/cow/year. The highest producing herds were generally the most expensive herds to feed on a per cow basis within each breed. However, when analyzed on a feed cost/cwt of milk produced, the highest producing herds had the lowest feed cost/cwt. Feed cost/cwt ranged from $5.00 to $8.25 in 2006 and from $6.00 to $8.50 in 2007.
When milk price is low, it is not uncommon to see dairies focus on reducing feed cost/cow as a means to reduce total cost. Our analysis indicates no such relationship exists when comparing milk income/cow/year and feed cost/cow/year. In addition, there was no relationship between total cost/cow/year and milk income/cow/year among all breeds. However, there was a strong relationship (average R2=0.76 for all breeds and both years) between milk income/cow/year and total cost/cwt. Decreasing total cost/cwt of milk increased milk income/cow/year in both 2006 and 2007 among all breeds. This indicates that when making a decision to change rations at any point in time, during high or low milk prices, one should take into consideration how this decision affects milk production.
DOES HERD SIZE AFFECT PROFITABILITY BY BREED?
Larger herds can often capitalize on economies of scale by diluting costs of production. Herd size in this data set ranged from 100 to 4,600 cows. Figure 3 shows the relationship between total cost/cow/year and herd size. There was no apparent relationship between these two variables for Holsteins and crossbreds. However, as Jersey herds increased in size they had a higher cost/cow/year. One other noteworthy observation is that the relationship is a funnel-type, indicating a great deal of variability and a wider range of cost/cow/year in small herds relative to the larger herds. As herds become larger they seem to become more consistent.
PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Total Cost/Cow By Herd Size
R² = 0.0226
R² = 0.3469
R² = 0.0085
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Cos
t/cow
/yea
r
Herd Size (Cows)
Holsteins Jerseys Cross-Bred
Log. (Holsteins) Log. (Jerseys) Expon. (Cross-Bred)
R² = 0.0024
R² = 0.2028
R² = 0.0071
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000
Cos
t/cow
/yea
r
Herd Size (Cows)
Holsteins Jerseys Cross-Bred
Power (Holsteins) Log. (Jerseys) Expon. (Cross-Bred)
2007
No relationship between Herd Size and Cost/cow/year
2006
Figure 3. Total production cost per cow per year by herd size.
When total cost/cwt of milk was regressed against herd size there was a slight trend toward lower total cost/cwt as herd size increased for Jersey and crossbred herds but not Holstein herds. This is likely due to the higher milk yields in the color breed herds as herd size increased. Holstein herds had similar milk yield across herd size, although there was more variability in the smaller herds relative to the larger Holstein herds. Herd size explained only 7% of the reduction in total cost/cwt of milk.
There was no relationship between feed cost/cow/year and herd size in any of the breeds. However, regressing feed cost/cwt against herd size resulted in a weak, negative trend for Holstein herds and a strong, negative relationship among color breeds. As herds become larger they had lower feed cost/cwt of milk produced. This is likely a result of the higher milk yield in the larger color breed herds.
IS FEED EFFICIENCY AFFECTING PROFITABILITY BY BREED?
In order to validate the feed intake data, dry matter intake was regressed on milk yield. There was a strong, positive relationship (average R2=0.78 for all breeds and both years) between dry matter intake and milk yield. Herds producing around 60 lbs of milk/day had dry matter intakes between 46 to 51 lbs/day while herds producing 80 lbs of milk/day had dry matter intakes between 54 to 58 lbs/day.
85
Feed efficiency had a strong relationship with milk yield (average R2=0.71 for all breeds and both years). As milk yield increased feed efficiency increased. Feed efficiency of Holstein herds ranged from 1.0 to 1.6, Crossbred herds from 1.2 to 1.5 and Jersey herds from 1.35 to 1.65. There was a positive relationship between milk income/cwt of milk produced to feed efficiency. Increasing feed efficiency increased milk income/cwt in all breeds and both years. There was a negative relationship between feed cost/cwt and feed efficiency. Increasing feed efficiency decreased feed cost/cwt in all breeds and both years 2006 and 2007. For example, in Holsteins, lower feed efficiencies (~1.1) had a feed cost/cwt near $7.0 while higher feed efficiencies (~1.5) had feed cost/cwt between $5.0 and $6.0 in 2006 and increased in 2007 by $1.0 for both low and high feed efficiency herds. Clearly, one way of reducing feed cost is improving the feed efficiency of the herd and careful consideration should be given when making changes in nutrition or management factors that affect feed efficiency.
