Illlllllll llflllllllllle Will L

1293 009985080
L‘I' am. at; p. as“ “v,
" ' . . i,“ 'i, I. ‘ a

$01... “12:..3 fungi,

‘“"'—'— *1“; was; 2.4."

U“- :'-r-.7§w-"‘-~P
- 12.1.5456th

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled
The Profitability of Milking
Cows Three Times a Day
Compared With Two Times A Day

presented by

David M. Chlus

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for -

Ma sterL degree in Animal Science

 

jfl/éaa

/Majo fessor

Date MK /Z /9c5’6

0-7639 MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

 

 

 

RETURNING MATERIALS:
MSU Place in book drop to
[JBRARJES remove this checkout from
W your record. FINES Will
be charged if book is
returned after the date
stamped below.

 

 

 

 

a,
'i

of? TL“3_.lm‘ i

 

 

 

THE PROFITABILITY 0F MlLKlNG COWS THREE

TIMES A DAY COMPARED WITH TWO TIMES A DAY

BY

David Mitchell Chlus

A THESlS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Animal Science

1987

ABSTRACT

The Profitability Of Milking Cows
Three Times A Day

Compared With Two Times A Day

By

David Mitchell Chlus

Profitability of milking cows three times a day (3X)
compared with milking cows two times a day (2X) was
examined. The electronic spreadsheet template: Lotus 123
(1983) was employed to synthetically model farms of herd
sizes ranging from 50 to 400 cows. The model assumed a 15%
increase in milk production from 3X milking compared with 2X
milking. The price received for a hundred weight of milk
was $12.10. The model is useful in projecting long term
profit expectation.

Milking 3X revealed that profitability is reached
according to changes in level of milk production and herd
size. Milking 3X becomes profitable for a 50 cow herd
producing 15,000 lb of milk/cow. For herd sizes of 100,
150, 200 and 400 cows producing 13,000 lb of milk/cow, 3X

milking is profitable when compared to 2X milking.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

There are many people I need to thank in my program.
First I thank my parents, Mitchell and Mary Jane Chlus and my
brother, Daniel who have always encouraged me to reach for
my goals. Their support and love have helped make my

educational accomplishments possible.

My sincere gratitude to my major professor Dr. John

Speicher for his guidance, support and patience throughout
my program. I thank the other members of my committee: Dr.
Roger Mellenberger and Dr. Sherrill Nott for their

suggestions and contributions to my thesis work.

My appreciation to Dr. Ted Ferris and Dr. Herb Bucholtz
for their assistance in allowing me to participate in many
extension related activities. My interaction with Dr.
Tucker and Dr. Fogwell has provided me with a detailed
approach to science that I will always remember.

Sincere gratitude is also expressed to Dr. Cliff Jump
and the Agricultural Technical Program for the financial
support through a teaching assistantship. A warm thank you
to Kaye Hillock for typing this thesis and my thanks to
Steve Zinn and Bruce Cunningham for their assistance with my
thesis. For all the people that I have met here in Animal
Science, I thank you for your friendship.

Last but definetely not least a thank you goes to two

ii

special people, William Enright and Jan Sweers for making my
graduate career a pleasurable and memorable one and for

helping me on a day to day basis.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables ........................................
List of Figures .......................................
Introduction ..........................................
Review of Literature ..................................
Milk Production Response from 3X Milking ..........
Intramammary Pressure and Buildup of Milk Components
Improved Udder Health .............................
Improved Reproduction .............................
Improved Feeding ..................................

Economics of 3X Milking ...........................

Assumptions and Specifications of Investment Model....

Incomes for the model .............................
Items dealing with feed costs .....................
Items dealing with labor costs ....................

Dairy expenses other than feed and labor costs.
Results ...............................................

The Effect of Milking Frequency on Net Income for
Various Herd Sizes and Milk Production Averages...

The Effect of Milk Price on Profitability of 3X
Milking Compared with 2X Milking ..................

The Effect of Changing the Price of Labor on Profit-
ability of 3X Milking Compared with 2X Milking....

The Effect of Increasing the Price of Feed Forty
Percent on Profitability of 3X Milking Compared‘with
2X Milking ........................................

The Effect on Profitability by Changing the Milk
Production Response to Ten Percent when Milking
Cows 3X Compared with 2X ..........................

Discussion ............................................

Summary and Conclusion ................................

iv

Page

vi

vii

(.0

HHHH
001.5(3ch

31

31

36

41

Appendix ..............................................

Bibliography ..........................................

81

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1 Review of income and expenses of 3X milking. 21

vi

Figure

N

10

11

LIST OF FIGURES

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

a 50 cow herd at diff. milk levels.

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

a 200 cow herd at diff. milk levels.

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

herds producing 19,000 lb of milk.

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

herds producing 23,000 lb of milk.

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

13,000 lb when milk is $11.10/cwt.

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

19,000 lb when milk is $11.10/cwt.

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

50 cows at diff. milk levels ($11.10).

Effects of Milking Freqeuncy on Net Inc.

200 cows at diff. milk levels ($11.10).

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

19,000 lb @ $10.00/hr for 3X Labor.

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

50 cows at diff. milk levels ($10/hr).

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

200 cows at diff. milk levels ($lO/hr).

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

50 cows at diff. milk levels (40%).

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

200 cows at diff. milk levels (40%).

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

vii

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

for

Page

32

33

35

37

38

39

40

42

43

44

45

46

15

16

17

13,000 lb, 10% increase in 3X Milking.

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

19,000 lb, 10% increase in 3X Milking.

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.

50 cows at diff. milk levels (10% inc).

Effects of Milking Frequency on Net Inc.
200 cows at diff. milk levels (10% inc).

viii

for

for

for

49

50

51

INTRODUCTION

Milk production costs have increased substantially
during the past decade. This increasing economic pressure
and the need for more efficient use of fixed assets have
resulted in an upsurge of interest in milking cows three
times per day (3X) compared with two times per day (2X).
Economic rationale for 3X milking is an anticipated increase
in net income resulting from increased efficiency of milk
production. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
1984 summaries on 0.8. milk production shows that herds
milked 2X averaged 15,048 pounds (lb) of milk while 3X
milked herds averaged 17,761 lb for an additional 2,713 lb
of milk. Butterfat test for 2X herds was 3.74% versus 3.59%
for 3X herds.

According to Owen (1985) the following conditions are

needed for improved returns to 3X milking:

1) Labor force is currently not fully utilized,

or extra labor is available at a relatively
low cost.

2) Parlor is highly automated (including

automatic take - off equipment), and fixed
costs for milking are relatively high.

3) Milking equipment is maintained in excellent
operating condition.

4) Herd is under “tep” management.

The objective of the research reported in this thesis
was to determine the many factors that effect the
profitability of milking 3X. These factors will be analyzed
to determine the conditions under which 3X milking is a

feasible income generating alternative.

Review of Literature

2.1 Milk Production Response from 3X Milking

It is generally accepted that cows milked 3X produce
more milk than cows milked 2X. Increase in milk production
due to milking frequency ranges from minus 3% to plus 39%.
This section of the literature review will discuss the
changes in milk production and possible sources of variation
in response.

The effects of milking frequency have been investigated
as early as 1891. Hills (1891) reported that over a 14 day
period 3X milking reduced milk production 3% compared with
2X. In addition, Walker (1915) failed to observe a change
in milk production with increased frequency of milking. In
contrast Dean (1899) and Dahlberg (1924) showed that milking
3X increased production 3% and 2%, respectively. Dean
(1899) also indicated that milking 3X lowered milk fat
percent from 3.65% (2X) to 3.51% (3X). However in above
studies, few cows were utilized and data is confounded with
stage of lactation.

In studies since 1909 milking cows 3X generally
resulted in greater milk production than milking cows 2X.
However. increase in milk yield over long periods was

generally not determined, as only one or two of the trials

exceeded a few weeks in length. In addition, cows were not
milked at equal time intervals during the day.

Early short term studies (Smeyers, 1909; Lund, 1911;
Lalim and Grande, 1912; Riford, 1922; Nilsson, 1922; Hunyen,
1923) showed that milk production increased 1 to 10% in cows
milked 3X compare with 2X. All of the studies were two
weeks or less in length. Hungerford (1929) reported that 13
cows milked 3X produced 25% more milk than when milked 2X.
Cows milked 2X had their peak milk production at 3 weeks
postpartum compared with 6 weeks for cows milked 3X.

Woodward (1931) conducted two experiments which at
that time gave the most accurate results in determining the
extra milk production due to milking 3X. In the first
study, four cows were milked 2X and 3X in nine alternate
periods of days each. Results showed that milking 3X
produced 11% more milk and nearly 10% more milk fat. In
Woodwards second experiment cows milked 3X from day 217 to
365 of lactation gave 20% more milk and 21% more milk fat
than contemporary cows milked 2X.

Many studies have shown that the highest estimates of
the increase in milk yield due to 3X milking have come from
a comparison of Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) records of cows
milked 3X with those milked 2X. Gaines (1943) reported that
Milking Shorthorns milked 3X compared with 2X yielded 39%
more milk based on 6,311 DHI records. Meinhold and Rosegger
(1950) showed that 2,397 cows milked 3X produced 15% more

than 438 cows which were milked 2X. Using records from the

exceeded a few weeks in length. In addition, cows were not
milked at equal time intervals during the day.

Early short term studies (Smeyers, 1909; Lund, 1911;
Lalim and Grande, 1912; Riford, 1922; Nilsson, 1922; Hunyen,
1923) showed that milk production increased 1 to 10% in cows
milked 3X compare with 2X. All of the studies were two
weeks or less in length. Hungerford (1929) reported that 13
cows milked 3X produced 25% more milk than when milked 2X.
Cows milked 2X had their peak milk production at 3 weeks
postpartum compared with 6 weeks for cows milked 3X.

