5,43% iN‘HHWll‘llWHllWWWIIMMIVNW!

REDUCTION OF DAlRY HERD
REPLACEMENT COSTS

Thesis for the Degree cf M. S.
MICHICSAN STATE COLLEGE

Eugene Harshman Cari'e—r

“£949

 

This is to certify that the

 

thesis entitled

"Reduction of Dairy Herd Replaceuut Costa“
presented by
BUCENB HARSM cm
has been accepted towards fulfillment

of the requirements for

ll. 8, degree in Farm W

 
   

Major professor
Date Mia?—

0-169

 

 

REDUCTION OF DAIRY HERD REHACEZxfl-EN‘I‘ COSTS

BY
EUGENE HARSHMAN CAREER
w

A. TIESIS
Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of
Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Economics

June 19M9

1HFE§LS

 

VITA

Eugene Harshman Carter

PERSONAL
Age: 28 years Religion: Protestant
Birthplace: Clinton County, Indiana Height: 5 ft. 10.5 in.
Nationality: American Weight: 185 lbs.
Marital status: married Health: excellent
EDUCATION

Jackson Township High School, Clinton County, Indiana: graduated 1938.
Purdue University. School of Agriculture: Bachelor of Science
Major: Farm Management

AFFILIATION
Ceres Honorary Fraternity; Purdue University

PRACTICAL TRAINING AND EXPERIENCE
Born and reared on a general farm in Clinton County, Indiana.

Three years and four months with the United States.Army Veterinary
Corps.

Three years at Michigan State College-~two years in Farm Management
Research and one year in Farm Management Extension.

216934.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The author is indebted to Dr. K. T. Wright for assistance in
conducting this study and in giving advice and counsel in the prepara-
tion of this manuscript.

The author is also indebted to a. w. Christian who made some
of the farm interviews.

Appreciation is expressed to Professor E. R. Hill, C. R. Hoglund,
J. C. Doneth, and other members of the Agricultural Economics Department
whose cooperation made this study possible.

Appreciation is also expressed to the farmers who cooperated in

supplying information for this study.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
Problem statement . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Need for the study. . . . . . . . . . . . .
Objectives of the study . . . . . . . . . .

PROCEDURE
Review of literature. . . .
Methods used in research. .

Theaample.....o.o
Methods of analyzing data

0 e e e e
e e e e e
0 e e e e
O O 0 e e

EXPLANATION OF COST AND INCOME ITEMS USED IN YOUNGSTOCK

ANDBULLCOSTRECORDS..............
smmsr or DAIRY COSTS AND mums, 191:7 . . . . .

THE COST OF PRODUCING.A HEIFER
Average youngstock cost and income, l9h7. .
Calculation of heifer costs by projection .
Calculation of heifer costs by deduction. .

FACTORS RELATED TO YOUNGSTOCK COSTS AND RETURNS
High and low total return herds . . . . . .

Comparison of high and low youngstock cost herds.

Feed COBtBe e e e e e e e
Labor efficiency. . . . .
Size of youngstock herd .
Quality 0 e e e e e e e
Calf value at five days
Breeding costs. . . . .
Breed.........
Mortality. e e e e e e

O
O
O
O
O
O
C
0

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

Generaloeeeeeeee
Age of freshening . . . .
Milk feeding practices. .
Hay feeding practices . .
Pasture practices . . . . .
Comparison of calf mortality and disease of

lO'COStherdSeeeeeeeeeeeeee

high and

Comparison of breeding methods on low and high cost

herdSeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Problems in raising heifers . . . . . . . .

Why dairymen prefer raising their replacements.

How to reduce heifer costs. . . . . . . . .

THE COST OF KEEPING A BULL . . . . . . . . . . . .

karat“

GNU

10

13

15
18

19

FACTORS RELATED TO BULL COSTS AND CREDITS
Comparison of high and low bull cost

Feed COStS e e e e e e e e e e e
Bull appreciation. . . . . . . .
Labor efficiency . . . . . . . .
Number of cows and heifers bred.
Breed. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Number of bulls. . . . . . . . .

COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT BREEDING METHODS
Comparison of breeding costs on farms using bull,

herds .

artificial insemination, and a combination of
bull and artificial insemination . . . . . . .

Effect of size of herd on cost advantage

and artificial insemination. .
Factors other than costs . . . .

WY . O O O 0 O C O O O O O O O O O
APPENDIXe O 0 O O O O . O O O O O O O O

BIBLIOGRAPHY. O O O O O O O O O O O O O

of bull

O Q C O O O O

O O O O O O O

i

:23“ JCTICI". OF DSJEY 3-7739 FPLEST 3171‘ COSTS
Z“

 

Eugene Hars‘mm-m Carter

II‘T’I‘ROIIJ‘CTI ON

Problem Statement: One of the important items in the cost of
milk production is replacing the dairy herd. In 1947, I-iichigan dairy-
msn in the Detroit area, as an average, had 3.6 heifers to freshen
and purchased 1.5 cows for herds averaging 16.5 cows. These same
dairymen lost money producing heifers for replacements. Although
some have produced their own replacements at a small profit, most of
them produced heifers at some loss. While many Michigan dairy fanners
have purchased only a part of their replacement needs. some few have
purchased all their replacements.

Negd for the Study: The dairy enterprise is the most important
single farm enterprise in Michigan. It is the major enterprise on
most Michigan farms. Thus this dairy herd replacement problem is one
of not few but new farmers in Michigan. Farmers and agricultural
specialists have a great need for information relating to the reduction
of dairy herd replacement costs.

ijectiveg of the guy: The purpose of this study was to
learn how dairy herd replacement costs can be reduced. Specific
objectives were the following:

(1) To determine the cost of producing a heifer.

(2) To study some factors related to youngstock costs and

returns,

(3) To determine the cost of keeping a bull,

2
(4) To study some factors related to bull costs and credits,
(5) To compare the differences in costs of different methods

of breeding.

PROCEIIIRE

Review of Literature: Letters were mailed to departments of
agricultural economics in other states to obtain literature on the
subject of dairy herd replacement costs. It was felt that much could
be learned by reviewing the findings and the procedures used in other
studies.

Replies from the letters were someWhat disappointing. Most of
the information received from other states were letters containing
opinions on the subject. No studies had been made recently on this
subject.

Some ideas were obtained on procedure from the review of litera-
ture. However, in most cases. the findings were for different situa-
tions than exist in southeastern Michigan. As an example. farmers
producing cream in other areas had skim milk available to feed to
calves. whereas farmers in a fluid milk market. as a rule, had no
skim milk available for calves. Resources that could be used in
heifer production, in some cases, had a greater alternative use in a
fluid milk market area than in a cream or manifactured milk area.

Although not too many ideas were obtained by reviewing litera-
ture from other states. it was felt that it was a worthwhile and a
necessary step in the procedure of this study.

Methods used in $§earchfi There were a number of research
methods used in this study. Enterprise cost accounts for the entire
dairy herd (cows, youngstock. and bull) for the year of 1947 were used

quite extensively. There were 85 cost records in total.

4

In addition to cost records a rather detailed questionnaire on
management practices was prepared. Thirty-six of the 85 dairymen Who had
kept the cost accounts were interviewed in an effort to relate management
practices to youngstock costs. Only 86 COOperators were interviewed
because of limited time available for farm visits. It was believed
that this number was sufficient to obtain the management data desired.

Information resulting from the interviews related to methods of
heifer management and production. It involved a comparatively large
amount of information from relatively few cases. This method was similar
to the case study method. In some phases of the data, practices were so
' varied that statistical treatment was difficult.

The Mle: The 85 dairy cost c00perators were enrolled in the
Detroit milk shed area from Michigan Milk Producers' Association member-
ship on a voluntary basis. This sample represented approximately 10,000
members in the association. All the c00perators marketed their milk in‘
Detroit. Most of the milk was transported to Detroit after being A
assembled at local country stations.

An attempt was made to get a. representative sample from the
standpoint of the cow herd. The herds were classified according to
production per cow into high, medium, or low producing herds. Records
from the Michigan Milk Producers' Association offices at Detroit were
very helpful in regard to pounds of milk shipped and butterfat test.
Herds averaging under 250 pounds fat per cow per year were considered
to be low. Herds averaging 250 to 300 pounds were considered to be
medium. and herds averaging over 300 pounds fat were considered to be high.

After the herds were classified according to fat production per

cow, each group was then further classified into three sub-groups on the

5
basis of size of cow herd. The sub-classes small. medium, and. large
were used. A smell herd was one averaging less than 10 cows. A medium
size herd was one averaging 10 to 20 cows. A large herd was one averaging
more than 30 cows.

The 85 cooperating dairymen for 1947 had herds averaging 16.5
cows in size. These herds averaged 301 pounds of fat per cow per herd."I
The sample was biased somewhat by the factor of enrolling cooperators
who were willing to keep the necessary accounts. This sample averaged
about 10 percent higher on production per cow than did the entire member—
ship of the inchigan Milk Producers' Association marketing milk in Detrcit.
These cooperators kept enterprise cost records not only on the
cows but also on the youngstock and bull or other breeding costs. Thus
the sample regarding youngstock and breeding costs for this study was
determined by production and size of cow herd. This is a study of
replacement costs on herds selected to be representative from the stand-
point of production and size.
The dairy cost cooperators for 1947 kept an average of 5.2 calves
under one year of age. and an average of 6.1 heifers over one year of
age or a total of 11.3 head of youngstock for these 16.5 cow herds.
There were an average of 3.6 heifers freshened per farm during the year. *
Forty of the 85 cooperators kept one bull the entire year. 18
kept a bull for less than one year. and 12 kept more than one bull for
the year. Thirteen practiced artificial breeding exclusively, and 15
used both bull and artificial breeding. One farmer bred by bull hire
and artificial breeding. and one bred by bull hire only.

 

" Vincent. W. H. . DAIRY COSTS .UD ETURNS IN DETROIT MILK SEED.
h‘ich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Iiimeo. F. M. 434.

6

There were two factors involved in selecting the sample for inter-
views. These were: (1) costs, and (2) quality of heifer produced.
Inasmuch as the author was trying to relate methods of management to
costs, it was deemed desirable to select some high-cost producers as
well as some lowec0st producers for interview. Since feed costs were
the single largest item of expense, comprising over 54 percent of total
costs, and since information on the questionnaire related in large part
to feeding practices. the cost records were arranged on the basis of
feed cost per head of youngstock.

.As already indicated, these farmers were producing replacements
of varying quality. Two producers could.have similar_feed.costs, but
one might be producing a heifer to go into a 850 pound butterfat pro-
ducing herd, whereas the other might be producing a.heifer to go into
a 250 pound fat herd. To c0pe with this situation the following formula
was devised.to rank the producers. considering both cost and quality of
animal produced:

Ayerage feechostgper head.youagstockngr year
Ayerage butterfat production per cow

.X 100

To illustrate, if a cooperator had feed costs per head of youngstock in
1947 averaging $140.10, and his butterfat average for the cow herd.was
311.2, his rauk with the other c00perators would be 45.0:

1 .10
311.2 x 100 - 45.0

The cost records were then rearranged on this basis.
The table on page 7 shows a rank correlation of feed costs per
head of youngstock with feed costs weignted.by the quality of animal

produced. The results show a closeness of relationsnip.

7

Table l-RJ'L‘LTR 001831142102 0F F'mD COSTS F23 111D YCUZGSTOSK I'd F‘HD
COSTS ‘EIG'TZD BY $331.11 Y r .271" (LIL 133031732134 1947

 

 

Feed costs 7 Deviations

Cooperator Feed co sts per head tterjiéat herd-:av. in rank
number Cost Rank Qost

15. F. pro dgglOO Rank__ D i
1 $336.30 85 119.5 85 O 0
2 228. 99 84 84. 6 84 O 0
3 214. 71 83 63. 8 83 0 O
4 140. 35 82 39. 3 80 2 4
5 140. 10 81 45. O 82 1 1
6 139 . 22 80 36. 8 79 1 1
7 127. 32 79 34. 6 77 2 4
8 123. 47 78 44. 1 81 3 9
9 108. 01 76 35. 5 78 2 4
10 106. 39 74 28. 7 69 5 25
11 98. 01 73 30. 6 73 O O
12 95. 7O 72 28. 3 67 5 25
13 91. 30 71 25. 9 63 8 64
14 83. 28 7O 30. 5 72 2 4
15 79. 31 69 26. 6 65 4 16
16 77. 40 67 28 . 4 68 1 1
17 75. 98 66 31. O 74 8 64
18 72. 62 62 27. 7 66 4 16
19 56. 37 40 13. 9 22 18 324
20 48. 99 31 13. 4 20 11 121
21 45. 99 27 14. 3 23 4 16
22 45. 38 25 13. 0 14 11 121
23 45. 25 24 13. 3 17 7 49
24 40. 56 18 12. 1 11 7 49
25 38. 45 17 13. 4 19 2 4
26 38. 41 16 12. 4 l2 4 16
27 35. 59 14 13. 7 21 7 49
28 35. 37 13 13. 1 15 2 4
29 35. 16 12 9 . 1 5 7 49
3O 34. 80 11 12. 1 10 1 1
31 31. 92 10 12. 5 13 3 9
32 30. 13 9 9. 2 7 2 4
33 28.66 7 9 . 8 8 1 1
34 23. 98 4 6. 9 2 2 4
35 19.19 2 7. 4 3 1 1
36 12.581 4. 6 l O Q
i. 1060

381.00-619.22 31.00-6 1060
N N - 1 36é1296-15

. 10m " 6.860 - 1.00 - 0136
45.620

11- .86

8

There was still the possibility of another problem in determining
who were high or low cost producers. This possibility was the matter of
how fast the producer was growing his heifers. The cost information
available was for the period of one year. mether a farmer was producing
heifers to freshen at 30 months or at 26 months, for example, might
affect replacement costs on a per head basis. No information was avail-
able from the cost records in regard to age of freshening. This was
learned from the interviews. The relation of age of f reshening to costs
is discussed under 1111?. ”“711": PMTIGES.

The sample for interviews was affected somewhat by which farmers
were willing to c00perate. A total of 46 letters were mailed to obtain
c00peration on the interview. Twenty-three letters were sent to high
cost producers, and 23 were sent to low cost producers. Eighteen high
cost and 18 low cost producers were interviewed.

3:,‘ethods of Analyzng Data: Some of the data presented were
descriptive in nature. Much use was made of averages and ranges.
However, most of the analyses pertained to relationships existing
between costs and various factors on both youngstock and. breeding costs.

Most of the analyzing of relationships was done by tabular
analysis. It was felt that the number of records was too great to
handle efficiently by correlation analysis. By using the tabular
analysis method, no assumption was made as to whether linear or curvi-_
linear relationships existed.