DOES MILKING A HERD 3 TIMES VS 2 TIMES PER DAY MAKE DIFFERENCE? The analysis for 2X vs. 3X milking includes only the Holsteins herds as there was not enough color breed herds milked 3X. Figure 4 shows the relationship between total cost/cwt of milk and milk yield. On average, herds milked 2X produced 68 lbs/day of milk while herds milked 3X produced 78 lbs/day. As milk yield increased total cost/cwt decreased in both years. Herds milked 3X clustered to the right of the graphs indicating the higher milk yield. As a group in this analysis, herds milked 3X had lower total cost than herds milked 2X. However, if one considers only herds producing over 70 lbs of milk/day, total cost/cwt of 2X and 3X herds were quite similar (Figure 5).
PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Total Cost/Cwt By Milk Yield
R² = 0.2273
R² = 0.4106
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Cos
t/cw
t
Milk Yield (lbs/day)
2X 3X Expon. (2X) Poly. (3X)
R² = 0.2604
R² = 0.308
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
Cos
t/cw
t
Milk Yield (lbs/day)
2X 3X Poly. (2X) Poly. (3X)
2007
As milk production increases: Cost/cwt decreases
2006
Figure 4. Total cost/cwt of milk produced by milk yield.
86
In 2X and 3X herds, milk income/cwt and milk yield were positively correlated. As milk yield increased so did milk income/cwt in both years. On the other hand, milk income/cow/year and total cost/cwt were negatively related (average R2=0.77). Total cost/cwt of milk increased as milk income/cow/year decreased. Feed cost/cwt of milk and total cost/cwt were positively correlated. Increasing feed cost/cwt resulted in an increase in total cost/cwt. When variables were positively correlated (milk income/cwt by milk yield and feed cost/cwt by total cost/cwt), 3X milked herds clustered to the right side of the graphs while the 3X herds clustered to the left on negatively correlated variables (total cost/cwt by milk yield and milk income/cow by total cost/cwt). Interestingly, when all these variables were analyzed for herds producing 70 lbs of milk or more, regression lines for 2X and 3X herds were nearly identical, indicating that there were no differences between the herds.
This data indicates that at similar milk yields (over 70 lbs) there is no difference for the variables analyzed for 2X versus 3X herds. Therefore, 2X herds producing over 80 lbs of milk were as efficient as 3X herds producing over 80 lbs of milk. However, one cannot determine from this dataset if herds milked 3X would produced less milk/cow if they were milked 2X.
PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Total Cost/Cwt By Milk Yield > 70 lbs
R² = 0.1318R² = 0.4106
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0
Cos
t/cw
t
MIlk Yield (lbs/day)
2X 3X Poly. (2X) Poly. (3X)
R² = 0.1335
R² = 0.308
10.0
12.0
14.0
16.0
18.0
20.0
65.0 70.0 75.0 80.0 85.0 90.0 95.0
Cos
t/cw
t
MIlk Yield (lbs/day)
2X 3X Poly. (2X) Poly. (3X)
2007
Over 70 lbs 2X and 3X very similar
2006
Figure 5. Total cost/cwt of milk produced by milk yield in Herds producing over 70 lbs of milk/day.
87
88
FINDING PROFITABLE HERDS
In order to find profitable herds, milk income/cwt in 2006 was regressed on milk income/cwt in 2007 (Figure 6). On the horizontal axis (2006), herds on the right side of the bold vertical line (herds with milk income/cwt >$0) had a positive milk income/cwt while herds on the left side had a negative milk income/cwt. On the vertical axis (2007), herds above the bold horizontal line (milk income/cwt >$0) had a positive milk income/cwt while herds below the line had a negative milk income/cwt. There were 16 profitable Holsteins herds; herds that were able to have a positive milk income/cwt in both years. These herds averaged 75.6 lbs of milk/day with a standard deviation of 7.6 lbs.
CONCLUSIONS
One cannot dispute the fact that the price of milk has a significant impact on the profitability of dairies in California; however, milk yield is a very important part of the profitability equation. The trends reported herein indicate that herds with higher milk yield maximized milk income/cwt in high milk price years and minimized losses in low milk prices years. Differences among herds became less variable as Holstein herds became larger in size but this did not always yield more profit. However, larger color breed herds were more profitable than smaller ones. At similar milk yields, herds milked 2X or 3X yielded similar profitability.
