iom of The College of i UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA DAIRY FARM MANAGEMENT ARTHUR SHULTIS G. E. GORDON T Wt Wt Wt Wt Wt ¥ CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURAL Experiment Station Extension Service CIRCULAR 417 CALIFORNI CALIFORNIA is in a healthy condition so far as dairy products are concerned. It is a deficit area with more dairy products shipped in than are shipped out; and its dairies have a high production efficiency, partly because of abundant high-quality dairy feed. Nevertheless, a dairy farm in California is an intensive enterprise, existing on high- priced land and given over exclusively to dairy farming. As in all intensive farming, the capital investment is high, and the operating costs can become very high unless good management practices are applied consistently. THIS CIRCULAR, which is concerned with protit-determining factors, describes the good management practices involved in each. The records are from many successful dairies throughout the state. Since feeding practices are the most important items in both production and expense, how to get the best feeding program at the lowest possible cost is considered in detail. This information is of value to the established dairyman and the sometime dairyman as well. REPLACES FORMER EXTENSION CIRCULAR 156 3 THE AUTHORS: Arthur Shultis is Agriculturist, Agricultural Extension and Associate on the Giannini Foundation. G. E. Gordon is Agriculturist, Agricultural Extension. >AIRY FARM MANAGEMENT ARTHUR SHULTIS G. E. GORDON PT DAIRYING AS A BUSINESS . . . is an important enterprise in the state of California Dairying, in value of its products, is one of the most important single agricultural enterprises in California, and the most widely distributed over the state. In 1949, milk was the major source of income for about 13,000 farms. In 1951, the Califor- nia Crop and Livestock Reporting Service estimated an average of 781,000 cows milked (table 1). These produced 6,014 million pounds of milk. Cash received from sale of dairy products in 1951 was $'280,526,000, or 11 per cent of the total value of farm products sold. Dairymen, in maintaining their herds, also produced and sold a substantial value of cattle and calves. Cows and surplus calves from dairy herds contributed a considerable portion of the state's supply of beef and veal. TWO TYPES OF MILK Milk from California farms is sold as market milk or as manufacturing milk. The proportion of market milk, which has been increasing steadily in recent years, passed the 50 per cent mark in 1943 and was about 67 per cent of the total in 1951. Market milk. Milk produced and sold under the strict sanitary require- ments of state and city laws and regula- tions for fluid milk and cream is called market milk or grade-A milk. It brings a higher price than manufacturing milk, but requires better buildings and more equipment for cooling and handling. A dairy so equipped, and selling the major part of its milk for this purpose is called a market-milk or grade-A dairy. Minimum prices of fluid milk to pro- ducer, and of market milk and cream to wholesaler and consumer, are determined according to state law by the Bureau of Milk Control of the State Department of Agriculture in thirty-four marketing areas covering most of the state. The aver- age milk-fat content of market milk was 3.86 per cent for the state as a whole in 1950. Payment in most areas is for 100 pounds of milk according to a schedule for varying fat content. Manufacturing milk. All milk other than market milk is called manufacturing milk. In California most of it is now sold as whole milk for the manufacture of evaporated milk, dried milk, cheese, and [3] Bo how iO 00 CO OS CO M 1 m cm co E t. C ® "o i-H m oo O 5) ^ CN ^ CM * ©rs^is "O co_ lO (N eo o_ t> cn o m 03 g B OXJ co g X 3 T3 CI o3 CN irj" ^ CN CO*" 00 O" L> O" OS t> lO ^ «D t- io co oo w o i-H CM CN CN c< CO CO ^ N rJ(J> CO CO CO OJ 3 ^^ X "5 m *, _J o £.* |_ o o tH H O 00 L> "^ lO A -* — • J& CO OS k> ^ 00 r t> CO CO £ 0) o JTa o 73 CN CO "^ ^ ^ w ■^ ^ ^" ib Pi o in "5 fl D Mr* W m CO H N M ^ w t* — i < > Q P 0) P. Tt« lO co co co co cO co co 1 -^ z < £ a §| CO OS tH l> q cc MOO it 5§ aa tA id © CO CO 00 t> 00 CN z as oo 00 00 CO t- t- t- fc- o d p o u TX O 3 o o 2 a M O a* S3 1=3 11 00 CO lO lO CO CO CO CO oo co m in oq iq OS CN OS eo'3 ST i> o CO CN CO CO CO ^ ^ Q. a a tH tH tH tH tH tH tH tH a 5 3 g-s ■* CN CO CO CO CO 00 OS to u sg CO i-i co (N OS* CO CO C> i-i o CO OS iH tH tH tH tH CN CN >- Eh a a i-H iH CN CN CN CM CN CN CN a < a 03 < 1 4, T3 o O 00 rji CO t> MrlO CO O co t> 00 t> 00 OC OS o o z o h CM CN CM CN CM CM CM CO CO a M P. O Pi bo^ 3 Sro < •Do o CO co O o o o o o o o u £ 1 OS S os th m co CN tH O g t- CO tH CM CO IO t> l> ^ a o p. co~ l> t> L> l> I> h-"* l> L> ii -Q a _.-© m T3 ►- C/2 ^ hO CO co t> CN 00 10 -^ cc O t- tH CO 00 t> OS CM CM 0C 00 l> 00 °al° 3 o CO t> t> 00 00 t> t> t- t> lO «tf o u co 1-1 os iH lO os 01 OS i-H | t-H 1 CO o CO as i-H os O OS r T-H tH H V >> (h Ph ^ co t> oc os o th tr tC ^1 tI* w w (-H 4> oi as a: as OS OS d> «J CO tH tH tH tH t-I tH H PL. It O Ph i butter. A small amount of farm-separated churning cream is still sold in this state (around 3 per cent of the total manufac- turing milk fat) and it is included in man- ufacturing milk. Manufacturing milk is largely paid for on a milk-fat basis, or at separate prices for the milk fat and the skim milk. Since prices of manufactured dairy products are determined largely by supply and de- mand conditions for the country as a whole, the California manufacturing- milk producer competes with dairymen all over the country. Although manufac- turing-milk production and number of creameries are declining in California, the manufacturing-milk producer can still find one or more outlets for his milk in most of the state. SPECIALIZED DAIRY FARMS Commerical production of either main type of milk in California is mostly on specialized dairy farms that produce little else than all or part of the roughage used by the dairy herd. The average- sized herd is larger than in any other im- portant dairy state. From the 1950 census and other data currently available, there are an estimated 18,000 farms in Califor- nia on which dairying is important. Allowing for family cows, there is an average of around 40 cows per commer- cial dairy. These account for 90 per cent of the dairy cows in the state and 95 per cent of the total milk-fat production. In a number of leading market-milk coun- ties, such as Los Angeles, Orange, San Diego, Santa Clara, and Marin, the aver- age-sized dairy herd is more than 100 cows. No other state shows such a high concentration of dairy cows in large commerical dairies. Even where a dairy enterprise is asso- ciated with other enterprises on a general farm or a fruit farm, it is usually fairly large and handled by special help. Most of the cows milked are dairy breeds. Little commerical milk is produced in dual-purpose or beef herds. OTHER TYPES OF DAIRY FARMS Despite the highly specialized nature of dairying in California, there are many types of dairy farms. The wide distribu- tion of dairying over the state in areas of different climates, kinds of feed, and cost levels, makes for these variations. In high-cost areas around metropolitan centers only market-milk dairies are found. Some of these are corral or dry-lot dairies where no feed is produced and few calves are raised. Farther out in the coun- try are dairy farms where part or all of the forage is grown on the farm as pas- ture, hay, and silage. Both manufactur- ing-milk and market-milk dairies are in some major dairy regions. In the most distant areas, market-milk production is largely limited to local needs, and manu- facturing-milk dairies predominate. PRODUCTION EFFICIENCY Production efficiency for California dairies is the highest for any state in the union. Average production per cow in 1950 was 7,710 pounds of milk and 301 pounds of milk fat per cow as compared with 5,292 pounds of milk and 211 pounds of milk fat per cow for the United States. California in January, 1952, was the highest dairy state in number and per cent of cows on test, with 23 per cent tested for production by dairy herd im- provement associations, compared with 5 per cent for the entire country. Average production per cow for California cows on test was 415 pounds of milk fat, com- pared with 370 for all cows on test in the country in 1950. High production per cow may be attributed in part to the abun- dant high-quality dairy feed, but more largely to good management. THE PRESENT SITUATION California is a deficit area for dairy products; more are shipped in than are shipped out. While the state produces practically all of its market milk and cream, and more evaporated milk and [5] dried milk than it consumes, it now ships in from other states most of its butter and cheese. The state also is deficit in the production of cows to maintain its milking herds. Approximately 40.000 dairy cows were shipped in from other states in 1950, or 5 per cent of the total. Consumption of market milk and other dairy products has been increasing rapidly with California's increasing pop- ulation, high consumer-buying power, and development of consumer prefer- ences for dairy products. But the number of cows and the amount of milk produced, although increasing, have not kept pace with increasing demand. THE FUTURE It seems unlikely that dairy production in California will ever increase enough to reverse the status of the state from a deficit to a surplus dairy-products area. Population is expected to continue to in- crease in this state at a faster rate than in the United States as a whole. It is doubtful whether there will be enough increase in dairy cows and production to keep up with increasing demand. Much will depend on the profit possibilities from alternative uses of land, water, and labor. PRICE OUTLOOK PREDICTS FUTURE Milk and feed prices change from time to time. The dairyman should watch the price outlook for opportunities to im- prove profits or for warnings of more difficult times. Although he cannot jump in or out of business with changes