Woodward (1931) conducted two experiments which at
that time gave the most accurate results in determining the
extra milk production due to milking 3X. In the first
study, four cows were milked 2X and 3X in nine alternate
periods of days each. Results showed that milking 3X
produced 11% more milk and nearly 10% more milk fat. In
Woodwards second experiment cows milked 3X from day 217 to
365 of lactation gave 20% more milk and 21% more milk fat
than contemporary cows milked 2X.

Many studies have shown that the highest estimates of
the increase in milk yield due to 3X milking have come from
a comparison of Dairy Herd Improvement (DHI) records of cows
milked 3X with those milked 2X. Gaines (1943) reported that
Milking Shorthorns milked 3X compared with 2X yielded 39%
more milk based on 6,311 DHI records. Meinhold and Rosegger
(1950) showed that 2,397 cows milked 3X produced 15% more

than 438 cows which were milked 2X. Using records from the

Holstein Association, (Lush et. al., 1950) reported an 16%
increase in milk production for cows milked 3X compared with
2X.

Armstrong et. a1. (1978) analyzed DHI records from
Arizona and hard records from Israel and compared herds
milked 2X and 3X. The Arizona data showed an increase of
15.2% for milk and 11.4% for milk fat, while the Israel data
showed an increase of 25.9% for milk and a 17.7% for milk
fat for cows milked 3X compared with cows milked 2X.

Relative to previously mentioned trials, later trials
achieved greater accuracy when comparing 3X with 2X milking.
For example, using identical twins (n = 2 pairs) Hansson and
Bonnier (1947) reported 6.4% and 3% increases in yield of
milk and milk fat, respectively, due to 3X milking, relative
to 2X milking. Their study was conducted for the first 28
weeks of lactation and they saw no effect of milking
frequency on milk total solids percent.

Using the "half udder” technique, Ludwick et. a1.
(1941) reported a 16% increase in milk yield from the 3X
milked compared with the 2X milked udder halves. Their
trial utilized five cows, was conducted over a five month
period and treatments were reversed on a particular udder
half every two weeks.

Cash and Yapp (1950) examined the effect of milking
frequency on milk yield during entire lactations using the
“half udder” technique. Their trial utilized seven cows. A

given udder half was milked at the same frequency throughout

the trial. They found an increase of 32% in milk yield due
to 3X milking when compared with 2X milking. Using the half
udder technique in a 100d trial (Agarwala and Sundaresan,
1955) reported an 8.4% increase in milk yield
due to 3X milking, when compared with 2X milking (mean daily
milk yield 14 lb).

Elliot et. al. (1961) determined the effects of 3X
milking on milk yield and milk fat %. Milking 3X compared
with 2X for a 39d resulted in a 12% increase in both yields
of milk and milk fat.

More recently, (Pearson et. al., 1979; Poole, 1982;
DePeters et. al., 1984) conducted more controlled long term
studies on the effect of 3X milking on milk yield. Pearson
et. a1. (1979) compared three milking frequency treatments;
2X milking; 3X milking until milk dropped below 53 lb and 3X
milking until milk dropped below 68 lb.

Milking frequency had little effect on early lactation,
but with time the superiority in yields significantly
increased by 20% for 3X cows compared with 2X cows.
Cumulative milk yields were greater for 3X groups than for
the 2X group by 5% and 8% at 56d, 11% and 8% at 154d, 11%
and 9% at 182d and 10% and 10% at 280d. Differences between
3X groups and the 2X group for cumulative milk yield were
significant at 154 and 182d. Increased milk yield was
primarily due to higher peak production and less subsequent
decline. Switching from 3X to 2X milking decreased milk

yield 7% in the first week. Thus, 3X milking had a

carryover effect on milk yield.

Poole (1982) assessed the effects of 3X versus 2X
milking during weeks 1 - 20 of lactation on milk yield.
After week 20 all cows were milked 2X. During weeks 1 - 20
the mean daily milk yields of primiparous cows were 42 lb
(3X) and 38 lb (2X) (P < .05). Yields of multiparous cows
were 62 lb (3X) and 53 lb (2X) (P < .001) during the same
period. Total lactation milk yields from primiparous cows
were 10,738 lb (3X) and 9,896 lb (2X) (P < .01) while for
multiparous cows the equivalent milk yields were 14,208 lb
(3X) and 12,527 lb (2X) (P < .01).

DePeters et. al. (1984) utilizing primiparous (n = 15)
and multiparous (n = 38) cows for the entire lactation
examined the effect of milking frequency on milk production.
During the entire lactation multiparous cows milked 3X
produced 17% more milk than 2X cows (P < .05). Primiparous
cows milked 3X produced 6% more milk than their 2X
contemporaries, although this increase was not significant.

The most recent approach in evaluating milk production
is to use field studies. For example, Goff and Gaunya
(1977) used records from six large dairy herds which had
been switched to 3X from 2X milking. Records were extended
from before the cows were switched and extended records were
deviated from the cows’ completed lactations. Cows were
divided into two lactation groups (one and > one) and four
stages of lactation groups (approximately 35, 65, 120 and

203d before switching to 3X milking). Milking 3X exceeded

the projected production with 2X milking by 7.5, 2.5, 7.9
and 10.5% for multiparous cows and 12.1, 11.8, 10.1 and
10.5% for primiparous cows in the four lactation stages,
respectively. This study showed that primiparous cows had a
better response than multiparous cows.

Pelissier et. al. (1978) used one hundred and forty six
multiparous cows paired based on parity, season of calving
and milk and milk fat production in their previous
lactation. The control group was milked 2X during the
entire lactation and cows in the 3X group were milked for
periods varying from two to nine months depending on the
stage of lactation of the cows at the start of the trial.
Milking 3X increased milk and milk fat yield 16.6% relative
to 2X milking and this difference was significant (P < .01).

During the times when the experimental group were
milked 2X, they produced 2% less than their 2X
contemporaries. During the first 4 months of lactation 3X
cows produced 7% more milk than 2X cows and this increased
to 16% during the later months (Pelissier et. al. 1978).

Quessenberry (1980) reported his observations about the
effect of 3X milking on milk production in 32 herds. Within
six to eight months after switching to 3X milking, average
daily milk production increased an average of 19% relative
to 2X milking (53 lb/cow/d on 2X to 63 lb/cow/d on BX). The
nine herds that had been on BX more than 24 months had thei
initial 19% increase (63 lb) drop to only 7% increase (57

lb) above their 2X average. Seven of those nine herds that

had milked 3X more than 36 months dropped to only a 5%

increase (56 lb) over their 2X average.

Possible Causes for Increased Milk Production from 3X

In the past 50 years many researchers have shown that
an increase in milk will occur if the daily frequency of
milking is changed from 2X to 3X. Suggested causes for
increased milk production as a result of increased frequency
of milking are:

1) Reduced intramammary pressure and less
negative feedback on the secretory cell by the
buildup of milk components within the lumen of
the alveolus.

2) Improved udder health

3) Improved reproduction

4) Improved feeding and management practices

2.2 Intramammary Pressure and Buildup of Milk Components

A possible beneficial effect of greater frequency of
milking lies in the relief of high internal udder pressure.
The period immediately after milking is charaterized by low
intraalveolar pressure which facilitates transport of newly
synthesized milk into the alveolar lumen (Ormiston et. al.,
1967). As secretion into the lumen continues between
milkings, back pressure is exerted on the secretory process

by alveolar contents (Schmidt and Trimberger, 1963). At 35

hr (Tucker, 1961) luminal pressure exceeds force of

10

secretion as alveolar enlargement reaches its limit. It is
presumed (Ormiston et. al., 1967) that lumen distention
pressure exceeds strength of secretory mechanisms needed to
push newly formed milk out of secretory cells. In turn,
buildup of newly formed milk in cells retards uptake of milk
precursors into the lumen by chemical feedback mechanisms
and/or physical factors. Physical factors are a result of
distended alveoli partially displacing all other
intramammary compartments, including the blood vessels.
With restricted blood flow (Ormiston et. al., 1967) less
oxygen is available for metabolism, fewer nutrients are
available for milk production, less hormones are available
to drive the synthetic apparatus, removal of waste products
of synthesis is retarded, oxytocin is restricted from
reaching the myoepithelial cells and fewer leukocytes are
available to ward off infections.

Tucker et. al. (1961) showed that thirty five hours was
the estimated length of time before milk secretion
approached zero. Increasing the interval between milkings
decreases total milk and/or intramammary pressure. The
average secretion rate starts to drop about 10 to 12 hr
after the last milking, but the instantaneous secretion rate
starts to drop before this time. Schmidt (1971) showed that
10 hr after milking, the average secretion rate begins to
decrease and secretion stops after 35 hr. The hydrostatic
pressure measured in the teat cistern increases in three

phases. Within 1 hr following the previous milking

11

intramammary pressure rapidly increases to approximately 8
mm Hg., which is caused by residual milk moving into the
cistern from the alveoli and small ducts. The second phase
is slower and is an accumulation of newly synthesized milk
that is released into the duct system from the alveolar
lumen as they begin to accumulate milk (Schmidt, 1971). The
third phase is marked by an accelerated pressure increase
and represents overfilling of alveoli, ducts and gland
cistern (Schmidt, 1971).

Gasnier, (1945); Edwards (1950); Eisenreich and
Mennicke (1950) used milk accumulation to buildup
intramammary pressre in the mammary gland. Therefore, the
possibility exists that specific components of milk may act
within the mammary cell to inhibit their own secretion
independent of intramammary pressure.

Approximately 15 to 25% of the total amount of milk in
the udder at the start of milking is not removed when
milking is completed. In cows producing on average of 35 lb
of milk/d (Laben, 1982) the residual milk removed after each
milking varied with milking interval. Cows were milked at
intervals of 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 hr and secretion rates
of total milk milk and milk components monitored. Secretion
rate of milk and solids not fat did not decline until the
interval between milkings reached 16 hr. When cows were
switched to an 8 hr interval between milkings from intervals
of 4, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24 hr, little effect on secretion

rate found except in cows with previous intervals of 20 and

1-2

24 hr. Interval between milkings longer than 16 hr resulted
in increased fat percentage and reduced fat yields.
Similarly, milk and solids not fat yields fell markedly with
intervals of longer than 16 hr. Production in cows milked
at 24 hr intervals compared with 8 hr intervals was a

decrease of 25% (Laben, 1982).