As already discussed, one rank correlation was used in analyzing
the sample selected for interview.

In analyzing both youngstock and bull costs. the first step was

to sort the records by costs per head. A great number of cost and income

9
items and such.physical requirements as feed and labor were then com-
pared for the different cost groups. By observing which cost items
made up a comparatively large proportion of the total and by observing
which cost items showed the greatest variations, it was determined
which factors to sort by in studying the relationship of factors to costs.

Some of the information from the questionnaire was tabulated and
avenages shown. Some of the information was used to relate practices

with costs.

lO
EELEATICIT CF COST AID 11330.23 I’I‘E‘JS
USED IN YOUKDSTOCK All) BULL COST RECORDS

Youngstock Cost and Income Itemg

lied: Purchased feed was entered by the cooperators at actual
cost. Feed produced on the farm was charged at farm price. Itiilk fed
to the youngstock was entered at farm price. Feed included concen-
trates (grains and protein supplements), hay. silage. pasture, and
miscellaneous roughages such as beet tOps and corn fodder.

1.5213533 ' Hired labor was entered at actual cost including board,
lodging, and other furnishings. The Operator entered what he considered
to be a fair charge for both his own and his family's labor.

Calf Value at Five Days: In these enterprise cost accounts.
cal-f value at five days' age (determined by the cooperator) was trans-
ferred from the cow account to the youngstock account. The value of the
calf was entered as a credit to the cows and as a debit to the youngstock.

Interest: Interest was charged on average youngstock (or bull)
investment at five percen . The investment was determired by averaging
the beginning and ending inventories.

‘ di se: Building use charge included depreciation costs,
interest on the building investment at five percent. a. charge made for
taxes and insurance, and minor repairs. In the case of two-story barns,
70 percent of total building cost was charged for the ground floor.

Then the proportion of the ground floor used to shelter youngstock was
charged against the youngstock account. Building use for the bull was
handled in like manner.

_B_1_11_l_Cost or Feeg: Net bull costs (total costs minus credits)

were allocated equally to the average number of cows and youngstock

11
over one year of age. Artificial breeding fees and bull fees paid were
charged.against the youngstock as these expenses were incurred.

Bedding: Home produced bedding was charged at farm price.
Purchased bedding was charged at actual cost.

Qihgg: Other cost items covered such miscellaneous items as
halters for youngstock or rings for bulls.

Overhead: Overhead cost was an estimated charge of general
farm business expenses that could not be charged directly to the dairy
enterprise. .Automobile and telephone expenses are examples of this
type of charge. It was arrived at by taking five percent of the total
of all the other expenses.

Net Increa§e: Net increase on.youngstock:is the excess of total
credits over total debits for the year. Credit entries included.sales,
the value of bulls and heifers transferred to the bull or cow account,
and ending inventory values. Debit entries included purchases and
beginning inventory values. Calves at five days' age were charged in
as a separate cost item.

hanure re t: Manure credit was allocated to cows, youngstock,
and bull as an income item since bedding was charged as a cost.

yet Bgturn per Eead.Youngstoc : Youngstock net return was deterb
mined.by deducting total costs from total credits or income. Net retun1
plus labor charge divided by the hours of labor gave the return per hour
for all labor.

Other Bull Cost and Credit Items

Bull Depreciation: Bull depreciation represents the loss that

occurs when a bull is sold during the year or when it is inventoried

12
at the end of the year for less than.its beginning inventory value.
It would also represent loss due to death. However, as an average for
all herds with bulls. there was appreciation in value rather than
depreciation in value.

Fees fieceived: Fees received.were income paid to farmers for the
use of their bulls.

Egll Apprecigtion: Appreciation in bull value represents the
increase in.value of the bull over the beginning inventory value. This
might result either from selling the bull at a higher value or entering
him.on the ending inventory at a higher value. It was not uncommon for
farmers to have comparatively young bulls which, at the beginning of
the year, had.not reached their full growth. During the year these
farmers had the service of the bull while the bull was growing into
more money. The bull put on weight, and prices remained.at high levels.

Yet Cost ongull: Ket bull cost was determined by deducting
total credits from total costs. Net bull cost was then allocated equally
to cows (average number for year) and.heifers over one year (average

number for year) in calculating the net bull cost per cow and heifer.

113

SIECLAPX CF DAIRY COSTS A‘LTD EUR-ES. 1947*

To more clearly understand the position of replacement costs
in producing milk, a brief summaryr of enterprise costs for the cow
herd, youngstock herd, and the entire dairy herd is given.

Total costs per cow in 1947 averged $360.70 on 85 herds averag-
ing 16.5 cows. These 85 herds averaged 7,942 pounds milk per cow,

1301 pounds fat per cow, 120 hours labor per cow, and a butterfat test
of 3.78 percent. Total income per cow averaged $359.25, about $342
of which was for milk sold and used. Th remaining income was for
calf and manure credits.

With home produced feed charged at fem price and with Operator
and fanily labor charged at what the Operator considered fair, net
return per cow averaged -$l.44. Tne return on cows per hour for all

abor aver? ged 94; cents. Totrfl. return to labor from the cow—herd, as
an average, was about $1671.

These same 85 herds averaged 11.3 total her-1d of yozmgstock.
Total costs per head for 1947 averaged $114.67, and total returns aver-
aged $98.23, leaving a net return per head of -$15.91. These figures
are for the total youngstock herd. Some of the calves were less than a
year old, some were heifers over a year, and others were heifers between
two years and freshening. There was no return to labor from the young-
stock herd.

Bull costs on 68 farms averaged $196.52 in 1947. This was net

cost after allowing credit for manure, fees received, and appreciation

 

* This discussion is based upon information in DAIRY COSTS 47:0 RTE-TUBES
I}? DETROIT IJILK SEED by W. H. Vincent. Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. iiirneo.
F. M. 434.

14

in value. Bull costs were charged against both cows and.heifers over a
year. Therefore, breeding costs, whether by bull, artificial inseminae
tion, or bull fees paid, are included in the cow and.youngstock accounts.

The production of heifers for replacements did not pay the farmer
any return for his labor expended in 1947. When a heifer was transferred
from the youngstock account to the cow account at time of freshening, a
value was placed upon.her by the COOperator. This value was charged
against cows, but credited to the youngstock account. The same procedure
was used in cases where bulls were produced.on the farm. When the bull
became of serviceable age, his value at that time was charged against
the bull account, but credited to youngstock.

Considering the cows, bull, and youngstock as a dairy unit,
total herd returns for these 85 farms averaged $1872. This allows for
the net loss from.the youngstock account and.a small amount of bull
income from three herds due to credits (mainly appreciation in bull
value) over-balancing costs. Total herd returns to labor for these 85

herds is within one dollar of returns from the cows alone.

15

THE COST OF PROHICING A FIFE-R

Average Yoxmgstock Cost apd IncozneJZlifl: Enterprise cost records
were kept on the entire youngstock herd as a whole. Costs and returns
for the heifers were not separated from the rest of the youngstock.

In addition to the production of heifers, some of these 85 coOperators
were producing and selling calves as breeding stock to other farmers,
and some few occasionally sold veal. Table'2 shows average youngstock

cost and income in 1947:

Table 2 - XCUIIGS'EOCK 00.333 AID 1130 LE; 1947*

 

flea. Average...
Calves under. one year on farm ~ 5.2
Heifers over one year on farm 6.1
Total number of youngstock 11.3
Average number of cows 16.5
Average number of heifers freshened 3.6
Price placed on heifers at freshening $181
Hours labor per head youngstock in year 16
COSTS PER HUM) OF YOMTGS‘TOCK IN YEAR
Feed $ 62.03
Labor 15.77
Calf value at 5 days 11.29
Interest on yomigstock 4.72
Building use 6.57
Bull cost or fees 4.03
Bedding ' 3.77
Other .57

Ove rhead 5.
Total $114. 19

1170023 PER HILAD OF YOUNGSPOCK IN YEAR

Net increase $ 96.67
Manure .61
Total 98.28

Net return per head of youngstock -$ 15.91
Return per hour all labor —$ .01

 

* Vincent, w. 3.. DAIRY COSTS AM) am we IN DETROIT MILK ant.
Mich. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeo. F. M. 4.34.

16

These 85 herds, which averaged 16.5 cows, had 5.2 head of
calves under one year of age and 6.1 head of heifers over one year of
age, or a total of 11.3 head. An average of 3.6 heifers freshened.per
farm at an average value of $181. This value was placed on the heifers
by the cooperating farmers. Sixteen hours labor per head.per'year were
required in the care of the youngstock.

Total costs per head.amounted to $11k as an average but ranged
from $31 to $159 on individual herds. lead, the single largest item
of expense, comprised over 5h-percent of all costs.

These cOOperators in 19h7 fed an average of 305 pounds of milk,
five pounds of calf meal, and.h72 pounds of concentrates per heed.of
youngstock. .Ls to roughage, they fed 2,973 pounds of hay, 1,019 pounds
of silage, and 132 pounds of miscellaneous roughage in addition to
pasture in the summer months.

Labor was the second largest cost item, making up nearly’lh
percent, and calf value at five days was third, making up about 10
percent of tota1 costs. Total costs exceeded total income by $15.91.
The return.per hour for all labor was —$ .01.

To get 3 better conception of the variation in youngstock costs,
the standard deviation of the mean was calculated (see Table 3). The
standard deviation of the mean average, 311“, was $67. Approximately
68 percent of the horde, or 58 out of the 85, had.year1y average young?
stock costs between $h7 and $181 per head.

An effort was made to check the values placed on heifers at
freshening by the cooperators. The income from youngstock could be
affected directly by how high or how low the cooperators valued freshened
heifers. There was a close relationship between heifer values and cow

values (see Table k).

17

Table 3 - CALCULATICN CF STAIDABD LEVIATICEI 01? 3.51315 CN TOTAL YCUZEGSTCCK
’ CCSIS P13. HELD, 1947

 

 

 

 
   

 

 

 

Cooperator Cooperator C00perator
__number D D2 number D D3 number D D2
1 l 1 38 11 121 75 1 1
2 41 1,681 39 12 144 76 8 64
3 28 784 40 10 100 77 15 225
4 5 25 41 21 441 78 20 400
5 26 676 42 30 900 79 25 625
6 13 169 43 61 3.721 80 41 1,681
7 33 1,089 44 1 1 81 64 4,096
8 9 81 45 5 25 82 37 1,369
9 10 100 46 107 11,449 83 50 2,500
10 46 2,116 47 83 6,889 84 37 1,361
11 53 2,809 48 99 9,801 85 51 2,60;I
12 298 88.804 49 34 1.156 £ 385,474
13 52 2.704 50 24 576
14 12 144 51 20 400
15 12 144 52 16 256
16 19 361 53 19 361
17 26 676 54 29 841
18 31 961 55 31 961 O" -]/g_c_i_2
19 67 4,489 56 38 1,444 N
20 29 841 57 103 10.609
21 41 1,681 58 28 784 - fm'
22 117 13.689 59 12 144 85
23 40 1,600 60 0 O
24 51 2.601 61 2 4 - V4535
25 7 49 62 58 3.364 .
26 16 256 63 345 119.025 0' - $67
27 210 44.100 64 59 3.481
28 3 9 65 7 49
29 72 5.184 66 31 961
30 52 2.704 67 49 2.401
31 40 1,600 68 10 100
32 7 49 69 34 1.156
33 1 1 70 12 144
34 7 49 71 1 1
35 49 2,401 72 12 144
36 24 576 73 46 2.116
37 11 121 74 34 14156
Table 4 - .4 194?
£118 per cow
Item Under 3150 51503817499 @‘172319939 32% ad over
Number of herds 20 25 20 20
Average cow value $129.03 $162.25 $186.56 $231.36

War value $146.59 $170.78 $3191.19 $9112-23

18

Then the question arose as to the reliability of the cow values.
Even though heifer values showed a close relationship to cow values,
there was the possibility that the cows were not evaluated too closely
with their producing ability. The records were then sorted by butterfat
production per cowb-herd average-to see whether heifer values were
related to herd production.

There was no relationship between heifer values and butterfat
production.per cow (see Table 5). This suggests that the income shown
in Table 2 might be slightly too high or slightly too low depending
upon.whether some of the cooperators undervalued or overvalued their
heifers. It is more likely that it is slightly low, since the average

value placed on freshened heifers averaged $181 per‘head.

Table 5 - RELATION OF HERD BUTTERFAT PRODUCTION TO VALUES PLACED ON

FBESHENED HEIFERS, ;9u7

fitter-fat production pgr 2!
Item Under 250 250- 300- 350 and

299.9. 349.9 5§g5;_

 

number of herds 11 31 29 it
Average butterfat production.per cow 226 276 322 372
Average value freshened.heifers $185.h3 $172.01 $18h.27 $187.19

 

a1 tio f eifer osts Pro ectio 3 Since the cost
figures in this study are for'one year, and since they are for the
entire youngstock herd, it is difficult to figure the cost of raising
a heifer to freshening age.

The average number of months to raise a heifer to freshening
as reported.by the 35 farmers interviewed (one farmer visited did not

raise heifers) was 27.7 months. The average youngstock cost in 19h7

19
was $114.19, or the average monthly cost was $9.52. On the basis of
1947 costs, it was costing $263.70 to raise a heifer to 27.7 months,
or freshening.

The assumption has to be made that the proportions of calves
under one year to heifers over one year within the youngstock herd
remain essentially the same. This assumption seems warranted after
checking average youngstock numbers of 1947 with other years that
these cost accounts were kept. For 1947, calves under one year made
up 54 percent of the youngstock. For 1946, these percentages were
exactly the same.’ For 1945, calves under one year made up 47 percent,
and.heifers over one year made up 53 percent of the youngstock.**

Calculation of geifor Qosto by Deductioo: .Another method of
arriving at heifer costs was devised. This was by treating the sales
of calves (for breeding purposes or for veal) as bybproducts or as
incidental to the raising of heifers. The value of calf sales, bulls
raised and kept on the farm, and ending inventory values were deducted
from beginning inventory values, purchases, and total costs. The
remaining amount is assumed to be the cost of the heifers. The calcur
lations on page 20 show an average cost of $237.43 for 302 heifers that

freshened on the 85 farms.

 

‘ This was calculated from information given on page 9, DAIRY COSTS
AND RETURNS IN DETROIT MILK SHED by E. B. Carter, Mich. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Mimeo. r. M. 417.