in prices and profits, he can, by basing his policy decisions on the current situation and outlook, improve his chances of suc- cess and security. When concentrates and hay are at sea- sonal low prices, it is a good time to buy the year's feed requirement. When cow prices are high, it is a good time to sell cull and surplus cows. When the outlook for earnings is poor, it is important to economize on both business and personal expenditures and keep the budget bal- anced to remain financially strong. To employ good management practices all the time is the dairyman's safeguard in bad times, and his assurance of higher profits in good times. CALIFORNIA'S SIX DAIRY REGIONS . . . extend nearly the entire length and breadth of the state The state is divided into six major dairy regions. Their commercial milk-fat production is shown in figure 1. Number of dairy farms, cows, and the amount of production are given in table 2. NORTH COAST Dairying here is largely the produc- tion of manufacturing milk from the hay, pasture, silage, and root crops in coastal valleys and along the coastal bench. Rain- fall is higher than in any other part of the state, beginning earlier in the fall and extending later into the spring, so that natural pasture and hay meadows are very productive. Winters, although mild, are so wet that many fields cannot be pastured. It is usual, therefore, to freshen most of the cows in the spring, making a highly seasonal production. The practice of irrigating is increasing. This prolongs the green-feed season through late summer and early fall. Most of the hay and some silage are produced in this area, although additional hay is now pur- chased from outside areas. No substantial increase or decrease in dairying in this region has taken place in recent years or is expected in the fu- ture. The arable land is already fully [6 Figure 1. COMMERCIAL MILK FAT PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA'S SIX DAIRY REGIONS FOR 1950 Million pounds of milk fat in market milk Million pounds of milk fat in manufacturing milk developed and, although there may be some shifts of land in and out of dairy- ing, intensification through increased irrigation will be the principal develop- ment. No early shift from manufacturing milk to market milk for shipment to San Francisco from the Humboldt-Del Norte area is expected because distance and mountainous terrain make transportation expensive. CENTRAL COAST This long region extends from Sonoma and Lake counties on the north to San Luis Obispo County on the south. The region also includes a few counties away from the coast and, hence, has a range from coastal through semicoastal to in- terior climatic conditions. Several large, partially irrigated valleys have conditions similar to Central Valley areas. [7] 00 I CD CO O t> O 00 CO CM a t-\ I cm 3* y WlOOOt-H m co t> Tr CO CO O CO CM W CM o oo co \ «# m in oo c- co ■ co" 0~ t> CD CM O "^ CM CO Tji o 00 o m rt< m t> co -^ CO 00 00 m co ^ CO CD O CO 00 "tf OHIO CO CO 00 t> t-T ^f oo" iH CO o co co o oo m in ■^ in"o 00 iH c.2 Wo t> co m m "^ co co »h m ■"1 "^ P. r-T t-T |> oo co O O O CD CM CO 00 CD ION N C O 00 CO CD CO CM co o m o oo m o m "^ o CO CD tH oo co CD N tM CO CD Ot> CO !> CO O O CO iH CD CD "«tf r-i CM 00 CO CM oo w ih CO CO CD CO ^Cl COH CM iH "^ SS SS SS SS SB sa gig na g'a sa Si S'S £a sa CD CD CO t> i> o CD CD CO tH CM o t-H ,H CO O CD O th m o o o o t-H t> CM O CD O co ^ m t> t~ CD "^ -^ CO r-HtftN t- *tf 00 CM iH CD o m CD O 00 CD "^ CO CO O i-i o cn m o ooo m o o oo oo o oo oo t- OHH CD "^ O tH t-H O CD 00 CM CD 00 O CO i> -^ ooo CO CO CM t- 1> o 00 O CO iH CO CM CM iH CD OO CO CM CD 00 O *$ oo ^ ooo CO CM O ooo co CD m CO t> -^ m i> m HCNH CM CM (N O CD O CD CM CD CD O CD OHcn O O CD CM CD m O CD O 00 ^ CM CD O CO Tji CO 00 CD 00 CO ooo^ t> co oo co m oo O CD O m co m O O CD co t> m CD CD CD O CD O OO CD CD CM CM 00 iH CD CD -^ co m oo co m ^ -^ CD CO CD 00 00 CD CO CM CM CD O O CO CO CD OrlO 00 CD ^ O CD CD bo < c ,« o gllg ©*" o o rig O 2 w O. +j >> .2 § • 2- S* ftC o a, o Is aCD O >- oPPLi 3 -^» Tef§ > O O tH C +» O '2 a §© s J t3 rH bo >> 2 j^.S w e^ H o C >-i c llss Po T3 s O o. O o o o 5s O B 3|8 4SS ^S5 o jj S O) •-3 «a3 co W o man can exert a little influ- ence on price through type of milk pro- duced, its quality, the seasonal production [12] of milk during the year, and selection of a marketing agency. TYPE AND PRICE Market milk usually brings enough more than manufacturing milk to cover the additional costs of production and to allow for some increased profit. Whole milk for manufacturing purposes usually brings more than churning cream plus skim milk. (There may be localities, how- ever, where transportation difficulties make it necessary to sell churning cream and to use the skim milk for other stock on the farm.) QUALITY AND PRICE Before the war there were some oppor- tunities for sale of premium milk of high color and fat content. During the war, premium milk was discontinued but it is again available, with consumption increasing to 5 per cent of total whole milk sales by November, 1951. Clean milk of good flavor is essential to selling mar- ket milk. SEASONALITY AND PRICE For every region and every type of product there is a seasonal-production pattern that best fits local feed and mar- keting conditions and results in greatest profit. The market-milk producer needs even production through the year. He can im- prove his average price by adjusting level of production through the year to market demand, and avoiding a seasonal surplus to be sold at the lower manufacturing- milk price. Prices of manufacturing-milk, deter- mined more by national than by local supply and demand, are usually higher in the fall and winter than in the spring. By freshening more of his cows in the fall, the dairyman can get a larger pro- portion of his production in the fall and winter months. This, plus the fact that fall-freshened cows give more milk and more milk-fat, will make fall-freshening profitable. Where bad winters are not a handicap, and irrigated pasture is avail- able for late summer and fall feed, as in the valley regions, fall freshening could increase profit by several dollars a cow. There are feeding problems associated with seasonal production which the dairy- man must consider when determining the most profitable policy for his farm. Fresh, high-producing cows require al- most twice as much feed as dry cows. If spring produces a high surplus peak of natural pasture, that is the time to have the herd milking heavily. Some market- milk producers may find it profitable to have a spring surplus even though this excess production over a base quota brings the manufacturing-milk price. This is an individual problem requiring careful analysis. An example of herd management to obtain the desired seasonality of produc- tion is given in table 3, for market-milk dairies and manufacturing-milk dairies in Sonoma and Marin counties. Notice that the market-milk dairies had rather even production through the year with freshenings also rather evenly distributed through the year. The manufacturing- milk producers had the highest number of cows, fewest dry cows, and highest pro- duction from March through June to take maximum advantage of good natural pas- ture. NET STOCK INCOME Most dairy enterprises include the rais- ing and selling of some dairy stock. The consideration of how many and what kinds of animals should make up the herd, which animals are to be raised for use in the herd, which calves should be sold or destroyed at birth and which should be raised before selling — all con- stitute an essential part of dairy farm management. Over the years, enterprise records show higher profits associated usually with higher net stock income. In some herds only enough heifer calves are raised for replacements. In others, most heifer calves and perhaps [13] *i M oo t- «o q 00 OS »0 rH tH iH tH o 03 „_, *" tH Cm o 73 ° tH cn iH q 00 t> CN CN 00 CO lO OS o c K AhC 3 a) -C lO l> CO Tf CO l> OS CN O "^ OS oc c o oT CN CN CO CO M N H H rH rH iH rH oc ■* Ph-2 « CN Ch CO CD efl- "™ B CO s "3 rt 45 w H CO GO CO io o q w CO iH CO CO C5 :3 1 111 «xl t>o ^ ^* OS i"H HOOM od d t-h oo "<* p O CQ tH *H tH iH r- o- •c bo Z 3 bO <: o o U 1 o 3 o H CO u cd CD >» ■^ q t* cn ^ OS ^ Tt 1 ^ q i> ^ tJ? -^ CN OS CN t-; OS CC 00 00 ^ "^t c c CD I 1- z 1 J S* 0)03 O O O OS 1-i 1-i 1-i OS OS OS 05 c o 9 < a CO o a o o o A 0) Q > u 9 iH -^ 00 CN ri 6 ^ t»' l> "^ t> CN "^ eB Q CO Q O. CN y-i CO lO lO "^ ■«* CN m z «a d >> < CO fc £> >t < o O bo C t- 00 CO CN c4 id lO CN i> cn a> q CN CO t> tA q co oq co tA "# l> CN C£ ir: 4) E i o z o r3 l> 00 OS O O O OS CO ^ ^ ^ lO l> CO s iH iH iH w o <1 (/) "S w X Pk*S cn r> CN CO oo c^ os t> 00 oc c c c 1-1 '1 •2 o z o s T * CO O T 3 cdx i 1 rj N lO t- OS t> CN O H O rj l> l> 00 CO 1- d s o ft,. CN CM CO CO CO CN CN CN CN CN CN CN IC. >- CQ **- CO o z o u CO CO ei co co O 00 q CN H lO H t<; 00 00 tH Tf Tt M CD w '3 •a - *f Xi bo t> CO t- oo co id t> t> d os oo Gi 1 s 3 Q o a 44 CO (-1 73 s 3 o Eh eo t- t> co CO CO CO o lO t- t- CN o 1 a. 3 >> 1 O o 00 OS OS O! os os os os d d os os O O OS OS OS OS iH CN OS OS o o s o3 5 Q z i-H iH iH rH rH 1 a I H bo < Q a ui Z C£ cn m oo co d d ^ it; lO H 00 (N id oo oo a CN H < CD a on z bo a CN -<1J q t> iH rH lO t- O (D Gi<0 00 5 o M oi d h ei ■^ lO Tt< CO *# tH CN CO (N 45 to i C- 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 E o o o CD »H u 3 o CD a JO _CD "3. 