DAIRY FARM MANAGEMENT IN CALIFORNIA Arthur Shultis and G. E. Gordon * f^wQitf in the dairy business is determined by four major factors, and good management enters at many points into each of these: PRODUCTION is increased by feeding, culling, and breeding pro- grams; PRICE is affected by type of milk, quality, and seasonality; NET STOCK INCOME is determined by numbers and kinds of animals composing the dairy herd; EXPENSE is reduced by decreasing costs of feed, labor, and overhead. IT IS TRUE that California is in a healthy situation so far as dairy products are concerned, since it is a deficit area with more dairy products shipped in than are shipped out. It is true also that California dairies have a high production efficiency, partly because of the abundance of high-quality dairy feed. Never- theless, A DAIRY FARM IS AN INTENSIVE ENTERPRISE in California, existing on high-priced land and given over to dairy farming exclusively. As in all intensive farming, the capi- tal investment is high, and the operating costs can become very high unless good management practices are applied consistently. TfliS CltCUlOF concerns itself with the profit-determining factors. It 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 lowest cost is considered in detail in this publica- tion. It is of value to the established dairyman and the sometime- dairyman as well. THE AUTHORS: Arthur Shultis is Extension Specialist in Farm Management and Associate on the Giannini Foundation. G. E. Gordon is Extension Specialist in Dairying. Dairying as a Business - PRESENT AND FUTURE Dairying is the most important single agricultural enterprise in California in value of its products, and is the most widely distributed over the state. About 26,000 farms in California have dairy products as the major source of income, or about 18 per cent of the total farms in the state. The California Crop and Livestock Reporting Service estimated an average of 804,000 cows milked for the year 1948. These produced 5,773 million pounds of milk. Farm income from dairy products in 1948 was $276,641,000, or 12.8 per cent of the total value of farm products sold. Milk from California farms is sold as "market milk" or "manufacturing milk." Market Milk Milk produced and sold under the strict sanitary requirements of state and city laws and regulations for fluid milk and cream is called market milk or grade-A milk. It brings a higher price than manu- facturing milk but it requires better buildings and more equipment for cool- ing 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 the j producer, 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 32 marketing areas which cover most of the state. Market milk had an average milk-fat content of 3.87 per cent for the state as a whole in 1948. Pay- ment 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. Most of it is now sold in California as whole milk for the manufacture of evaporated milk, dried milk, cheese and butter. There is still a little farm-separated churning cream sold in this state (around 3 per cent of the total manufacturing-milk fat) and it is included in manufacturing milk. Manufacturing milk is largely paid for on a milk-fat basis, or at separate prices for the milk fat and skim milk. Since prices of manufactured dairy products are largely determined by supply and demand conditions for the country as a whole, the California manufacturing-milk producer is in competition with dairymen all over the country. But in most of the state he can find one or more outlets for his milk or churning cream. Specialization Commercial 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 size of herd is larger than in any other important dairy state. The 1945 census showed 6,572 farms milking 30 cows or more, with an average of 74 cows per farm, and account- ing for 68 per cent of the total cows in the state. For the United States, farms milk- ing 30 cows and over averaged 48 cows, and contained only 12 per cent of the total cows. Even where a dairy enterprise is asso- ciated with other enterprises on a general farm or fruit farm, it is usually fairly large and handled by special help. Most of the cows milked are of the dairy breeds. Little commercial milk is produced in dual-purpose or beef herds. [3 I i i i 1 •5 0) S * 2 _cs ir: H COCT (N lO CO oo" cc ■s O TJ> CC t- Cr a o o c cd Is U iH T- o *t5 s 03 g>«M ?! CO ^ bo 2a w c q t> cc CO t> u cd c en CO CO t— N lO CO CN 3 0) ed'3 ST CO iC oo o t- H CN CM « Q o < o tH t- tH iH tH i- O "cd o a Ol 03 Ik 0) | 00 IS IC to ^ <«dj c< _i ^3 o « CN CN CN 1 S >-ts< 03 cdo z 3 o *S ed^ < a si 3 8. cn lO Oi tC C- O M t" ff t-n co io m $u o 3 •a o r- M N (N CO CO CO CO S| 3 o gcd 1 * 3 .w 03 ^ & a O a a. i s 3 o T-i CO co o: O CO CO CO - |3 1 O o< t- 00 CN l> C- g CD tH co_ ai t> w" W lO Ifl k E? «/> 3 "^'S 5 a S.S u >- 03 00 H tN Ol o^oo a "co o 0. lO CO CO (0 O t- 00 00 < M Eh CN CN N CN CNI CNI ;'E t3 a> z o 03 W o •S 03 CO o o o o o o o •2 m 3 e o ;M 03 co © t- oo cn o IO H 05 00 w.5 lb M " •> l> tH iH tH tH s*c 3 < Pi s co~ o co" t»" t> t> l> t> 3 v a «Ph > 2 © 03 ~ bo CO S cd<2 03 s cd t> ^t« t- w O O ^f ^f bow II * 8 03 00 lO lO t- O CN CO O 3 O .3 cfi C- t- l> co co oo oo .S& *& cd cd •ss a cd^ cd M "cd 01 x>o >> o -'I "O 8*3 o SlH 'B 0) Oh tH 1 * 03° £ ® ei /^ 3« t- CN M ^ W CO t- 00 * w.2 co ^* ^^ ^ ^ Tj< Tjl ^ 3 O) gj Oi Gi Oi Gi 3 h tH iH tH tH tH tH tH 0. 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 with different climates, kinds of feed, and cost levels, makes for these variations. In high-cost areas around metropoli- tan 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 country are found dairy farms where part or all of the forage is grown on the farm in the form of pasture, hay and silage. Both manufacturing and market-milk dairies occur in some major dairy regions. In the most distant areas market-milk pro- duction is largely limited to local needs, and manufacturing-milk dairies predomi- nate. Production Efficiency Production efficiency for California dairies is the highest for any state in the union. Average production per cow in 1948 was 7,180 pounds of milk and 280 pounds of milk fat per cow as compared to 5,036 pounds of milk and 200 pounds of milk fat per cow for the United States. California in January, 1949, was the highest state in number and per cent of cows on test, with 18 per cent being tested for production by Dairy Herd Improve- ment associations, as compared to 4 per cent for the country. Average production per cow for California cows on test was 395 pounds of milk fat, compared to 350 for all cows on test in the country in 1948. High production per cow may be attrib- uted in part to the abundance of high- quality dairy feed, but good management is probably the main factor. 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 dried milk than it consumes, it now ships in from other states most of its butter and cheese. The state is deficit also in the pro- duction of cows to maintain its milking herds. Nearly 30 thousand dairy cows were shipped in from other states in 1948, or 3.7 per cent of the total. Consumption of market milk and other dairy products has been increasing rap- idly with California's increasing popula- tion, high consumer buying power, and the development of consumer preferences for dairy products. But the number of cows and the milk production, while in- creasing until 1947, have not kept pace with the increasing demand. The Future It seems unlikely that dairy production will ever increase enough in California to reverse its status from a deficit to a surplus area as far as dairy products are concerned. Population is expected to con- tinue to increase in this state at a faster rate than for the United States as a whole. It is not possible to predict whether there will be an increase in dairy cows and pro- duction to keep up with the increasing demand. Much will depend on the profit possibilities from alternative uses of land, water and labor. Dairying, along with most kinds of farming in California, has been profitable in recent years. A general decline in prices of farm products would reduce earnings in all lines of production. Dairy products, being for a deficit in-state mar- ket, would probably not suffer as much decline in earnings as the specialty fruit and truck crops which must be marketed across the country. It is likely to continue a relatively profitable type of farming. Earnings will be more stable than for some specialty crops that bring high prices and profits in good times but low prices and losses in bad times. [5] Figure 1. MILK FAT PRODUCTION IN CALIFORNIA'S SIX DAIRY REGIONS Million pounds of 10 milk fat in market milk, 1947 £^ Million pounds of milk fat in manufacturing milk, 1947 Watch Price Outlook for Profit Opportunities 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 upon the current situa- tion and outlook, improve his chances of success 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. NORTH COAST Dairying here is largely the production 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, prolonging