2.3 Improved Udder Health

In addition to increases in milk production, three
milkings per day may improve udder health (Jarrett, 1977).
Because dairy farmers lose more than 2 billion dollars
annually from mastitis, good udder health is important
(Jasper et. al., 1982). Pearson et. al. (1979) reported a
reduction in amount of milk discarded due to mastitis in
cows milked 3X compared with cows milked 2X.

In two trials Waterman et. al., (1982) compared the
incidence of mastitis with cows milked 3X versus 2X. for 12
weeks. All teats of all cows were dipped with a broth
containing Streptococcus agalactiae once daily to enhance
the potential for cows to become infected during the study.
Milk production in cows milked 3X versus 2X was 8% greater
over the entire 12 week experiment. However, in the last 4
weeks 3X increased yield 11% compared with 2X.

Rate of infection was determined using somatic cell
counts (SCC) and isolation of bacteria from milk. Although

SCC in milk of cows milked 2X (465,000) were three to four

13

times greater than those milked 3X (125,000), this
difference was not significant. In addition, there was no
difference in number of new infections on groups. Clinical
cases of mastitis were observed less frequently in the 3X
group as compared to the 2X group. The researchers conclude
that. 3X milking raises production and lowers clinical
mastitis.

Gisi et. al., (1985) monitored udder health in twenty
eight dairy herds which were milked 3X for 36 mos. and were
milked 2X for 3 to 17 mos. prior to switching to 3X.
California Mastitis Test (CMT) scores were used to measure
udder health. Proportion of animals in each herd that were

CMT negative and trace, GMT 1, GMT 2 and GMT 3 was not

affected by the change to 3X milking. There were no
differences between multiparous and primiparous cows. In
contrast, Allen et. al., (1985) reported that cows from

first through third lactation milked 3X had higher CMT
scores (P < .01) than cows milked 2X. Cows in fourth and
later lactations milked 3X had lower CMT scores.

Jarrett (1977) suggested that 3X milking should have a
beneficial effect on reducing incidence of mastitis.
Incidence of mastitis should decrease providing milking
equipment works properly including a good vacuum stability
at the claw, a gentle and complete massage on the liner and
relatively low vacuum (Jarrett, 1977). Increased frequency
of milking may reduce the time bacteria remains in the udder

between milkings and establish new infections. In a herd

14

with a low number of infected quarters, 3X milking may
decrease clinical mastitis. On the other hand, if milking
equipment and milking procedures are poor, the transmission
of bacteria to uninfected animals may be greater because of
the 50% increase in exposure to the bacteria in the milking

machine (Jarrett, 1977).

2.4 Improved Reproduction

Improved reproduction performance may be possible as a

result of 3X milking because more time is spent in the barn

and improved heat detection may occur. Other problems also
may be noticed sooner, such as illness, injury and calving
difficulties.

Amos et. al. (1985) examined reproductive performance
in cows milked 3X. Reproductive performance was not
influenced by milking frequency (P > .05). However, cows

milked 3X had a nonsignificant (P > .10) increased number of
days from calving to first estrus (5.7d) and more days open
(18.1d) than cows milked 2X. Services required per
conception were 1.9 -/+ .2 for each group.

Allen et. al., (1985) using DHI records observed that
cows milked 3X had fewer days to first breeding from
parturition than their 2X herdmates. Primiparous cows
milked 3X had increased number of days to conception, more
services and consequently more days open than cows milked

2X. For second lactation cows milked 3X there was no

15

difference in days to conception or days open, but they
required more breedings than cows milked 2X. Third and
fourth lactation cows milked 3X had fewer days to last
breeding, no difference in number of breedings and
therefore, fewer daysopen than those milked 2X (Allen et.
al., 1985).

Gisi et. al., (1985) reported that calving interval, days
open and services per conception were not significantly
affected by milking frequency for either the entire herd or
when primiparous cows were considered alone. Reproductive
indices like days open, services per-conception and calving
interval tended to worsen as time on BX milking increased.
Of the 28 herds studied for 3 years 19 had an increased
calving interval, 20 had increased number of days open and
22 had increased services per conception in cows milked 3X
versus cows milked 2X. The effect of 3X milking on
reproductive indices were independent of the increase in
milk production due to 3X milking and level of milk

production within the herd.

2.5 Improved Feeding

Modifications in the feeding program are required to
compensate for higher nutrient requirements of cows that are
milked 3X to achieve positive effects from the extra milking
(Bath, 1978). With increased milk production, nutrient

requirements also increase, especially energy and protein

16

requirments. Without additional feed to meet the
requirement, cows will utilize body reserves to maintain
milk production. If body reserves are not restored by late
lactation, reduced production may result in subsequent
lactations (Bath, 1983). Possibly this is the cause of
gradual decreases in production some herds have reported
after several years of 3X milking (Bath, 1978).

DePeters (1984) utilized 38 multiparous and
primiparous cows for a full lactation (44 weeks) to compare
the effects of 2X or 3X milking on feed intake and body
weight change. All cows were managed similarly and were fed
diets of high, medium and low energy concentration as
lactation progressed from calving to 44 weeks. Cows milked
3X consumed 4% more feed. However, additional feed was not
sufficient for cows to maintain body weight compared with
cows milked 2X. Cows milked 2X gained 128 lb more than
cows milked 3X after 44 weeks of lactation.

Cows milked 3X reached minimum weight between weeks 8
to 10 of lactation and gained little weight until after week
20 of lactation. The cows did not reach recommended weight
at calving until weeks 38 to 40 of lactation. Assuming that
weight gains equivalent to those for the 2X cows are
required for optimum body condition in preparation for the
subsequent lactation, cows milked 3X must gain the extra
weight during the dry period. Weight gain of an extra 100
1b during the dry period is not unreasonable but emphasizes

the importance of management of the feeding program for cows

17

milked 3X.

Efficiency of feed utilization for milk production in
multiparous cows is enhanced with 3X milking. Despite the
loss in body weight cows milked 3X produced approximately 3
lb more milk per pound of increased dry matter (DM) intake.
This amounts to 3,000 lb extra milk for a total of about
1,000 lb extra DM intake (Bath, 1983).

The need for increased feed intake in cows milked 3X is
to help maintain body weight and condition. Feeding methods
that work well for 2X milked cows are not ideal for 3X
milked cows (Quesenberry, 1980). Frequency of feeding is
one important factor. Twice daily feeding may be adequate
for cows milked 2X, but more frequent feeding is desirable
for cows milked 3X (Bath, 1983). Each time new feed is
offered, many cows will increase the number of times she
eats, resulting in greater feed intake over a 24 hr period.
This is especially important for high producing cows in
early lactation because they are in negative energy and
protein balances (Quesenberry, 1980).

The practice of grouping cows by level of production
and stage of lactation, and feeding three or four different
rations with gradually decreasing amounts of grains and
other concentrates work very well for cows milked 2X
(DePeters et. al., 1984). However, for 3X milked cows,
higher energy and protein levels are necessary for a longer
period during a lactation cycle to allow them to regain body

weight lost in early lactation due to higher milk

18

production. Rather than three or four ration changes
spanning the range of energy concentrations from high to
low, a herd milked 3X may need only two rations (high and
medium energy concentrations) during the lactation period
(Bath, 1983).

Pearson et. al., (1979) showed that average DM intake
was higher in 2X cows. When fat percentage and body weight
were considered in addition to milk yield, the 2X cows were
44 to 66 lb heavier at parturition than the 3X cows and
averaged 33 to 44 lb more body weight through the first 180d
of lactation. Correspondingly, the lower fat percentage of
milk from the 3X cows offset the feed necessary for the
additional milk production. Thus, group feed intake
apparently reflected the expected needs based on National
Research Council requirements for all groups equally well
(Pearson et. al. 1979).

Research by Flatt et. al. (1969) indicated that
efficiency of utilization of metabolizable energy for milk
or body tissue gain was unaffected by milk yield, amount of
body tissue gain or loss, or stage of lactation in cows
milked 2X. Flatt et. a1. (1965) indicated that apparent
body weight decreases in early lactation are not necessarily
representative of energy loss or balance or actual body
tissue loss but tend to even out over the complete
lactation. It may be possible that the 3X cows converted
more body tissue energy to milk than would be expected from

just the body weight changes alone. It is conceivable that

19

the 3X group of cows lost more energy from body stores than
the 2X group of cows and that body weight remained equal
because water replaced the adipose tissue lost by the 3X
group (Flatt et. al., 1969).

Considering the data in 3X studies, it is apparent that
3X milking increases the efficiency of feed utilization for
milk production even if one considers extra feed required
for added body gains during the dry period (Bath, 1983). It
must be recognized that 3X milking results in a prolonged
drain on body reserves during lactation with the result that
a major proportion of replenishment must occur during the
dry period. Feeding and management programs covering the
entire cycle, including the dry period, must be designed to

meet these added requiremnets (Bath, 1983).

2.6 Economics of 3X Milking

In determining profitability of 3X milking compared
with 2X milking, increased cost of production must be
considered. These costs include greater feed intake,
increasing operational costs and machinery maintenance and
additional labor. As herds get larger, fixed costs of
milking parlors and equipment become greater and variable
costs such as labor become a smaller portion of the total.

Several questions remain as to what are the extra costs
for labor, feed and electricity (Hlubik et. al., 1986).

Other questions that remain to be answered is how much extra

20

milk is needed in order to cover the added costs and how
much extra milk is needed in order to cover the added costs
and how profit can be expected.