'9 This was calculated from information given on page 9, DAIRY COSTS
AND RETURNS IN SOUTHEASTEBN'MICHIGAN by E. E. Carter and K. T.
Wright, MiChe Agr. EXP. Sta. MimeOe Fe Me 3970

20

Beginning inventory value $ 82,140.00
Purchases . 6,693.00
Total costs during year 10 2.
Total $1983205°37
Ending inventory value $101,545.00
Sales 23,326.39
Value of bulls kept 1,630.00
Total tw
Balance or remaining cost $ 71,703.98

Total heifers freshened = 302

$1.1J3ggfl. $237.43 cost per freshened heifer

It will be noted that the heifer cost deducted in this manner
is about $26 lower than that figure arrived at by the projection
method. This might be explained by either one of two reasons. First,
the 27.7 month period for freshening reported.by the 35 dairymen
interviewed might be too high for the entire 85 cooperators. This is
unlikely, however. Secondly, there might well have been some profit
made on some of the calves sold, particularly those sold for breeding
purposes. This is the more likely reason for the $26 difference in

method of figuring heifer costs.

21

FACTORS RELATED TO YOUNGSTOCK COSTS
AND RETURNS

High ano:;ow Total Return Herds: Before studying factors
related to youngstock costs, it was considered desirable to compare
youngstock profits or losses with cow profits or losses on the same
herds. With separate enterprise accounts being kept on cows and
youngstock, there loomed the possibility that dairymen might be off-
setting youngstock losses in extra profits in the cow herd. On the
other hand, they might be making profits in the youngstock herd at
the expense of losses in the cow herd. .As an example, if freshened
heifers were valued either too high or too low, youngstock and cow
profits would be affected directly.

Some study was then given to the labor return on the entire
herd for the 15 high and the 15 low herds. The records were sorted by
total labor return on the entire hard on a per cow basis (see Table 6).
The 15 high herds showed profit on both youngstock and cows. The 15
low herds showed losses on both youngstock and cows. Furthermore, the
15 high herds had lower breeding costs. Three of these 15 had suffi-
cient bull appreciation that they had a net profit from the bull rather
than a net cost. The table shows that the 15 high labor return dairyb
men did a better Job than the 15 low return dairymen not only on cows,

but also on youngstock and breeding costs.

22

Table 6 - COMPARISON OF HIGH.AND LOW TOTAL HERD RETURN PER COW FARMS; l 4
Total labor return
on herd per cow

 

 

Item Low 15 High 15
herdg herds
Cows per herd 17.2 13.7
Ibungstock per herd under one year 5.7 4.5
Youngstock per herd over one year 6.9 5.6
Tate]. . 1206 1001
Total herd returns to labor per cow $ 26.83 $ 210.11
Total herd returns to labor per farm $462.88 $2,898.43
Net returns per cow on cow herd -$ 96.14 $ 64.07
Net returns per head of youngstock on
youngstock herd -$ 26.76 $ 20.97
Breeding cost per cow or heifer $ 9.03 $ 7.20
Butterfat production per cow (lbs.) 275 331

 

ooooarisoniof High and.Low Iooggstock Cost Herdo: To get some

notion of the variation of individual costs and other physical factors,

 

 

the records were sorted by total cost per head of youngstock (Table 7).
It was thought that, by doing this, an.examination of some of the
factors associated with low or high cost herds would give some idea as
to what factors to sort by in studying factors related to costs.
Results in the table suggested that some of the factors which
might be related to youngstock costs are: feeding efficiency, labor
efficiency, calf value charged at five days' age, breeding costs,
quality of animal produced, and.possib1y the size of the youngstock
herd. It was then decided to sort by these factors in an effort to
study their relationship to youngstock costs. It was also decided to
study the relation, if any, of breed, mortality, and management prac-

tices to youngstock costs.

33

 

 

 

 

 

xoopmmqsmw mo one: non amoo

mHm HHm mam non mum too and neHaoneoaa preseason
o.m~ H.wH m.mH mm.nH m.m nooaemqne» cone and eenen aennH
mN.mH a mm.» » mm.N » mm.: a HH.m » an.» H nose cone and neon mnHeeeem
om.mm a: em.mH a- oo.NH an _Hm.m » me. a Mooamezso» gnaw mam mzmsamm Baa
em.mmHa ow.mHHa mm.wm » om.mm » H.mm » Hosea
NN.H om.H m9m Nm.H mm. aHeoae ensues
N:.mmHa om.mHHa m. mm » mm.:m » Hm.mm » neHnnHoeeaa4
mooamazsow 64mm mam macozH
N.NwHa mN. NNHn em.mHHa mm. mm a mN.mm a Hosea
«.mm NH. mm Mm.Hm Hm. NH NH. eH sense HH4
wH.m Nm. m H.: om. m mN. m mnHeeeem
mm.mH no. H mH.HH 6:.» ON. m ease m an ean> ano
N .mm mm. NH om.mH :H.MH mN.w aoneH
.moHa mm.mm a mm.~m a mH.mm a mm.:m a cone
. Mooamozpow 94mm mam memos
m.m m.0H m.HH n.0H w.zH Hones
m.: H.@ m.w ~.m o.w use» a no>o xooaquooh mo hopasz
w.: H.: m.m m.: w.m «ooh H nouns accuqusoh Mo hopacz
NH NH NH NH NH neaen so eenanz
admxauHme mee.mme -.mew.mon NOHeweww Amww.Hma eeeH

 

 

mica mammm Emoo MooamQZDow Eon nz¢.m¢Hm zo

mmoaoaa zHaammo so zomHmaaaoo a N ernw

. 24

Feed Qosts: Feed costs per head, which ranged from $13 to $336
on individual herds, had a definite relationship to total youngstock
costs (Table 8). The 17 herds with lowest feed costs per head averaged
$66 total costs compared with $184 total costs for the 16 herds with
highest feed costs per head. Feed costs comprised only 45 percent of
total costs for the low group as compared to 63 percent for the high
group.

.Although total returns did average higher for the high feed
cost group, total returns were not high enough to offset or pay for
the higher costs. Net returns averaged.-$68 per head for the high
feed cost group compared to $9 for the low feed cost group. Somewhat
higher producing heifers were produced by the high feed cost group
but probably not enough higher to Justify that much higher costs.
Cost reduction opportunities by better feeding methods is discussed
under MANAGEMENT PRACTICES.

Lgbor Efficiency: Much variation was shown in labor hours
spent in the care of youngstock. This varied from about two to 75
hours per head. Dairymen spending the most hours per head had higher
labor and total costs, and labor costs made up a higher proportion of
total costs (Table 9). The lower labor hour dairymen had lower labor
cost per $100 of youngstock income, higher returns per hour of labor,
and higher net returns per head youngstock.

Labor efficiency offers one possibility of reducing costs for
some dairymen. There is probably a greater possibility of reducing
labor hours for older heifers than young calves. To do well, young

calves quite often require much individual attention. For older heifers,

25

 

 

 

 

  

 

cameo doom

mmm mmm mom mum son and 83332 enuaefinm
H95 a- 9.9 «1 NTOH a: mmé a 58828» a and manages EH
anHHa 3.9% 3.3 a $.mN « 3888186» 63a Ham mg .32.

m.mm ~.mm m.mz «.m: cameo Hope» we romeo doom acoonom
2.3% 8de m .NOH» 3.8 « Hosea
$.33 moHN a 8.2 » no.3 » Henna

58858. a mem memos

Tm TNH ~.HH «.mH Hosea

N.: w.m :.m :.m each A nope Mooammssoh mo.uopasz

m.: m.m m.: m.m umoh H hecqo.#oovquuch Mo Manama

mH mm, on NH , 3.8a .3 season
hobo end owwv wmquw wr|.mm.mme 0:” seems sown

 

 

Mzmjzmpemm 82 958 as 32828» mean a we mamoo H334» .Ho 22% u w eroa

26

 

Nm.mH a-

mo. a

N:.wH »
N.mH

mm.HmH»
mm.om a

m.om

N.MH

 

  

 

M63633 mo when no .3an endow

 

mo.mH»- mo.m a- wo.m a Mooamnzeow 64mm mam seesaw Baa
mo. 0.. :m. » mm.m a hoped .HH—on .Hom 9353
$6.3 93m « 136 a 8805 #63anth OS» .Hon puoo “one.”
o.:H m.m . H.N eneoe Hence an ounce aean aneoaem
mm.Hma Nm.mHH» mN.mN» Hosea
mN.mHa m:.m » mm.m « henna
Mooamozpoh nfimm mam mamoo
1.3“ m.m o.m Moouqudoh coon .39 canon .Hopsn
m.:H N.0H H.0H Hosea
m6 .m Tm Hash H hobo Moovqusoh .392
m6 mi 3.: .32» a noun: mooaansoh .3852
NH NH NH neaen on season
.HH qumtm.w mew needs

aeeH

 

 

 

 

 

NEH fig 82. .938 09 Bzflflfim momma no 283mm u m

 

canon.

It

27
the arrangement of feeding and.water facilities to effect a minimum of
labor hours offers possibilities of lower costs to some farmers. .

gigs of Youngstock Herd; The size of the youngstock:herd, which
ranged from one to 38, apparently had at least some effect upon costs
(Table 10). There was a tendency for building investment and labor
costs to decrease as size of hard increased. However, since labor and
building use comprise but about 20 percent of total cost, it is doubtful
whether size of herd is as important as some other factors in affecting
youngstock costs. Gross returns had a greater effect on net returns
than did the size of herd in reducing costs.

ooglitz: In general, it did not cost much more to produce youngb
stock to replace high producing herds than it did to replace low pro-
ducing herds (Table 11). For example, it cost dairymen $112 per year
to raise youngstock to replace herds averaging 322 pounds of fat per
cow'per year compared to $102 to replace herds averaging 226 pounds fat.
Costs per year for youngstock increased to $143 for those dairymen
replacing herds averaging 372 pounds of fat, but that cost seems Justi-
fied.when considering the quality of the heifers being produced.

Some of the cooperators recognized this quality factor in pro-
ducing heifers by keeping heifers to raise only from their very best
cows. Some farmers made a practice of replacing about one-fourth of
the cow-herd each year. To do this, they saved from 50 to 60 percent of
their best heifers to raise, but not all of them.

Qalf Value at Five Doyo} Calf value charged per calf varied
from $2.00 to $34.00. Calf value charged was related to youngstock costs

(Table 12). As calf value charged increased, there was a tendency for

28

 

 

 

mm.om a- om.mm a- mm.H a- n~.: «. coon sea nuances eez
mm.Nw a wN.mm a Hm.omH» em.m:H» cone and nuances Hence
mm.wOHa mm.mOHa ow.HmH« NN.mmHn Hence
mo.mm mm.Nm Nm.om no.mHH sense HHe
no.2 mw.m mH.: N:.m mnHeeeam
mN.m Hm.m Nm.w oo.HH can mnHeHHnm
mm.mH a 0N.NH a Hm.wH « mm.mH » aean
. name mam memos
NH.mm a mm.mm a No.Hw a mm.nHHa seem
qémfimgfifififi
m.mH m.nH m.mH N.Hm area and earns Hones
Mamas
m.om H.NH w.N o.n Hence
.9: m6 N. Ntn use» H .36 Moonmwfiaoh .Hopadz
o.m w.m m.m m..." as?» H noes: Moopmwgoh .3955
mm mH mm mH canon do pecans
Immwm can mmwx, m.mH.oH m.m soaH

  

 

#00”?ng mo banana 0 hobd
1Nan4wzmprm n24 smoo 09 name so mNHm No aoHaeqmm . oH oHpoa

 

 

 

29

 

 

 

Jkfloo noflsogoseoun anyhopasm

Nanuwmemoo Mooameasow oe zomwusnoma

om.m:Ha Nw.HHHa mm.m0H» m:.m0Hw Hones
Nm.mH mo.m No.m w:.m tonne HH4
em.m m:.m mo.: mH.m need no eaeoo HHnm
wo.m :N.m om.m mm.m een uaHeHHnm
mN.m Nn.: mm.n Nm.n eneeeanH
:m.mH mH.m mm.mH mm.0H cane m an ocHea ano
Ho.wH mo.mH NH.mH w:.MH henna
em.mN a mo.nm a Hm.mm » om.em a neon.
Mooemezeoa_namm mam memoo
n.0H m.mH o.HH m.oH Hosea
m.m 0;. w.m :.m .30.» H .Hobo Roopqusoh no .3955
.9: m.m NA. mi .36.» H needs Moopqusoh no .3255
mNm mum mNm mmm roe nea_noHaoaeeaa nauseaanm
:H mm Hm HH canon so unease
Insult.» as one 0928.. £68.08 one. needs an:

aegmmeapm qmmm no aoHHaHmm uMHH erea

 

 

 

 

m.mH .OH m4. :5 canoe H33 .«o ooHsb. «Hoe onoouom

mw.NmHa m .mHHa om.m6Ha mo.mHH» Hosea

mm.om « mo.~H a mm.w a wo.m a cane m an osHe> eHeo
Mooamezpow name mam memoo

m.0H :.mH :.OH m.HH Hosea
H.@ :.N Tm w.m .Hsoh H .Hoho xoopcwnsom no song
mi o.m T: H.@ .Hsoh H noes: Moopomqsoh no hopes—H
mH.NH » mm.m a ::.m a em.m » eHeo sea eane «Hoe
mH mH NH NH eeaen ac serene
IIIIIIIIHHreeee es. 8.H 8.2.1.2. 8.2.2 88“ teens an:
3 AM no .HHoo non osHob .HHoo

 

 

 

 

 

9mg” Jmhabaflm 9H4 mawoo 09 mwdd. ESE ad Ea; hmu ho ongmHm I NH 0.395

31
total costs to increase, and the percentage that calf value was of
total costs increased.

Evaluations of calves at this age were determined by the amount
for which the cooperators could sell the calves. Size of the calf,
breeding,and.production records for the herd were all factors affecting
calf value at five days' age.

Breeding Qgstg: Breeding costs showed much variation. This
ranged from $0 to $25.88 per’head of youngstock over a year. Six herds
had no breeding costs charged.against youngstock. Three of these bred
their herds artificially but bred no heifers in 191:7. Three herds had
sufficient bull appreciation.so as not to have any net bull costs:
however, one of these three herds had artificial breeding costs charged
against youngstock. .Lnother'herd had bull costs but none charged
against the youngstock account.

Breeding costs showed a relationship to total youngstock costs
(Table 13). The higher breeding cost herds had higher breeding costs
per $100 of youngstock income. Breeding costs made up a larger preporb
tion of total costs in the case of the higher breeding cost herds. More
artificial insemination was practiced by the lower breeding cost herds.

nggd; The effect of breed.upon.youngstock costs was studied
(Table 1%). The 85 herds were classified into four groups according
to breeds-Holstein, Guernsey; Jersey. and.mixed‘breeding. There were
not enough Jersey herds to be sure of a high reliability in comparing
Jersey with other breeds. Youngstock of Jersey breeding consumed less
concentrates, hay; calf meal. milk, and somewhat less silage than.herds

of other breeding. Jersey herds had considerably less feed costs,

calf value costs, and total costs than the other breeds.