the green-feed season through late sum- mer and early fall. Most of the hay and some silage is produced locally, although additional hay is now purchased from outside areas. No substantial increase or decrease in dairying in this region has taken place in recent years or is expected in the future. The arable land is already fully developed and, although there may be some shifts of land in and out of dairying, intensifi- cation through increased irrigation will CALIFORNIA'S SlX Ddty Re$fot)$ be the principal development. No shift from manufacturing milk to market milk for shipment to San Francisco is expected soon because the distance and mountain- ous country make transportation expen- sive. tiSk CENTRAL COAST 29 This region is a long one, extending from Sonoma and Lake counties on the north to San Luis Obispo County on the south. The rainfall and green-feed period declines from north to south. The region also contains a few counties away from the coast and hence has a range from coastal through semicoastal to interior climatic conditions. Included are several large valleys containing irrigation with conditions similar to the Central Valley areas. It is an old and well-developed dairy region but with many shifts and changes in various parts of the area. Its produc- tion is now predominantly market milk for the San Francisco Bay area and other large centers of population. Dairying in some counties has increased while in [7] Z o UJ >- CO z o o u < >- a < a -Q eg ^ ^ c£ C- 00 t- CM ">tf o OS CD lOCM S3 HH^HCO § 00 CO IOCO to oo o CM OS CM S3 o lO IO ^ cm COCM OS d N fc- r-i iH CO 00 i-i O rH t- OS T-l CM ^ cs ^ t- « os os io o 00 CO •<* CM rH CO r> rH cm oo o t>rt< IO ^ 00 00 00^ CM rH CO IO OS rHCM «tf CO rH CO 00 * * e& ^ ^ ^ •<* C- OS CO t- o CM t- OS OS J3 o Tj< fc- rH IO o t- rH 00 OS rH 00 fr- oo ooo 00 s-S C0 CO o S3 "* -* 5« IO t- CO CO CQo 1-1 CM gs ^ ^ _ O IO t-CM IO O IO C- CM CD 2« CO rH OS rH 00 8 00 CO IO t> CO t- CO HO CM o ^ 05 00 00 os a 00 CM (N CO CM CO rH iH ^ ^ ^ O CO to ■«# OS o CO CO OS rH « t* CO tH CO CO 8 IO rH CO rH i- CO OOO t- l> CO 00 Ci C- HOO) 00 C- t- io ^ oo os co a O O OS Ci Ci Ci ,-! Si Si I CTJ 00 IO I CD CD a s\ I t- CO o co coo 00 IO CO O rH rH 00 CO Ci CO -^ t> oo ooo I t- CO o> 00 00 OS CO O IO HNH ooot- ooo CD O CD rH rH O rH rH OS OS 00 00 c- t-o •^ OtN OS OS O CO OS rH CM CM CM CO OS ^ ooo OS CM 00 O OS IO rH rH OS OS t> t- O CD 00 OS CM rH rH O OS OS OS OS 81 CO 00 "^ ooco O rH CO o oso OS rH Tt* CM CM rH rH IO rH OOO CDCM IO rH IO CO rH OS O t- CO C- CM CM t- OS t- rH O O OS OS OS o HI aa ^ t- oo ooco I> CM OS os oso OS io CO ■^f rji rH OOCM rH rH O OO rH CO CO "^ OS t- CO CO t- 00 rH 00 CO CD ^ 00 O OS OS OS OS OS SI ooo co CM CO 00 CO OS IO oo t- os O OS CD ■^ CO »o OS 00 ^ OS o o ^ IO IO CO CO CM ^ CM O OS t- IO CM OS IO CO rH OS rH OO O O OS S? a O Coo fi fl o PI o o rH W -4J >> ~ |2r ea a> O «|l Ml is S c3 a» w Sfap-,ppHO r «« .S >» B S § £ ^ o^^ Qo ^^ as o (-< as o ^ as^ >> bo ti as |l D.-OOS O ^73 .+JO* J a, co O pH aj C/2 l-i c^ — ^ s « 3 fe >- H»for^ ^S as 3^ as o o as OlzjQ others it has declined, with a net increase over the last 10 years for the region as a whole. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Dairying here is almost entirely the production of market milk for the large local population. This is an area of low rainfall with most crop production de- pendent on irrigation. Land values are high because of high-value fruit and truck crops and pressure of population. Irriga- tion water is limited and high in cost. There is some use of temporary crop residue and irrigated pastures even in congested high-cost areas. Near Los Angeles, dairying consists of the corral feeding of cows with purchased hay and concentrates shipped in from dis- tant producing areas. These corral or dry- lot dairies around Los Angeles are unique. They might be considered as milk fac- tories rather than farms. Few replace- ments are raised in the congested area, and herds are maintained by the ship- ment of cows from other areas. Yet Los Angeles County is the leading dairy county in the state and nation. Production per cow is the highest anywhere. This great dairy development under almost urban conditions is accounted for by the large consuming market, isolated by mountains and desert from distant areas perhaps better adapted to dairying. In Riverside, San Bernardino and San Diego counties, away from the congested area, there are more farm-grown forage crops and irrigated pastures. The use of irrigated pasture has increased in recent years, but its use will always be more limited than in the Central Valley areas of the state. Imperial County, in the southeast cor- ner of the state, contains some dairying on irrigated land under hot, dry condi- tions. Some years ago this area produced considerable manufacturing milk with al- falfa as pasture and hay the main feed. Alfalfa was used in rotation with high- value truck crops, and dairymen rotated somewhat from farm to farm to utilize the alfalfa. In recent years dairying has declined, and about two thirds of the present production is market milk for local use and for shipment to San Diego. In the prevailing high summer tempera- tures cows produce somewhat less than in more comfortable climates. With low- cost, efficient forage production, more at- tention to shelters and cooling devices, and with wider use of a system of seasonal production, dairying here could be effi- cient and economical. It may increase again as alternative uses of land become less profitable. MOUNTAIN REGION This region is large geographically but is not important agriculturally since most of its area is mountainous and not adapted to farming. Aside from some market-milk production for local use there is little dairying except in the few northern and eastern counties that join and extend down to the Sacramento Valley. Dairying has been declining in importance in most of the more distant mountain valleys with some shifting to beef cattle. There is some churning cream production as a sideline on beef cattle ranches, and this could in- crease again if beef cattle prices decline materially. Dairying in this part of the state is largely based on hay and a combination of irrigated and natural pasture. Winters here are longer and more severe, neces- sitating a greater use of hay than in other [9 regions. This is an area where dairy stock can be raised cheaply on the range with beef cattle. SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY The San Joaquin Valley is the most important dairy region in the state and contains about 40 per cent of the cows. Production here has increased over 50 per cent in the last ten years, and the pro- portion of market milk produced has in- creased to 40 per cent. In addition to supplying market milk for its local popu- lation, a large amount is shipped to the Los Angeles and San Francisco areas. Additional shifting to market milk will take place as demand increases. Dairying in this area is based largely on alfalfa hay and irrigated pasture. Since it is a large commercial-surplus alfalfa hay-producing area, the local farm value or cost of hay is below the cost to dairymen near San Francisco and Los Angeles. There is also considerable local grain production. Irrigation water for the region as a whole is more plentiful and lower in cost than in Southern Cali- fornia, and irrigated pasture provides economical dairy feed. Alfalfa is also a preferred crop here in rotation with cot- ton, potatoes and truck crops. It is the usual practice in this valley, in both types of dairies, to maintain or increase the herds through the raising of heifers within the enterprise. There is always some buying and selling, and some of the enterprises raise surplus heifers and even a few bull calves for sale. Dairying may be expected to increase in this valley. There should be some addi- tional water and irrigated pasture and alfalfa as a result of the Central Valley Project. Much of the additional market milk required by the larger future popu- lation in California can come from this area. SACRAMENTO VALLEY Milk production is increasing in this part of the state. Here considerable land is better adapted to irrigated pasture than to other crops. Although still mainly a manufacturing-milk region, market milk was 33 per cent of the total in 1947, an increase of 1.6 per cent over the previous year. Dairying is largely based on irri- gated pasture, alfalfa hay, and oats and vetch hay. Some natural pasture is also used. This area is similar to the San Joaquin Valley which joins it on the south. Additional irrigation and dairying may be expected in the future in this region. [10 WHAT CONSTITUTES 7%l Jfa/ty fftfef/V&l.