Table 1 summarizes eight studies examining income and
expenses from 3X milking. Most of the results and
conclusions were derived from actual and theoretical data.
There were two exceptions, namely Goff and Gaunya, (1977)
who conducted a study of six commercial dairy farms
practicing 3X milking and Agrifax data (unpublished, 1983)
that analyzed 29 farms practicing 3X milking. The studies
compared milk production increases from 3X milking, gross
income, feed cost, labor cost, other miscellaneous costs and
net income when farms switch from 2X to 3X milking. The net
income in the studies ranged from a low of $.08/cow/d from
Goff and Gaunya, (1978) to a high of $.26/cow/d from a study
conducted by Edwards, (1980). The Agrifax data
(unpublished, 1983) was the only study in Table 1 that
showed a negative return to 3X milking (-.12/cow/d). A
possible reason for the negative returns in farms milking 3X
is that only 29 farms were analyzed in the study.

One additional study (Speicher, 1985) determined the
profitability of 3X milking by using model herds. Increased
milk production attributed to 3X milking in Table 1 ranged
from 5.9 lb/cow for herds with 12,000 lb to 9.8 lb/cow for
herds with 20,000 lb herd averages. When a $12.00 net
price for milk is used, increased daily milk due to

3X milking resulted in additional daily gross income

21

d expanses For 3X milking.

income an

Review of

Table 1.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

o\zoo >ou >oo >mo >op mmme
\me.m om>fiumo \aoo\ne.m \300\ew.m \aoo\ew.m \aoo\wm.a xoe menu as xenoaz
p\aoo xoo >mu >mo >mn mmme
\nw.e um>aumo \300\mo.a \300\mm.m \aoo\om.e \aoo\om.a xme maoo oer mcmao
o\aoo >ou >mu >mo >mu maoo owe emme
\Pm.e nm>opmo \aoo\mo.e \3oo\mo.a \aoo\me.a \aoo\nm.e a“? ocugcom
U\aoo >mo >mo >mu >mo msuou mm mmmw
\Nr.um Hmauoq \aoo\mo.e \aoo\me.a \aoo\ee.a \aoo\en.a am xwewumq
U\aoo >ou xou >mo >mo omme
\mm.w om>wumo \aoo\nm.$ \aoo\ee.w \aoo\oo.e \3oo\mw.a xme nonmapu
o\aoo xmp >mo >mo xmu menu can meme
\mN.e um>fiumo \aoo\mo.e \aoo\eo.e \aoo\oe.a \soo\ee.a me mcoopmsu<
meme
o\aoo >wv >mu >mo >mu maoo Doe .Hm um
\mN.m uo>womo \aoo\me.m \aoo\ne.a \aoo\me.m \aoo\e>.m .ocH xme umwmmwama
meme
xHHE mxczmu
o\aoo maoo maoo wouxm co Rm.m .ocH new
\mo.e Hanan: ooe\om.ee ooe\ew.9em aoo\mm.wm uao\mm.mw moonwafiuaoz meow
msoocH umou xn non xn uou xn non xn scum .ocH maou
pmz Lo monoom umou porno umou uonmu umou ummu mEoocH mwouu cowuoouona xau: co amass: muoruoq

22

ranging from $.71/cow to $1.17/cow. Net returns
exclusive of labor costs due to 3X milking ranged from
$.26/cow/d for herd with 12,000 1b to $.42/cow/d for

herds with 20,000 lb herd averages.

ASSUMPTIONS AND SPECIFICATIONS OF INVESTMENT MODEL

An investment model was developed that examined two
strategies affecting economic profitability of milking dairy
cows 3X; namely, herd size and level of milk production. An
electronic spreadsheet template: Lotus 123 (Lotus
Development Corp., 1983) was employed to project long term
profit expectations. Simulated farms of various herd sizes
and production levels were first assembled to generate
estimates of costs, incomes and profits of 3X compared with
2X.

Herd sizes analyzed were 50, 100, 150, 200 and 400

cows. The hard averages for these herd sizes are 13,000,
15,000, 17,000, 19,000, 21,000 and 23,000 lb. of
milk/cow/yr. The investment model developed permits the

user to consider changing input variables.

 

User can specify:

Herd Size (Total 8)

Herd Average (lb./cow/yr.)
Cattle Income/Cow (S/cow)

Price of Milk ($/cwt.)

Price of Labor for 2X (S/hr.)

Price of Labor for 3X ($/hr.)

Milk Loss (% of milk/cow)
3X Milk increase (% of milk/cow)
Price of Corn (S/bushel)
Price of Hay ($/Ton)

Price of Soybean Meal (S/Ton)

Price of Corn Silage (T/Ton)

Cows Milked/hr. (fl/hr.)
Depreciation/Cow ($/cow)

23

24

 

The model estimates appropriate costs and incomes for
each herd size and herd average. Profit is defined as gross

income minus total expenses.

Using this model the user can:

1) Compare profits within each strategy across
herd sizes for a given set of specifications.

2) Examine sensitivity of the analysis to changes
in inputs.

Components of the model are discussed in four categories.
incomes for the model
Items dealing with feed costs
items dealing with labor costs

Dairy expenses other than feed and labor costs

Incomes for the model

Income for the model is derived from sale of milk and
cattle income which is comprised of deacon calves, cull cows
and excess replacement heifers. Milk sold is estimated as
95% of total produced (Speicher, 1967). Difference between
amount of milk produced and amount sold can be attributed to
abnormal milk during the first week of lactation, mastitic
milk from udders treated with antibiotics and other milk
consumed by the farm family. Rundell and Speicher (1967)
estimated average difference in amount produced versus the

amount sold as 700 lb/cow.

25

Anticipated production increase resulting from 3X
milking is approximately 15% (Allen et. al., 1985; Amos et.
al., 1985; Gisi et al., 1985). If the user so desires, the
milk production increase can be changed to a value that is
either a more conservative or a more generous percent.

Milk hauling and marketing charges are accounted for in
the livestock budgets. A milk price of $12.10/cwt. (Hamm,
1986) was used in the model and this price can be changed by
the user. Gross milk sales are figured as 95% X cwt. of
milk produced + (milk increase from 3X) X price of milk/cwt.
Cattle income which consists of income from cull cows,
deacon calves and changes in cattle inventory was estimated
using Telfarm records. Telfarm records are a business

analysis summary of Michigan dairy farms.

items dealing with feed costs

The feed cost was calculated using the Michigan State
University Dairy Ration Evaluator (MSU Animal Science Dept.,
1986). The model includes rations for levels of milk
production of 13, 15,17,19,21 and 23 (thousand lb.) rolling
herd average production. The ration composition is critical
in achieving a particular level of milk output given the
genetic potential to produce at that level. There are many
combinations of feeds that will meet the cow’s nutrient
requirements. Typical dairy rations in Michigan include
corn grain, corn silage, alfalfa hay, brewers grains and

soybean meal. These then are the feeds that form the basis

26

for the rations formulated for the model shown in Appendix
1. The nutrient content of feeds is based on values in the
Spartan Dairy Ration Evaluator. Feed nutrient densities are
located in Appendix 2.

Quantities of feeds needed are based on amounts to meet
nutrient requirements of lactating cows according to their
level of milk production as well as feed needs of heifers
and dry cows. Expected feed intake, nutrient content of
feeds and losses in feeding and storage are considered. The
quantity of feed needed for extra milk production resulting
from 3X milking is 1 lb. of extra feed from the total diet
equals 3 lb. more milk (Bath, 1978). Quantities of feeds
needed/cow and her replacement are located in Appendix 3.

Purchased feed costs are estimated by multiplying the
feed purchase prices by the quantity of each feed needed
which are determined by the level of milk production and
herd size. Costs used for each crop are $2.00/bu. for corn,
$75.00/T for hay, $208/T for soybean meal and $23.00/T for
corn silage. Other feed costs that are built into the model
is $23/T for brewers grains, $.16/lb for dicalcium
phosphate, $.05/lb. for limestone, $.09/lb for calcium
sulfate, $.13/lb for magnesium oxide and $.07/lb for trace
mineral salt.

The rations were balanced on the assumptions that the
breed was Holstein, body weight of the cow was 1350 lb, age

of the cow was 48 months and the milk fat percent was 3.5.

27

ltems dealing with labor costs

Labor costs for each herd size and herd average are
calculated based on the technology employed (i.e. the
buildings, facilities and equipment). The labor costs for
2X milking was derived from using Telfarm records. This
includes the cash cost for hired labor including paid
perquisites and social security plus the value of operator’s
and unpaid family labor at $5.00/hr. The values are shown
in Appendix 4 with all other livestock expenses/cow.

Herds milking 3X require higher labor costs than herds
milking xx. The difference between 3X milking and 2X
milking labor costs are based on the following assumptions.

1) it was assumed that all cows milked 3X will be
fed three times a day compared to twice per
day for herds milked 2X. This allows for
delivery of extra feed required for 3X milked
cows.

Farms with a herd size of 50 cows will be
milked in a pipeline system. The additional

labor required for the third feeding is 11.52
hr/cow/yr (Norrell et. al., 1978).

N
y.

3) Farms with a herd size of 100 cows will be
milked in a double 4 herringbone parlor with
no mechanization. The additional labor
required for the third feeding is 7.7
hr/cow/yr (Norrell et. al., 1978).

4) harms with a herd size of 150 cows will be
milked in a double 6 herringbone parlor with
detachers. The additional labor required for

the third feeding is 6.9 hr/cow/yr (Norrell
et. al., 1978).

5) Farms with a herd size of 200 cows will be
milked in a double 6 herringbone parlor with
detachers and a crowd gate. The additional
labor required for the third feeding is 6.0

28

hr/cow/yr (Norrell et. al., 1978).

6) Farms with a herd size of 400 cows will be
milked in a double 8 herringbone parlor with
detachers and a crowd gate. The additional

labor required for the third feeding is 5.4
hr/cow/yr (Norrell et. al., 1978).

7) Values for milking throughputs, (Kelso, 1979)
are based on degree of milking system
automation and are shown in Appendix 5.

8) For the third milking, (Bickert, 1983) 20 min.
is needed for parlor setup, 30 - 45 min. is
needed for cleanup and changing cows requires
15 min/100 cows.