3 "5 02 ^ o o T3 (-4 (i Jh 03 o >> o3 a o CO h (S H 3 r* 1 S J; b fc 6 < > » 2 it > 5 < 9 ft. -^ > « 0j O O 03 w o !z; P > < Net Stock Income = total sales of dairy stock - total purchases of dairy stock + increase] or [in stock on hand as shown by annual inventory. - decreasej some bull and veal calves are raised for sale or for use in the herd. Purebred or registered animals may be raised to take advantage of prices substantially above those paid for grade stock. In most herds occasional purchase of outside stock is necessary in the breeding and replace- ment program. But sales of stock usually exceed purchases and result in a net stock income. Net stock income is the value of stock produced over the cost of stock bought and the death losses and decline in value of stock in the herd. The formula for net stock income may be stated as above. Net stock income is not a profit from raising dairy stock since costs of produc- tion are not considered and would be dif- ficult to segregate from costs of milk production. Where replacements are pur- chased and no stock is raised in the enter- prise, as in some corral dairies around Los Angeles, purchases exceed sales, leav- ing a net stock cost instead of a net stock income. To make the most of this factor of Net Stock Income the dairyman must consider each animal, its usefulness in the herd, and when and how to dispose of it. The kinds of animals he considers are: heifers for replacements; bulls; bull calves for veal; stock for beef; and pure- bred stock. There are advantages and disadvantages to owning and raising each kind of animal. The most important of these are discussed below. HEIFERS FOR REPLACEMENTS The maintenance of a herd of milking cows with satisfactory production re- quires the replacement of about one out of five, or 20 per cent, of the average number of cows each year. Death losses average about 2 per cent and culling for production and disease will remove the other 18 per cent. The figures vary widely from year to year and from herd to herd, but these figures are a rough guide to replacement needs. Corral dairies in southern California, where replacements are purchased as cows, have a much higher replacement requirement, usually from 30 to 50 per cent. By this method, cost for each replace- ment is the difference between cost of the replacement cow delivered to the ranch, and the sale value, usually for beef, of the cull cow being replaced. Where calves are raised, the costs of replacement are included in feed and other enterprise costs. The cost of raising dairy heifers varies widely with different feed used, feed prices, time required, and bull service chargeable to the heifers. For a manufacturing-milk dairy farm in a region of low hay and pasture costs, dependent largely on natural pasture, the estimated cost of a two-year-old bred heifer is about $160. An additional 6 months before calving would add $40 to her cost. On a market-milk dairy, under prob- able higher cost conditions and on irri- gated pasture, the estimated cost of the two-year bred heifer is about $190. An- other six months before calving would add $55 to these costs. It is an economy to feed heifers well for maturity and freshening at two to two and one-half years of age. BULLS The bull has two functions in the herd : 1 ) to breed the cows for calves and milk; and 2) to produce superior heifer calves to maintain or increase average produc- tion per cow. [15] The cost of service from an owned bull is usually an unsegregated part of dairy enterprise expenses. Cost is composed of two parts: 1) maintenance, including feeding, housing, and care of the bull; and 2) ownership, including deprecia- tion and interest on the investment. In corral dairies, where no calves are saved, any potent bull is satisfactory, and his costs are chiefly for maintenance. Ownership costs are low because a cheap bull is purchased usually at beef prices, and later sold for beef with little depre- ciation. In dairies where heifer calves are raised for replacement or sale, a good bull is essential and his initial cost is considerably more than his ultimate sal- vage value as beef. Dairy bulls are kept in individual pens and, although they may occasionally re- ceive a little pasture, they are fed largely hay. One dairy bull in a year would prob- ably require 5 tons of hay, 500 pounds of concentrates, and about 40 hours of labor for feeding, cleaning the pen, and other tasks. At $20 a ton for hay, $3 per cwt for concentrates, and $1 an hour for labor, these costs would total $155. To this may be added about $10 for miscel- laneous costs and $25 for housing. This brings the annual maintenance cost of the bull to just under $200. Dairy enter- prise records show an average of one bull to about 20 cows, so bull maintenance for 20 cows costs about $10 per cow. This is the part of cost considered as charge- able to milk production. Ownership costs may vary widely with purchase and selling price of bulls. A $500 bull sold three years later for beef for $250 would show an annual depre- ciation of $83 a year; and interest of $18 on the average investment would bring total ownership cost to $100 a year. If bred to 20 cows annually, with about 10 heifer calves obtained, of which eight might be worth raising, the bull charge against the heifer calves would be about $12 a piece. Combining the two costs and functions gives an annual cost of $250 to $300 a year per bull. This amounts to a service cost of from $12.50 to $15 a cow for 20 cows served and $8 to $10 for 30 cows. These costs indicate the economy of obtaining artificial insemination where available at a reasonable cost and in a satisfactory manner. Better and more ex- pensive bulls can be used for artificial breeding and still result in a lower cost per cow than under individual owner- ship, since more cows can be served. The average number of cows bred per bull in all artificial breeding associations in the United States in 1950 was 1,223. One association averaged 3,916 cows per bull. A dairyman can well afford to pay more for service from an outstanding bull that has proved his ability to transmit high production. Artificial breeding with semen from bulls that have been proved to increase production in daughters over their dams is now available in most dairy areas in California. Fees vary around $8 per cow. The cost of raising a heifer is so great that an additional $10 or $15 invested in better breeding will be well repaid by the additional profit from higher produc- tion over several years. This system of breeding cows is successful and sound and has been increasing rapidly in Cali- fornia. About 10 per cent of the dairy cows in the state, bred in 1951, are esti- mated to have been bred artificially. BULL CALVES FOR VEAL Prior to World War II, very few dairy calves were raised for veal in California manufacturing-milk dairy enterprises and none in market-milk dairies. Recent high veal prices, however, have resulted in the raising of most bull calves either by the dairyman or by some one else. True veal is produced mainly on whole milk, without supplement of grain or hay, at a requirement of 10 pounds to a pound of gain in a young calf. Whole milk usu- ally appears too valuable to justify its use in meat production. [16] Ordinarily, only calves with high birth weight justify this high cost of feeding, and then only when the price of milk is low compared with the price of veal. A 90-pound calf requires 600 pounds of whole milk over 6 to 8 weeks to reach a good, marketable weight of 150 pounds. With milk worth $4 cwt, the value of the milk used would be $24. To cover labor and other costs, a veal calf should bring more than this to pay for feed cost — per- haps 25 cents a pound or $38 a head. Of course there may be times on manu- facturing-milk dairies when milk is low in price that it would pay to raise some of the bull calves, perhaps with nurse cows. Also, the dairyman who sells his milk wholesale and buys his meat retail may well produce enough veal and beef from his own calves for home use. STOCK FOR BEEF It rarely pays for dairymen to raise calves for beef. Facilities and feeds on the dairy farm are usually more limited and costly than those used in beef pro- duction. They are more profitable when used exclusively for milk production plus the raising of some dairy stock for breeding and replacement purposes. Only where the dairy enterprise is not large enough to utilize the available pasture would it pay to raise a few of the best calves for beef. Holstein steers have been observed to make good gains rather eco- nomically on irrigated pasture. PUREBRED STOCK The raising and selling of purebred stock is not often as profitable as it would appear to the outsider. Most of the few available enterprise management study records on such herds show little or no greater earnings per cow than in grade herds. Milk is still the major part of the income on such farms, and production must be higher than in grade commercial herds to justify the breeding and regis- tration program and to cover its higher costs. A survey of individual cows on test in 1941 showed that purebred cows aver- aged 40 pounds more of fat per cow than grades. Dairymen with good high-pro- ducing herds including a few registered cows do have an opportunity to do some constructive breeding. They may have the satisfaction of producing at a good profit some outstanding animals of high value. WHAT STOCK SALES MAY BE EXPECTED? Dairy stock raised and sold varies widely from herd to herd and from year to year. Where most of the replacements are raised in the herd and a few addi- tional animals are raised for sale or to increase the size of the herd, the net stock income will vary from 5 to 20 per cent of the total income of the dairy enter- prise and will average around 10 per cent over the years under varying price con- ditions. In Holstein herds, where replacements are raised and where cull cows weigh 1,200 pounds, the net stock income will be equivalent to the value of 300 pounds of the cows sold — about $48 a cow when cutter and canner cows bring 16 cents a pound. The raising of additional stock will increase this amount. With lighter breeds having cows of 900 pounds, net stock income will be equivalent to 220 pounds of cull cow value. Variation in prices of beef and the value of dropped calves that can be raised for veal cause variation in net stock income from year to year. Averages of dairy records for two areas in matters of stock raised and sold and computation of net stock income are shown in table 4. The 169 San Joaquin Valley records over the four years, 1947- 1950 appear in the left-hand section of the table. In these dairies, Holsteins were in the majority and there were a number of purebred herds selling high-value breeding animals so the average net stock income was high at $71.11 per cow. There [17] S5 o 2 H — CXj ^j Cd C3 CO CT CO n 5 w 00 Tf *«^ CO m ea § "o 03 d * d d d c ' CN CO U3 "^ ■^ IT. o OS CD O a . id M oS t> Co'tN T- £T3 co -C O |H CO « cfl -J— «« T3 M O O V h •a e Q cO q cfl efl cd c< d -dflflfi d 0) CD fir a cd .« to CN CO om a 00 CN CO CO t>ifl O5 00 CO 00 CO a ja O »H iH V, * £> 1 J5 ® W-6I9- <&■*& a> cd 4a qqoorjo * r-i CN * 2 ^3 ■a a CT r- •°2 < 111 | '3 sS fit < 8 eo CO E>> o . CD .0 3* tO M § t3 ea CD « In O ft o o ^OOOMtNM qqqtNNC * r-i O to rA CD O . t-i O CD o in coo tN CO qo tH CO 2c? z CD CO CD bo ea cdO Ul CO H — «tl 2 2 "o eS c3 ^ cd c3 ci ct in CO ^H CO Or* oo tH 2 fl o *• o § CD d ' d d d a OO ©iH cooc l- a^ u 0> o< CD O g5 iood coe< IO00 rH CD o to z lH t4 ■^ w t>c< iH t> 1 05 CD 1 09- w-w- «©• €€ l i—i CD h e«i-9 Is u _ fl -»— rt^j O •a CD CD bo ec3 q o3 ct? cd c< ec X5.S? CD- 3 o Q 2 CD d ' d d d c d CDCO 05 H> >> < CD»a 2 * CO r- O t> .So UJ z > M CN iH to e« "3 CD in P.J3 Q 1 Tf O ^ iH *H iH tH > CD e^-ee h <«■«©• CD .<. Z '3 "3 OOOHMr in < c a * i-i iH • n tO Z o o •"9 a '3 aJ ^ CD O e« CD M 35 O 0. as o> to iH ea CD w q q h n « h CO q tH CD O A « . M O CD fc ft lOO CN -<* qn co m qo 00 CO 5 f ■ °«2 s »-2 a> O O »>i o u o -° > fill ^ •o Q i a < « 2 OOWOO ifl CD" S J CD W bOXl M — Ld CD CS CD CO fit Ul X q q i •^gs s -t^> cS IK t> efl to cd g.ta®q ea-o ea g c E H O > >> > 2 Cfl > .a o -»j P o . 1 1 t/i c/" in v Ul X/l ki t-