* The dairy enterprise is composed of the dairy herd which includes the milking cows, dry cows, bulls, heifers and calves. Its size is expressed in animal units based on the average number of cows, both dry and milking, for the year. Bulls, heifers and calves are included as additional ani- mal units. AN ANIMAL UNIT . . . ... is the mature head or equivalent in feed requirement. Animal units per head for dairy cattle are as follows: cows and bulls, 1; calves under 3 months, .25; calves 3 months to 1 year, .40; heifers 1 to 2 years, .70; and heifers from 2 years to first calving, .75. The animal units per cow, in herds where replacements are being raised, average around 1.4, (can be as low as 1.35), the 1 being the cow itself, and .4 being the proportion of additional stock in bulls, calves, and heifers. Feed-growing is actually in separate enterprises. The consideration of the feed enterprises apart from the dairy enter- prise is an aid to good management. A farm with a poorly-managed dairy enter- prise might even be fairly profitable if accompanied by efficient, economical feed-producing enterprises. On the other hand, higher profits from the farm as a whole might come from expanding the dairy and pasture enterprises and elimi- nating an unprofitable hay enterprise. Income from the dairy enterprise is mainly from milk sold. Manure may be sold or credited to the dairy where used on other enterprises. Some stock usually is sold. In dairy enterprise records, stock purchases are deducted from stock sales and the difference is shown as a net stock income. Where replacements are raised in the herd there is usually a net stock income. Where they are purchased and calves are not raised, there is a net stock cost. Costs in the dairy enterprise are for feed, labor, miscellaneous items, depre- ciation on dairy buildings and equipment, and interest on the capital invested in the dairy enterprise. Purchased feed is charged to the dairy enterprise at cost. Farm grown feed is charged by quantity at its local current farm value, which is market value less cost of marketing. Earnings are shown in dairy enterprise studies in two different ways. Manage- ment income is the amount by which total income exceeds total costs of production, including as costs the value of the oper- ator's own labor and interest on the capi- tal invested. Farm income is the amount the operator makes from his enterprise from his management, labor and invested capital. Table 5, on page 20, shows income, costs, and earnings for market- and manufacturing-milk dairies in the San Joaquin Valley for 1947 and 1948 [ii] 4 The PfOSt fOtmufa IN DAIRY MANAGEMENT: PROFIT = Production per cow x price of milk fa* The four profit-determining factors in this formula are : 1. Production per cow 2. Price of milk fat per pound 3. Net stock income per cow 4. Total expense per cow None of these factors stands alone: all are interrelated. Higher production per average cow in the herd tends to increase profit. There are three main factors in increasing aver- age production per cow: feeding, culling, and breeding. Feeding and Production Each cow has a definite hereditary maximum production capacity. The ex- tent to which her production reaches this capacity is determined by the quantity and quality of the feed received. It is profitable to feed each cow so she can approach the highest production of which she is capable. But the use of additional feed would be wasteful in that it would result in the laying on of unnecessary body fat which would further increase the feed required for maintenance. The use of more expensive kinds of feed than are necessary also is a waste of money. Adequate and yet economical feeding of each dairy cow in his herd is probably the dairyman's greatest managerial prob- lem. Its proper solution is lacking in most unprofitable dairy enterprises. The subject of feeding and costs is dis- cussed at length on pages 24 to 30. Culling and Production The removal of low-producing cows from a herd increases the average produc- tion of the remaining herd. This is called culling-for-production, since there may be other reasons for culling, such as for disease. The testing of cows for production is prerequisite to intelligent culling for pro- duction and to maintaining a high herd- average-production per cow. Dairy Herd Improvement associations provide this testing service in all the leading dairy counties in California at costs of about 25 cents per cow per month. Knowing each cow's production enables the dairy- man gradually to eliminate the poor ones and replace them with better ones, and to feed them according to production. It is difficult to give any definite pro- duction level at which a cow is a cull and should be disposed of. A general rule is : any cow whose annual production does not pay direct feed and labor costs, and whose disposal would not reduce in- come more than it reduces costs, should be disposed of at once. Cows that are earning a small profit and for which a better replacement is not available should be kept until the space or feed is needed for a better cow or more promising heifer. A cow giving 200 pounds of fat might not be a cull on some dairy farms, while one giving 400 pounds might be a cull in a high-producing herd if space were needed for a potential 500-pound cow. Culling must be practical and gradual, since it is important to maintain the herd at a size that best fits the available feed, labor and facilities. It can be used as a means of keeping the size of herd at its 12 per pound + net stock income - expense per cow best number through the removal of poor animals as better ones become available. Breeding and Production Dairy cattle inherit the capacity to at- tain high production. The best way to ensure having replacement heifers of high producing ability is to breed high- producing cows to bulls with the ability to transmit high production. The breed- ing program and the culling program work together to produce a good herd. One object of the breeding program is to obtain regularity and proper length of lactation periods by getting the cow with calf at the proper time. Having each cow in production from ten to eleven months of the year will result in highest average production per cow. Cows are in milk about 83 per cent of the time in most regions in California, which is equivalent to 10 months of the year. Breeding trouble or carelessness can reduce this to 60 per cent with corresponding loss of produc- tion and income. A breeding record of individual cows and control of breeding through confinement of bulls are essential to regularity in the breeding program. A second object of the breeding pro- gram is to have cows in milk at the right time of the year. Whether to have cows in milk to take advantage of natural feed or stabilize production through the year, or to obtain maximum production for the year, is a decision for the individual dairyman. Fall freshening has been observed to result in higher total production for the year than spring freshening. The cooler weather at freshening, the tendency for high production the first few months to carry through the winter, and good nat- ural spring pasture stimulating and pro- longing production, combine for higher total production from cows freshening in the fall. Seasonality of production will be discussed below under price. The dairyman can exert a little influ- ence on price through the type of milk he produces, its quality, the seasonal pro- duction of milk through the year, and through his 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 some increased profit. Whole milk for manufacturing purposes usually brings more than churning cream plus skim milk. (There may be localities, however, where transportation difficulties make it necessary to sell churning cream and to use the skim milk on the farm for other stock. ) Quality and Price Before the war there were some oppor- tunities for the sale of premium milk of high color and fat content. Demand for this quality of product may come again. Clean milk of good flavor is essential to selling market milk. Seasonality and Price For every region and type of product there is some seasonal production pattern [13] ||L 00 t> CO c CO r- O W t> rH 00 r- 1 c ° C0-§ oo os csi co tH r- N 6 t- ^t rH tH CO IA CO CC ! s Ph O r- S* T3 »K CSJ r-J OS 0C t> CS CN oc co to a> c 1 c 3 4)X1 M 'J CO I> OS CS d -^ oS oc 1 c O Pi- INNMK CO CS r- r- rH rH rH r- cc w Ph~.5 1 w '3 cS CO , •o — (3 eS CO w rH CO 00 oc iO c c u: CO rH CO CC ' Os a -* H CO- ^ ^ oi r- rH C c o: 00 O H 0C 1 "* .2 1 T-l TH rH rH r- cr bo Ih 03 < (30 3 CM _p CO o "h >> 4* 5 o ea 13 t$ ""* OS ^ CS -* C t> 'Sf CSj l> 05 CC 1 c S o o CO ^f OS ^ ^ <# tt CS cr oo oo ^ ^ 1 <= a pi H o o OS OS O C o c c cr cti oi a cr c ■£ ,P rH rH y-i r- r- r- 3 » t> t-J 00 C rH " OC rH C oc CSi "^ r-J CO t-^ Tj" |> cs 1 ">* 1 "^ Q H (N rH ec w w ^ ^ CS o >- 2 CO ft O O ^ bo l> 00 CO CS] 1> CS a- CR O CO 00 CO 1 tc >> CO I CQ CD 0* g CS 1 w i t- 00 CI o o c cr CX Tj< ^ Tji Ifi b- z "Z rH rH r- to o o 12 o XI si Soli M >, o Ph O N t^ N M oo t- os en CSj co os oc CS oc T- oc CO OS rH CS t> t> co oc 1 c 53 *^ H o o 8 r- CO a o- Z o 5 < < 2 ui Z I < z < ojX! r| N iq h- OS l> CSI CO l> t> t> OC 1 CO r- o o._, CSI Csl CO CO CO csi CS (M (N CSI CSI CS 1 "5 "Z CO 43 °C *3 *3- s 1 W s "3 co w *j rj bD o w a H co- O CO Oi CS OS l> CO l> rH IC oo co T. t> o 00 00 rH Tt t» O O OC rH 1 ^J- 1 ^ cr. CO t» § ^ 2 ii c CO ss 1 CO CO o M 3 o t» CO t- l> CO co co cr, o IO t> t> o; 1 c "3 53 £ 00 OS OS C3 o a o o cr CR C5 OS rH CS 1 c s rH H o OS CR> CR> CR cr CR OS OS o c a 5 _0 XI P o a o o o rH i-i rH rH rH 1 ^ 3 o bo jj ^ < s o >> CO Pi ^ 00 00 Oi CSJ ifl oc CO IO H 00 M 1 CSI >> r- M (9 CO Q 6 o> oS t> cc CO* IC *j IC uj oo go a 1 •> rH CO CS o bo s O p (N ^ C5 t- rH rH IC l> p cq os o 1 00 o s ci O r-1 cs 00 00 00 00 oc CC 00 oo oo oo oo 00 o CO ea p CO a CO p. Pi fl B9 « 1 is ea tH •o o > I-s 1 i Sj O O 03 w O Sz; P 03 S-i Cd — , 2 P o > k s 1 > < > in — decrease ) stock on hand as shown by annual inventory [15 (More about NET STOCK INCOME . . .) Net stock income is not a profit from raising of dairy stock since costs of its production are not considered and would be difficult to segregate from the milk production costs. Where replacements are purchased and no stock is raised in the enterprise, as in some corral dairies around Los Angeles, purchases exceed sales and there is 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 he is to dispose of it. The kinds of animals he considers are : heifers for replacements, bulls, bull calves for veal, stock for beef, purebred stock. There are advantages and disadvantages in own- ing and raising each. 