32

 

 

 

0.0 0.0 m.m Han wdHan annouem
0.0 0.0 m.m mnfiuooup .pue was Han neon mchn pnoonmm
o.o m.~ m.mm sneeeeep Henefleeeee wanes seeeeem
o.ooa m.~m m.mm Heep wager eeeeeem
wzHammmm no nomema
mm.w a mm.: « m:.H u osoqu xoouqunoh 00H» mom unoo manooum
N.m w.m :.H umoo Hugo» mo umoo mqwcoonp pqoouom
Hm.:maa mm.~oaa :m.moa» Heeea
mm.m » ww.m a m:.a a meaeeeem
Mooemczp w 04Hm_mmm mamoo
~.o~ m.oa :.mH fleece
~.m m.m ~.m are» H hobo heapmmqnoh no nopsnz
0.m m.: ~.m Mach H nouns Macawmqnoh mo nopadz
:m.~H a 0m.m « m~.m 0 Hook H uo>o nomHon mom auoo wanoenm
ma mm :m seems he eepasz
eeee see oo.asw wa.o~w.oo.mwx oo.m eeeep
know H Hobo MOOpmmmfidwiuwma non upmoo Mdfidoouww. Hana

 

 

 

HmmH:4WWWDamm 924 memoo oa_m4mwwwzo mmeo Mooamezoo» 94mm mam memoo eqummmm no onadmmmuuumH eahmm

33

 

 

ww.o a NH.HH a- ma.~H a: mm.mm a- soeeequeh me sees eem_eeeeeu sea
mm.m~aw so.~maw om.~wfle mm.mma» museereeee he eeeeeeh no eeeefld eeaem
mm.mm « om.mm » om.moae o“.HoHe Heeoa
:m.H mo.H ~0.H H~.H cheese messes
HH.wm a mm.:m » mm.m0H» mm.mm » essence“ eez
mam» 2H Mooemez:o» no name mam axoozH
-.wm a m~.m~ » m:.mmae m~.mmaa fleece
mm.: mm.: m:.~ mm.m Assessmeo musesaeefiv segue HH4
-.m mm.m am. as. weseeem
~m.m mm.: Hm.m mm. seem so seee seem
es.» 0:.m ms.» Hm.m one weaeaeem
NH.z mm. o~.m :m.: eeeeeeaH
:H.HH mm.m om.mH HN.HH ease m he cease case
HN.NH mm.HH mm.~a m:.~a sores
:H.mm » mm.o: » :~.wm » mm.mm » seem
mamu.zH Mooamezbow no 94mm Mum memoo
amm men men ~w~ A.pav use» A need: case use sans
:N m w0H w: n.9HV nook H sedan MHoo new Hams MHmo
ems emu and me A.pHV seeeeques eeeg pod emesweee eeheo
mH0.H mmm Npm mem.H A.pHv seeeemeseh.eeeh hem eweaam
was.” :mm mem.~ mwm.H A.pHV seeeeweeeh.eeen eon new
mom mmm :mm MNm A.pHv MOOpmmHSOh use: you nououpnoonoo
Mooamezbow 09 gas name
m.m m.mH o.HH m.HH seeeequem ea Aeneas Hence
H.m m.~ m.m :.m Hush H hobo uuomHom
m5 TN m4. m.m as?» H .323 nomeo
mm m NH m: owned no hope—E
H.332 hookah. homgog aHoamHom no:

 

 

 

 

Ema .mzmpamm 83 2.80 58828» 03mg .8 289% u i eases

31+

Gross income was also considerably lower for the Jersey herds.
Because of this and the lower total costs, net incomes were not greatly
different from herds of the other breeds. Therefore, the breed of dairy
cattle did not appear to affect, to any large extent, youngstock net
returns.

Mortality: Mortality, no doubt, has an important influence in
the cost of raising youngstock. It was a very difficult factor to
measure in the cost records for l9N7, because it reduced income rather
than increased the costs. As long as a calf was alive, its costs were
reported on a per head basis. If the calf died later, no effect was
shown on the costs as such. The loss showed only as an inventory loss
in the income account.

Twentybtwo herds out of the 85 had calf losses afggg the calves
had been transferred to the youngstock account (at five days' age).
Mortality ranged from 0 to ND-percent on individual herds after the
calves were transferred to the youngstock account. Calves born dead
or calves that died before they reached the age of five days, which was
not uncommon, were not reported by the c00perators. '

An effort was made to compare net appreciation in herds with
and without mortality reported. The records showed no great differ-
ences. It is probable that the calves died at such early ages that
these losses were outweighed or hidden by other factors affecting
youngstock income. However, mortality is an important factor in.young-
stock income, particularly in those herds with high mortality rates.

Because it was believed that the mortality picture was somewhat

incomplete in the 19M? cost records, a section was devoted to this in

35

the questionnaire. Information was obtained as to total death rates
and cause of death. This is discussed further under MANAGENERT

PRACTI CES .

36
MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

General: Thirty-six farmers were interviewed regarding manage-
ment practices used in raising heifers for cow replacements. One of
the farmers interviewed purchased his replacements leaving 35 records
available for the study of management practices.

The farm interviews were made in.April and May of 19h9. Cost
records for the dairy c00perators studied were for the year 1947. Most
of the information obtained from the interviews referred to management
policies, which ordinarily do not change drastically from one year to
the next. In some few exceptional cases where management policies
had changed, the information obtained was for the methods used in 19147.

The information secured on death losses and number of cases of
disease related to l9h8. It was felt that data for 19H8 would be more
accurate than similar data for 191%

Total youngstock costs in l9h7 for the 18 lowbcost herds averaged
less than half that for the 17 high-cost herds (Table 15). The low-
cost herds had feed costs about a third and labor costs about half
those of the high-cost herds.

Table 15 - COMPARISON OF YOUNGSTOCK COSTS, 19M], ON FARMS VISITEP
18 low feed 17 high feed

 

 

Item cost herds cost herd;
Number youngstock under 1 year 5.5 6.0
Number youngstock over 1 year 7.2 5.5
Total 12.7 11.5
IOUNGSTOCK COSTS PER HEAD
reed glass $103 .68
Labor 10.75 22.19
All other 26.25 mag}

Total $71.86 $170.80

 

37
Age_of Freshenipg: The average age of freshening for the herds

visited.varied from 23 months to 36 months. It was believed that this
might have an influence on heifer costs. Study indicated that the
heifers in the lowbcost herds freshened at 28.1 months and ranged from
23 to 36 months' age. Heifers in the high-cost herds freshened at
27.3 months and ranged.from 2“ to 30 months' age. The average age of
freshening for all 35 herds visited.was 27.7 months.

The 35 records were grouped into thirds on the basis of age of
freshening (Table 16). The third freshening at a younger age averaged
$1h7.60 of youngstock cost per year and 25.08 months to freshen compared
to $103.22 of youngstock cost per year and 31.36 months to freshen for

the third freshening at an older age.

gable 16 - snhggion or AGE or FRESHENING TO cosgs
Age of freshenigg

 

 

 

Item Low third giddle third High third
Number of herds 12 12 11
Months to freshen 25.08 27.00 31.36
Annual cost per head
of youngstock $1h7.6o $107.15 $103.22
Cost of freshened heifer $308.h2 $2nl.09 $269.76

 

The calculated cost of producing a heifer was greatest in the
group that freshened at 25.08 months, but it was less for the 27
month group than for the 31.36 month group. The age of freshening did
not appear to be an important factor affecting costs of a freshened
heifer.

Milk FeedingpPractices: The feeding of milk was managed in

 

many different ways. The 18 low cost dairymen separated new born

38
calves from the cows quicker, but left the calves with their mothers
more days before hand feeding (Table 17). The main reason given.for
separating the calf from the cow after a short interval of time was
to prevent the calf from getting too much milk and thus preventing
scours. However, many of those cooperators who left their calves with
the cow for longer intervals of time believed that the most danger
from scours occurred when the calf was separated soon after birth,
became very hungry, and then gorged himself with milk when put back
with the cow.

Table 17 - COMPARISON OF MILK FEEDING PRACTICES ON'HIGH AND LO!
1gp COST REES:

18 low 17 high

Item .hgrds herds

Average number hours before new born calf

separated from cow M2 6h
Average number days calf left with cow

before hand feeding. 6. “.25
Number of dairymen using nurse cow method!‘ 1 2
Number of dairymen using hand feeding method 17 16
Number of dairymen using open pail 16 1’4
Number of dairymen.using nipple pail 1 2
Number of dairymen sterilizing feeding utensils I: h

 

‘ For those herds practicing hand feeding milk
** One dairymen used both methods.
Most of the dairymen in both cost groups preferred hand feeding
milk over the nurse cow method. Reasons given for the preference of
hand feeding included:
(1) It was easier to determine how much milk the calf was getting.

(2) The calf sometimes injured the cow‘s udder.
(3) The calf might become a sucking cow as a result of using the

nurse cow method.

39
(h) Nurse cows, by holding their milk for their calves, are

more difficult to manage.
(5) Barns were not set up or equipped for the nurse cow method.
(6) Nurse cow method works best where there is a large number
of calves (can put two or three calves about same age on
one cow). .

Reasons given for the preference of the nurse cow method included:
(1) sanitation, (2) less labor involved, (3) it was possible to utilize
a three-teated or any other cow difficult to milk with the milking
machine, and (h) c00perators had had good results with that method.

Most c00perators in both groups used an open pail rather than
a nipple pail. The reason given most often for using the open pail
was that they had never tried any other method. Some thought that
the nipple pail would.be more difficult to keep sanitary. One coopera—
tor thought the nipple pail might cause the calf to be a sucking cow;
The most important reason given for the use of the nipple pail was
that it permitted the calf to get his milk at a slow rate, thus keeping
digestive disorders at a minimum.

About the same proportion in each cost group sterilized feeding
utensils.

.Although differences existed within each cost group, the two
groups, when averaged, showed similarities in methods of hand feeding
milk and sterilizing of utensils. The low-cost group did not leave
new born calves with the cows quite as long before separating as did
the high-cost group. However, the lowbcost group did leave the calves

with the cow longer before hand feeding milk.

ho
ggygreeding5Practices: Most all of the cooperators visited fed
good quality hay. Most of them fed either legume or a legume-grass
mixture of hay;

Over half of the c00perators in each group selected only the
highest quality of hay for their young calves (Table 18). They
selected the greenest, brightest, finest, and leaflest hay for young
calves. Some fed only second cutting hays

Some of the dairymen visited made it a practice of feeding hay
left over from the cows' mangers to heifers at least a year old. This
practice occurred more among low-cost cooperators.

Although differences existed within each cost group as to methods
of feeding hay, the two group averages were not greatly different.
Table 18 — COMPARISON OF HAY FEEDING PRACTICES ON HIGH AND LOW

FEED COST HERBS
18 low 17 high

Item herds herds

Number of dairymen who selected only the highest
quality hay when feeding calves 10 11

Number of dairymen who fed.hay to calves without
especially selecting highest quality 8 6

Number of dairymen feeding hay left over from cows'
Iangers to heifers over one year 8 3

 

Pasture Bractiggg} All the dairymen visited except one pastured
the heifers. His reasons for not pasturing heifers were that if they
were under 12 months' age, he wanted them close to the buildings to
grain them. If they were over 12 months' age, it was difficult to
manage the breeding of them on.pasture, and there was the difficulty

of their Jumping fences.

kl

The heifers of the 18 low-cost herds were turned to pasture at
about a month younger age than were the heifers of the 16 high-cost
herds (Table 19). Most of the high-cost farmers fed no grain on.pasture.
Most of the low-cost farmers fed grain to the younger heifers on.pasture.
.A small preportion of both groups fed grain to all heifers, regardless
of age. Over half of the low feed cost group grain-fed heifers on
pasture according to age of heifer.

Table 19 - COMPARISON OF PASTURE FEEDING PRACTICES ON HIGH AND LOW
FEEDpQOST HERDS
18 low 16 high

Item ' herds herds‘

Average age when.heifers first turned to

pasture (months) 6.6 8.
Number of dairymen feeding grain to all heifers

on pasture 2 3
Number of dairymen feeding grain to none of heifers

on pasture 6 11
Number of dairymen feeding grain to part of heifers

under certain age on pasture 10 2
Number of dairymen who changed to pasture abruptly 1h 9
Number of dairymen who continued grain, dry

roughage, or both for few days after turning

to pasture h 7

 

‘ One dairyman did not pasture any of his heifers.

Qggparison of Calf Mortality and Disease of High and Low 99st

gggdg: Of the 35 farms visited, 7.9 percent of all calves in 19M8
were either born dead or died.at an early age (Table 20). 0f total
calf mortality, 38.6 percent was due to calves born dead. Another
26.3 percent died from injuries at birth, premature birth, or were
born weak and died. Scours accounted for 19.3 percent of all deaths,
and pneumonia accounted for seven percent of total calf mortality.

Other causes of death accounted for 8.8 percent of calf deaths.

N2
Ten percent of all calves born in 19kg had scours. One percent
had colds, and 0.6 percent had.pneumonia. One-fifth of the herds
visited had some Bang's disease in the cow herd, but 7l.h percent
vaccinated their calves against Bang's.
Table 20 - COMPARISON OF CALI MORTALITY AND DISEASE ON HIGH AND LOW

Eggs COST snaps, lghs
18 low 17 high All

 

 

 

Item herds herds herd;
Av. no. calves born per farm 20.3 20.8 20.6
Av. no. death losses per farm 1.50 1.76 1.63
Percent death loss 7.h 8.5 7.9
CKUSE OF DEATH
Percent born dead hh.5 33.3 38.6
Percent died from injuries at birth 18.5 6.7 12.3
Percent born premature and died 3.7 16.7 10.5
Percent died scours lh.8 23.3 19.3
Percent died.pneumonia 3.7 10.0 7.0
Percent born weak and died 7.h - 3.5
Percent died from other causes 23h 10. 8.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0
DISEASE
Percent calves had scours 10.7* 9.3 10.0
Percent calves had colds .8 1.1 1.0
Percent calves had pneumonia 0.0 1.1 .6
Percent of dairymen who had some Bang's
disease in cow herd 16.7 23.5 20.0
Percent of dairymen vaccinating calves
against Bang's disease 66.7 76.5 7l.h

 

' Almost half of the cases occurred on one farm.

The high-cost herds had greater mortality than the lowbcost
herds. There was a higher mortality from scours, pneumonia, and pre-
mature births in the highscost group compared to the lowbcost group.
There was a greater percentage of mortality due to calves born dead

and injuries at birth in the lowbcost group.