9) Pipeline setup is 15 min. while 25 min. is
required for cleanup (Bath et. al., 1978).

10) For consistency, all milking systems will be

operated by one milker.

The price of labor for 3X milked herds was figured at
$7.00/hr. The reason for the 40% increase compared with
$5.00/hr for 2X milked herds is the added incentive needed.
to milk and complete all chores required for the additional
milking each day. The user can change the hourly wage to

any value to more accurately predict his farm situation.

Dairy expenses other than feed and labor costs

Machinery expenses for the dairy herd includes the
following items: repairs and supplies for upkeep on
machinery including tractors, repairs and upkeep on trucks
and farm share of automobiles including fuel, gas, oil and
grease, custom hire of machinery, depreciation on machinery

and interest on investment in machinery. Telfarm records

29

report interest on total investment in two segments --
interest paid and interest on equity. The interest paid is
reported by the farmer. The amount of debt is estimated by
capitalizing the amount of interest reported at 8.5%. The

estimated debt is subtracted from the total investment to

determine equity. Interest is computed on the equity at
8.5%. interest is allocated to machinery, improvements,
land and livestock according to investment. Machinery

expenses have been assumed to not increase when a herd is
switched from 2X to 3X milking.

improvement expenses included repairs on buildings,
fences, wells, cleaning ditches, bulldozing, fence rows;
which are classified as conservation expense for income tax
purposes. Improvement expenses further includes fire and
wind insurance premiums, depreciation and interest on
improvement investment. Improvement expenses have also been
assumed to hold constant as a herd switches from 2X to 3X
milking.

Livestock expenses included breeding, veterinary and
medicine, milk and livestock marketing, milkhouse supplies,
registration, advertising, heat for livestock buildings and
other livestock service and supply items. Marketing costs
for milk were calculated at a $1.30/cwt. of milk. The $1.30
/cwt. is comprised of $.05/cwt. to zone differential, $.50/
cwt. for milk hauling, $.15/cwt. for milk promotion,
$.08/cwt. for milk cooperative fees and $.52/cwt. for the

whole herd buyout assessment (Hamm, 1986). All livestock

3O

expenses except the marketing and trucking expense were
increased 50% when herds are milked 3X.

The land charge was interest on the investment in land
plus taxes paid. Land values were estimated by county
extension staff members throughout the state of Michigan.
An effort was made to keep them comparable between farms. An
attempt was made to use an agricultural value and not
reflect urban real estate values. Land charge will not be
affected by herds milking 3X.

Other expenses included in the model are for utilities
and other miScellaneous expenses not included elsewhere.
Utilities and miscellaneous expenses were increased 50% for
3X milking compared with 2X milking.

All dairy expenses for each herd average and herd size
are shown in Appendix 4. Values shown in Appendix 4 include

the average long run outlook of Telfarm data from 1980 to

1985. Since this is an decision making analysis involving
stategic planninng (i.e. long range planning). forecast
expenses are used to establish the expected economic

conditions for the forecast period 1986 - 1991.

RESULTS

The Effect of Milking Frequency on Net income for Various

Herd Sizes and Milk Production Averages

Figures 1 through 4 show the net incomes of 3X milking

compared with 2X milking. For a 50 cow herd at milk
production levels ranging from 13,000 - 23,000 lb of
milk/cow, 15,000 lb of milk/cow is needed to show increased
net income for 3X milking compared with 2X milking. Figure

2 illustrates that 3X milking is more profitable than 2X
milking for a 200 cow herd at all milk production levels.
For herds with 200 cows that are practicing 3X milking,
15,000 lb of milk/cow is needed to reach the breakeven point
($0 profit point).

At a level of 19,000 and 23,000 lb of milk/cow, (see
Figures 5 and 4) all herd sizes show added net income when
milked 8X compared with 2X. Figures 1 through 4 show that
ex net income increases at a faster rate than 2X net income

as herd size and herd average increases.

The Effect of Milk Price on Profitability of 3X Milking

Compared with 2X Milking

31

32

L. +

Mm D

.moem m3. on m:

oaomm coo um cocoa

L b

ace}: econ.
_ _

 

 

 

 

 

cm

296. sea .38 a Ems .38 9... a he

.3: ooz :o hodofioopm 925:2 mo

pcctm

.~ muswwm

(spuesnoql)
(SJUIIOP) 31/103511 lIEIN

33

cccmm

ocean
_

Hm +

“mm D

. mofi. 59. one:

ocean
_

ecos—
r

oacmq

ooomé

 

3...

- a
r em...
.. 8|

 

 

o

I A:
T on
eI_cm
I 9v
I on
I on
I on.
I am
r as
T can
I a:
I am;
T can

 

 

336—

M35 are ad the: Boo

com a 38

6.3

.03— #02 :0 kofiefivohh wfimvzmz mo doommm

N ouswum

(spuesnoql)
(5.1311013) QNODNI (LEN

93.

so

2

Hm

+ one 0
Mai 9mm:

9.: can on

_ Owl.

 

 

34

 

IIIIIIe s

llmlu Ink-.11. I\I.I\I.\...\. . .I o H

l.\. I on
I as
I 3,
I an.
I 8
I E
I 8
I as
a 2:
I a:
I 8.
I :2
I 9.:
I on.
I 8—

 

 

9: .32

5:: so A. sees. .5333 3.35

no kodofioosm @5332 no oootm

9:
com

.m musmwm

(spuesnoql)
(31811013) ENODNI .LIEIN

35

Km + 3m D
mN—m 9mm:

coo cam can

— _

k

 

 

FI—J

cm

I can
I can
I 9E
I can
I emu
V com
I can
I :3
I cum
I can

 

 

sea .3 a. 89mm 38:83 «.32

.8.“

.oE ooz so kosodoopm mdgzfi

can

no pcotm

.q ouswwm

(spuesnoql)
(venom amoom ism

36

Figures 5 through 8 illustrate the impact of reducing
the price of milk from $12.10/cwt. to $11.10/cwt. have on
profitability of 3X milking compared with 2X milking. At a
level of milk production of 13,000 lb of milk/cow, (see Fig.
5) herd sizes of 150 cows and greater show that 3X net
.income is greater than 2X net income. When herd sizes
ranging from 50 to 400 cows produce 13,000 lb of milk/cow,
profitability never reaches the breakeven point for 2X and
3X milking. At a level of 19,000 lb of milk/cow (see Fig.
6) the 50 and 100 cow herds do not reach positive net
income. However, all herd sizes producing 19,000 lb of milk
cow show added net income when milking 3X compared with 2X.

A herd size of 50 cows (see Fig. 7) that produces
17,000 lb oi milk/cow shows that 3X milking is more
profitable than 2X milking. When the herd average is
increased to 19,000 lb of milk/cow, 3X milking surpasses the
breakeven point. At herd sizes of 200 cows (see Fig. 8) all
herd averages have added net income for 3X milking compared
with 2X milking. At levels of 17,000 lb of milk/cow and

greater a 200 cow herd reaches positive net income.

The Effect of Changing the Price of Labor on Profitability

of 3X Milking Compared with 2X Milking

37

unm + NM
NM; Qmmm

cam on—
. .1

can

 

 

 

5.33.34; 3 gas. 5A.: fl s84: .8“

cm}

I am:

 

a s-

.3: .32 So hcdofivopm ”32322 no Hootm

m ousmwm

(spuesnoql)
(SJBIIOD) anoom .LEN

38

09”..

MB + ohm D
mEm am:

can can can

on

 

. II.
II'III"
I']

am...

 

 

Ion

I2.

I95

Iom

 

 

£5333 3 0:2: :33 £ 83: be

.3: ooz do honofivopm 333:3 me

am

pcommm

.o ouswwm

(spuesnoql)
(venom snoom .LLHN

39

95mm

.5ch

mum +. you nu
mag Esq. Qflm

ocomq Osaka
_ r

.59:

 

as!
\a... an!
I an!
7 9v!
I am!
I am!

I CHI...

 

 

o

lo—

lam

lam

I3,

Ion

 

 

833v £32 058 .33 ea 9:8 on

em

.95 .32 do monofivopm wag—m2 no oootm

.s shaman

(spuesnoql)
(81811013) anoom .LaN

40

ocean

Mm + M1 D
mwfim ME? Q m m:

scam»... occmq cop: coamq
_ p p uI

aoomq

 

on!
-e. a...

.1
I.
III .I.. on
I‘ -\ \

. \\
..\ I I
1\.
\\ I .

 

 

Ion
Iofi
Ion
Ice
Ion
Iom

 

 

83.3 20?... 5:: are 3 v.38 8m

.3: .32 do .mofioaoopm 92x32 me

am

coats

.w ousmam

(spuesnoql)
(“211013) anoom ism

40

Mm + Hm D
madam mtg. Gm m:

coon“ ocomq .59: coanq
_ e p _

oocmm

scam;

 

on!
on!

. \
\l\\ Mi
..\ .‘z
I

\.
0.. \
\ n“ o n
.\\w \V
l‘
-\ °¢
.\ I l
\"\
\

II Dml
II DNI
II Qfinl.

 

 

5

IA:
Tom
Tom
I3.
flow.
Ice
IE.
lam

 

 

8123 226. 5.5 use as «38 8m

.05 .32 no hoaofivoah 920254 «c

on

uoommm

.w madman

(spuesnoql)
(“81109) swoon: ism

41

Figures 9 through 11 illustrate the consequences of
raising the price for 3X labor from $7.00/hr to $10.00/hr
have on profitability of 3X milking compared with 2X
milking. At a level of 19,000 lb of milk/cow, (see Fig. 9)
only 200 and 400 cow herds.show increased net income for 3X
milking compared with 2X milking.

A 50 cow herd (see Fig. 10) has to produce 19,000 lb of
milk/cow before it becomes economically justifiable to shift
from 2X to 3X milking. Herd size of 200 cows (see Fig. 11)
illustrates a positive net income for 3X milking at a level
of milk production of 17,000 lb of milk/cow. It further
shows that as milk production per cow increases then 3X
milking net income increases at a faster rate than 2X

milking.