In conclusion, one effective way to reduce feed cost and improve milk income in CA dairy herds is to increase milk yield. We can accomplish this by improving the herd’s reproduction, days in milk, cow comfort, cow health, transition management, forage quality, feed efficiency, using research proven technologies and feeding well balance diets. We have to make fundamentally sound decisions based on repeatable research responses whenever possible. Making sound decisions will help us be more profitable as an industry. Focusing strictly on reducing feed cost or the total cost of producing milk will compromise the dairy’s financial position if that decision sacrifices milk yield.
PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Milk Income/Cwt 2006-2007
-$8
-$6
-$4
-$2
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
‐8 ‐6 ‐4 ‐2 0 2 4 6 8
$/cw
t -20
07
$/cwt - 2006
Holsteins Jerseys
Profit both years =16 Dairies; Avg = 75.6 lb/d; Std = 7.6 lb/d
Figure 6. Milk income/cwt in 2006 and 2007.
REFERENCES
California Dairy Information Bulletin. January 2009. California Department of Food and Agriculture. Dairy Marketing Branch. Volume LXVI, Number 1.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Publications. Cost of Production. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dairy/dairycop_annual.html
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. United States Department of Agriculture. Prices received by farmers, Corn by month.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Agricultural_Prices/pricecn.asp
89
HIGH COW REPORT January 2009
MILK Arizona Owner Barn# Age Milk New Mexico Owner Barn # Age Milk *Goldman Dairy 9246 06-04 40,570 *North Star Dairy Llc 2966 4-03 38,840 *Stotz Dairy 23356 03-03 36,090 *Providence Dairy 7117 5-01 37,410 *Mike Pylman 22286 04-05 35,950 *North Star Dairy Llc 2265 5-06 37,190 *Stotz Dairy 23556 03-02 35,120 *Providence Dairy 7207 5-01 35,510 *Shamrock Farms 12271 05-06 34,600 *North Star Dairy Llc 2152 6-06 35,470 *D & I Holstein 155 08-09 34,350 *North Star Dairy Llc 3256 4-03 35,330 *Shamrock Farms 15980 04-05 34,270 *Providence Dairy 3350 ------ 35,130 *Stotz Dairy 23640 03-01 34,000 *North Star Dairy Llc 8432 6-06 34,910 *Goldman Dairy 9016 06-05 33,740 Tres Hermanos Dairy Llc 1022 4-02 34,904 *Shamrock Farms 10791 06-01 33,600 *North Star Dairy Llc 11655 5-06 34,580 FAT *Stotz Dairy 23556 03-02 1,513 *Goff Dairy 6963 4-03 1,402 *Riggin Ranch 96736 05-11 1,472 Pareo Dairy 4868 6-09 1,346 *Riggin Ranch 96010 07-04 1,447 Mccatharn Dairy 1400 5-05 1,342 *Stotz Dairy 23356 03-03 1,423 *North Star Dairy Llc 2152 6-06 1,325 *Stotz Dairy 15824 08-05 1,407 *North Star Dairy Llc 1676 6-06 1,309 *Stotz Dairy 23253 03-05 1,306 Pareo Dairy 3890 7-08 1,292 *Rio Blanco Dairy 7154 05-05 1,298 Wayne Palla Dairy ------- 6-06 1,289 *Stotz Dairy 21948 04-05 1,295 *North Star Dairy Llc 2265 5-06 1,263 *Rio Blanco Dairy 6437 06-04 1,290 *North Star Dairy Llc 12264 5-06 1,262 *Danzeisen Dairy, Llc. 1772 04-03 1,280 Mccatharn Dairy 2783 7-01 1,249 PROTEIN *Mike Pylman 22286 04-05 1,084 *North Star Dairy Llc 2152 6-06 1,258 *Stotz Dairy 23356 03-03 1,057 *North Star Dairy Llc 2265 5-06 1,104 *Riggin Ranch 96736 05-11 1,044 *North Star Dairy Llc 2031 6-06 1,088 *Mike Pylman 1877 03-03 1,033 Tres Hermanos Dairy Llc 7152 5-07 1,088 *Stotz Dairy 23556 03-02 1,027 *North Star Dairy Llc 2966 4-03 1,086 *Shamrock Farms 12651 05-05 1,000 *North Star Dairy Llc 3332 4-03 1,086 *Danzeisen Dairy, Llc. 4854 07-02 997 *North Star Dairy Llc 12712 3-04 1,080 *Shamrock Farms 15980 04-05 996 *North Star Dairy Llc 12252 3-04 1,068 *Stotz Dairy 23517 03-02 996 Pareo Dairy 6127 4-10 1,064 *Goldman Dairy 9246 06-04 986 *North Star Dairy Llc 3153 4-03 1,063 *Shamrock Farms 8961 06-07 985 *all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