“3

It is interesting to note that in the high-cost group more
deaths were attributed to causes more nearly under the control of the
farmer (scours, pneumonia, and.premature births resulting from Bang's
disease) than in the low-cost group. More deaths occurred from causes
not as much under the control of the farmer (born dead, injured at
birth, and born weak and died) for the low as compared to the highrcost
group. More Bang's disease in cow herds was reported for the high
cost group.

In brief, there was somewhat higher mortality, more mortality
due to causes more nearly under the control of the farmer, and.more
Bang's disease in the highrcost herds.

ggmparison of Breeding Methods on Low and High Cost Herds: Ebro
of the lowhcost dairymen bred.artificially and fewer bred by bull as
compared with the high-cost dairymen (Table 21). There was no signifi-
cant difference in age of freshening for the two groups.

zabig 21 - 00101121301: or BREEDING METHODS ON HIGH AND Low FEED cosr HERBS
18 low 17 high

 

It” herd; hegL
Percent of herds bred artificially 38.9 23.5
Percent of herds bred by bull 55.5 70.6
Percent of herds bred both artificially and by bull 5.6 5.9
Average age of freshening (months) 28.1 27.3

 

For the entire 35 cooperators visited, 11 bred by artificial
insemination, and 22 bred by bull (Table 22). Two farmers used both
methods of breeding. Nearly twice as many breeding services were

required to get heifers bred on.herds practicing artificial breeding

uh
as compared to herds breeding with a bull. This very likely contributed
to the greater variation in.age of freshening for the artificially

bred.herds.

Table 22 - RELATION OF METHOD OF BREEDING TO NUMBER.OF BREEDING
SERVICES.AEQ VARIATION IN AGE OF FRESHENING

 

Item .Artificially Bull
Number of herds 11 22
Av. number of breeding services to get a
heifer with calf 2.26 1.39'
Variation in age of freshening (months) 5.6 1145*

 

‘ Bull ran with heifers on two farms. These records were eliminated.

Problems in Raisipg Heifers: The 35 farmers interviewed were
asked to state their greatest problems in raising heifers. More
replies were given on disease and sanitation than on any other manage-
ment problem (Table 23). .Among the diseases, scours at an early age
was more important than any other single problem.

Next in importance was feeding management. The two greatest
problems in feeding were overfeeding milk and switching from milk to
grain.

Other problems of importance included getting the heifers bred,
slow growth, and selecting quality calves that would.become high pro-
ducers.

Why mimWheirjeplacemeggs: Thirty-four of
the 36 farmers selected for interview preferred raising heifers for cow
replacements, one preferred purchasing herd replacements, and one former

had no particular preference of buying or raising replacements.

 

 

Iii. I!
1' 111..

Ll5

Table 23_r GREATEST PROBLEMS OF DQIBXMENclngAISING HEIFERS

 

Problems lst 2nd 3rd hth 5th Total
1. DISEASE AND SANITATION - Total in 16 2 - 2 3h
Scours 10 5 - - l 16
Colds and pneumonia - 2 l - - &
Overcrowded quarters 2 l - - 1
General health 1 It 1 - - 6
Sanitation in general - l - - - 1
Calves suck each other 1 2 - - — 3
Bang's disease in older heifers - l - - - 1
2. FEEDING - Total 8 2 2 l - lg
Overfeeding milk h - - - -
Switching from milk to grain 2 1 - 1 - h
Getting enough animal protein
in ration l - - - - 1
Needs more pasture 1 — - - - 1
Has to turn out to pasture too
young-not enough barn-fed
roughage - 1 - - - 1
Correct feeding on pasture - - 1 - - 1
Stop feeding grain at too
young age - - l - - 1
3. BREEDING HEIFERs - Total 2 1|- 3 1 - 10
Getting them with calf 2 2 2 1 - 7
Neighbor's bull jumps fence and
breeds heifers - 2 - - - 2
Sterility - - 1 — - 1
h. OTHER - Total 11 3 1 1 - 16
Slow growth 2 1 - - - 3
.Attention to small details of
management the first six months 2 - 1 - - 3
Too much labor required 1 l - - - 2
High cost of raising heifers 1 - - - - 1
Lose too much valuable milk in
feeding it to calves l l - - - 2
One heifer out of four or five
is not a high producer 2 - - - - 2
Getting heifer calves from the
best cows 1 - - - - 1
Heifers become wild when pastured 1 - - - - 1
Maternity care to the cow — - - 1 - 1

 

M6

For those dairymen who preferred raising their replacements,
the first reason given more often than any other for raising their
replacements was that they felt that they did not know the quality of
purchased cows (Table 214). Many believed that they could raise
replacements superior to cows that they could buy.

Other important reasons for preferring to raise replacements
were financial reasons, avoiding the risk of purchasing diseased cows,
and.a definite program of heifer selection based upon breeding and
production records.

Reasons given for purchasing replacements by the farmer who
preferred purchasing and by the farmer who had no particular preference
included: (1) increasing the size of herd, (2) can buy better quality
than can produce, (3) cheaper to buy than to raise, (h) inadequate
facilities or insufficient feed or labor to raise heifers, and (5) heifers
raised are not always high producers. Important points observed in
buying replacements included: (1) disease tested cows, (2) purchase
from a farmer going out of business, (3) purchase from a farmer with
a large surplus of cows, (h) purchase within a close radius of where
the cooperator lived, and (5) price placed on the cow.

There was an average of 3.6 heifers freshened and 1.5 cows
purchased per farm in 19h7 on the 85 farms keeping dairy cost records.
The cows were purchased at an average price of $216.88. This compares
with $237.M3 cost per freshened heifer, according to the deduction
method of calculation discussed earlier. This method of figuring
heifer costs takes into consideration income and possible profits made
from youngstock other than heifers kept for replacements. The $237.h3

figure is the cooperator's net cost tied.up in the freshened heifer.

”7
Total herd replacement costs per farm on heifers raised and cows

purchased amounted to $1,180.07. If all cooperators had eliminated
their youngstock enterprises and had purchased all replacements, the
additional 3.6 cows purchased per farm would have cost $730.77. This
compares with net costs of $85h.75 tied up in the heifers kept for
replacements. If the cooperators could have purchased cows free of
disease and cows equal to their heifer replacements in quality, there

would have been a net savings of $73.98 per farm.

Table 2% - war DAIanN RAISE THEIR RRPLACEimNTs

 

Reasons 1st 2nd 3rd hth 5th Total
1. QUALITY - Total 16 19 13 s - 56
Quality of heifers raised is
superior 5 12 h 1 - 22
Quality of cows purchased unknown 9 3 h h - 20
Price too high for quality of
cow purchased 2 M 5 3 - 1h
2. FINANCIAL - Total 5 1+ 6 3 1 19
Less cash outlay’ 1 - h 1 - 6
Less expensive to raise 3 1 - 1 - 5
Cheap surplus feed utilized
by heifers - - 2 1 1 It
Home grown feed costs less - 2 - - - 2
Expense of raising less noticeable 1 1 - - - 2
3. DISEASE
Avoid purchasing diseased cows 6 9 2 1 - 18
1}. HERD IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Total 5 - 6 2 - 13
Superior sire or artificial
breeding N - h 2 - 10
Production records 1 - 2 - - 3
5. OTHER - Total 2 2 - - - It
Good young cows for sale scarce 1 - - - - l
Enjoys raising heifers-—a hobby 1 - - - - 1

Strange animals purchased cause
fighting in die herd - 1 - - -
Raising heifers a good investment - l - - -

h‘h‘

 

ha

How to Reduce Heifgr Costs: Most of the farmers interviewed
believed that reduction of heifer costs might be done in.better feeding
practices (Table 25). .A number of farmers thought that more and better
quality roughage (barn-fed and pasture) offered possibilities in re-
duction of costs. Most of the farmers giving this roughage possibility
qualified their answer in some way. One thought that higher quality
hay and silage without grain after ten months was one possibility.
One believed that more grass silage would lower costs. Another stressed
the importance of utilizing as many pasture seasons as possible in the

production of the heifer.

Tablep§5 - FARMERS' OPINIONS ON HOW TO REDUCE HEIFER COSTS

 

Methods 1st 2nd Total
1. FEEDING'— Total 18 3 21
Feed more and better quality roughage
(barn-fed and pasture) 8 l 9
Need a ration for rapid growth h 1 5
Use cheaper feed 2 - 2
Use cheap pasture for long season 1 - 1
Use home-grown feed instead of calf ration l - 1
Feed less whole milk, more pellets and skim milk 1 - 1
Feed less grain 1 - 1
Reduce milk feeding to calves - 1 1
2. LABOR.- Total 9 - 9
More convenient arrangement of feed and water
facilities to save labor 7 - 7
Raise a group of heifers at same age to save
labor 1 - 1
Building arrangement to save labor 1 - l
3. QUALITY - Total 1+ 2 6
Raise only well bred heifers 2 1 3
Use better sires or artificial breeding 1 - 1
Save only the best heifers l - 1
Raise a good heifer even though it might
cost more - 1 1
h. DISEASE AND SANITATION - Total 5 l 6
Sanitation to reduce disease or insect pests 2 1 3
Keep healthy even if requires more labor ' 2 - 2
Regular feeding to keep healthy 1 - 1

 

#9
Some of the farmers thought that reducing labor requirements

and labor costs was the best way to lower heifer costs. Other possi-
bilities given by the cooperators included the raising of only high
quality heifers and the reduction of disease to keep calves healthy

through more sanitation.

THE COST OF KEEPING A BULL

.At least one bull for at least a part of the year was kept on
70 of the 85 farms. Forty cooperators kept one bull for the 12 months.
Eighteen cooperators kept a bull less than 12 months, and 12 cooperators
kept more than one bull for the year.

To determine the average cost of keeping a bull, the no records
of one bull for the year were selected for study. It was believed
that records on bulls for a fractional part of a year could not be
used satisfactorily. For example, one could not take a three-month
period during pasture season, when feed and labor costs might be lower,
and multiply by four to give an equivalent 12-month record.

The average net bull cost on no bulls in 19h7 was $213.06
(Table 26). Total cost amounted to $262.07, half of which was for
feed. Total credits amounted to $h9.01, over two-thirds of which was
bull appreciation in value during the year. Eighty hours were required
in the care of the bull for the year.

These 1+0 herds averaged 17.2 head of cows and 5.8 head of young-
stock over one year in age. Net bull cost was prorated to the cows and
youngstock over one year to give an average breeding cost of $9.28

per head.

Table 26 - BULLgCOSTs AND C§EDITSll9uZ

51

 

Item Average
Number of herds MO
Cows per herd 17.2
Ioungstock over one year per herd 5.8
Total 23.0
Hours labor per bull in year 80
COSTS PER BULL
Feed $130.79
Labor 77.65
Interest 10.96
All other N2.67
Total costs $262.07
CREDITS PER BULL
Manure $ 10.35
Fees received 1.19
Bull appreciation a7.h7
Total credits $ 9.01
NET BULL COST $213.06

NET BULL COST PER COW.AND HEIEER

s 9.23

 

52
FACTORS RELATED TO BULL COSTS AND CREDITS

Comparison of High and Low Bull Cost Herdg: The records were
grouped into thirds on the basis of net bull cost per cow and heifer
to compare certain factors (Table 27). The reason for this was to get
an idea of variation and relative importance of the items of cost and
credit.

Some of the items showing considerable variation were feed
costs, labor costs, appreciation in bull value during the year, and
number of cows and heifers bred. Other possible factors affecting
bull costs and credits, not indicated in Table 27, were breed and the
number of bulls kept. It was decided to try to make some analysis of

all these factors.

Table 27 - COMPARISON OF CERTAIN FACTORS ON HIGH AND LOW BULL COST

 

 

 

 

EERDSI_19n7
Bull cost per cow and heifer
Item i::;ow third__qgiddlg_phird High thirq
Number of herds 13 1h 13
Cows per herd 18.9 16.1 16.7
Ioungstock over 1 year per herd 6.9 h.9 5.6
Total 25.8 21.0 22.3
Hours labor'per bull in year 62 72 106
COSTS PER BULL
Feed $10h.70 $107.83 $181.61
Labor 5u.83 67.95 110.92
Interest 9.32 10.51 13.08
All other 28.65 30.73 69.55
Total costs $197.50 $217.02 $375.16
CREDITS PER.BULL
Manure $ 10.55 $ 8.77 $ 11.86
Fees received .h6 1.67 1.38
Bull appreciation 78.63 23.26 11.61
Total credits $ 89.6h $ 33.70 $ 2h.85
NET BULL COST $107.85 $183.31 $350.31
NET BULL COST PER COW.AND HEIFER $ n.18 $ 8.72 $ 15.7h

 

53

Feed Costs: Feed costs were closely related to net bull costs
(Table 28). The high third feed cost bulls had feed costs and total
costs over twice as great as the low third feed cost bulls.

The higher feed costs were not necessarily reflected in higher
bull appreciation for the year in this particular grouping. The low
third group on feed costs had.more bull appreciation than the high
third group. The high third group had twice as high breeding costs
per cow and heifer as did the low third group in spite of the fact
that there were considerably more cows and heifers of breeding age
in the high cost group.

Table 28 - RELATION 0F FEED COSTS TO BULL COSTS BER COW.AND HEIFER, 19M:
Feed costgpgr bull

 

 

 

Item ng third :Middle third High third
Number of herds ' 13 1h 13
Cows per herd 13.1 20.9 17.3
Ioungstock over 1 year per herd .7 6.2 6.
Total 17.8 27.1 23.7

COSTS PER BULL

Feed $ 78.83 $120.61 $193.72

Total $17u.21 $236.h7 $377.h9

Percent feed cost of total cost ”5.2 51.0 51.3
CREDITS PER.BULL

Appreciation $ h2.08 $ 6.8M $ 3.52

Total $ 53-77 $ 7.51 $ 5.85
NET BULL COST $120.uu $188.97 $331.6u
NET BULL COST PER COW AND HEIFER $ 6.73 $ 6.99 $ 1h.02

 

Bull Appreciatiqg: Whether a bull appreciated in value during
the year had a bearing on net bull costs. On three herds, there was
sufficient bull appreciation to result in no bull costs charged against

the cows or youngstock.