2 were 1.51 animal units per average cow in these herds, and a net of .68 head was raised or sold per cow. The right-hand section of table 4 shows 33 Humboldt County manufacturing- milk records for 1949 and 1950. All of the cows were of the lighter Jersey or Guernsey breeds, so brought a lower price, as did the dropped calves. Heifers here freshened at about two years of age, so herds were well maintained with only 1.32 animal units per cow. The net head raised or sold was .61 per cow and net stock income was $41.05 per cow. Meat-animal prices have been high in recent years. Also, there has been a strong demand for dairy stock at high prices. Hence, the high net stock incomes shown in tables 4 and 5 are probably above long-time averages. In estimating future net stock income, it would be safer to as- sume a figure around 10 per cent of the value of the milk sold. EXPENSE PER COW In determining profit in dairying, ex- pense is as important as income. Some dairymen fail to obtain good profits be- cause costs are higher than necessary. On the other hand, some practice false econ- omies, such as inadequate feeding, with resulting low production and income. In general, it is profitable to provide all the feed, labor, and facilities essential to high production, but to do it in the most economical manner possible. A discussion of the major expenses in- volved in dairy farming may reveal what economies can be effected. These major expenses are feed, labor, miscellaneous costs, and overhead. Feed is the item in which skillful management will show greatest reduction of costs. It will be dis- cussed last and at some length. Table 5 presents costs from dairy farms in three areas for 1950. HERD SIZE IN RELATION TO COSTS Analysis of records on dairy herds of many sizes leads to the conclusion that the most profitable herd size is that which best fits the pasture and forage produc- tion on the particular farm, whether it be 10 cows or 300. Labor and facilities can be adjusted to herd size without much cost handicap. Ten cows in a small, sideline manu- facturing-milk herd may have slightly higher overhead costs per cow, but the labor of the owner-operator, with eco- nomical, farm-produced forage can make such an enterprise profitable. Very large herds have certain advantages in low fa- cility costs per cow and large buying power for feed and supplies, but they have disadvantages in dependence on hired labor. Once the best size of herd for a farm is determined, to keep it at that size for maximum utilization of feed, labor, and facilities is important. LABOR COSTS Recent dairy enterprise records show about 70 hours of labor per cow for the year in manufacturing-milk dairies, and 35 hours in market-milk dairies. This in- cludes care of all stock in the herd in addition to milking and handling of milk. Records made ten years ago showed 50 per cent more labor required. Better equipment, smaller, more compact milk- ing barns, and greater use of pasture, all contribute to this reduction. A saving of about 20 hours per cow by machine milk- ing over hand milking was recorded in the early 1930's. It probably is greater today. The 1950 census showed more than 15,000 California farms with milking machines, leaving few commercial dairies without them. The labor-requirement figures above, which are averages of several records in the San Joaquin Valley, are equally rep- resentative of other California regions where considerable pasture is used and where winters are not severe enough to require a long period of hay feeding in the barn. Labor per cow increases slightly with increases in production per cow. It takes [19] Table 5: DAIRY ENTERPRISE RECORDS, THREE AREAS, 1950 Sonoma County market milk San Joaquin Valley Humboldt County Market milk Manufac- turing milk Manufac- turing milk Number of dairies 8 75 1.32 386 8,327 24 63 1.51 352 8,849 12 23 1.56 364 8,939 15 39 1.31 371 7,524 Average number of cows per dairy Animal units per cow Pounds of milk fat sold per cow Pounds of milk sold per cow Average price per pound of milk fat sold Average price per hundredweight of milk $ 1.02 4.72 4.15 $ 1.00 3.97 3.18 $ .83 3.37 2.94 $ .79 3.92 2.89 Net cost of production per hundred- weight Management income per hundredweight $ .57 $ .79 $ .43 $ 1.03 Inputs per cow : Hours of labor per cow 82.7 3.7 1.7 .2 7.1 « 77.4 4.4 1.4 3.8 6.9 101.7 5.2 1.1 3.1 6.2 53.8 2.1 .6 3.7 10.1 Tons of hay per cow Tons of concentrates per cow Tons of silage, green feed and roots per cow Animal unit months of pasture per cow Income per cow : Net stock income $ 21.47 3.59 392.56 $417.62 $ 90.65 5.52 351.09 $447.26 $104.24 5.07 301.31 $410.62 $ 43.57 1.21 294.75 $339.53 Miscellaneous income Income from milk sold Total income Costs per cow: Hay $ 86.33 112.66 .97 31.70 $231.66 $ 47.23 29.56 35.68 5.24 20.88 $ 85.16 84.59 21.17 40.70 $231.62 $ 46.31 28.92 31.33 10.03 29.20 $377.41 $ 97.17 63.75 20.53 35.05 $ 52.57 43.45 19.64 45.66 $161.32 $ 12.72 41.14 21.16 5.63 20.08 $262.05 Concentrates Silage, green feed, roots, etc Pasture Total feed cost $216.50 $ 20.67 76.44 26.51 5.69 26.41 $372.22 Hired labor Value of operator's and family labor Miscellaneous expenses Depreciation of buildings and equipment Interest on investment at 5 per cent Total costs $370.25 Management income per cow* Farm income per cowf $ 47.37 $ 97.81 $ 69.85 $127.97 $ 38.40 $141.25 $ 77.48 $135.68 * Management income is total income les t Farm income is management income pi It is the total earnings of the operator from hi: s total costs, as the value of t > management, 1 he operator's lal abor, and invest >or and interest ed capital. on investment. [20] a little more labor to do the bstter feed- ing job and handle the additional milk, but the increase is small. The operator who hires his dairy labor finds it an item of considerable impor- tance. In the San Joaquin Valley the cost of hired labor and value of operator's labor was 26 per cent of the total market- milk costs, and 24 per cent of manufac- turing-milk costs over the ten years, 1932-1941. In 1950, it was 20 per cent of market-milk costs and 26 per cent of manufacturing-milk costs. In Humboldt County, labor on manufacturing-milk dairies was only 54 hours per cow or 21 per cent of total costs. Some jobs around the dairy require about the same length of time, regardless of number of cows, so labor per cow tends to decrease with increased size of herd. In larger dairies it is important to utilize fully the time of regular milkers. About 50 to 60 cows per milker is usual with good machine equipment. A herd of 75 cows might be a little too large for one milker and too small for the labor costs of two. If pasture were available, the herd might be increased to 110 to utilize fully the time of a second milker. In the dairy business miscellaneous costs include taxes, repairs, insurance, dairy supplies, electric power, cow-test- ing dues, automobile expense, veterinary service, and fuel for sterilizing equip- ment. In recent years, these costs averaged about $20 per cow in manufac- turing-milk dairies and $30 in market- milk dairies. The higher costs in market-milk dairies come with better buildings, refrigeration for cooling milk, and maintenance of better sanitation. County taxes, largely for stock and buildings, run from $2 to $6 per cow. Electric power for lights, milking ma- chine, refrigeration, and sometimes steril- ization from $1 to $3 a cow. Oil or gas for sterilization is about $1 to $2. Cow test- ing by the local dairy herd improve- ment associations now costs $2.50 to $5 a cow a year, varying with size of herd. This group of costs is essential and largely beyond the dairyman's control. Good care and economy can keep it at a minimum, but skimping on needed sup- plies, veterinary service, and cow testing is false economy. OVERHEAD COSTS Overhead costs of depreciation and in- terest are not large items. They are book or noncash costs and seldom have much effect on total costs and financial security. To have good stock and adequate facili- ties is an advantage, but a dairyman's financial strength can be weakened by heavy debt for nonessential facilities. The best way to hold capital outlay to the minimum is to make it carefully — to ob- tain the minimum essentials in the most economical manner possible. Too much equipment or building area increases labor of maintenance. A small milking barn can accommodate many cows by several successive turn-ins. A lower investment is required for the stor- age and handling of hay and silage when maximum use is made of pasture. Samples of dairy enterprise investment have been worked out on the basis of management records for a number of years. These are brought up to date with present-day costs. Investment samples for a 60-cow market-milk dairy, and a 25- cow manufacturing-milk dairy, are shown in detail in table 6. Table 7 shows a dairy enterprise investment for 1950 for both market milk and manufacturing milk. Depreciation. In these samples, de- preciation is figured on the basis of forty and thirty years for buildings and im- provements, and five to twenty years for equipment. The total amounts to $14.72 per cow in the market-milk dairy and $7 per cow in the manufacturing-milk dairy. These figures are higher than the aver- age of actual dairy records for 1950, as shown in table 7, which are $10 per cow depreciation in the market-milk dairies, and $5.69, in the manufacturing-milk dairies. These lower, actual figures are [21 w ° c ) o o o o o o o o o c c o c o c c OCM O o q qq q o q q * Tt oc ^ c Tt NMO o ° oi oo n< -^ co ■<* CD 00 00 t* Os oo t-o co c cc CO "^ t> ° £ iH 69- 6e-69-&9- o o £• to <5° 2 s o O e 1 . 