January 2009
OWNERS NAME Number of Cows MILK FAT 3.5 FCM CI *Stotz Dairy West 2,257 26,856 974 27,408 15 *Goldman Dairy 2,441 25,045 863 24,824 14 *Danzeisen Dairy, Inc. 1,694 24,511 874 24,772 14 *Riggin Ranch 1,162 25,040 847 24,562 13 *Stotz Dairy East 1,251 23,669 855 24,100 *Shamrock Farms 8,210 24,640 808 23,756 14 *Zimmerman Dairy 1,268 23,204 813 23,218 14 *Withrow Dairy 5,267 23,054 805 23,023 13 Paul Rovey Dairy 253 22,716 804 22,861 14 Lunts Dairy 696 21,884 811 22,615 13
Parker Dairy 4,480 21,920 787 22,241 15 *Mike Pylman 6,799 22,602 768 22,227 16 *Saddle Mountain 3,062 21,601 792 22,184 14 *Rio Blanco Dairy 2,148 20,287 819 22,055 14 *Cliffs Dairy 326 20,801 778 21,612 14 *DC Dairy, LLC 1,128 21,396 754 21,474 *Yettem 3,686 17,985 838 21,361 *Shamrock Farms Emerald 17 20,186 753 20,940 16
*Dutch View Dairy 2,342 20,724 711 20,491 15 *Jal Dairy 18 16,825 806 20,349 13
NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
January 2009
OWNERS NAME Number of Cows MILK FAT 3.5 FCM CI *Pareo 2 1,687 24,884 914 25,581 13.50 *SAS 1,799 24,261 908 25,215 13.10 McCatharn 1,140 24,717 873 24,844 13.30 *Butterfield 2,243 26,026 827 24,664 13.40 *Clover Knolls 3,499 25,011 844 24,501 12.90 *Milagro 3,481 23,801 874 24,464 13.82 *Do-Rene 2,411 24,794 827 24,132 12.00 *Vaz 2,130 23,164 859 23,946 14.70 Vaz 2 1,969 22,942 857 23,817 14.00 Cross Country 3,423 23,234 837 23,619 13.00 *Providence 3,313 23,348 824 23,458 13.30 *Goff 6,033 24,421 785 23,289 13.30 Stark Everett 3,309 23,059 813 23,154 13.50 *Tee Vee 1,137 22,504 821 23,044 14.12 *Tallmon 539 21,911 830 22,934 13.70 Ridgecrest 3,844 22,353 801 22,654 12.70 * all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking b average milk and fat figure may be different from monthly herd summary; figures used are last day/month
ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO HERD IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY FOR OFFICIAL HERDS TESTED January 2009
ARIZONA NEW MEXICO
1. Number of Herds 35 26
2. Total Cows in Herd 70,949 63,297
3. Average Herd Size 2,027 2434.52
4. Percent in Milk 88 87
5. Average Days in Milk 194 202
6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day 58.8 63
7. Average Percent Fat – All Cows 3.6 3.61
8. Total Cows in Milk 61,628 55,068
9. Average Daily Milk for Milking Cows 67.6 69.32
10. Average Days in Milk 1st Breeding 88 76
11. Average Days Open 165 148
12. Average Calving Interval 14.5 14.11
13. Percent Somatic Cell – Low 83 82
14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium 12 14
15. Percent Somatic Cell – High 5 4
16. Average Previous Days Dry 63 62
17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd 32 33
Milk 21,857 20,4096 Percent butterfat 3.57 3.60 Percent protein 3.02 3.12 Pounds butterfat 778 842
Pounds protein 660 700
Department of Animal Sciences1650 E. Limberlost Drive
Tucson, AZ 85719
Phone: 520-626-1754 Fax: 520-626-1283
Email: [email protected]
SAVE THE DATE
Arizona Dairy Production ConferenceHilton Garden Inn
Phoenix, AZOctober 8, 2009