5).
Net bull costs on bull appreciation herds averaged less than
half that on herds with no bull appreciation (Table 29). Net bull
costs per cow and heifer bred for the bull appreciation herds averaged
$5.90 compared to $11.03 for the herds with no bull appreciation.
Table 29 - RELATION OF BULL APPRECIATION TO BULL COSTS PER COW.AND

HEIFER, 19111
B211 appreciation per bull

 

 

Item None Some
Number of herds 25 15
Cows per herd 17.9 16.0
YOungstock over 1 year per herd 6.2 5.0
Total 7 2M.l 21.0
TOTAL COSTS PER BULL $278.39 $2334.86
CREDITS PER BULL
Appreciation - $ 99.91
Total $ 11.65 $111.27
Percent appreciation of total credits - 90
NET BULL COST $266.7h $123.59
NET BULL COST PER COW AND HEIRER $ 11.03 $ 5.90

 

Labor Efficiengy: Hours spent in the care of the bull varied
from 21 to 192. Labor costs averaged three to four times as high for
dairymen who spent the most hours in bull care as for those dairymen
who spent the least hours (Table 30). Labor costs made up 19 percent
of total costs for the low third group compared with 3M percent for
the high third group..

Net bull cost for the year and net bull cost per cow and heifer
averaged over twice as high for the high third labor hour group compared

with the low third labor hour group.

55

Table 30 - RELATION 0F LABOR.EFFICIENCY T0 BULL COSTS PER COW.AND
HEIFER, 19’+J_

Hours labor per bull

 

 

Item ' Low third Middle third High third
Number of herds 13 1M 13
Hours labor per bull in year NO 73 127
Cows per herd 17.6 16.7 17.h
Youngstock over 1 year per herd 5.h 5.1 6.8
Total 23.0 21.8 2h.2

COSTS PER BULL

Labor $ 36.73 $ 73.62 $122.92

Total $191.32 $237.01 $359.81

Percent labor cost of total cost 19.2 31.1 3M.2
CREDITS PER.BULL

Appreciation $ h9.78 $ 27.02 $ 36.hl

Total $ 61.75 $ 36.26 $ 50.00
NET BULL COST $129.57 $200.75 $309.81
NET BULL COST PER COW.AND HEIFER $ 5.6M $ 9.21 $ 12.80

 

 

—'—' 7

Number of Cows and.Heifer§ Bred: There was a variation from

10.9 to 5h.5 among these MO herds in number of cows and heifers of

breeding age.

third largest herds (Table 31).

Net bull costs per animal bred averaged lower for the

Table 31 - RELATION OF NUMBER OF COWS AND HEIFERS BRED TO BULL COSTS
PER COW.AND HEIFER, 19M]
Number of co;§_and heifers bred

 

 

Item Low third Middle third High third

Number of herds 13 1h 13
Cows per herd 11.2 16.1 2h.h
YOung;:::§ over 1 year per herd 1§:9 25:2 33:;
TOTAL COSTS $235.75 $226.57 $326.70
TOTAL CREDITS $ 82.62 $ 27.51 $ 38.55
NET BULL COST $153.13 $199.06 $288.15
NET BULL COST PER COW.AND HEIFER $ 10.82 $ 9.23 .$ 8.66

 

56

Total bull costs were a third higher on the large herds. In
addition to this, total bull credits were less than half as great for
the larger as compared to the smaller herds. Hence net bull costs were
nearly twice as high in the large as in the small herds. However, in
spite of these higher costs, size of herd over which to spread bull
costs resulted in lower breeding costs per animal for the large herds.

B3392: Of the 1+0 herds studied, 17 were Holstein, eight were
Guernsey, and three were Jersey. Twelve other herds were of mixed
breeding. There were not enough herds keeping Guernsey and Jersey
bulls for one year to make a reliable statistical comparison.

Study of the records indicated that there was a tendency for
HOlstein bulls to consume more concentrates and hay and to have higher
feed costs than either Guernsey or Jersey bulls. Credits per bull,
especially appreciation, tended to be greater for both the Holstein
and.Guernsey bulls than for the Jersey bulls, partially offsetting
higher feed costs. Other factors, particularly labor efficiency and
size of herd to be bred, appeared to be more important in determining
net bull cost per cow and heifer than the breed of the bull.

Ngmber of Bullg: Net bull costs were highest on those farms
that kept the most bulls (Table 32). Even though net bull costs were
higher on the 12 herds having more than one bull, net cost per animal
bred was less than on those herds having just one bull because more
cows and heifers were bred. The number of bulls was important in
determining net bull cost, but the number of animals bred was more
important in determining breeding cost per cow or heifer.

Of the 18 cooperators who kept a bull less than 12 months, 10

also practiced artificial breeding. Of the MO farmers keeping a bull

57

12 months, four used artificial breeding. Only one of the 12 farmers
keeping more than one bull used artificial insemination. While bull
cost per animal bred was only $h.37 for that group keeping a bull less
than a year, additional artificial breeding costs and bull fees made
a total breeding cost of $6.31 per animal bred.

Table 32 - RELATION 0F NUMBER OF BULLS PER FARM TO BULL COSTS PER COW

AND HEIFER, 1941
Number of bulls

per farm per year

 

 

Item Less than 0 More than
one me one
Number of herds 18 ho 12
Average number bulls per farm .5 1.0 1.6
Cows per herd lh.2 17.2 22.6
Youngstock over 1 year per herd h.5 5.8 9.3
Total 18.7 23.0 31.9
Hours labor on bull (or bulls) per farm 50 80 110
BULL COSTS PER EARN
Feed $ 57.67 $130.79 $190.19
Labor h7.lu 77.65 107.9h
Interest 3.18 10.96 21.21
.All other 27.0% §2.o7 77.7u
Total $135.02 $262.07 $397.08
BULL CREDITS PER EARN
Manure $ n.5O $ 10.35 $ 12.85
Fees received .28 1.19 .h2
Bull appreciation h8.u9 a7 ”7 115.12
Total $ 53.27 $ 9.01 $128,39
NET BULL COST PER.FARM $ 81.75 $213.06 $268.69
NET BULL COST PER 00w.AND HEIEER $ n.37 $ 9.28 $ 8.ho

 

 

_l”l.rs. .A. .

I.

58
COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT BREEDING METHODS

figmparison Of Breedipg Costs on Farms Usipg Bull, Artificial
Ipsgminatign, and a Combination of B311 and Artificial Insemination:

In an effort to compare the costs for different breeding methods,

 

the records were grouped according to method used in breeding. various
combinations of breeding methods were employed by the 85 cooperators.
Quite often, methods used in breeding the cows differed from methods
used in breeding the heifers. To simplify this comparison of breeding
costs, analysis was made only of the methods used in breeding the cows.

Of the 85 cooperators, 5M bred by bull exclusively. Some had
one bull for 12 months, some had one bull for less than 12 months, and
others had more than one bull for 12 months. Fifteen cooperators
practiced artificial insemination exclusively. Twelve used both bull
and artificial insemination. These three methods accounted for 81 of
the 85 cooperators.

Net bull costs were prorated equally to the cows and heifers
over one year. Only the cows' share of bull costs were charged against
the cows. In the case of either artificial breeding fees or bull fees
paid, these were charged against the cows or heifers as indicated.by
the c00perators.

Total breeding cost per cow averaged $8.99 for those breeding
with a bull compared to $N.h9 for those using artificial insemination
(Table 33). Those cooperators breeding artificially had incurred Small
entry fees at the time they joined the artificial breeding cooperative.
Those cooperators employing both breeding methods averaged $5.57 bull
cost per cow and $2.69 artificial insemination cost per cow for a total

breeding cost per cow of $8.26. The size of the cow herd averaged

59

larger on the herds bred by bull than on the herds bred by artificial

insemination.

Table 33 - COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT METHODS OF BREEDINGL 19h?

ggthods of breeding

 

Item Bull Bull and .Artificial
artificial

Number of herds 5h 12 15
Average number bulls per farm 1.08 .67 -
Dumber cows per farm 17.8 16.2 13.5
Number youngstock over 1 year per farm 6.1 5.7 7.6

Total 23.9 21.9 21.1
TOTAL BULL COSTS PER FARM $279.72 $182.66 -
TOTAL BULL CREDITS PER FARM $ 6h.85 $ 60.67 -
NET BULL COST PER FARM $21h.87 $121.99 —
Net bull cost per cow $ 8.99 $ 5.57 -
.Artificial insemination cost per cow - 2.69 $h.h9
Total breeding cost per cow $ 8.99 $ 8.26 $h.h9

As already mentioned, those farmers breeding their cows arti-

ficially averaged only $h.h9 cost per cow.

charge, however, was $5.00.

The customary service

This difference occurred because farmers

quite often did not breed those cows which they were culling, and

breeding costs on the heifer replacements had previously been charged

against the youngstock account.

The other four cooperators not included in Table 33 used various

other combinations of breeding methods.

breeding, and paid bull fees averaging $12.55 per cow.

One used bull, artificial

Another paid

bu11 fees and kept a bull for two months averaging $M.59 breeding

cost per cow.

cooperator who averaged $9.31 cost per cow.

Both bull fees and artificial fees were paid by one

There was only one farmer

 

 

who bred cows by paying bull fees exclusively. He averaged $1.13
per cow.

Effect of Size of Herggon Cost Agyantage of Bull and Artificial
- Insemination: .As indicated in Table 33, the average net bull cost
per farm on SR farms, where no other methods of breeding were employed,
was $21N.87. An average of 23.9 animals were bred at an average cost
of $8.99. On the farms using artificial insemination exclusively, it
cost $h.h9 per cow. It can be readily seen that it would take a dairy
herd of considerable size before keeping a bull would be more economical
than breeding artificially. Most Michigan farmers do not have the size
of hard required to afford keeping a bull at l9h7 costs.

As indicated, when the size of dairy herd increases, from a
cost viewpoint, it becomes less advantageous to use artificial breeding.
During a period of declining prices, it would also become less advan-
tageous, from a cost viewpoint, to use artificial breeding. The cost
of artificial insemination would not likely decline as much as the
cost of keeping a bull. In comparing artificial breeding with bull
costs, one has to assume that the resources marketed by the bull
(feed, labor, buildings) can be put to other uses as profitable as
marketing them through the bull. I

lactors Other Than Costg: There are other important factors
to consider in comparing bull costs with artificial breeding costs.

The inheritance factors for high milk production should be considered
for the two breeding methods. Although there are many superior farm
bulls, the average farm bull is probably a less valuable animal than

these bulls selected for artificial insemination. The milk production

 

 

ii“

61
ability of the heifer replacements is probably a more important factor
in reducing dairy costs than are breeding costs.

.Another point to consider is that a bull can be a dangerous
animal to have on the farm. .A number of people have been injured and
even killed by bulls. Safety to the farm family is a factor which

should not be overlooked.

62

SUMMARY

Dairymen are confronted with the problem of annually replacing
about 31 percent of the dairy herd. In l9h7, it cost an average of
$85N.75 to produce 3.6 heifers and $325.32 to buy 1.5 cows or a total
of $1,180.07 per farm for replacement needs on 85 herds averaging
16.5 cows.

There are at least two methods of figuring the costs of raising
a heifer to freshening. If the sales of calves for breeding stock or
veal are considered as incidental to raising heifer replacements, an
average of $237.M3 cost per heifer was tied up in the freshened heifers.

If the average monthly cost per head of youngstock and the aver-
age age of freshening are used to compute heifer costs, it was costing
$263.70 per freshened heifer in 19M7. In using this method of calcu—
lation, the assumption has to be made that the prOportion of calves
under one year of age and heifers over one year in the youngstock herd
remain essentially the same.

Some of the more important factors related to the efficient
production of youngstock included feeding efficiency, labor efficiency,
and the quality or producing ability of the heifer raised. Other
factors having a bearing upon costs were calf value charged at five
days' age and breeding costs. The breed and the size of the young-
stock herd did not greatly affect youngstock costs.

. Thirty-six farmers (35 of whom raised calves) were visited in
an effort to relate management practices to costs. About half were

high-cost and half were lowhcost producers. The data indicated that
the age of freshening was not as important as other factors in deter-

mining freshened heifer costs. There was more variation within the

63
high and lowbcost groups as to methods of feeding milk than there was
between the two group averages. The same was true for hay feeding
methods. The low-cost group did more grain feeding on.pasture according
to age of heifer than did the high-cost group.

About eight percent of all calves on the 35 farms raising calves
were either born dead or died at an early age. Total calf mortality
was higher in the high-cost group, and more of that mortality was due
to causes more nearly under the control of the farmer than in the case
of the lowhcost group.

The farmers' greatest problem in raising heifers was disease-
Scours at a young age was given as the greatest disease problem.

This problem is related to milk feeding management. Other problems
were proper feeding and breeding management.

Most farmers preferred raising rather than buying replacements.
The most important reasons were that the quality of heifer replacements
raised was superior, there was a definite program of heifer selection
based upon production records and superior sires, the quality of the
cows they were buying was unknown, raising heifers involved less cash
outlay, and there was the risk of bringing disease into the herd with
purchased cows.

Opinions of the farmers on opportunities for heifer cost reduction
included better feeding practices, reduction of labor hours spent with
the youngstock herd, raising only well-bred heifers, and more sanitap
tion to reduce disease. Better feeding practices included the feeding
of more and higher quality hay, more use of pasture, and longer pasture

8 8380 ns 0

6h

Several of these dairymen believed that the more convenient
arrangement of feeding and water facilities for older heifers could
reduce labor hours and labor costs.

It cost an average of $213.06 on NO farms to keep a bull one
year after allowing for credits--manure, fees received, and appreciation
in value. This net cost on the basis of per cow and heifer over one
year of age averaged $9.28.

Some factors related to low bull costs were feeding efficiency,
labor efficiency, appreciation in bull value during the year, and
number of cows and heifers bred.

Farmers using a bull had higher breeding costs per cow than
farmers using artificial insemination. The cost advantage of arti-
ficial insemination becomes less as the number of cows and heifers
bred becomes higher. The cost of keeping a bull would probably decline
more than artificial breeding costs during a period of declining
prices.

In comparing bull with artificial breeding costs, there are
other factors to consider. One is the milk producing ability of the
heifer replacements. Another is the risk of injury to members of

the farm family by having a bull on the farm.

APPENDIX

Farm Mgt. Dept, M. S. C.