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 will vary widely from year to year and herd to herd but the above 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. Cost for each replacement under this method is the difference between the 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 the feed and other enter- prise costs. The cost of raising dairy heifers varies widely with difference in feeds used, feed prices, time required, and bull service chargeable to the heifers. On a manufacturing milk dairy farm in a region of low hay and pasture costs with dependence largely on natural pas- ture, the estimated cost of a two-year-old bred heifer is about $132. An additional six months before calving would add $38 to her cost. On a market milk dairy under probable higher cost conditions, and on irrigated pasture, the estimated cost of the two- year bred heifer is about $171. Another six months before calving would add $49 to these costs. It is an economy to feed heifers well so they mature and freshen at from 2 to 2% years of age. Buffs The bull has two functions in the herd : first, to breed the cows so they will have calves and give milk; second, to produce superior heifer calves so average produc- tion per cow will be maintained or in- creased. The cost of bull service is usually an unsegregated part of dairy enterprise ex- penses. It is composed of two parts: (1) maintenance costs, including feeding, housing and caring for the bull; and (2) ownership costs including depreciation, and interest on the investment. In corral dairies, where no calves are saved, any potent bull is satisfactory, and his costs are mainly for maintenance. Ownership costs are low because a cheap bull is purchased usually at beef prices, and later sold for beef with little depreci- ation. In dairies where heifer calves are raised for replacement or sale, a good bull is essential and his initial cost is consider- ably more than his ultimate salvage value when sold for beef. Dairy bulls are kept in individual pens and, although they may occasionally re- ceive a little pasture, their feed largely consists of hay. One dairy bull in a year would probably require 5 tons of hay, 500 pounds of concentrates, and about 60 hours of labor for feeding, cleaning the pen, and other work. At $20 a ton for [16 hay, $2 per cwt. for concentrates, and $.80 an hour for labor, these costs would amount to $158. To this may be added about $10 for miscellaneous other costs and $25 for housing. This brings the an- nual maintenance cost of the bull to just under $200. Dairy enterprise records show an average of 1 bull to about 20 cows, so bull maintenance for 20 cows costs about $10 per cow. This is the part of the cost considered as chargeable to milk production. Ownership costs may vary widely with purchase and selling price of bulls. A $400 bull sold 3 years later for beef for $200 would have an annual depreciation of $67 a year; and interest of $15 on the average investment brings the total ownership cost to $82 a year. If bred to 20 cows annually, with about 10 heifer calves obtained, of which 8 would be worth raising, the bull charge against the heifer calves would be about $10 apiece. Combining the two costs and functions gives an annual cost of from $250 to $300 a year per bull. This amounts to a service cost of from $12.50 to $15 a cow where 20 cows are served, and $8 to $10 if 30 cows are served. When to Buy Bull Service. These costs indicate the economy of buying bull serv- ice for the small herd, or of obtaining artificial insemination where available at a reasonable cost. Better and more expensive bulls can be used for artificial insemination and still result in a lower cost per cow than under individual ownership, since more cows can be served. In one association an aver- age bull for a year furnished the neces- sary semen for over 300 cows, plus some outside sale of semen. One top bull pro- duced over 500 calves in a year's time. A dairyman can well afford to pay more for service from an outstanding bull that has proved his ability to transmit high pro- duction. The cost of raising a heifer is so great that an additional $10 or $15 in- vested in better breeding will be well repaid by the additional profit from higher production over several years. This system of breeding cows is successful and sound and is expected to increase in California. Bull Calves for Veal Very few bull calves were raised for veal in California manufacturing-milk dairy enterprises in recent years, and none in market-milk dairies. True veal is produced mainly on whole milk and it takes 10 pounds to produce a pound of gain in a young calf. The milk appears too valuable to justify its use in meat pro- duction. Only calves with high birth weight jus- tify this high cost of feeding, and then only when the price of milk is low com- pared to the price of veal. A 90-pound calf would require 600 pounds of whole milk over 6 to 8 weeks to reach a good marketable weight of 150 pounds. With milk worth $3 a cwt. the value of the milk used would be $18. To bring somewhat more than this to pay for extra labor and other costs, the calf should bring $.15 a pound or $22.50 a head. Of course there may be times on manufacturing-milk dairies when milk is low in price and feed conditions so good 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 dairymen to raise calves for beef. Facilities and feeds on the dairy farm are usually more limited and costly than those used in beef production. They are more profitable when used exclusively for milk production plus the growing of some dairy stock for breeding and re- placement purposes. Only where the dairy enterprise is not large enough to utilize the available pasture would it pay to grow a few of the best calves for beef. Holstein [17] 0) CO ll — | 1 J3H a" HMO • "# • 1 CO 1 Eh . © i-j co • © • °° |5 O O 1 ° o 1 2 .© '3 n >,2 O O oo to CO • q ; co I © 1 o 0} 00 T> rH CO >bo CN.S bo '3 O 0) J* 73 ®TJ O o> 1 1 ^ o 1 1 Si > CD O >» z 5 ■a 9 " «3 O CO 8^ 1 t- 1 t^ o d o 1 1 is a,x: o A > © iH | 00 | «8 rH 2 K ^ ON 00 l>^ qo o oho 1 lO > rH tH 00 lO 1 1 co O iH 1 (SI .Si .2§ || -o u Tf O t- 05 <* lO 1 OS ^3 w T-J CO 1 oo q © 1 oo u. O e3 ft o o q h eq q rH 1 ^ ■H O rH © MCN 1* «/> = O bo > 2 CO iH 1 o 1 *° CO CO d to ui O t> «e ft fee- 1 te a> > 1 ^7. 2 "■ O o CO CO CO rH ui Q a «J w WO M NO 00 1 t- ii ® < ft fee rH 1 LO 73 !> a> o -£3 » iH os CN CO 1 § Ttf CO (N rH 1 1 3 .2 w> ^2 e9 05 X O O r- | (N 1 • 1 1 i .5§ Z £ 1 1 i M CD O = a < 1 •a* O O to O O to q q cq tjh t- i> S3 - w O « ^ ft t3 bo 2 > O 3 "■< tH iH I > c t: c/ V * -5 C c il : c ) c ; * E . i I ■E8" «S m 0> III > £ o c P M CO c t > * ! ^ * > »3 c w a? aj a> a S £ > > 23 S= E- ! E" 5 IJ i .2 £ Muuustr u C steers have been observed to make good gains rather economically on irrigated pasture. Purebred Stock The raising and sale of purebred stock is not often profitable on the dairy farm. 