4* . *** O to 0) I o IO CO 1- iH 00 CO CO rH TJ, H" O £ T- OMCOH^WH t* iH "«tf 1 ^ tj,CC IO cc T- co co th i/> Pi i-H iH M c: 00 cc lO CO 111 > 69 69 69 1 ^* - 69-69-69- 69- z — 1 Ul 40 c o o o o o OO C OOOC OOOHiJ c oc o c o c C lO CO CO — 2 3 "3 *» c OOO00OOC0 ONOOO-^OO: ■*t cc t- c t> CO CO 00 a i 3 to o o oc "<* C- t- r-T i-T cfoo~ c< CN cc ci ih T- c T- l>iH i c< <&■ €£-€£-€£- Z Ul o o o CO >- . a . < 5° 0. o bt O 'I- CO to ^2 "3 & tr o Q cj O OO o o So < § Ul cfl Ht- Tj« Tj« oo a < «/> ■fl ^ a h t 03 E 5 bo 1 *o 1 eT o 01 —> 03 — ■ P 03 s to +» a 5^ -a a M 0) •*» a> • s 03 a o> CO > to (-1 01 03 > O c 1 ' t to 03 ■ 1 09 03 | 03 fl 03 1 1 03 P ■ 1 5 4- P » p I DS 03 > p 4 "' H fl 03 u IX 3 03 P .-c to hj) P a §.53 6^5 8^ W fl 5 fl WJ ,fl 03 fl «« w 2 «^ £ p 1 to o I o ^ fl 0) I '3 a 0) I? tfl I 03 * 8.2 to •"•'fl "ei (-. u •e c 03 c/" -M C - cS c Is 0> bo •c t4-l 2 I*, a "5 a in 73 CM fl 8 «-" to O o s u e« •Cio'3 ■g ».fc{ S Z£ >»-9 - fl * fl '* p 2 ^ s-S 03-^-2 he C0 O rt 03 03 ™ 1h M 03 03 Q. > rt ® <5p JO p C H l|-Ss"2 , 8la P "5 o Eh '3 ^o S >>?3?fl S.S Q "ej O EH 1* o Eh 2 o 03 03 ' "5 o Eh Table 7: DAIRY ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT RECORDS, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, 1950 Market milk Manufacturing milk $ 23.84 $ 26.74 88.27 42.08 16.46 11.44 25.22 21.52 430.23 426.37 $584.02 $528.15 $ 29.20 $ 26.41 $ 10.03 $ 5.69 Average investment per cow : Land in lots and corrals Dairy buildings and improvements Dairy equipment Feed on hand Dairy stock Total dairy enterprise investment Interest on investment at 5 per cent Depreciation on dairy buildings and equipment based on building and equipment costs of some years ago, which were consider- ably lower than today. Interest. Dairy enterprise records in- clude a 5 per cent charge for interest on current investment. The dairyman free of debt has no interest to pay, so may consider this 5 per cent as the earnings of his invested capital and a part of his net farm income. For convenience, the investment for buildings and equipment used in comput- ing interest is only half their actual cost. Their decline in value from cost to zero through depreciation, over their useful life, gives an average value over the years of about half the cost. The interest charge in the samples shown in table 6 are $31.65 per cow in the 60-cow market-milk dairy, and $24.32 per cow in the 25-cow manu- facturing-milk dairy. Actual interest charges in table 7 for 1950 differ very little from the samples, as feed and stock values were higher even though facilities were lower in actual dairy records. FEED COSTS The next section tells how feed costs enter into expense per cow. It analyzes the relative value of dairy feeds, and sug- gests some good dairy management prac- tices in feeding. GETTING MAXIMUM RETURN FROM FEED COSTS . . by analyzing costs and practices Feed cost for both purchased and farm- grown feed is from 50 to 70 per cent of the total expense per cow. This cost group offers great opportunity for false econ- omy, sound economy, or extravagance. A study and analysis of feeding practices and costs are the dairyman's most impor- tant device in improving his profit by either: 1) reducing costs without reduc- ing income; or 2) considerably increas- ing his income without greatly increasing his costs. RELATIVE VALUE OF DAIRY FEEDS For management purposes, it is con- venient to consider feeds in four main types: pasture, hay, succulent feeds, and concentrates. All are needed and, to a certain extent, one can be substituted for another (see relative value in table 8). [23] Pasturage is the most economical source of nutrients for the dairy herd. The cows walk to the feed and do their own harvesting, thus saving labor and equipment costs. Since quantity weight of pasturage eaten by livestock is not known, an arbitrary unit of quantity called the animal unit month is used. An animal unit month (A.U.Mo.) is the quantity of feed required by a mature head of cattle for one month. It furnishes 400 pounds of total digestible nutrients and is the equivalent of .4 ton of hay. Hay is the main dairy feed in Cali- fornia and probably provides the major part of the total digestible nutrients on most of the dairy farms in California. Although nutrients cost more in this form than in pasture, considerable hay must be used since it can be stored and trans- ported for use where and when pasturage is not available. Alfalfa hay is the main variety used, with oat and vetch hay next in importance. Even though hay varies considerably in quality, the figure of 50 per cent total digestible nutrients is satis- factory for calculating. Succulent Feeds. Most dairymen use some succulent feed in the daily feed of the dairy cow. Tests show satisfactory results on dry feed only when such feed is well balanced and of adequate nutrient and vitamin content. So, providing suc- culent feed when green pasture is not available is an optional matter dependent on the dairyman's preference and the costs of the feeds he has available to his needs. This group of succulent feeds includes silage, cut green feed or soilage, root crops, such as stock beets and carrots, pumpkins and moist by-products, such as wet beet pulp and brewers mash. Some cull vegetables and trimmings also are used as available in some areas. Digesti- ble nutrient content of feeds in this group will vary from as low as 8 per cent to as high as 20 per cent, with 15 per cent about average. This group is not an important source of nutrients in California; it is largely used to replace fresh green pasture when that is not available. It is bulky and so expensive to haul and store that nutrient cost is usually a little higher than for hay and considerably higher than for pasture. Where green pasturage is available most of the year, even in small amount through the winter, the use of other succulent feeds is not justified. Table 8: RELATIVE NUTRITIVE VALUE OF FOUR TYPES OF FEED Hay Grain and Silage, green concentrates feed, roots Per cent of total digestible nutrients 50 75 15 15 Pounds of total digestible nutrients in 1 unit of feed 1,000 lbs. 1,500 lbs. 300 lbs. 400 lbs. per per ton per ton per ton A.U. Mo. Quantity of feed roughly equivalent in TDN to 1 ton of hay 1.00 ton .67 ton 3.33 tons 2.5 A.U. Mo. Quantity of feed roughly equivalent to 1 animal unit month of pasture .... 0.40 ton 0.26 ton 1.33 tons 1.0 A.U. Mo. * The unit of pasturage is the animal unit month rather than the fresh weight which averages about 15 per cent in total digestible nutrients. [24] Silage is the most important and widely used succulent feed. It is made by cutting and storing such uncured green crops as corn, sweet sorghum, and oats and vetch or other hay mixtures. Its use is fairly common, particularly in areas where green pasturage of high quality is avail- able for only a few months. Better me- chanical harvesting methods in recent years have made possible wider use of silage as a means of saving and storing heavy yields of oats and vetch. Even al- falfa, which is so difficult to cure as hay in the spring, can be treated in this way. With proper methods, harvesting and storage cost only a little more than the same crop cured for hay, and nutrient content is better preserved. Concentrates. Grains, seed meals and similar materials of high feeding value are called concentrates. Total digestible nutrient content varies from a high of 80 per cent in some grains and oil cake meals to a low of 60 per cent for some of the by-products. An average of 75 per cent is assumed to fit most mixtures or pre- pared mixed dairy concentrates. This group is usually the most expensive source of nutrients, but it serves two im- portant purposes. It supplies ingredients that may be lacking in the other feeds, and it permits a sufficiently great feed intake for high-producing cows to ob- tain enough nutrients to reach maximum production. But since its nutrient cost is usually three times that of pasture, and twice that of hay, any feeding of concen- trates beyond the quantity required ma- terially increases feed cost. California dairy cows are usually fed a concentrate mixture of ground grains, grain products, dried beet pulp, and oil cake meals. Some dairymen buy the ingre- dients and mix them. With farm-grown barley or local barley purchased at har- vest time as a basic ingredient, the result- ing mixture can be relatively economical. A leaflet entitled "Concentrate mixtures for dairy cows," by W. M. Regan and G. E. Gordon, is available from the office of the University of California Farm Ad- visor, or from the Agricultural Exten- sion Service, University of California. Many dairymen for convenience buy pre- pared dairy feeds of guaranteed analysis. Table 9, on page 26, shows compara- tive costs of producing some dairy feeds under nonirrigated and irrigated condi- tions. GOOD DAIRY MANAGEMENT APPLIED TO FEEDING Three Rules for Feeding 1. Know the TDN requirements of the animals for most efficient growth and production. 2. Feed a maximum of low-cost nutri- ents and a minimum of high-cost nutri- ents to provide the TDN requirements. 