 

1

Mich. Mllk Producers Ass’n

INVENTORIES

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Name_______.__ ”Address. _ _ -__Date
County Township _.Section
DAIRY CATTLE
Beginning End I Beginning End
Name or number Age of of Name or number Age of of
year year year year
1. ‘8 S 19. $
2. 20.
3. 21.
4_. fi 22. _
L 23.
6. 24. _
7. 25. _
a. _ 26.
9. 27. 1 ___
10. 28.
11. 29.
12. __ 30.
13. | Total 7
14. Bulls _ ‘
15. H
16. Heifers (over 1 year) No.
17. ll Calves (under 1 year) No.
18. _ __ Other cattle No.
BUILDINGS H EQUIPMENT
Beginning End ‘ Beginning End
Description of of Description of of
year year year year
Dairy ham" 8 $ Milking machine 3 3
Milk cooler __
Mllk house Mllk cans _
Pails and strainer
Bull shed or pen 7 Cream separator
Cooling tank _
Separate calf pens Hot water heater
Forks, shovels. stools
__ Electric fencer
Total Total
‘Share of floor space used by: Cows.__% Bulia___% Young stocL__%

2
Form Mgt. Dept. M. 3. C. Mich. Milk Producers Ass’n

MONTHLY DAIRY COSTS

Home Address Month of 19
l. CONCENTRATE MIX (Only)

Concentrate use

Concentrate Amount Average
mix (lbs.) price

item Amount

On hand first of month
Mixed or
Tutsi
On hand end of month
Used
Share to:
Cows
Mineral Bulls
Salt Y stock
Total XXXXXX Other stock

 

2. ”FEED SUMMARY (Concentrate Mix, Other Grains, Roughage and Pasture)

    
 
    

    

Cows Bulls Young stock

            
     
 
   
 
    

Average

Kind price

  
  

  
  

     
 

Amount Amount Amount Value

 

  

Conc. mix
Other

    
  

Pasture

           

        

Total XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXX

3. LABOR RECORD

 
   
      

Young stock

     

Worker

    

Hr. per mo. Hr. per mo. Value Hr. per mo. Vsiue

         

Total XXXXXX

   

‘For hired help rate per hour: Cesh wegee per month L____Vslue of items supplied (list them)
Totsi Wage 3
Hours worked in a typical week-day . X days in month -= hours
Hours worked In s typical Sunday X Sundays In month = hours
Divide totsl monthly wsge $_____by total hours in month—tor rste per hour
Monthly wsge for you $____ Hours you worked in month____your rate per hour___.
Average dolly time spent on cows: Milking___mlnutes. Feeding—minutes.

 

 

4. PURCHASES AND SALES OF DAIRY CATTLE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Date Cow purchases No. Value Date Cow sales No. Value
s It
Heifers freshening Cows butchered
Cows died XXXXXXXX
Total Total
Cows on farm at first of month XXXXXXXX Cows on farm at end of month XXXXXXXX
Total number XXXXXXXX“ Total number XXXXXXXX
Bull purchases ll Bull sales
Calf purchases ll Calf sales
Average number of cows for month.______. Calves born during month_______. Number of dairy heifers at beginning of month
over 1 year under 1 year . Number of bull calves at beginning of month over 1 year under 1 year

5. DAIRY PRODUCTS SOLD AND USED

Milk

Pounds . Test

Used: House

‘Hauling and fees are to be deducted.

Fed
Total

(rate

Net receipt‘

Used: House
Fed
Total
Calves at 5
Manure

Total income

Enter other expense items below.

6. MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES OF DAIRY CATTLE

Date

Item"

ton 3

Cream and skimmilk

Pounds Test Price

Not receipt‘

 

 

“Dairy equipment repairs and supplies, expenses on barn. share of electric bill, veterinary, medicine. breeding fees. testing does,
and other dairy expenses.

Mlit. 621

3
ANNUAL DAIRY COST SUMMARY

ibme Milk: AV. E. F. test % Productian per cow
CountL Butterfat: Total production per cow
CONS: Breed Av. no. #YOUNGSTOCK: No. under 1 yr. ' over 1 yr:_

 

 

 

COSTS Total Per Cow; ‘ COSTS Tota per Fead

ngad-u- nun-e oooooooooo .31 tttttt | nnnnnnnnnnnnnn b aaaaaaaaaaaa r-ga,‘ 3 . - , Euel.§.guunuuu uu-uqu-III:Hun-Olliule-II u$nrntu Ill.”‘Hil004pl‘IWGI§ILII.| lllll In Ht nnnnnnnn
Ilrhr-‘ISIRHIIL IIIIIIIII I IIIIIIIIIIIII 4 IIIIIIIIII I'M-I u IIIIIIIIIIIII » llllll Lépg-r ‘ hEIISIr’Hl uuuuuuuu i ------- I iiiiii l ttttttt tlnl IOIIQIHIOOIOIIOII' H lllll 1‘ -

 

 

 

 

 

 

chflde.preciation. "m. ......................... -mml. ".-- .sl£MMATHSTAMmmmm-M .. ................. NAM---” ...... --. ............ .
Intsrest on Anya§3.. ----.mmra. ..... -WMMWM._.. .ntfirfistmonminyestm. ......................... mm-mnm--mm. ...... -

EUildingwuse-mmu-mmfl. ....................... L. ................................. .wBuildingmnsem. ..... . ...... _ ...... .w.w.mmmm. ............ . ................. W ..........
Equipment .1133-.. .............. ....i .......... .. ............... . ....... .Equipmenfc...use ..... . .......... . .................................... ........... . ...................

 

 

 

 

reading cosxmmmm. . s- - A ................

 

 

Lfisc: Bleqtr.i0ity ............ . ................... u .......... -mwmmwhwm.Afigg;..3199tricisy .............. , ................. , ................. . ..... . ..... .mmm
.- -Vet. and Med.- . ................. -mmW-. .............. ..H. ...... .. ....... Map. and Mfidmw ......... . .............. .. .................... A. ...... . ......
.. Bedding --Am -. .............. . ..... :MW-W-NWWW-AWJHH. ............. .BsddAng. .............. .mwmmm.Nanmmmmmmmmmm. ........ .
....Ofcher... ................... . ....... .. ..................... ................. . ..... .. Othsr. .......................... ........................... .. ......... ,.

Overhea.d...(S%.)..............., A .................. ....Dverhead...(.5%.)., ............ .................. ...... . ..........
Total»...$.................. .......... ..$ ........... Total ..... $3 ........ . ........... .....J ........... £5

IIlCOl‘iE 13100ng
Hilkmsoldm. ......... . ................. rfi .................................. .fimmm-mmmmuApynsgiéfiignm- .................. 32 ........ . ............ .m ......... .k-mmmm
Lilk used. ........ .......... v ................... A
Total--m.uw-.ll ...; ......... A ............ . ........ ,h .. ..Toxal ..... $mw”.m. ............................ .mnwm.
Subsidymmlu”--m-hmmn-_.Mmmh-fl ....................................... Ne; Return. .......... , ................. . ...... .-A .......... M......

'1 J
half Yélus--m-m-w- fisfinrnmpsr Hour ............ .Ammmmwnmm. ....................... , ...................

nut lll'l'l|ll'1"I‘l‘lllill'l H.N..IIMI I I"! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

llllllllllll

 

 

 

 

 

 

mmmenmmfihw-mmwmmmm. .......... MWWWT .......... .

COW appraciationmmm-mmwmmmwwmmmlmmwmmmwv BULLS:

T-Otal‘ ~- $ .-:---~-- ... u --.n 0|” ..0 $3 ............... inn-00‘! q .Eueugodunoonvelv»n- n-flt‘vfl'nrh-JDOIIvNIIIIIHHII:
Net Return ..wmumm- ................................. w. .......................... . LQDQR---mmmnwmhrfimh.
Return per hQHR ........ , .................................... .HH WMMAM-.. Bull doprsoiation ..... mmmmumrmhmmmm-m~mmm.m-.

-Flnperssnmon hull ....... .----.mum ................ .-. .......... mm-

COSTS AND INCOME PER UNIT OF PRODUCT .. qulfiiESwH§em-mm. ........ . .................. .-m ........... . ................. . .....

Item Milk Butterfat -EQPTRTS9ENB§? .................. ..mmm.mmm “WWW- Wmmm.m .....

. -.. . . “(perovrw . (.per...lb.)... r12.197.59.03-..Bfidding” .............. ....... ...... ............. ......... ..
Costs;.MEeedmmmmem.film-mmmmhm. ...... $WMM.M.W...-m. ..... ..... mepnsr ......................... , .......... , ............ . ...................... . ..............
. Labor WAMM..MHWH-,.H_WHAV ............ A”. ...... 1..Oyer.head”(52%),. A,m.--n,.flm. -.-m ........ , ..............
Otrer .................. ...... ..... ..T.o..t.a.l ..... a, .......... . ...... . ............... ...i; ..... . ...................

T-Q'tcal-n. n l"‘-"|" - , vim-”‘4 llllllllllll --.-r-1 ,. 'u- un- ...... I c I.M§nqr§n.gpure.gli}p llllll A rrrrr Illunlwenuunuc..uunuuo-J-HHIH. . 3 . ' ‘ ‘fi- """" ‘-
Inggms3WWEAlKMNMWWMHWMWMH . .. . . other income

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

. . “A? ...Total ..... , , .
I"! '5 i_
19?..3-1...-lb ............ “‘35 ........... . ..... 4i...” ..Ne.t...C.QS$...£QIT...X€&I‘................................L ........... ...”..nw. .........
NSF.E§PR?E-HWnAAA i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HumIu'n-qunMM-h ------------- Mm H'IIIIu-wv? uuuuuuuuu | ..C:.Q..$u:1...p...6:£m.guenxyijhggmn. ....... i ----------------------- A ---------------- . ----- w IIIII ‘- '''' ‘1"

FEED VALUES

 

 

YOUNGSTOCK

 

 

 

 

    
  
     
   
  
  
 
   

 

      

    

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIII II'IIIIIIIIIHHIIIIQIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 'I
Head T Head.T Head T
............ IIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII.runIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII . "..."... .. . . .‘ , .. ..: ' ‘ .' 3 .. HI'HH/IHIIIIHHHIII
C ° B 3 l ‘
IOIIIIIlIc-II’-IIImI'II-II I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIII IIIIIIIIIHI iiii . . ....... I: .I ‘ :Iet'IH: IIIIIIII|IIIII HIH'IIIIIII .IIIIIIIHIUII"lIUU'HNIIO‘OHQNIIU I 'IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII-II'III'II|'-
Other rain
I III III III glhlluufl IIIII II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII HHHIUHHIH , . IIII... .: - ‘ I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII"IIIIIIIIIIUIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIII'I
I‘I I”anI"HI.HHHIHHHHIHIHIII |DIIIIIIIIOIIPCQ|Hl .II!”IIIIIIIDIIHIHIIIIU'II. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII.: ‘ , .‘:: ‘.:“III IIIIIIIIIIIIIII': ,. ‘ :.: . . ....‘ :' ...: . IIIIIII III-IIIIIIIII-IIIIIIII-I II IIIIII I IIIII II'II--III-IIIIIII'II 'I
Silage
‘IIII‘ 'I’IIII' II II' “I" ”IIIHHINIHII IIIHIIIIIIIUIIIIII "NH”.”'"HIHNHHHH‘£"N'IU‘UHHHI I ‘ " . ":“:::::‘:.::‘ ‘I‘:£'I:.:: .... II......:2: . . . . ‘. 2.. '3: """" V ” ' ""I I"""“" """
.~ III eIIIII IIIIIII II II Omgh Im II IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIIIIIII.IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII‘ :i'.:'.:: '. ‘ 2. :. ..:"':I IIIIII “ ‘...‘..: ............. . .IIII'II """"" "I: . IIIII-IIII IIIIIII
I-I IIII. IIIII IIIII III IIIII .IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIII-IIIImIIII.= I :.‘.'..:.:':: I'IIIIIII III . .1. .. .:'...‘.“ ‘ ' ‘ 2‘ ,. ‘.‘ . ‘ 2::t'::.::.::: .... ‘ 2.. IIIIIIIIIIIII'I'
IHI. II IIIIIIIII IIIIIII III- III-IIII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III" . ..1'2‘.‘ :2 : ' .::'.: .... “ ““““ III; .II-IIIIIIII :.. .IH'IIIIII III::.: I: .::.'.:::- I: .::IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII-III‘
‘III”mull“IIIII;IIIHHHHHIII|I'1llIIHIIHIHIHHUIIHUIIIHIIIIHIIIINIIIIIIIIHIUHIHNIII'CH 2:3':-2.:'.‘: ::.':‘:.: .2':‘...‘ ::::IIIIIII\IIIII urn-299%“ raw-“1“ ::.s:.::..::: .--‘.::IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII ------- Im-I'II-In
I IIL'I'IIWQR'IIOI IIIIIIIIII -IIIIlf-IIIIIIAIIII‘IIIW'IIIIIJI'I'I|"'|V|"|I'I*I' IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII- IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .IIIICI\||||"|‘|‘l'|“l||‘||| .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIIIIIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIII II I
III'IIPIII III III! HIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIl"I'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ‘II‘IIHIIUIIHIII1 IIIIIIIIIIIH IIIIHHHIIIIIII IIHHHIIIIIIIIJ IIIIIHIIIIIIUI ll\l|\‘l||I‘I‘ IIIIHIIHHII IllIIIIHIIHIHIiIIIIII I.II|II'|IIIIIIII|I IHIIIIII'IIII" ’
‘-III| IIIIIII IIIII IIIII IIII I IIIIIII III In: .-.“‘ .. . “I'd-u 'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIH H‘HHHUIHHHHIIHIHHII‘I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIHIIIIII--III|I\\IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH IIIIIIIIIII-I l-
III II mi'yllllllv IIII HIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIHIII'IIII ‘ ““;‘ “ ::. .I.IIII\IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIl IIIIII.IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIINIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I0|\Il|.ll!l‘7 '-
I:II.TIQImI%JWHI7|:I.II.I|IIIIIII Ill'lIIHIHIII'IIIII'I'IIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIIIII IEIIIIIII'IIIIIIII IIIH‘IHIHH ‘.I|l|||ll.|\l'|l1IOIIIIIIUIIII'III||IIIII|I|I|IIIIIIIIIIII\II|!|‘I||I||.||lIiIII IIIIIIIHHIIIIIIIIIIIII IIHIIIIIIII‘IIIIII INIII..III..
O

CATTLE INVEIJTORIES PURCHASES SALES AND APPRECIATIO OR DEPRECIATION

       
   
    

5%mammmwwwmmmu

         

     
       
   
  
  
   

II-IIIIIIHIII

   

IIIHII IIIIIIIIIHH'IIIHIHIH

   
    
  

”Emma;

IH IIHIIII‘ I.

»mahaseSII-IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'IIIIIIII '

Heifers fre

. IIIII‘JIHIHHHHUII

        

IIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

kept

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

      

      

 
 
 

chases

IIIIIIHNHIH

   
   
   
    

IIHIIIIIIIIIIIIII

Aggregiamimnmmw,
Depreciatignm

Inp\\amg§HIIIHQMYAIMAIIVQ§vixen?“”at“Uszullfillnp.HHIIHIHHIIIHIIII IIIIIII I I III IWI|I|$ ”IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII 'IIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIII IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIII$MIIIIIIIIIIIIIII'II"""'-'""' "

          

         

I IIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

    

~IIII| IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIII' I- ...