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 dairy 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 averaged 40 more pounds of fat per cow than grades. Dairymen with good high-producing 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 out- standing animals of high value. What Stock Sales May be Expected? Stock raised and sold varies widely from herd to herd and year to year. Where replacements are raised in the herd and a few additional animals are raised for sale or to increase the size of the herd, it will contain about 1.5 animal units of stock per cow. Dairies in the San Joaquin Valley illustrate this situation, and aver- ages for 63 dairy records for 1947 and 1948 are shown in table 4. Those records showed an average death loss in cows of 2 per cent and a sale of 21 per cent, or a replacement need of 23 per cent. The animal units per cow were 1.47 with a net of .68 head raised per cow. With above- normal prices and more than usual buy- ing and selling, net stock income averaged $50.17 per cow. The analysis of many records since 1928 provides the basis for the more normal long-time standard shown in the right-hand side of table 4. This assumes most of the calves are sold or destroyed at birth and just enough heifers raised (6 heifers per 25 cows, or 5 to add to herd and 1 to sell) to replace a death loss of 2 per cent and sale of 18 per cent of the number of cows. At long-time normal prices this results in a net stock income of $20 per cow. For the ten-year prewar period, 1932-1941, net stock income per cow in all San Joaquin Valley records averaged $15 in market-milk herds and $26 in manufacturing-milk herds. In re- cent years there is no significant differ- ence between the two types of herds. [19] PROFIT- Production per cow x price of milk fat per pound Table 5: DAIRY ENTERPRISE RECORDS, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, 1947 AND 1948 Number of records* Average number of cows per dairy . Animal units per cow Pounds of milk fat sold per cow Average price per pound milk fat sold Net cost of production per pound .... Management income per pound . Hours of labor per cow Tons of hay per cow Tons of concentrates per cow Tons of silage, green feed, etc., per cow . Animal unit months of pasture, per cow . . Income per cow Net stock income Miscellaneous income . Income from milk sold Total income Costs per cow Hay Concentrates Silage, green feed, etc. Pasture Total feed cost Hired labor Value of operator's and family labor. . . Miscellaneous expense Depreciation of buildings and equipment Interest on investment at 5 per cent Total costs Management income per cow Farm income per cow 1947 Market milk 13 57.3 1.5 351 $ 1.16 .88 $ .28 84.7 4.6 1.1 1.2 6.8 $ 46.62 7.36 406.65 $460.63 $ 112.60 87.15 10.21 29.02 $238.98 46.10 27.94 23.37 6.26 21.59 $ 364.24 $ 96.39 $ 145.92 Manufactur- ing milk 4 28.3 1.3 301 .96 .76 .20 70.5 3.9 .5 .8 8.3 $ 32.45 4.52 288.21 $325.18 $ 82.75 44.60 3.40 37.67 $ 168.42 .44 62.92 13.00 5.21 16.57 $ 266.56 $ 58.62 $ 138.11 1948 Market milk 24 74.5 1.5 370 1.26 1.05 .21 93.7 4.6 1.1 2.1 8.3 $ 47.97 5.09 465.52 $ 518.58 $ 120.42 92.99 18.75 52.09 $ 284.25 65.14 27.07 30.63 11.39 23.23 $441.71 $ 76.87 $ 127.17 Manufactur- ing milk 22 23.4 1.5 329 $ 1.06 .92 $ .14 87.6 4.5 .8 1.8 7.2 $ 66.92 5.20 347.17 $ 419.29 $ 112.15 68.52 10.35 43.63 $234.65 8.30 79.34 22.21 6.93 21.69 $373.12 $ 46.17 $ 147.20 * Notice that the 1948 figures are from a much greater number of dairies. Differences in costs are due largely to the difference in number and type of dairies reporting, although higher feed costs in 1948 also account for some difference. [20] ■**^s v net stock income T--expense per cow sfc-WsE ti ^ 4i ^y^mi^fSfSWiil^t!im Expense in dairying is as important as income in determining profit. Some dairymen fail to obtain good profits be- cause costs are higher than they need to be. On the other hand, some practice false economies, such as inadequate feeding, with resulting low production and in- come. 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 point up the places where economies can be effected. These major expenses are feed, labor, miscellaneous costs, overhead. Feed is the item in which skill in management will result in greatest reduction of costs. It will be discussed last and at some length. Table 5 presents costs from several dairy farms in the San Joaquin Valley for 1947 and 1948. Size of Herd in Relation to Costs. Analysis of records on dairy herds of many sizes leads to the conclusion that the most profitable size of herd is that which best fits the pasture and forage production on the particular farm, whether it be 10 or 300 cows. Labor and facilities can be adjusted to any size of herd without much cost handicap. Ten cows in a small sideline manufac- turing-milk herd may have slightly higher overhead costs per cow, but the labor of the owner-operator and the economical farm-produced forage can make such an enterprise profitable. Very large herds have certain advantages in low facility costs per cow and large buying power for feed and supplies, but they have disad- vantages in dependence on hired labor. It is important, however, once the best size of herd for a farm has been deter- mined, to keep it at that size in order fully to utilize feed, labor and facilities. Labor Costs Recent dairy enterprise records show about 70 hours of labor per cow for the year in manufacturing-milk dairies, and 85 hours in market-milk dairies. This in- cludes the care of all the stock in the herd in addition to milking and handling the milk. Records made ten years ago showed 50 per cent more labor required. Better equipment, smaller milking barns to work in and clean, and more use of pasture, all have contributed to this reduction. A sav- ing of about 20 hours per cow by machine milking over hand milking was recorded in the early 1930's. It probably is greater today. The labor-requirement figures above, which are averages of several records in San Joaquin Valley, are equally repre- sentative 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 somewhat with increases in production per cow. It takes a little more labor to do the better feeding 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 total market milk costs, and 24 per cent of manufacturing milk costs over the ten years 1932-1941. In 1947 and 1948 it was 21 per cent of market-milk costs and 24 per cent of manufacturing-milk costs. Some jobs around the dairy take about the same time regardless of number of [21] 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 ma- chine equipment. A herd of 75 might be a little too big for one milker and too small to justify two. If pasture were avail- able the herd might be increased to 110 to fully utilize the second milker. Miscellaneous Costs Miscellaneous costs in the dairy busi- ness include taxes, repairs, insurance, dairy supplies, electric power, cow testing dues, automobile expense, veterinary service, and fuel for sterilization. These averaged about $13 per cow in manufac- turing-milk dairies and $23 in market- milk dairies in 1947. The higher costs in market-milk dairies come from better buildings, refrigeration for cooling milk, and maintenance of more sanitary facil- ities. County taxes, largely for the stock and buildings, run from $2 to $4 a cow. Elec- tric power for lights, milking machine, refrigeration and sometimes sterilization runs from $1 to $3 a cow. Fuel for steri- lization is about $1 to $2. Cow testing by the local Dairy Herd Improvement asso- ciations now costs $2.50 to $4 a cow a year. This group of costs is essential and largely beyond the control of the dairy- man. Good care and economy can keep it at a minimum, but it is poor business to skimp on needed supplies, veterinary service, and cow testing. 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. It is an advantage to have good stock and adequate facilities, but a dairyman's fi- nancial strength can be endangered by going too far into debt for nonessential facilities. The best way to keep capital outlay to the minimum is to make it care- fully, obtaining the minimum essentials in the most economical manner. Too much equipment or building area increases the labor of maintenance. A small milking barn can handle a lot of cows by several turn-ins in succession. A lower investment is required for the stor- age and handling of hay and silage when maximum use is made of pasture. Pasture may also reduce the need for paved yards for holding and feeding the cows. A standard for the investment in a dairy enterprise has been worked out on the basis of management records for a number of years brought up to date with present-day costs. This standard, for a 60-cow market-milk dairy, and a 25-cow manufacturing-milk dairy, is shown in table 6. Depreciation. In this standard, depre- ciation has been figured on the basis of 30 years for buildings and improvements, and 5 to 20 years for equipment. The total amounts to $10.58 per cow for the market-milk dairy, and $8.40 a cow in the manufacturing-milk dairy. This standard figure is higher than the average of actual dairy records for 1947 and 1948, also shown in table 6, which are $8.22 per cow depreciation in the market-milk dairies, and $6.62 in the manufacturing-milk dairies. The lower actual figure is based on building and im- provement costs of some years ago, which were considerably lower than today. Interest. Dairy enterprise records in- clude a charge for interest on current investment at 5 per cent. The dairyman out of debt has no interest to pay, so may consider this as the earnings of his in- vested capital and a part of his net farm income. The investment used for buildings and equipment is half of the actual cost of such facilities, since over the useful life of such facilities they decline in value from cost to zero through depreciation, and the average value over the years [22] Table 6: STANDARD DAIRY ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY, AND