3. Feed concentrates according to pro- duction of each individual cow. Total digestible nutrients (TDN) is the net digestible portion of the feed available for growth and production. TDN is the common denominator used to express the energy content of carbo- hydrates, proteins, and fats. TDN REQUIREMENTS The feed requirements of dairy animals of different ages were computed by the authors from the Morrison Feeding Standard.* The feed requirement of a cow giving 200 pounds of fat annually — that is, 13.2 pounds of TDN a day — is used as the basis for figuring the animal unit equivalents of feed for the other ani- mals (table 10). These feed requirements must be con- sidered as the ideal or optimum quanti- ties for the perfect feeding of each ani- mal. There is considerable waste and un- equal distribution of feed through varia- tion in appetites and feeding habits in a herd of dairy cattle. It is well to furnish some additional feed, and to assume that more total digestible nutrients will be * Morrison, F. B., Feeds and feeding. 20th ed.. pp. 1004-5. [25 0o io "d 69- 69-69 6969 o o O lO 69 OOOiOO O O CO 00 OOO OOiO O IO lOO lO OS CM O o o CM IO CO <* CM 69- 69 OO 00 IO 6969- lO csi 69 5^ CM O O 00 lO IO IO o CM O CM O O O 00 iH co ft co o 52 o o3£ efl co 5 ® o.g ft §*ap 2*3 o ^*S2 ft o3 g « £ ft 2 m -2 O OS O 3-S O co ft * M 3 CM ■* o-d ftiOT3 9&9- * o ,— ' •** is <-. 69ce * 5 b 2«d ~ ■° h ft § * ™ o o o «*H CO US io J2 CMg CM 69 'O q CD II) M ^s o T3 § •d CO Si- :•§ "3 ££?-&» o s-° § 1 s •r-» CD H ft 3 C a, co co o cu CD co +-» to o u M o cu I d CD el) IO §, CO 'O IS Sg CO CO o3 fld|| 2 2 « S .2.2 d I lata ° > .3 .5 ** o T3 s S S Eh CO «« o3 O ft co 13 o o CO CO CO „ QQ5 o • ft o " o d S « oft p, t! 2 *■ CO^ © ft o3 o «^i s. +» to CO » o > Table 10: FEED REQUIREMENTS AND ANIMAL UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER HEAD OF DAIRY STOCK — MORRISON STANDARD* Average weight for period Total digestible nutrients Animal units per head Per day Year, 365 days Calf — to 3 months pounds 140 310 600 800 1,125 1,125 1,125 1,125 1,200 pounds 3.3 5.3 9.2 10.0 13.2 15.4 17.6 19.9 13.2 pounds 3,360 3,650 4,800 5,616 6,433 7,250 4,800 0.25 0.40 0.70 0.75 1.00 1.17 1.34 1.50 1.00 Calf — 3 months to 1 year Heifers — 1 to 2 years Heifers — 2 to 2.5 years Cows giving 200 pounds fat annually Cows giving 300 pounds fat annually Cows giving 400 pounds fat annually Cows giving 500 pounds fat annually Bulls — 2 years and over * In figuring over-all feed requirement for a herd for a year add 12.5 per cent, or one-eighth more, for waste. used in the herd than are listed in the cal- culated standards. An excess of 13 per cent over the Morrison Standard is the quantity used as an average by San Joa- quin Valley dairies. Thus the total feed re- quirement for a herd would be estimated by calculating requirements for the num- ber of head of each kind, adding these to obtain herd total, and then increasing this total by 13 per cent. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEED USE AND PRODUCTION The relationship between total digest- ible nutrients used per cow per year and herd average production of milk fat per cow is illustrated in figure 2. The top line may be used to estimate the probable total digestible nutrients required per cow (for the cows only) in a herd with a certain average production per cow. Figure 2 also shows the calculated re- quirement from the Morrison Feeding Standard. Note that this standard is only a little below the actual use reported at the 200-pound production level, but is 15 per cent below when the 500-pound production level is reached. This may be accounted for by the more liberal feeding tendencies for high-producing herds. HOW FEED SELECTION AFFECTS COSTS It is profitable to use a maximum amount of lowest-cost nutrients from pasture and a minimum amount of high- est-cost nutrients from concentrates. This is well illustrated by the comparison of costs in 169 dairy records from the San Joaquin Valley for 1947 to 1950, shown in table 11. These dairies were divided into two groups within each type of dairy, accord- ing to usage of pasture. Those in the high- pasture group used more than nine ani- mal units of pasturage per cow. Table 11 shows that in both market- and manufac- turing-milk dairies the considerable sav- ing in feed cost through the use of more pasture was largely reflected in increased profit. Differences in pounds of milk fat sold per cow are not believed to have been influenced by the extent to which pasture was used. It is significant that despite lower production per cow, the high pas- ture herds had greatest profit per cow. [27] WITH THIS CHART YOU CAN CHECK OR ESTIMATE YOUR FEED USE FOR THE YEAR y,uuu 8,000 7,000 6,000 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 ^^ Total herd a> /erage per cow showr i by records -. ^^^-"■"'""^ .---"CONCENTRATES^. — — *~ ^ ^Morrison standard for 1,125-pound cow / and 4% mitk^ _~ ■—■ t '*&~**~*~'^ Tot a! rogghage S 1 KOUGHAGE ~ Post Silage o«d Npre green feed - t , 200 250 300 POUNDS OF MILK 350 400 FAT PRODUCED PER COW 450 500 Figure 2. POUNDS OF TOTAL DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS USED PER COW FOR THE MILK FAT THEY PRODUCED (HERD AVERAGE) IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY DAIRIES Source of data: Computed from about 550 dairy management study records in the San Joaquin Valley for 1928-1948. Feed is for the cows only, as feed for other stock was deducted from total reported. Production is that computed by dairy herd improvement association testing records which are usually 5 to 10 per cent above actual sales. HOW TO USE THE CHART Locate your annual herd average production per cow along the bottom line. Draw a perpendicular line to the top line marked 'Total herd average per cow shown by records." Read the pounds of TDN horizontally opposite that point on the scale at left of the chart. This is the average pounds of total digestible nutrients normally used per cow for cows in herds with your average production. You will next need to know the animal units per cow. Multiply the additional animal units in your herd by 4,800 pounds and add this to the figure for the average cow to get the total pounds of TDN per cow for your herd. For example, a herd averaging 350 pounds of fat per cow with 1 .5 animal units per cow would need about 6,800 pounds for each cow and .5 x 4,800 or 2,400 pounds for the other stock, or a total of 9,200 pounds of TDN per cow. Mulitplying by the average number of cows gives total annual feed use in the entire herd. You can estimate or convert feed values by using the figures in table 8. [28] Table 11: PASTURE USE, FEED COST, AND PROFIT, SAN DAIRIES, 1947-1950 JOAQUIN VALLEY Market-milk dairies Manufacturing-milk dairies High use of pasture Low use of pasture High use of pasture Low use of pasture Number of dairies 40 347 4.0 1.2 1.6 10.9 66 367 5.0 1.4 3.3 3.7 28 328 3.7 .8 .2 11.1 35 338 5.3 .9 3.1 4.9 Pounds of milk fat sold per cow Feed used per cow per year: Hay (tons) Concentrates (tons) Silage, green feed, etcetera (tons) Pasture (animal unit months) Feed cost per cow The higher feed costs $248.12 $269.03 $ 20.91 $209.14 $229.27 $ 20.13 Management income per cow (profit) . . . The higher profits $ 76.10 $ 4.05 $ .71 $ .22 $ 72.05 $ 44.35 $ 26.10 $ 18.25 Feed cost per pound of milk fat $ .73 $ .20 $ .64 $ .14 $ .68 $ .05 Management income per pound of fat. . . FEEDING CONCENTRATES ACCORDING TO PRODUCTION The main purpose of feeding concen- trates is to provide each cow with nutri- ents adequate in quantity and quality to maintain production at the maximum level of which she is capable. Cows pro- ducing 25 pounds of milk fat a month, or 250 a year, can obtain all the nutrients needed from roughage if given all the good hay and pasturage they will eat. But cows capable of producing more than 30 pounds of fat a month may not be able to hold sufficient bulky roughage to furnish enough nutrients to maintain high production. Therefore, it is neces- sary to vary concentrate feeding with the production of each cow. Two methods of feeding concentrates according to production have been used in California. The first method, which is well established, results in rather high concentrate feeding at low production levels. This liberal feeding at low pro- duction levels does aid in building up the physical condition of cows for the next lactation period. A second method has been devised wherein no concen- trates are fed at the lowest levels of pro- duction, but the increase is faster as pro- duction rises. (See table 12.) In using either method, the physical condition of each cow should be carefully observed and the quantity of concentrates adjusted accordingly. Method 1. Divide the number of pounds of milk fat produced monthly by five. The quotient is the number of pounds of concentrate to feed daily. As produc- tion declines with advance in the lactation period, the quantity of feed declines, and usually no concentrates are given when the cow is dry. When concentrates are high in cost in relation to roughage, divide by six. If very cheap, divide by four. [29] Table 12: FEEDING CONCENTRATES ACCORDING TO PRODUCTION Production per cow in pounds of milk fat Pounds of concen- trates per cow daily Daily Monthly 10 months of the year Method 1 5 Method 2 P*— 25 2 0.8 25 250 5.0 0.0 1.0 30 300 6.0 2.5 1.2 35 350 7.0 5.0 1.3 40 400 8.0 7.5 1.5 45 450 9.0 10.0 1.7 50 500 10.0 12.5 * P = production per month in pounds of milk fat. Method 2. Subtract 25 from the pounds of fat produced per month, and divide the remainder by two to arrive at the pounds of concentrates to feed per day. This rule puts heavy feeding where it belongs — with heavy production. It re- moves all concentrates from the ration of extremely low producers. It approximates actual practice as shown in figure 2. In all concentrate feeding according to production it is frequently necessary to vary from the rule or standard followed. Young, small, first-calf heifers may need concentrates even below the 25- to 30- pound production level. When roughage quality is poor, more liberal feeding and a better concentrate mixture may be re- quired. This general principle of feeding individual cows according to production has been well demonstrated to result in higher average production with lower concentrate