IIIIIIIIIII I.

BUILDINGS AND EQUIPMENT INVENTORIES AND CHARGES
Ike? Barn Mllkx "mummmmmumgyépment ”mdmnmufimnmmflfing.umwmwww

“““ ‘ In? 2 .2”. HI IIII IIOII IIJ'IHISII em} II IHIHIHH'HHIIIHHIII IHH‘UIIH ' “

3.983 ... ...irlx. '..t.X.a. {I} In...“ $ .I‘IWI $ ..... . , .. .99}??? %

End... my... my... “1131-3 ’73
Depreciation

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III.IIIII-IIIIIIII +I III'UOQIIIIIIIH'Ij IIzIIIIII VII'IIIIHIIIIIIIIII‘ lll|1|ll|1 IIHIIIIIHIIII ."...:: .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII MIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII. 'WYESt-Iw' %
_

Infifixelfiwtuugfl ‘ ' "‘rs— ”: ::..:::: t... “ m“ '2 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII=IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIII In.“ ‘I::.I.:IIIIIIII. ............ .IIIIIIIII«IBamquSemChaga-zuumum-W
Taxes ins.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[rillllgbg T'IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII r! IIIII III HIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II' IIIII rllllIlollIIIIICIQIII IIIIII IIIIIIIIIIHIIII IIII .......

%
_%
%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.
HIIIHIIIIII “nun-um“ “I Q OHHIIIIIIIHIIIIIIII|u~|ll II.I||II|.IIII\IOOI|III“"\|‘|I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIH IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII ItIIII III-.IIIIIII-IIII IIIIII IIIIIII .IQQWSIII a? g
———
an (Is
Reap" 92"‘tng‘w‘v ‘ . . ‘ . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII HIIIIIHHHHU IIHHH"IIHIIHIOIIIIIIIHH iIIIII iIIHIIIHHIII""HI'HIIIIII IIIBHlA’ISJ $—_— ‘p

 

 

”

 

 

 

cost} Y. S. .$

..... IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICI:\IIIII 'III III IIIIIIIIIIII . _ . .IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII HIIHHIIIIIIIIHIIuIQW-III'II.‘H|H|UHIHHHII‘.""I|N IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII-IIIIIIIYIII IIII I II IIIII m“ "HI Mum

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.4x'__._*‘ .a-“__ mu. ,4

3. ...! -.

31.x. L- ~.

.I-

'31... __

.. '.':_J....'I.¢I...U. J'Iu‘ '

 

4;

 

 

 

 

. --.«
Hr”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘ a
mg
1le tu‘u
u
~—

 

?E
a?
E

on on]: '9de tion cow? ______

 

 

:25
8
§
&
s
s
9

5:11?
“if
‘5:
5'
8'
a:
fi
3

 

9’99? 9
i

=1

:5

F

t

E

daytime ...—...... ...-......

 

m rw'mthe N1 €2.02). 1 . appleamut
open ’ pp _ 1 N o _ ,, . ,u
use this new of hand. reading milk! .
”has “manhunt *mul m In E .507
r W a you feed the milk?” at new intervals!
at. milk? . Low test milk? . , 4
...... ‘3‘ manna? ......

3!

g .
Ea‘
El

 

I
t
E

 

 

tag: as
I?
E
'8

99,9 9?
3'

i

t

5
§

5.5

at» tu- calms! _____ mo mat tgmpontvmlg mm cal! to u:

”I”

W“... (Ems-m... Grass___ Other
Wt GceL Fair___ Poor.
mm“ m highest quality has for tho calm! -
uthout enzzreaially ”looting the but quilt" for E

b

w
u the calves ma: 1.. left OVer mu tho our-1 man! _________

 

EFF
Jig

:P ’9 P 11
Efl

 

§
2

mwupasturq

 

4. “magnum” aunt-macaw.
(1;) hymns .- matudamm auditorium“...
' (b) put-o ill: to
5. and of MN promrntor)
(a) mm- nndor 1 in: 103.- 10¢.-grua__ ems-10¢. mu other
(b) half." out 1 no: 10¢.___ 103.-m__ nut-103.: um: other

 

gnu—m

 

 

 

..5.'. . 6

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

VII W A. Hand Feeding Milk
1. In hand feeding milk, do you sterilize utensils? when?
how? what material? * v _ W
“B- ' P6142 f V

1. Does the young calf have an individual pen? until calf is that age?
2. Average space for 1 no. old calf sq. ft.

Average Space for 2-5 mo. old calf sq. ft.

Average space for all calves sq. ft.

 

0. Bedding and Cleaning
1. Bar nan: times per day do you bed?-
2. 80' new time per day do you clean pens?
8. An: device used to help keep pens dry?

 

 

 

4

D. Other

1. Does grain feedIng follow milk feeding?
Does link feeding follow grain feeding?
After all]; feeding, are young calves separated by some means to prevent sucking
each other? How?

 

 

‘—

rm 21:22.62
1. How new death losses last year? Total calves born?
Approximate % death losses? #

80' many losses from scours? digestive? contagious?

Bet many losses from pneumonia? A

no: W 10889! from otner causes? i cause? 4

2. nor any calves had scours last year? pneumonia? colds?
I. [b you vaccinate calves against Bang's disease? age of Vaccination?
4. m Bang“ disease in con herd? How many cows infected lost )0er
5. D M isolate sick calves? ‘ ‘ ' ’ . ’

 

V‘—

 

 

 

 

 

vv—v—

I! Fagin: ' ' w . - ‘
. no heifer. generally bred Average age of freshening
8. ”:13“ no. of breeding services v w
Ea; artificial
b neutral
(1; bfil runs with heifers
‘ hand-“ted __
3. Variation in age of first freshening w T

 

 

X g; 5. .
fit or year do you prefer that calves come? ‘ ~
W 4

w w“ —- —V W w V W T ‘ wwr

 

 

h v— W v w v wfi

n ‘. new].
i. good “can rn as cows?

adjacent to cows? m
Ion-edJacont to core?

8. Hon-Id la cheaply constructed shed
8. Housed in medially built calf ham
‘0 Md OWN“

I. Calf Pane
10 m m. mtllatcd? fl w w
2. m peas located tree from drafts?

 

vv—w— vv “ —————

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C. ’ ternit Pens ““ D. lecrllng m
1. low luv mural pens? 1. Stand dth con
2. Intercity pens tree of drafts? 2. In different part of hen:
8. latex-nit: pus cleaned after used? 3. In different barn

 

4. laternlg pen disinfected after u

 

WV 7 w

 

 

.
a
a
u
u
n
C
o
o
I
o
.
...
_ I .r
e
o
o
.
a n7
-
n
, .
e
. ‘ . ...
u . -- uni

 

 

- 4 _

III Hazards

1. List in order of importanCe, the greatest hazards, from a
of raising heifers:
a.

management Viewyoint,

 

b. '
o.

 

d.

 

.0
r. _

Herdm melacement methods ‘
1.801! many cows did you buy last year?
2. How many first calf heifers freshened last year?

 

 

5. DO you prefer buying replacements?
Reasons (a) Starting a herd

 

 

(b) Increasing size of herd

 

(c) To improve the herd

 

(d) Can buy better quality than can produce

 

 

(e; Cheaper to buy than to raise
To adjust production

 

(3) Insufficient feed, facilities, or
labor for raising heifers

 

(b) Other reasons r __
4. lhat.do you try to observe in buying replacements?
e. Reputable dealer A
b. Udder trouble
0. Disease tested
4. Production rocords_:
0. Purchase from farmersrwith a large surplus of cows

 

 

 

1. Purchase from a farmer going,out of busin-ss

 

c. If from a distance, purchase only animals selected by
dairy stock
he MhOr

a competent Judge of

 

w ‘v-v—r

 

l5. Donyau prefer raising replacements?
Reasons (a) Financial
(1) less cash outlay

 

 

(2) cash expense of raising less noticeable
(3) unsaleable surplus feed used by heifers

(4) home grown food costs less

(b) Less chance of bringing disease into herd ‘

(o) chum

(1) Quality of heifers raised is superior

(2) Quality of cove purchased unknown

 

 

(3) Quality of cows purchased not commensurate vith price

(d) A definite program of herd improvement
(1) Production records
(2) Superior sire

m 2...... heifer costs

 

 

1. If you could rent pasture for 85.c0 per head for pasture season in northern

flichigen, sould you truck heifers there for pasture season?

 

 

2. ih#ceses where dairymen lo cas nearly as much raising heifers as they make on cows,

me do you think should be done?_—

Vivi

 

8. How so you think cost cf‘ruising heifers might bewrgduced? w»

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REEERENCES CITED

(1) Carter, E. H.

19h7.

DAIRY COSTS AND RETURNS IN DETROIT MILK SHED. Mich. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Mimeo. Bul. hl7, ll pp., illus.

(2) Carter, E. H. and Wright, K. To

19u6.

(3) Vincent,

19kg.

DAIRY COSTS AND RETURNS IN SOUTHEASTERN MICHIGAN. Mich.
Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeo. Bul. 397, 11 pp., illus.

w. H.
DAIRI COSTS AND RETURNS IN DETROIT MILK SHED. Mich. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Mimeo. Bul. h3h, 12 pp., illus.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF REFERENCES NOT CITED

(1) Ahalt, Arthur M. and Hamilton,.A. B.
19h2. COST AND ADVISABILITY OF RAISING DAIRY HEIFERS. Md. Agr.
Exp. Sta. Bul. A17, pp. lhfi-ISO, illus.

(2) Barlow, Frank D. Jr. and.McGough, Morris L.
19kg. DAIRY FARMING IN THE NORTH LOUISIANA UPLAND COTTON.AREA--
ORGANIZATION, COSTS, AND RETURNS. La. Agr. Exp. Sta.
Bul. N35, 32 pp., illus.

(3) Brown,.A. J.
19h6. AN ANALYSIS OF PRICES or VEAL CALYES. Ky..Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bul. MS}, 59 pp., illus.

(M) Brown, A. J.
19n6. SEAsONAL VARIATION IN PRICES OF VEAL CALVES. Ky. Exp.
Sta. Bul. A90, 35 pp., illus.

(5) Byers, George B. and.Besh, Ted S.
----. YOUNG DAIRY STOCK COSTS 20 RERDS KENTUCKY - 1933. Ky.
Agr. Ext. Mimeo., 5 pp., illus.

(6) Byers, George and Bash, Ted
-«--. YOUNG DAIRY STOCK.AND HERD BULL COSTS IN SHELBY, JEFFERSON,
MARION, BOURBON,.AND CARROLL COUNTIES, KENTUCKY. 1931.
Ky. Agr. Ext. Mimeo, 3 pp., illus.

(7) Byers, George 3., Besh, Ted, and Collins, Jesse
---. YOUNG DAIRY STOCK COSTS 19 HERDS SHELBY, JEFFERSON, MARION,
CLARK, BOURBON, AND FAYETTE COUNTIES, KENTUCKY - 1932.
Ky. Agr. E31. Mimeo., 6 pp., illus.

(S) Byers, George B. and Harris, George H.
-~--. YOUNG DAIRY STOCK COSTS 2n RERDS KENTUCKY - 193h-35. Ky.
Agr. Ext. Mimeo., 7 pp., illus.

(9) Corbet, Ralph A.
19u7. RAISING DAIRY CALVES AND HEIFERS. Me. Agr. Ext. Bul.
300, 20 pp., illus.

(10) Cunningham, L. C.
Ighh. COST OF RAISING DAIRY HEIFERS IN NEW YORK. Cornell Agr.
Exp. Sta. m1. 807. 10 ppo. 1111180

(11) Dow, George r. '
1932. COSTS AND RETURNS IN PRODUCING MILK, RAISING HEIFERS,
.AND KEEPING BULLS IN MAINE, Me. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul.

361, 175 pp., illus.

(12)

(13)

(1M)

(15)

(16)

(17)

(18)

(19)

(20)

(21)

(22)

10

Engene, S..A. and Pond, G..A.
19h6. A PRELIMINARY REPORT OF DATA SECURED IN 19h1, 19u2, .
19A}, 19AM, and 19h5 ON THE PARM.ACCCUNTING ROUTE IN
NICOLLET COUNTY, MINNESOTA. Minn. Div. of Agr. Econ.
Mimeo. 158, 3M pp., illus.

Eugene, S. A., Pond, G..A., and Anderson, A. I.
19hl. .A PRELIMINARY REPORT OF DATA SECURED IN 19UO ON THE EARN
ACCOUNTING ROUTE IN WINCNA COUNTY, MINNESOTA. Minn.
de. of Agr. Econ. Mimeo. 125, 33 pp., illus.

Grinnell, H. C.
1938. DAIRY HERD REPLACEMENTS IN SOUTHERN NEW HAMPSHIRE.
N. H. Exp. Sta. Bul. 302, 27 pp., illus.

Herman, H. A. .
19M7. RAISING THE DAIRY CALF. Mo. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 377,
28 pp., illus.

Knott, J. 0., Hodgson, R. E., and Ellington, E. V.
1932. RAISING DAIRY CALVES WITH DRIED SKIM MILK. Wash. Agr.
EXP. Sta. 31110 273. 19 Ppo. 111118.

McGough, Morris L. and Barlow, Frank D. Jr.
19H8. DAIRY FARMING-NORTH LOUISIANA UPLAND COTTON.AREA~-
ECONOMIC STUDY. La. Agr. Exp. Sta. Mimeo. Cir. 88,
1M9 pp.. illus.

Miller, L. F. and Herrmann, Roy
19kg. COSTS IN KEEPING.A BULL COMPARED WITH ARTIFICIAL
BREEDING. Pa. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. M99, 6 pp., illus.

Masher, M. L., Reiss, In J., Hughes, E. M., and Jepson, H. L.
19u5. THREE YEAR REPORT OF THE EARM BUREAU EARN MANAGEMENT
SERVICE ON 150 FARMS IN NORTHEAST ILLINOIS, 19u2.
19h}, Igun. III. Ext. Ser. Mimeo. AE23h2, at pp., illus.

Selby, R. E. and Kuhlman, G. I.
193M. COST AND EETICIENCY IN.RAISING DAIRY HEIFERS IN OREGON.
Ore. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 32M, 38 pp., illus.

Staples, C. H. and Lush, R. H.
193M. COST OP RAISING DAIRY HEIEERS. La. Col. Cir. 9, 9 pp.,
illus.

weaver, Earl, Johnson, L. A., and Smiley, E. S.
Igus. RAISING DAIRY CALYES Mich. Ext. Bul. 105, 20 pp., illus.

ROOM use NM

 

   

"'CJITI'ITIfliflILTIjMHfilfllflfflifliflfllflflfifllflmfl