RECORD AVERAGES FOR 1947-48 Land in lots and corrals . Dairy buildings and improvements : Milking barn or shed Milk house Feed and shelter barn Bull and calf barns Corral fences and gates Paved yards Well and pressure water system . Milkers' or help house Total buildings and improvements Dairy equipment: Milking machine Refrigerator and milk cooler Sterilizer Miscellaneous equipment . Total equipment Feed, average investment year around Stock: cows at $200, bulls .calves, etc. . Total investment Interest on investment at 5 per cent Depreciation on buildings and improvements . Depreciation on equipment Total depreciation cows — market milk Quantity or size 2 acres 12-cow 18 X20 60 X 100 24 X50 1,000 ft. 7,200 sq.ft. 84A.U. Total cost 800 $ 2,400 1,200 6,000 1,500 1,000 1,800 1,000 3,000 $ 17,900 $ 400 1,200 150 200 $ 1,950 $ 2,400 $ 15,600 $ 38,650 $ 1,933 $ 435 200 $ 635 Cost per cow $ 13.33 $ 40.00 20.00 100.00 25.00 16.67 30.00 16.67 50.00 $ 298.34 $ 6.67 20.00 2.50 3.33 $ 32.50 $ 40.00 % 260.00 $ 644.17 $ 32.21 $ 7.25 3.33 $ 10.58 25 cows — manufacturing milk Quantity or size lacre 8-cow 40 X60 20 X24 200 ft. 35A.U. Total cost $ 400 600 100 2,000 600 200 600 $ 4,100 240 30 50 $ 320 $ 925 $ 6,500 $ 12,245 $ 612 175 35 210 Cost per cow $ 16.00 $ 24.00 4.00 80.00 24.00 8.00 24.00 $ 164.00 $ 9.60 1.20 2.00 $ 12.80 $ 37.00 $ 260.00 $ 489.80 $ 24.48 $ 7.00 1.40 $ 8.40 San Joaquin Valley dairy records, 1947-48 Total investment per cow Interest on investment at 5 per cent, per cow Depreciation on dairy buildings and equipment, per cow . Market milk $ 454.93 22.75 8.22 Manufacturing milk $ 417.30 20.77 6.62 would be about half the cost. The interest charge in the standard shown in table 6 is $32.21 per cow in the 60-cow market- milk dairy, $24.48 per cow in the 25-cow manufacturing-milk dairy. Actual interest charges are considerably below the stand- ard costs since facilities are old and per- haps not as complete as those shown as standards. Feed Costs The next section tells how feed costs enter into the expense per cow. It analyzes the relative value of dairy feeds, and suggests some good dairy management practices applied to feeding. [23 GETTING THE MAXIMUM RETURN FROM FCCd COStS 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 the greatest opportunity for false economy, sound economy or extrava- gance. A study and analysis of his feeding practices and costs is the dairyman's most important device in improving his profit by either (lj reducing costs without re- ducing income, or (2) considerably in- creasing 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 cer- tain extent they can be substituted for one another. The relative value of the four types is given in table 7. Pasture 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 the quantity of pasturage eaten by livestock is not known as to weight, 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 of a ton of hay. Hay Hay is the main dairy feed in Califor- nia 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 transported for use where and when pasturage is not available. Alfalfa hay is the main variety used, with oat and vetch hay next in im- portance. Hay varies considerably in quality but one can consider all hays as having a total digestible nutrient content of 50 per cent. Succufenf Feeds Most dairymen consider some succu- lent feed desirable in the daily feed of the dairy cow. Tests show satisfactory results on dry feed only where such feed is well balanced and of adequate nutrient and vitamin content. So the provision of suc- culent feed when green pasture is not available is an optional matter depending on the preference of the dairyman and the costs of the feeds he has available. 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. Digestible nutrient content will vary from as low as 8 per cent to as high as 20 per cent for feeds in this group, with 15 per cent being about average. This group is not an important source of nutrients in this state, being largely used to replace fresh green pasture when that is not available. It is bulky and ex- pensive to haul and store, so nutrient cost is usually a little higher than for hay and considerably above pasture. Where green pasturage is available most of the year and in small amount through the winter, the use of other succulent feeds is not jus- tified. Silage is the most important and widely used succulent feed. Silage is made by [24 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 pasturage is green and of high quality for only a few months. With bet- ter mechanical harvesting methods in recent years, it is being more widely used as a means of saving and storing heavy yields of oats and vetch, and even alfalfa that would be difficult to cure as hay in the spring. With proper methods its harvesting and storage costs only a little more than if the same crop were cured for hay, and nutrient content is better preserved. Concentrates Grains, seed meals and similar mate- rials of high feeding value are called con- centrates. Total digestible nutrient con- tent will vary from a high of 80 per cent in some grains and oil cake meals down to 60 per cent for some of the by-products. An average of 75 per cent is assumed to fit most mixtures or prepared mixed dairy concentrates. This group is usually the most expensive source of nutrients, and it serves two important purposes. It supplies ingredients that may be lacking in the other feeds, and it permits a greater feed intake so high-producing cows can ob- tain enough nutrients to reach maximum production. But since its nutrient cost is usually three times that for pasture, and twice that for hay, any feeding of concen- trates beyond the quantity required ma- terially increases feed cost. California dairy cows are usually fed a concentrate mixture composed of ground grains, grain products, dried beet pulp and oil cake meals. Some dairymen buy the ingredients and mix them. With farm-grown barley or local barley pur- chased at harvest time as a basic ingredi- ent, the resulting mixture can be relatively economical.* Many dairymen buy pre- pared dairy feeds of guaranteed analysis for convenience. Table 8, on the next page, shows com- parative costs of producing some dairy feeds under nonirrigated and irrigated conditions. * A leaflet titled "Concentrate Mixtures for Dairy Cows/' by W. M. Regan and G. E. Gordon, is available from the office of the farm advisor, or from the Agricultural Ex- tension Service, University of California. Table 7: RELATIVE NUTRITIVE VALUE OF FOUR TYPES OF FEED Hay Grain and Silage, green concentrates feed, roots Per cent of total digestible nu- trients 50 75 15 15 Pounds of total digestible nu- trients 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 equiva- lent in TDN to 1 ton of hay .... 1.00 ton .67 ton 3.33 tons 2.5 A.U. mo. Quantity of feed roughly equiva- lent 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. [25] a s. o ooc ooc 1 1 oooooo OO OC c 58 i> o «2 O (N 1 oo oo m in oq • qc c t- 0-2 lO o ■<* aocc 00 -^ c ■^ f 'C Sua co^'g oo in ec ec cd co co co ec CO CO l> ■<* \c. CS tji ^ T- S .£) » ^ €t9- & h w- €f >■ a J2 co~ o < I 'w • F4 c z § fl) a V. © M H O u. < U q : iH SS888S r-5 05 N tH CO rH ooo mo c CO CO " tA cs ifi cc oc s CO !3 IC •c T- c T- 3 £* 00 tH a. i-H CM CO "* o tH 0) > > e9- 1 1 «e h to w- «= r E ec CO o P < CS U CO to a a 1 i o o Ik O T3 S? bo » g «ooo '1 OOO qqo ^ 00 H o oooo q • q qq o CO ^ tA CM rH 188 : 1 i-i «* CM oc wc i-i m Ifl T- ec 00 c CO m incs CS CS es CO to O u '2 o CO w- 1 «9 h se- & ► ! fc 02 z g la o o oooo I oo • oc O ifi " CN ifl •oc ^ 1" u 3 • q : cm o O o CO a. •g •4 Ul CO > P a o < ec •M < TJ a. C9 > £ 0) O TJ u CO •• OT to o 00 • CP o o Pi £ cp *- W p. u a O c ft* ©I C c cr s 1 S s -4-» o 0) c a. a. >~ P 4J CT 1? CM c •a § 73 £h p c f- Qi a pi o c ll += c c *^ fi a, t5*6 • ■ ' Q3 XT -4-= V. C e8 PI CV is CP OO P. in PI s | cr CP OT 03 M O >- OT o o o o