The Effect of increasing the Price of Feed Forty Percent on

Profitability of 3X Milking Compared with 2X Milking

Figures 12 and 13 illustrate the profitability of 3X
milking compared with 2X milking was examined by analyzing
the impact of increasing feed prices 40% relative to current
feed prices. At a level of 17,000 lb of milk/cow, (see Fig.
12) is when a 50 cow herd shows increased net income from 3X
milking. Even when milk production reaches 23,000 lb of
milk/cow for a herd size of 50 cows, the breakeven point is
not attained for 2X and 3X milking. At a herd size of 200

cows (see Fig. 13), profitability becomes positive when the

42

com

um»... + Ha... D
mw—m Gm m:

can can 6.:

 

 

 

\\

I 3
I am
I an
I 3,
I on
fee
I as
I 8
I 8
T 9:
fie:
I e3

 

 

.383 Me .3.“ 55.85; e A. 892 .8“

emu

.oE fez no hofiofivopm m:§:2 mo oootm

.a ouswam

(spuesnoql)
(SJBIIOP) swoon: .LEIN

43

NH” + ”Hm fl.
mag Ed. Q m m:

 

6666M 666nm 6666a 666nm 666mm 666qu
L IF P p \\.\.\\%l DNII
\. \ I.\. .\ I.I\\\.mU
\r \\\\I. I 2..
\.\.I
\x\
\\ I cqi
\V
\wa

 

\ \
I\. I3

 

 

 

2
ABE—3 23m. 0:2: use a. 2:8 9...

.3: poz so hofiofivopm @20sz mo abommm

6~ shaman

(spuesnoql)
(SJBIIOP) anoom .LaN

44

Hm + Hm B
mag 56% gm m m

666mm 666 «m 6666q 666.: 666mm 666m—
; p r p 6%!

 

 

\.\\ \.\+\ I 6.“.
IxxhwxxxI .\\\\\
\\\., \.\\\ .I am
\I\\\
\II. \.\ I S.
\\\\
\m\ . ..\ I as
\.\\\ \ I: am
e\. \\ I 8—
I..\ I a:

\\ rI QM‘
6m—

 

 

 

Ange—3 396— aims an; ad nurse com

.o:— poz do koflodvopm WGCZEZ mo pootm

.sl «names

(spuesnoql)
(81211013) swoom .LaN

45

666mm

ocean

mm + .Hm .u
mwfim m>< mmmm

ocean 6665a

b F

6666a

6666a

 

 

emu
Ill? vml

 

 

95 x93 28:: 3:8 use an 2:8 9...

.04.: avz :0 KOQQQVQHIR Wigwam: HO Hovmmm

.N~ cuawwm

(spuesnoql)
(Sleuop) anoom .LaN

46

ooomm

Mm + m. D
mafia m>< AH; m:

coo—m. caomu .5th .595
_ P _ . _

coon“

 

37.
\\WW. ST.

w 8..
.. 81
7 on...
1 8..
I on:
1 ST
I am:
.. cm:
1 3|

 

 

a

law
lam
tom.
15+
{on

 

 

“05 Rowv Egg #25 dug—u ad «.500 can

on

.05 ~02 no kofiofidvhm 92532 Ho Hoetm

.nu wusmam

(spuesnoql)
(EB-1311013) ENODNI .LEIN

47

milk production is 19,000 lb of milk/cow or greater.

The Effect on Profitability by Changing the Milk Production

Response to Ten Percent when Milking Cows 3X Compared with 2X

Figures 14 through 17 illustrate the effect on
profitability by reducing the increase in milk production
from 3X milking compared with 2X milking from 15% to 10%.
At a level of milk production of 13,000 lb of milk/cow (see
Fig. 14) 2X milking is more profitable than 3X milking at
all herd sizes. When production increases to 19,000 lb of
milk/cow (see Fig. 15) it is not until herd sizes of 200
cows and larger that 3X milking is more profitable than 2X
milking.

it is not profitable for a herd of 50 cows (see Fig.
16) to milk 3X when milk production increases only 10%
compared with 2X milking. However, when herd size is 200
cows (see Fig. 17) 19,000 lb of milk/cow is needed before

3X milking is more profitable than 2X milking.

48

Km + Hm. D
mam QMME

can can can
r r p

 

 

1w! mu...

 

 

33:5 Us 5 «3205 N3 .5 25.2.

.o:_ qu do Kofiofivofim 923:2 mo aootm

.ed ouswfim

(spuesnoql)
(“811013) awoom .LEIN

49

2:.

Mm + Hm U
MN—m Qmm:

can can can

_ _ _

 

 

 

 

R 1.:

I am
I on
T can
I on
a. on
fl on.
i am
I am
I can
I a:
I 9:

 

 

33:8 Ma 5 3835 N3 5: 892.

.2: .32 no monoflvozm 925:2

9.4

no pootm

.m. «Hamil

(spuesnoql)
(518110?) zwoom .LEIN

50

Hm + “mm D
maggd. fifimm

oocmm coo «m. .52: A59: Sonq

_ b P _

 

 

 

 

 

A2: was 29$. 5:: one an «.38 on

.02— aoz do hodofivvhh wfimvHZE mo pooh—mm

.oa «woman

(spuesnoqm)
(Sieuop) anoom izN

51

coamm

Hm + NM. D
m 04% MFR¢ Q m m:

sac—m ocean coop:
u p p _

cosm—

 

 

 

 

T on
I o.v
I on
I on
I as
I am
i on
I oo—
r o:

 

 

.oE ooz :o kofiofivopm mQEZS

$3 was 22.2 5.8 use ,3 .938 8a

.HO

om—

aootm

a on

swam

(spuesnoqm)
(SJBIIDP) swoon: 1.5m

UlbUUSSlUN

in contrast to numerous experiments where only one net
income was shown for cows being milked 5X compared with ax,
many net incomes are shown from the dairy investment model.
Experimental conditions of the present studies and
conditions in previous work were not identical. These
differences may account for the contrasting results. For
example, various herd sizes and herd averages were examined
to determine profitability of milking cows 3X compared with
LA.

Goff and Gaunya, (1978) and Owens, (1985) never
examined the impact of different prices on the profitability
of milking 3X compared with 2X. For example, profitability
in the current study was looked at over different milk
prices, labor prices and feed prices. in addition different
production responses from 3X milking were examined to see
its effectiveness on BX net income. Profitability of
milking cows 3X compared with ax was greatly altered when
different prices and 3X production responses were used.

Total net income per cow per day was examined over herd
sizes of bU, 1UO, 150, ZUO and 400 cows and herd averages of
15, lb, 17, 18, 21 and 23 (thousand) lb of milk/cow. Net
income was calculated using a milk price of $12.1U/cwt, a
price of labor for 3X of $7.UU/hr, a milk production

52

53

increase from 3X of 15%, $2.00/bu for corn, $60.00/T for
hay, $208.00/T for soybean meal and $23.00/T for corn silage.

For a 50 cow herd producing 13,000 lb of milk/cow, 3X
milking shows a loss of $.01/cow/d compared with 2X milking.
Hlubik, (1986) showed that a 70 cow herd can increase net
income $.18/cow/d when milking 3X compared with 2X. When
milk production is at 19,000 lb of milk/cow then 3X milking
compared with 2X milking has higher net returns of $.
20/cow/d. When the herd average is 23,000 lb of milk/cow
the added net income from 3X milking is $.29/cow/d.

When the herd size is 100 cows, 3X milking has a more
positive effect on net income than a herd size of 50 cows.
Uwen, (1985) using a 100 cow model herd showed an increase
of $.13/cow/d when 3X milking was practiced. At a level of
milk production of 13,000 lb of milk/cow, 3X milking
compared with 2X milking shows a gain of $.08/cow/d. When
the herd average is increased to 15,000 lb of milk/cow the
added net income from 3X milking is $.l3/cow/d. When a 100
cow herd is producing 23,000 lb of milk/cow net income is
increased $.34/cow/d for 3X milking compared with 2X milking.

At a herd size of 150 cows producing 13,000 lb of
milk/cow, net income is $.10/cow/d greater for 3X milking
compared with 2X milking. When the herd average is 17,000
lb of milk/cow, added net returns of $.23/cow/d from 3X
milking is realized. At a level of milk production of
23,000 lb of milk/cow the added net income for 3X milking

compared with 2X milking is $.40/cow/d.

54

A herd size of 200 cows depicts profitability at all
herd averages based on current prices and costs. At a level
of milk production of 13,000 lb of milk/cow net income is
increased $.14/cow/d when a herd shifts from 2X milking to
3X milking. When the herd average is at 23,000 lb of
milk/cow the added net income from 3X milking is $.43/cow/d.
On a per cow basis, the 200 cow herd is more profitable at
herd averages of 13, 15, 19 and 23 (thousand) lb of milk/cow
than a 400 cow herd at herd averages of 13, 15, 19 and 23
(thousand) lb of milk/cow. A possible reason for the
increase in net income on a per cow basis for a 200 cow herd
compared with a 400 cow herd is assumptions built into the
dairy investment model on the number of cows milked/hr. It
was assumed that a 200 cow herd would be milked in a double
6 herringbone parlor with detachers and a crowd gate while
the 400 cow herd would be milked in a double 8 herringbone
parlor with detachers and a crowd gate. The values used in
the dairy investment model for milking cows/hr are a major
cause for the increase in net income on a per cow basis for
a 200 cow herd compared with a 400 cow herd.