use and lower feed costs. In most herds, particularly those where concentrates are fed by hired labor, it is desirable to set a maximum quantity to be fed to any cow. This may vary with feeding practices and costs but, in most instances, not more than 12 to 14 pounds should be fed, even to a cow showing ex- tremely high production. SAVING IN BUYING Wise volume buying through the most advantageous channels and at the best time of the year can result in a consider- able saving. Hay purchased directly from producers at harvest time will usually be at a saving over buying from dealers at retail from month to month. Production credit may be used to finance buying in advance of use. Current outlook for feed supplies and prices should be watched carefully for in- dications of when to buy. A saving of $5 a ton on concentrates and $2 a ton on hay can amount to as much as $15 a cow in- creased profit. STANDARDS OF INPUTS AND COSTS inputs remain about the same; costs vary from year to year with price changes An input is something that an operator puts into his enterprise (such as feed and labor) over which he can exert certain control of kind and quantity. Inputs re- main about the same, although costs change from year to year with price changes. By using a standard of inputs it is possible to estimate current costs by applying current prices to inputs. Three such standards are given in tables 13, 14, and 15. These standards are based on the assumptions listed below. Other quanti- [30] ties and prices may be substituted to fit any set of conditions. 1. Raising of replacements. 2. Herd composition: total of 1.40 ani- mal units, composed of: cows, 1; bulls, .04; calves under 3 months, .03; calves 3 months to 1 year, .10; heifers 1 to 2 years, .17; heifers over 2 years, .06. 3. Herd average production : 375 pounds of milk fat per cow with sale of 350 pounds. 4. TDN provided generously: 7,400 5. Prices: feed at probable future nor- pounds per cow plus 2,200 for .40 mal levels; wages at $1.00 an hour, animal units of other stock, or a Prices are somewhat below present total of 9,600 pounds of TDN per prices, but above prewar. Costs may cow in market-milk herds and 9,000 readily be refigured for current in manufacturing-milk herds. prices at any time. FOR THE MARKET-MILK DAIRY IN THE IRRIGATED VALLEY (See table 13) The standard given is designed to fit the irrigated valley dairy farm with a market- milk enterprise of around 60 cows. It is assumed the herd has reached its optimum size and is being maintained by enough heifer calves raised in the enterprise. Feed costs are assumed at long-time average values but may readily be refigured at expected prices for any time and place. Since this is a market-milk standard, a little more concentrates and hay are provided and slightly less pasture than in the manufacturing-milk dairy in table 14 — the purpose being to ensure level total production through the year. It would require about one acre of irrigated pasture and one-half acre of alfalfa to produce the rough- age assumed. With adequate pasture for about eight months of the year, and a little occasionally during the winter, silage was not assumed to be necessary or economical. FOR THE MANUFACTURING-MILK DAIRY IN THE IRRIGATED VALLEY (See table 14) The standard given is for a manufacturing-milk dairy of around 25 cows under irri- gated valley conditions. The feed used per cow is a little less in total digestible nutrients than for the market-milk standard in table 1 3, but a little more pasture and little less hay and concentrates may be used in a manufacturing-milk dairy where it is not so important to maintain even production through the year. About 15 hours less of labor per cow are assumed to be necessary in the manufacturing-milk dairy. In comparing net cost of production per pound of milk fat with the standard in tablel 3, the difference in size of herd should be considered. If the above were a 60-cow herd, depreciation and interest on investment would be reduced by from Vi to 1 cent a pound of fat. Thus, under valley conditions, in comparable-sized herds of comparable efficiency, the cost of producing market milk would be about 1 8 cents more per pound of fat than for manufacturing milk; and that is at the prices and for the conditions assumed in these standards. FOR THE MARKET-MILK DAIRY WITH NATURAL PASTURE (See table 15) The standard given was prepared to fit a market-milk dairy in the natural pasture area near the coast, as in Marin or Sonoma county. Part of the feed is provided by local or farm-produced oat and vetch hay and silage, and part is alfalfa hay purchased from off the farm, so price per ton is assumed to be higher than in the two preceding standards. Although total digestible nutrients are assumed to be the same per cow as in table 13, in this area more would come from hay, silage, and concentrates and less from pasture. Silage is included in this standard because it can be economically produced in this area without irrigation and because it is of high value in the long period when good pasture is not available. A little more labor per cow than appears in table 13 is assumed to be needed for the hand feeding of the additional hay and silage. These differences in feed- ing and available feeds result in a slightly higher cost per cow and in 2 cents more per pound of milk fat, but such a small difference is of little significance and may easily be offset by managerial differences or lower transportation costs to a nearby market. [31] 1 1 i-H t-H O" c ^* en co ffl 1 -^ o 1 "^ z 00 1 CT5 1 c J3 S t> l> t> 05 M H M q co CO CO s n «* 1 **" 6» w a £ 1 1 < o O | I Ik PC o o c 1 C o o o o o o 1 o o o q q c 1 C q q q o q O 1 o ° ci od tc <= io d ^ o id ir. <= z s o to (C c 00 CO iH CO CD CO CO Ph OS a -*• & co d «c i-i in «fr z IU H— < 3 c - s CO f-i oft «fl «-. — P p P 3 a> <=> 2 ^ o *• ; ct "ni in < u MH O X co CC M a 2 CO o 0> X3 P P O i< CO* P 4 S-H +j o ■J *c3 p Ifl to < 1- 0. Z ib o CD S-H W CO K CD cu o cu p IO 03 4 cu s o CJ p o CO CO XJ p p g o 4 a o 1> e8 "S •2 - 2 cu p 4 o CN B! cj - b S Gi < F-l CO « (j 91 & o 4 M « co o Z < i— CU c - o X! p OS P 2 4 < o JO » • e 4 W o CO o o CO CO O (D " £ * 1 » O 03 o co > j a s s s i c+H 3 3 +J g g^ -. g T3 si co O So 3 co 1 v -•J s- cj-g o (U o> « o o CO ■56 o'S • e c O «-" »i co p. co m Q 5 CO CO CO 6 in Z tt £ ■- $2 O Q "■ z si < < 1 T3 rt * c 1 " t- IO H CO O CO CM t- 1 00 iH 1 t- « dJ* 1 H H N lO CN © O O 1 00 i-l 1 C- P^ o:S • § a s 1 * *9- **■ ** . •* -J "cJ'S 1 ■a ^ £ s 1 lO Ci 00 i cN (fi N M tO No 1 ^ c 3 bo Xi'S •4 1 CO lO fc- ; O L-; CN O CN CO "^F Ci ^ »> i> d 0) (O lO t» 1 00 L- (N Cs O CO t> PL, 1 '- CO ' o o o o '3.2 q © © q PS. M d to i-i > ^ 6 .5 o w § CO s ° .Q w r" >-l (M M H 3 o ,J3 o ■3* fc o o o 1 c ciz; 8 O O O 1 c gP^ lO E~ 00 | O £ H £ *-T ci "* o: •4-a o3 <*-! £ •1-* a CO CO 73 a> X3 S» a3 o Pi -u o c lO 73 0) « b S *-" -Si -t 3 a> 3 m ► a 4 CO o o o3 « o bo w ® 3r i co •5 w *c o3 Pi o o a> v O o •—i o CO o3 • to % *» 1 ai O CO > w a> tH .. o3 >h S el a> 4-1 +3 § g* S .2 pi a> M a. a> "3 o o ■♦a CO O o a d> o 33 o co O ± V o o o > M s Eh ) o o3 CO •l-H & 5 Eh a- CO co CM q q o O r- q >- °n o:p P.Q «r> 1 1 - T-l €r3 < 'ot X Js ■ pi < T> !r£ a 00 H 0C ^ m CO 00 CO ■«* cc ■^ 00 co Ik — 1 < u. < a to 03 o O .a a> O) M K 69- CN CO cn cn pt o o c O O o a o o c o o o o O 00 W m o 00 a q o a 1 oq q 00 u d oo »* CN CN [> a © "* c T-i iri CO aS C5 (N M tN CO o 69- *&■ €r> 619 u < 1 3 z 2 ■»» © o o c O O O 'S.S o o c m a o PS. CO CO « i-H CN t> Tf tH _ »- w- si 3 Z s* -t— c S* '£ o co .£} co a co S> f=i ^ Ul 3 01 o <=> o o *» *■ o & C ± < o_ co m q < a ? R oo t-i th CO* 00 ex ►- Ul Q < < S >- il Ph P. O O O lO t-o o o oo a O a l P < O o t P It < o rt P c o in CO «/> M u ii CO o 4a a p u CO X! § 5 o O P * to +» cc- 03 u. o O a 5 2 c 31* ig S a s o CJ 8 CN o a; ► © s P 05 pt < "■ P it P O < 5 V 03 c: o 03 P CJ 4 < > .e » a3 d o a w -a s-a g p={ + 1 PS 03 CJ E T3 O Cfl 01 c © & GO SJ3 in 3 a. Ii In e j=3 > "5 * -a hi X3 M D a3 P "5 T3 09 o g'3 g 2 ° 5 § g* « .2 c i'g o J .2 4= Sou w P eo © i i E-» c 1 q-l O -t-a CO o CJ -♦-» co © o S'3 3a s 2 S « Eh IX OJ CO 03 •z, o a s j? to * -t— p E >- ,c J2 S« 5 to O eS 3 O b Pn S Q p^ CO p-1 PLANNING THE DAIRY FARM BUSINESS . . . fit herd size to amount of feed produced; fit labor supply, buildings, equipment to herd size A well-organized dairy farm business is one where herd size is fitted to the amount of feed that can be produced most economically on the farm, and where la- bor supply, buildings, and equipment are fitted to size of herd. Roughage produc- tion on the farm is the most important consideration since farm-grown forage is usually cheaper than feed purchased and transported. Ordinarily it is most profit- able to keep the herd adjusted to yearly use of the pasture and other feed pro- duced on the farm, with little roughage to buy and no surplus hay to sell. Purchase of some additional hay is justified where the farm is not suited to the production of enough to supplement the pasture available, or where the farm is too small to furnish all the roughage for a herd that utilizes the available labor, buildings, and equipment. SIZE OF FARM Fit Labor to Size of Herd. Labor on a large dairy farm may be more easily and profitably adjusted to the farm than can dairy herd be adjusted to number of workers. On small farms, however, it might be more desirable to adjust the size of herd to utilize fully the one or two men available. The minimum-sized herd for a sideline enterprise on a general or fruit farm should be about 10 cows. Fewer cows would not require much less time nor justify a milking machine and place in which to milk. The One-man Dairy Farm. A spe- cialized dairy farm for the support of a single family and with one principal worker should have 20 to 40 cows. Where both pasture and hay are produced, 20 to 25 cows would keep one man fully em- ployed and furnish a living. On such small farms, haying may present some difficulty, so a single worker may prefer to buy hay and have more pasture and more cows, in which case he can handle 30 to 40 cows. In the dry-lot dairy, where all feed is purchased and delivered, a