2 H tfl 8 o CO p * S p .S-saas h s (D O V -u .2 -Sh -tJ -o OOODlH lj a) t) t) b s" 1 s s s « a, a» -s w QP5 o _ o 03 . i o 00 -2 O fl C$ TO y Id H O o © o ec] CP > < GOOD DAIRY MANAGEMENT APPLIED TO FEEDING Three Rules for Feeding 1. Know the TDN requirements of the animals for most efficient growth and pro- duction. 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. 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 have been 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 animals. These feed requirements must be con- sidered as the ideal or optimum quanti- ties where each animal can be fed per- fectly. There is considerable waste and unequal distribution of feed, as well as variation in appetites and feeding habits, in a herd of dairy cattle. It is well to allow some additional feed, and to assume that more total digestible nutrients will be used in the herd than the calculated stand- ards. An excess of 13 per cent over the Morrison Standard is the quantity used as an average by San Joaquin Valley dairies. Thus the total feed requirement for a herd would be estimated by calcu- lating requirements for the number of head of each kind, adding these to obtain a herd total, and then increasing this total by 13 per cent. * Morrison, F. B., Feeds and Feeding, 20th edition, pp. 1004-1005. Table 9: FEED REQUIREMENTS AND ANIMAL UNIT EQUIVALENTS PER HEAD OF DAIRY STOCK — MORRISON STANDARD Calf— to 3 months 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 Average weight for period pounds 140 310 600 800 1,125 1,125 1,125 1,125 1,200 Total digestible nutrients Per day pounds 3.3 5.3 9.2 10.0 13.2 15.4 17.6 19.9 13.2 Year, 365 days pounds S,360 3,650 4,800 5,616 6,433 7,250 4,800 Animal units per head 0.25 0.40 0.70 0.75 1.00 1.17 1.34 1.50 1.00 Note: In figuring overall feed requirement for a herd for a year add 12.5 per cent, or one-eighth more, for waste. [27] Figure. 2. POUNDS OF TOTAL DIGESTIBLE NUTRIENTS USED PER COW FOR THE MILK FAT THEY PRODUCED (HERD AVERAGE) IN SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY DAIRIES y,uuu 8,000 ^ -- ^--**'"*"*Morrison standard 7,000 Total herd average per cow shown ^^-*^ for 1,125-pound cow by records — ^ ^ 0t0 **"*^* / and 4% milk^ —•—""" - CONCENTRATES^. *~ — *" """ 6,000 ^^^••"■"■""^ ^^ ■*"" ***** 1 1- *- ■ • Total roughage ^ .— -" — '"""' 5,000 ROUGHAGE 4,000 Hay Pasture Silage and green feed 3,000 - 2,000 - 1,000 - i i t 200 250 300 350 400 POUNDS OF MILK FAT PRODUCED PER COW 450 500 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. USE THIS CHART TO CHECK OR ESTIMATE YOUR FEED USE FOR THE YEAR Locate your annual herd average production per cow along the bottom line. Draw a perpendicular line up to the top line marked "Total herd average per cow shown by records/ 7 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. Multiplying by the average number of cows will give total annual feed use in the entire herd. You can estimate or convert feed values by using the figures in table 7. [28] Relationship Between Feed Use and Production The relationship between total digesti- ble 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 pro- duction 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 more profitable to use a maxi- mum amount of lowest cost nutrients from pasture and the minimum re- quired of highest cost nutrients from concentrates. This is well illustrated by a comparison of costs in 79 dairy records from the San Joaquin Valley for 1947 and 1948, shown in table 10 below. These 79 dairies were divided into two groups within each type of dairy accord- ing to the usage made of pasture, those in the high pasture group all using more than 9 animal units of pasturage per cow. Table 10 shows that in both market- and manufacturing-milk dairies the consider- able saving in feed cost through the use of more pasture was largely reflected in increased profit. Table 10: PASTURE USE, FEED COSTS, AND PROFIT, SAN JOAQUIN VALLEY DAIRIES, 1947-48 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 19 339 4.0 1.0 1.2 10.8 29 371 5.0 1.2 3.3 5.7 12 307 3.5 .7 .0 11.1 19 322 4.9 .9 2.6 5.5 Pounds of milk fat sold per cow Feeds used per cow per year Hay, tons Concentrates, tons Silage and green feed, tons Pasture, animal unit months Feed cost per cow $ 254.32 $291.31 36.99 $ 211.85 $ 236.47 24.62 The higher feed costs Management income per cow (profit) The higher profits $ 102.33 28.31 $ 74.02 $ 64.05 42.24 $ 21.81 Feed cost per pound of milk fat .75 .30 .78 .20 .69 .21 .73 .07 Management income per pound of fat [29 Feeding Concentrates According to Production The main purpose of feeding concen- trates is to provide each cow with ade- quate nutrients in quantity and quality so she can maintain production at the maximum level of which she is capable. Cows producing 25 pounds of milk fat a month, or 250 a year, can obtain all die nutrients needed from roughage if given all the good hay and pasturage they will eat. But cows capable of producing over 30 pounds of fat a month may not be able to hold enough bulky roughage to furnish enough nutrients to maintain high production. Therefore it is necessary to vary concentrate feeding with the pro- duction of each individual cow. Two methods of feeding concentrates according to production have been used in California. The first method is well established, but results in rather high con- centrate feeding at low production levels. Therefore the second method has been devised wherein no concentrates are fed at the lowest levels of production, but the increase is faster as production rises. (See table 11.) Method 1. Divide the number of pounds of milk fat produced monthly by 5. 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, di- vide by 6. Method 2. Subtract 25 from the pounds of fat produced per month, and divide the remainder by 2 to arrive at the pounds of concentrates to feed per day. This rule puts heavy feeding where it belongs— with heavy production. It removes all concen- trates from the ration of extremely low producers. It approximates actual prac- tice 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 is poor in quality, more liberal feeding and a better concentrate mixture may be required. This general principle of feed- ing individual cows according to produc- tion has been well demonstrated to result in higher average production with lower concentrate use and lower feed costs. in Saving in Buying. Wise buying volume, through the most advantageous channels and at the best time of the year, can result in a considerable saving. Hay Table 11: 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 P* Method 2 P*— 25 5 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 2 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.3 1.5 1.7 25 30 35 40 45 50 250 300 350 400 450 500 0.0 2.5 5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 * P = production per month in pounds of milk fat. 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 indications 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 increased profit. [30] Standards of inputs and costs An input is something that an operator puts into his enterprise (such as feed and labor) over which he can exert certain control as to kind and quantity. Inputs remain 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 12, 13, and 14. FOR THE MARKET-MILK DAIRY IN THE IRRIGATED VALLEY The standard below is designed to fit the irrigated, valley dairy farm with a market- milk enterprise of around 50 cows. It is assumed the herd has reached its proper size and is being maintained by raising enough heifer calves 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 con- centrates and hay are provided; and there is slightly less dependence on pasture than in the manufacturing milk dairy in table 13 — the purpose being to ensure level total pro- duction through the year. It would require about one acre of irrigated pasture and one half acre of alfalfa to produce the roughage 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. Table 12: A STANDARD OF INPUTS AND COSTS FOR MARKET-MILK DAIRY ENTERPRISE, USING FARM-GROWN ALFALFA HAY AND IRRIGATED PASTURE Concentrates Hay Pasture Total feed. Pounds TDN* per cow 1,350 2,900 4,400 8,650 Labor Miscellaneous : cow testing, power, fuel, taxes, repairs, etc Depreciation based on 50-cow dairy, table 6 . . . Interest on dairy enterprise investment at 5 per cent, table 6 Quantity per cow 1,800 lbs. 2.9 tons HA.TJ.mo.f 85 hours Total expense Less probable net stock and miscellaneous income Net cost of milk sold, 325 pounds of fat per cow Unit price $ 2.50 15.00 4.00 1.53 .80 Costs in dollars Per cow $ 45.00 43.50 44.00 $ 132.50 68.00 25.00 10.50 32.20 $ 268.20 25.00 $ 243.20 $ .41 .21 .08 .03 .10 * Total digestible nutrients. f Animal unit months. [31] FOR THE MANUFACTURING-MILK DAIRY IN THE IRRIGATED VALLEY The standard below is for a manufacturing-milk dairy of around 25 cows under irri- gated valley conditions. The feed used per cow is the same in total digestible nutrients as for the market milk standard in table 12, 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 table 1 2, the difference in size of herd should be considered. If the above were a 50-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 production of market milk would be about 13 cents a pound of fat more than for manufacturing milk; and that is at the prices and for the conditions assumed in these standards. Table 1 3: A STANDARD OF INPUTS AND COSTS FOR A MANUFACTURING- MILK DAIRY ENTERPRISE USING FARM-GROWN ALFALFA HAY AND IRRIGATED PASTURE Concentrates Hay Pasture Total feed Pounds TDN* per cow 1,275 2,575 4,800 8,650 Labor Miscellaneous : cow testing, power, taxes, etc. . Depreciation based on 25-cow dairy, table 6. . . Interest on dairy enterprise investment at 5 per cent, table 6 Quantity per cow 1,700 lbs. 2.6 tons 12A.U.mo.f 70 hours Total expense Less probable net stock and miscellaneous income Net cost of milk sold, 325 pounds of fat per cow Unit price $ 2.50 15.00 4.00 .80 Costs in dollars Per cow $42.50 39.00 48.00 % 129.50 56.00 15.00 8.40 24.50 $233.40 26.00 $ 207.40 Per pound milk fat .13 .12 .15 $ .40 .17 .05 .03 .07 $ .72 .08 $ .64 * Total digestible nutrients. f Animal unit months. NOTE: The standards in tables 12 to 14 are based on the assumptions listed below. Other quantities and prices may be substituted to fit any set of conditions. 