A herd size of 400 cows shows added net income for all
herd averages. Pelissier et. al. (1978); Edwards, (1980);
Bohling, (1980) calculated a return around $.25/cow/d for a
400 cow herd. This is very similar to the present results
for a 400 cow herd producing 19,000 lb of milk/cow, however,
Pelissier fails to show if 3X is proftable for other herd

averages. A 400 cow herd producing 13,000 lb of milk/cow

55

will receive added net income of $.12/cow/d. Furthermore,
if a 400 cow herd is producing 23,000 lb of milk/cow then

the added net income from 3X milking is $.31/cow/d.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Profitability of milking cows 3X compared with milking
cows 2X was examined across levels of production of 13, 15,
1?, 19, 21 and 23 (thousand) lb of milk/cow. Using the
electronic spreadsheet template Lotus 123 (1983), simulated
farms of herd sizes of 50, 100, 150, 200 and 400 cows were
modeled for 3X milking and 2X milking. The dairy investment
model employs a static budgeting approach and assumes that
all costs, prices and other input variables specified by the
user are constant over the investment period. The model is
useful in projecting long term profit expectation.

Milking 3X revealed:

1) Profitability is reached according to changes
in level of milk production and herd size.

2) 3X milking becomes profitable for a 50 cow
herd producing 17,000 lb of milk/cow.

3) For a 100 cow herd producing 13,000 lb of
milk/cow, 3X milking shows added net income in
comparison to 2X milking.

4) For herd sizes of 150, 200 and 400 cows, all
herd averages show that 3X milking is
profitable when compared to 2X milking.

Milking 3X is not likely to be for everyone because
there are many factors involved and these factors vary
widely in dairy herds. A feasability estimate for the herd

must be made with the owner’s cost and price data and management

circumstances. To determine whether an individual dairy
56

57

operation should switch to 3X milking, the producer should:
determine if there is profit potential in switching to 3X,
assure that a dependable labor supply and excellent
management is available, be able to meet the special
management required for success with 3X milking and have a
strong desire and commitment to make the system succeed.
There are limitations to the techniques and procedures
developed and examined in this study. The key to improviong
the model is to use available data and information, be it
historical series or predictions, to the fullest extent
possible. A good decision only improves the chance of a

favorable outcome, it does not guarantee one.

APPENDIX A TABLES

Appendix table 1.

Characteristics of rations For lactating cows.

 

305 Day Milk Yield

 

 

Characteristics

13,000 15,000 17,000 19,000 21,000 23,000
Energy conc.
(NE, Meal/1b 0M) .70 .74 .73 .74 .74 .76
Crude protein conc.
(% on) 13.53 15.32 15.36 14.84 15.04 15.78
Average daily milk
production For 2X 42.6 49.2 55.7 62.3 69.0 75.4
Average daily milk
production For 3X 49.0 56.6 64.1 71.6 79.2 86.7
Estimated dry matter
intake (lb/day) 35.5 36.6 38.9 41.9 44.8 46.3
Net energy required
(Noel) 24.10 26.24 28.34 30.48 32.65 34.72
Crude Protein required
(lb) 4.6 5.13 5.66 6.19 6.73 7.24
Net energy required
(Meal/lb 0M) .61 .64 .66 .68 .69 .71
DiCalcium Phosphate
(lb/day) .126 .130 .142 .162 .178 .199
Limestone added
(lb/day) .062 .154 .198 .253 .294 .314
TR mineral salt added
(lb/day) .175 .184 .193 .202 .210 .219
Calcium (% in ration
after minerals added) .67 .70 .72 .73 .73 .75
Phosphorus (% in ration
after minerals added) .33 .35 .36 .37 .37 .38
Calcium Sulfate .097 .075 .070 .069 .058 .041
Magnesium Oxide .026 .032 .037 .041 .036 .041

58

Appendix table 2.

% 0M
Crude Protein %

Net Energy MCa1/#
Acid Detergent Fiber %

Calcium %
Phosphorus %
Magnesium %
Potassium %
Sodium %
Chloride %
Sulfur %
Iron ppm
Zinc ppm
Copper ppm
Manganese ppm
Iodine ppm
Selenium ppm

59

Alfalfa

Mid

88
18
.59
.36
1.25
.25
.25
2.10
.02
.31
.23
125
27
9.0
28
0
0

Brewers
Grains

22
28
.72
25.0
.30
.54
.15
.05
.01
.10
.30
220
30
20.0
41
0
0

Corn,Gr Corn Silage

Shelled

88
10
.93
1.0
.02
.26
.14
.45
0
.03
.14
30
30
5.0
15
0
0

NPN

35
11.30
.69
28.0
.30
.26
.20
1.00
.01
.10
.14
180
40
7.0
38
0
0

Nutrient content of Feeds used in the model.

Soybean
Neal

90
48.9
.84
10.0
.34
.70
.30
2.20
.04
.04
.47
130
48
25.0
31
0
0

Appendix table 3.

60

Quantities of feed needed/cow and replacement/year
by production level.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feed Lactatinga Dryb Young-c 3X Storage & Total Needed
Cou Cou stock Cou Feed
Loss 2X 3X
Production level of 13,000 lb, 3.5% milk
Alfalfa, Mid. 1.4 T .5 T 2.2 T 1.8 T 16% t 4.8 T 5.2 T
Corn Gr. Shelled 31 bu 2 bu 12 bu 40 bu 8% t 49 bu 58 bu
Corn Silage, NPN 9.2 T .8 T 3 T 12 T 18% 7 15.3 T 18.6 T
Soybean Meal 339 1b - 100 1b 457 lb 5% , 461 1b 579 1b
DiCal Phosphate 38 1b - 25 lb 38 lb 5% ; 66 lb 66 1b
Limestone 19 lb - - 19 lb 5% . 20 lb 20 lb
Calcium Sulfate 29 lb - - 29 lb 5% j 30 1b 30 lb
Magnesium Oxide 8 lb - - 8 1b 5% ; 9 1b 9 lb
Tr. Mineral Salt 53 lb 5 1b 25 lbl33 1b 5% . 87 lb 87 lb
Production level of 15,000 lb, 3.5% milk
Alfalfa, Mid. 1.4 T l .5 T 2.2 T 1.8 T 16% 4.8 T 5.2 T
Corn Gr. Shelled 62 bu I 2 bu 12 bu 83 bu 8% 82 bu 105 bu
Corn Silage, NPN 6.5 T 1 .8 T 3 T 8.7 T 18% 12.2 T 11.6 T
Soybean Meal 1017 lb l - 100 1b 1353 lb 5% 1173 lb 1526 lb
DiCal Phosphate 40 1b 1 - 25 1b 40 lb 5% 68 1b 68 lb
Limestone 47 lb 1 - - 47 1b 5% 50 1b 50 1b
Calcium Sulfate 23 lb - - 23 1b 5% 24 lb 24 lb
Magnesium Oxide 10 1b ‘ - - 10 lb 5% 11 lb 11 lb
Tr. Mineral Salt 56 lb , 5 1b 1 25 16156 1b 5% 90 lb 90 1b
Production level of 17,000 lb, 3.5% milk
Alfalfa, Mid. 1.4 T .5 T 2.2 T 1.8 T 16% 4.8 T 5.2 T
Brewers Grain 2.1 T - - 2.8 T 8% 2.3 T 3.0 T
Corn Cr. Shelled 63 bu 2 bu 12 bu 84 bu 8% 83 bu 106 bu
Corn Silage, NPN 6.5 T .8 T 3 T 8.7 lb 18% 12.1 T 11.6 T
Soybean Meal 678 lb - 100 lb 900 1b 5% 817 1b 1050 lb
DiCal Phosphate 43 1b - 25 lb 43 lb 5% 71 lb 71 1b
Cimestone 60 1b - - 60 1b 5% 63 lb 63 1b
Calcium Sulfate 21 1b - - 21 lb 5% 22 lb 22 1b
Magnesium Oxide 11 lb - - 11 lb 5% 12 lb 12 lb
Pot. Chloride 15 1b - - 15 lb 5% 16 1b 16 1b
Tr. Mineral Salt 59 lb 5 1b 25 lb 59 1b 5% 93 lb 93 lb

 

 

 

 

 

table 3. (continued)

61

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Feed Lactatinga Dryb Young-c 3X Storage 6 Total Needed
Cow Cow stock Cow Feed
Loss 2X 3X
Production level of 19,000 lb, 3.5% milk
Alfalfa, Mid. 1.4 T .S T 2.2 T 1.8 T 16% 4.8 T 5.2 T
Brewers Grain 3.5 T - - 4.7 T 8% 3.8 T 5.1 T
Corn Cr. Shelled 81 bu 2 bu 12 T 108 1b 8% 103 bu 132 bu
Corn Silage, NPN 6.1 lb .8 T 3 T 8.1 lb 18% 11.7 T 10.9 T
Soybean Meal 339 1b - 100 lb 451 lb 5% 461 1b 579 1b
DiCal Phosphate 49 1b - 25 1b 49 lb 5% 78 1b 78 lb
Limestone 77 lb - - 77 lb 5% 81 1b 81 lb
Calcium Sulfate 21 lb - - 21 lb 5% 22 1b 22 1b
Magnesium Oxide 13 lb - - 13 1b 5% 14 lb 14 lb
Pot. Chloride 38 1b - - 38 1b 5% 40 lb 40 lb
Tr. Mineral Salt 62 lb I 5 lb 25 'lb 62 lb 5% 97 1b 97 1b
Production level of 21,000 lb, 3.5% milk
Alfalfa, Mid. 1.4 T .5 T 2.2 T 1.8 T 16% 4.8 T 5.2 T
Brewers Grain 2.8 T - - 3.7 lb 8% 3.0 T 4.0 T
Corn Cr. Shelled 87 bu 2 bu 12 bu 116 1b 8% 109 bu 140 bu
Corn Silage, NPN 7.0 T .8 T 3 T 9.3 lb 18% 12.8 T 12.3 T
Soybean Meal 678 1b - 100 1b 900 lb 5% 817 lb 1050 lb
DiCal Phosphate 54 lb - 25 1b 54 1b 5% 83 lb 83 1b
Limestone 90 1b - - 90 1b 5% 95 1b 95 lb
Calcium Sulfate 18 lb - - 18 1b 5% 19 1b 19 1b
Magnesium Oxide 11 lb - - 11 1b 5% 12 1b 12 lb
Pot. Chloride 22 lb - - 22 lb 5% 23 lb 23 lb
Tr. Mineral Salt 64 1b 5 lb 25 lb 64 lb 5% 99 1b 99 lb
Production level of 23,000 lb, 3.5% milk
Alfalfa, Mid. 1.7 T .5 T 2.2 T 2.3 T 16% 5.1 T 5.8 T
Brewers Grain 3.5 T - - 4.7 T 8% 3.8 T 5.1 T
Corn Gr. Shelled 111 bu 2 bu 12 bu 148 bu 8% 135 bu 175 bu
Corn Silage, NPN 4.4 T .8 T 3 T 5.9 T 18% 9.7 T 8.3 T
Soybean Meal 813 lb - 100 lb 1080 lb 5% 959 1b 1240 lb
DiCal Phosphate 61 lb - 25 1b 61 1b 5% 90 1b 90 lb
Limestone 96 1b - - 96 1b 5% 101 1b 101 1b
Calcium Sulfate 13 1b - - 13 lb 5% 14 1b 14 lb
Magnesium Sulfate 13 lb - - 13 1b 5% 14 1b 14 lb
Potassium 28 lb - - 28 lb 5% 29 lb 29 lb
Tr. Mineral Salt 67 1b 5 1b 25 lb 67 lb) 5% 102 163102 1b