man can handle 40 to 60 cows. The Two-family Dairy Farm. A dairy farm justifying the full-time serv- ices of two men is more efficient and less confining. The nature of the work prac- tically requires two workers, so that one can relieve the other in illness or for days off. With two men available for putting up hay and silage with modern forage harvesters, this size farm would require no additional seasonal labor. The 50- to 60-cow dairy farm with 50 acres of irrigated pasture and 25 acres of alfalfa can be handled efficiently by two men. Either man should be able to do the milking while the other could do most of the irrigating and farm work. The herd is large enough to justify the best of equipment and yet small enough for the owner to know his cows and to feed and breed them individually for best results. A dairy farm of this kind should pro- vide a comfortable living for the two workers and their families. The two workers can be partners, a father and son, or an owner and employee. The two-fam- ily farm is suggested as the goal of all dairy farmers. BALANCE STOCK AND FEED PRODUCTION In planning or reorganizing a dairy farm it is necessary to know the soil and the roughage that can be produced. Al- falfa requires a deep, permeable soil and considerable irrigation. Irrigated pas- ture may be produced economically on shallower and denser soils, but it requires considerable water and frequent irriga- tion. Oats and vetch for hay or silage may be produced on a wide range of soils, and [35] in alternate years with summer fallow, and in regions of low rainfall without irri- gation. Rolling lands not suited for crop production may be used for natural pas- ture. Since pasture is the most economical source of nutrients, it should receive first consideration in land use, up to the point where the maximum amount usable by the dairy herd is provided. A list of common feed crops, showing good commercial yields in quantity and in total digestible nutrients, is given in table 16. The pasturage shown is in addition to the crop harvested, and its feeding value is included in the total digestible nutri- ents. The labor requirement for each crop is an estimate based on local studies and usual methods of production on a moder- ate scale. MAKE A CROPPING PLAN The next step in planning the dairy farm is to decide on the acreage of each feed crop and to estimate the expected production. Each field or area is listed with its crop, its acreage, its probable yield per acre, and its probable total pro- duction of crop and pasturage. Table 17 illustrates such a cropping plan and shows how the total feed production is com- pared with a feed requirement of a 60- cow herd based on the standard in table 15. This example shows a shortage of hay and a surplus of silage and natural pas- ture. Subsequent trials would explore the possibility of growing more hay on some of the pasture land or of increasing the herd in order to use most of the pasture and to buy more hay. PLAN PASTURE FOR LONGER SEASON Pasture is the cheapest of dairy feeds, and its production and feeding require the least amount of labor. But it is also the most difficult to have in the correct amount throughout the year. Careful planning and the use of several kinds of pasture can extend the season of use and provide occasional pasture in the winter. Table 16: DAIRY FEED CROP YIELDS AND LABOR REQUIRED Crop or land use Alfalfa, loose hay Alfalfa, cut and used fresh Barley for grain Barley for winter pasture . Grain hay Oat and vetch hay . . Oat and vetch silage Pasture, irrigated Pasture, good natural range Root crops, beets, etcetera. Silage, corn or sorghum. . . . Sudangrass pasture, irrigated . . . Sudangrass pasture, nonirrigated Wild or volunteer hay Harvested crop yield per acre 6 tons 20 tons 1,600 lbs. 1.5 tons 3.0 tons 9.0 tons 30.0 tons 14.0 tons 1.5 tons Pasture, animal unit months per acre Total pounds TDN* per acre Hours of labor required per acre 1.0 6,400 23 1.0 6,400 35 0.8 1,584 5 4.0 1,600 3 0.5 1,700 7 0.7 3,280 10 0.7 3,300 13 12.0 4,800 12 2.0 800 0.2 1.0 6,000 150 0.2 5,120 28 6.0 2,400 12 3.0 1,200 4 1.0 1,900 6 Pounds TDN' per hour of labor 278 183 317 530 243 328 254 400 4,000 40 183 200 300 316 * TDN — total digestible nutrients; see page 25 for definition. [36 Table 17: SAMPLE DAIRY FARM CROP AND FEED PRODUCTION PLAN (First Trial for Nonirrigated Farm in Coast Counties) F n 6 o ld Crop or land use Acres Yield per acre Total feed obtainable Crop (tons) Pasture, A.U.Mo.* 1.0 1.5 .3 2.0 2.0 1.0 Hay (tons) 54 80 Grain (tons) Silage, etc. (tons) 228 Pasture, A.U.Mo.* 18 34 6 10 454 120 A Oats and vetch hay B Oats and vetch hay C Corn silage D Knoll-dry pasture . E Natural pasture . . . F Back pasture 18 23 19 5 227 120 3.0 2.5 12.0 Total Needed for 60-cow hei 412 d 134 186 60 228 180 642 480 Difference, shortage or surplus -52 -60 48 162 * Animal unit month. Table 18 shows the pasturage obtainable by months from several types under good conditions. Production and months of use vary considerably from place to place and from year to year, with variations in weather and management. On any farm with con- siderable pasture, dry or irrigated, there will usually be a surplus in the spring and a shortage in fall and winter. Cutting a crop of hay from part of the irrigated pasture in the spring will reduce the sur- plus peak. Having plenty of pasture will permit an extension of its use into early winter. Alfalfa and crop fields can pro- vide a little occasional pasture during the winter. Barley planted especially for pas- ture provides economical winter feed. HOW MUCH PASTURE? It would be ideal from the cost and the nutrition standpoint to have as much pas- ture as could be used by the herd every month of the year. But some reduction in winter is inevitable. Some hay will be re- quired for bulls all through the year, and a little for the cows and other stock even when abundant pasture is available. Pas- turage can probably be used, up to 13 ani- mal unit months per average cow for the cows and young stock usually in the herd. The last line in table 18 shows a reason- able pasture requirement totaling 13 ani- mal unit months of pasturage per cow for the year. Good yields of irrigated pasture are about 12 animal unit months of feed per year, but yields over 20 have been ob- tained. Hence, where irrigated pasture is available, one acre or more should be pro- vided per average cow. Poorer-yielding irrigated pastures would necessitate more acreage per cow. Nonirrigated natural pasture is not only low in pasturage production but is of high quality only a small part of the year. It can furnish most of the roughage for the milking herd for a few months in the spring, although dry and young stock can get part of their feed from it during the rest of the year. The standard in table 15 has been carefully calculated to fit this type of dairy, and shows 8 animal unit months of feed as the probable maximum that can be used per cow. Near the coast, where good natural pastures produce 2 animal unit months of pasturage per acre, 4 acres would produce that much. Under less favorable conditions it might require [37] d q q ; q W (N M CX) H q q q q iH *H «£> 00 Is o iH o u O *t< 00 tH ; io h q SI ■3 ft ^o tf» «a CO - CO es-3 SI ■^ «o "^ ' HIO t« cc O pi Ul 3 i-i tA *H iH < («H (X q *# 00 tH CO o o CO "^ Ul iH iH iH tH iH 0. Ul •-» .13 «-T U D CO O (N co io ; io CO iH fl 2 < §• P^ a °M t- cn © CO -^ CO u. o «/> X ft < tH iH iH iH —1 »} c§ lO 00 t> ,a O -^ CD iH (N o AT) © iH r- jf « ►- En n a z « b cd I- £ z < •a : o J hOT3 o ta fc bo M « ° p! 0> in «/ *- TJ C § S 5 U P 5 a ■! % r a O- °" 1- e3 t»0 to t/ 7: ^2 T3 T3 ,S c > t-. ej e3 5z ! C 5 a j tv: ! PC 1 bo as many as 6 or 8 acres. A standard rec- ommendation is 4 to 6 acres of good natural pasture per average cow for dairy farms with natural pasture. Additional pasturage on crop fields, or on a small irrigated pasture, would be desirable. PLANNING THE YEAR-ROUND PASTURE A pasture plan, estimating the pastur- age available from each field and crop each month, is helpful in obtaining a max- imum well-distributed quantity. Table 19 illustrates such a plan for an irrigated valley dairy farm with a 30-cow herd con- taining 1.35 animal units per cow. In Trial 1, it shows a slight shortage of pas- ture for most of the year, with a small sur- plus in May and June. In Trial 2, it puts into irrigated pasture the 8 acres used in Trial 1 for silage and barley for winter pasture. This results in nearly adequate pasture most of the year, with a consider- able surplus in Ma^and June. Cutting 20 acres of the irrigated pasture for 20 tons of hay in those months would eliminate this surplus and partially replace the win- ter feed lost by not growing silage. A cal- culation of feed costs under both trials indicates a saving for Trial 2. The har- vesting of 20 tons of hay from the irri- gated pasture, plus the purchase of 6 addi- tional tons of hay, will cost less than using the 8 acres for silage and winter barley as in Trial 1. Similar calculations for other farms usually show that a shifting of land from harvested crops to irrigated pasture reduces costs. The opportunity to increase the pas- turage available from a given acreage of irrigated pasture by improving yields should not be overlooked. More fields with a shorter grazing interval and longer period for regrowth usually improve total yields. In some cases, additional fertiliza- tion or improvement in irrigation help materially. Weed control or a change in plants through some additional reseeding may also improve the quality and quan- tity of forage obtained. [38] O O) W W ^ I CO o O th cm w oi CO I CO CO m co cm I O 00 I ^ I "* o CM CO co os m OS i-H CO o o CM OS "tf CO O • CO CM • I to ^ CM CM I CO O CM CO CM OS CO CO O • • ■ • I OO) "# .... \ tH CO m th • • • I co os «tf • • • «tf CO O CM m I cm os m co l - O OS rF CO I CO OS "^ CO I CO os m co OS iH m I o os co co I oo os CD CO ©CM 00 • I O OS CO • "# CO O N -CD • I 00 OS CM • I CM CO I * O CM CM OS "tf CO CO CM CM I 00 OS I CM CO o cm co m I o o CM CO I V I 00 o iH CO CO • CO ^ o m HH | I I co m m co cm oo I tH CM iH I in ts Z £ >> M 3 ■2 £ T3