1. Raising of replacements. 2. Herd composition: total of 1.35 animal units, composed of: cows, 1; bulls, .04; calves under 3 months, .02; calves 3 months to 1 year, .08; heifers 1 to 2 years, .17; heifers over 2 years, .04. [32 FOR THE MARKET-MILK DAIRY WITH NATURAL PASTURE The standard below 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 preceding two standards. Although total digestible nutrients are assumed to be the same per cow as in the previous standards, in this area more would come from hay, silage and concentrates and less from pasture. Silage is included in this standard because it may be economically pro- duced in this area without irrigation and because of its value in the long period when good pasture is not available. A little more labor per cow than in table 12 is assumed to be needed for the hand feeding of the additional hay and silage. These differences in feeding and available feeds result in a slightly higher cost per cow and 1 cent 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. Table 14: A STANDARD OF INPUTS AND COSTS FOR A MARKET-MILK ENTERPRISE USING PURCHASED ALFALFA HAY AND FARM-GROWN OAT AND VETCH HAY, SILAGE AND NATURAL PASTURE Concentrates Farm oat and vetch hay Purchased alfalfa Farm silage Natural pasture Total feed Pounds TDN* per cow 1,575 1,695 1,500 1,080 2,800 8,650 Labor Miscellaneous : cow testing, power, taxes, etc. Depreciation on buildings and equipment Interest on dairy enterprise investment at 5 per cent Total expense Less net stock and miscellaneous income Quantity per cow 2,100 lbs. 1.7 tons 1.5 tons 3.0 tons 7A.U.mo.f 88 hours Net cost of milk sold, 325 pounds of fat per cow Unit price $ 2.50 14.00 18.00 6.00 2.50 .80 Costs in dollars Per cow $ 52.50 23.80 27.00 18.00 17.50 $ 138.80 70.40 24.00 10.00 32.00 $ 275.20 27.00 $248.20 $ .76 Per pound milk fat .16 .07 .08 .06 .05 $ .42 .22 .07 .03 .10 $ .84 .08 * Total digestible nutrients. f Animal unit months. 3. Herd average production: 350 pounds of milk fat per cow with sale of 325 pounds. 4. TDN provided generously: 6,800 pounds per cow plus 1,850 for .35 animal units of other stock, or a total of 8,650 pounds of TDN per cow. 5. Prices: feed at assumed future normal levels; wages at 80 cents an hour. Prices are somewhat below present prices, but above prewar. 33 Pfalliliiig the dairy farm business A well-organized dairy farm business is one with the best size of herd for the feed that can be most economically pro- duced on the farm, and with labor supply, buildings, and equipment to fit that size of herd. Roughage production on the farm is the most important considera- tion since farm-grown forage is usually cheaper than purchased and transported feed. Ordinarily it is most profitable to keep the herd adjusted to use each year the pasture and other feed produced on the farm, with little roughage to buy and no surplus hay to sell. Some purchase of 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 which utilizes the available labor, buildings, and equip- ment. Decide on Size of Farm Fit Labor to Size of Herd. The labor on a large dairy farm may be more easily and profitably adjusted to the farm than the dairy herd adjusted to the 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. A smaller number would not require much less time or justify a milking machine and place to milk. The One-Man Dairy Farm. A special- ized dairy farm for the support of a single family and with one principal worker should have from 20 cows up to perhaps 40. Where pasture and hay are both pro- duced, 20 to 25 cows would keep one man Table 15: 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, etc Silage, corn or sorghum Sudan grass pasture, irrigated . . . Sudan grass 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 1.0 1.0 0.8 4.0 0.5 0.7 0.7 12.0 2.0 1.0 0.2 6.0 3.0 1.0 Total pounds TDN* per acre 6,400 6,400 1,584 1,600 1,700 3,280 3,300 4,800 800 6,000 5,120 2,400 1,200 1,900 Hours of labor required per acre 23 57 5 3 7 10 13 12 0.2 150 30 12 4 6 Pounds TDN* per hour of labor 278 112 317 530 243 328 254 400 4,000 40 171 200 300 316 TDN — total digestible nutrients ; see page 27 for definition. 34 fully employed 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 from 40 to 60 cows. Consider the Two-Family Farm. A dairy farm justifying the full-time serv- ices of two men is more efficient and less confining. The nature of the work practi- cally requires two workers so one can relieve the other in illness or for days off. With two men available for putting up hay and silage using modern forage har- vesters, such a 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 can 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 feed and breed them individually for best results. Such a farm should provide a comfortable living for the two workers and their fam- ilies. The two workers can be partners, a father and son, or an owner and em- ployee. It is suggested as the goal for all dairy farmers. Balance Stock and Feed Production In planning or reorganizing a dairy farm it is necessary to consider the soil, and the roughage that can be produced. Alfalfa requires a deep, permeable soil and considerable irrigation water. Irri- gated pasture may be produced economi- cally on shallower and denser soils, but it requires considerable water and fre- quent irrigation. Oats and vetch for hay or silage may be produced on a wide range of soils, and in alternate years with summer fallow, and without irrigation in regions of low rainfall. Rolling lands not suited for crop production may be used for natural pasture. Since pasture is the most economical source of nutrients, it should receive first priority in land use up to the point where the maximum usable by the dairy herd is provided. Table 16: SAMPLE DAIRY FARM CROP AND FEED PRODUCTION PLAN (First Trial for Nonirrigated Farm in Coast Counties) Field Crop or land use no. Acres Yield per acre Total feed obtainable Crop (tons) Pasture, A.U. mo.* Hay (tons) Grain (tons) Silage, etc. (tons) Pasture, A.U. mo.* 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 1.0 1.5 .3 2.0 2.0 1.0 54 80 228 18 34 6 10 454 120 Total 412 134 192 40 228 240 642 420 Needed for 60-cow her d Difference, shortage or surplus -58 -40 -12 222 * Animal unit month. [35 A list of common feed crops, showing good commercial yields in quantity and in total digestible nutrients, is given in table 15. The pasturage shown is in addi- tion to the crop harvested, and its feeding value is included in the total digestible nutrients. The labor requirement for each crop is an estimate based on local studies and usual methods of production on a moderate scale. Make a Cropping Plan The next step in planning the dairy farm is to decide on the acreage of each feed crop and estimate the expected pro- duction. Each field or area is listed with its crop, its area in acres, its probable yield per acre, and its probable total produc- tion of crop and pasturage. Table 16 illus- trates such a cropping plan and shows how total feed production is compared to a feed requirement for a 60-cow herd based on the standard in table 14. This example shows a shortage of hay and silage and a surplus of natural pasture. Subsequent trials would explore the possi- bility of growing more hay on some of the pasture land or increasing the herd to use most of the pasture and buying more hay. Plan Pasture for Longer Season Pasture is the cheapest of dairy feeds and its production and feeding require the least 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 some pasture on occasions in the winter. Table 17 shows the pasturage obtainable by months from several types under good conditions. — ► Production and months of use will vary considerably from place to place and year to year with variations in weather and management. On any farm with consider- able pasture, dry or irrigated, there will ^ o * qoq j lO fc-« CO tA , tA ^ 00 iH CO o o O (N O lO 00 t- 13 O "«tf CD tH > a O c °* a t~, u o> 5 ■*" 1 **-* ■S -S >» >> n eg $ $ bo bs>H m h £ o lO • CO • IrH^leOI O CO CO Tji 1 CM rH •(NO) | CM • CM CM ^ o • • ^ItjioIcoi to 1 CO O 1 ^ O s . . . 1 CM CO 1 | CM • CM CO | o. © . . . • 1 o os 1 os i o O© H ■^ CO a ho CO • • - • CO CO | "^ • < 3 CO c8 bo < CM • 1 CM OS 1 C» CO 1 CO OS 1 ^ a CO • • • • CO CO j | tH • • ** CO >- "o < a 1 o a 9::: 1 1 O OS 1 rH 1 CO ■<# CO IO • 1 CO OS 1 iJ 1 IO CO I tH *■ •iH Ul -J S 0) U3 H • • CO OS l> OS r-l 1 O OS 1 rH —1 "e3 T* • • 1 s < c3 la c3 § N : 1 CM OS tt CO CM 1 00 OS 1 OS or o S IO CO r- CO CO CO j CM O u. H 1 z 'S ©CM 00 1 o o r- © CM 1 CM OS CO < < CO ^ w 5« \ "# CO a ui 1 a £3 o cm co as 1 r- CO CM 00 OS 1 rH 3 S CM r- CM CM CO | tH h- i 1 1 1 1 «/> < ■ a X! o w eo w o c <= CO CM W 00 C CM UJ rH CM CC r- rH rH 00 y-l -1 1 1 1 1 | Q. < s CO • CO ^ O >fi 1 IA CO M CO tC OS 4 j-i rH | tH 1 1 00 ■— n 1 4> IO CO CM CO *H CO CO CN *"< £ O CM rH IO CO rH IO <5 A - — '~— -s ^ -. ft