 

 

 

 

62

Table 3. (continued)

8Quantities of feed for lactating cows are based upon a 305 day
lactation.

b’cOuantities of feeds for dr cows and youngstock are estimated from:
Thomas, Emery, Hlubik (1980). I is assumed that dry cows will be brought

onto grain approximately 2 weeks befor freshening.

cAccording to Telfarm summary data (1981) there is approximately one
replacement heifer/cow/year. It is assumed that 1/2 of replacements are
between 0 and 1 yr of age and 1/2 between 1 and 2 years of age. Therefore,
for every heifer the amount of feed needed is the amount needed between
birth and freshening/Z.

0
Storage and feeding losses are based on: Knoblauch (1977), pg. 17
and Parsch (1982), pg. 134. Losses include feeding and storage losses.

Losses for corn are those for high moisture corn stored in an upright
silo. Losses for corn silage are losses based on bunker silo storage.
Losses of hay crop are estimated as 40% dry hay and 60% of the losses of
haylange stored in an upright silo (i.e. .4 * 12 + .6 * 19 =16).

63

Appendix table 4. Steady state throughputs of cows.

Cows milked/hr

Herd Average 50 100 150 200 400
13,000 36 4O 62 68 81
15,000 32 36 57 62 76
17,000 28 31 52 58 71
19,000 24 28 48 53 67
21,000 20 25 44 49 63

23,000 17 21 40 45 59

Appendix table 5.

64

The effect of milking frequency on net income for various herd

sizes and milk production averages.

 

Herd Size (Cows)

 

 

Herd Average 50 100 150 200 400

13,000 (2x) -17,058 -23,292 -34,099 -35,529 -38,538
13,000 (3x) -17,066 -20,419 ~28,243 -25,792 -19,782
15,000 (2x) -13,860 -11,993 -14,819 -8,478 10,691
15,000 (3x) -13,010 -7,421 -6,069 4,956 36,800
17,000 (2x) -5,493 -881 10,435 25,189 72,111
17,000 (3x) -3,399 5,287 22,869 43,604 107,355
19,000 (2x) -60 10,247 22,659 51,048 120,680
19,000 (3x) 3,422 19,152 38,967 75,198 167,440
21,000 (2x) 5,851 22,671 42,457 77,955 173,611
21,000 (3x) 10,352 33,530 61,811 106,252 229,077
23,000 (2x) 11,933 34,908 61,855 102,558 224,980
23,000 (3x) 17,218 47,087 83,615 134,267 287,071

Appendix table 6.

The effect of reducing the milk price from $12.10/cwt. to

65

$11.10/cwt. have on profitability of 3x milking compared with
2x milking.

 

Herd Size (Cows)

 

 

Herd Average 50 100 150 200 400

13,000 (2x) -23,233 -35,642 -52,624 -60,229 -87,938
13,000 (3x) -24,167 -34,621 -49,547 -54,197 -76,592
15,000 (2x) -20,985 -26,243 -36,194 ~36,978 -46,309
15,000 (3x) ~21,204 -23,809 -30,650 -27,819 -28,750
17,000 (2x) -13,568 -17,031 -13,790 -7,111 -7,511
17,000 (3x) -12,686 ~13,286 -4,989 6,459 33,065
19,000 (2x) -9,085 -7,803 -4,416 14,948 48,480
19,000 (3x) -6,957 -1,605 7,831 33,683 84,410
21,000 (2x) -4,124 2,721 12,532 38,055 93,811
21,000 (3x) -1,120 10,587 27,397 60,367 137,307
23,000 (2x) 1,008 13,058 29,080 58,858 137,580
23,000 (3x) 4,655 21,959 45,924 84,012 186,561

Appendix table 7.

The effect of changing the price of labor from $7.00/hr.

66

$10.00/hr. on profitability of 3x milking compared with

to

2x milking.

 

Herd Size (Cows)

 

 

Herd Average 50 100 150 200 400

13,000 (2x) -17,058 -23,292 -34,099 -35,529 -38,538
13,000 (3x) -l9,821 -24,661 -33,800 -32,615 -34,276
15,000 (2x) -13,860 -11,993 -14,819 -8,478 10,691
15,000 (3x) -15,791 -11,746 -11,721 -2,037 21,917
17,000 (2x) -5,493 -881 -1o,435 25,189 72,111
17,000 (3x) -6,214 827 17,103 36,477 92,026
19,000 (2x) -60 10,247 22,659 51,048 120,680
19,000 (3x) 562 14,589 33,092 67,876 151,708
21,000 (2x) 5,581 22,671 42,457 77,955 173,611
21,000 (3x) 7,430 28,838 55,808 98,745 212,890
23,000 (2x) 11,933 34,908 61,855 102,558 224,980
23,000 (3x) 14,230 42,166 77,459 126,542 270,367

Appendix table 8.

67

The effect of increasing the price of feed forty percent on

profitability

of 3x milking compared with 2x milking.

 

Herd Size (Cows)

 

 

Herd Average 50 100 150 200 400

13,000 (2x) -34,060 —57,296 -85,103 -103,535 -174,550
13,000 (3x) -34,332 -54,951 -80,041 -94,856 -157,911
15,000 (2x) -32,264 -48,801 -70,031 -82,094 -136,541
15,000 (3x) -31,827 -4S,055 -62,520 -70,311 -113,735
17,000 (2x) -23,153 —36,202 -42,546 -45,452 -69,171
17,000 (3x) -21,446 -30,806 -31,270 -28,581 -37,015
19,000 (2x) -17,602 ~24,836 -29,966 -19,118 -19,652
19,000 (3x) -14,446 -16,584 -14,637 3,726 24,495
21,000 (2x) -l3,164 -15,360 —14,589 1,894 21,489
21,000 (3x) -9,019 -5,212 3,698 28,769 74,110
23,000 (2x) -7,472 -3,902 3,641 24,938 69,740
23,000 (3x) -2,271 7,209 23,799 54,511 127,560

Appendix table 9.

The effect on profitability by changing the milk production response

68

to ten percent when milking cows 3x compared with 2x.

 

Herd Size (Cows)

 

 

Herd Average 50 100 150 200 400

13,000 (2x) -17,058 -23,292 -34,099 -35,529 -38,538
13,000 (3x) -20,400 -27,088 —38,247 -39,130 -46,458
15,000 (2x) —13,860 -11,993 -14,819 -8,478 10,691
15,000 (3x) -l6,857 -15,116 -17,611 -10,434 6,020
17,000 (2x) -5,493 -881 10,435 25,189 72,111
17,000 (3x) -7,760 -3,434 -9,788 26,162 72,471
19,000 (2x) -60 10,247 22,659 51,048 120,680
19,000 (3x) -1,452 9,405 24,347 55,704 128,452
21,000 (2x) 5,851 22,671 42,457 77,955 173,611
21,000 (3x) 4,965 22,757 45,651 84,706 185,985
23,000 (2x) 11,933 34,908 61,855 102,558 224,980
23,000 (3x) 11,319 35,288 65,917 110,669 239,875

69

by David Chlus

Dairy Farm Analysis of Three Times A Day Milking On Michigan Dairy
Farms using Michigan TELFARM Data.

Herd Size: 50 100 160 200 400

Herd AVE.: 13000 16000 17000 19000 21000 23000
Cattle Inc./cow 160 192 230 240 256 270
Milk Price: 12.10

Price of Labor 5.00 for 2X

per hour: 7.00 for 3X

Milk Loss: 0.05 %

Milk Increase: 0.15

Price of Corn: 2.00 /bu.

Price of Hay: 75.00 /T

Price of SBM: 208.00 /T

Price of CSLG: 23.00 /T

Cows milked

per hour: 0 Default values for each production level.
Deprec./cow: 0.00 Enter your own values if you want to

override spreadsheet values.
(Alt) (9) = Print the answer
<Alt> <S> = Save the answer

Herd Ave.
Milkinc.
Milkloss
Milk/Cow
Tot.MilkShipp.
Gross-ilksal.
Cat.Inc
GrossCat.Inc.

Gross Inc.

FeedCost
LaborCost
ReprefiVeh.Main
Fuel,Oil,Grea.
Cust.hirs&lea.
Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Conserv.
Repairs

Insur.

Lease

Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
SenenhBreod.
Vet.Mod&Drug
Mktg.Truck
Lvstck Supp.
DHIAfiBedd.
Int. A1100.
Land Tax
LandInt.Alloc.
Rent
Utilities
Misc.

'31 Deproc.

3 of COWS
Total Exp.

Net Income

2X
13000

650
12350
617500
74718
160
8000

82718

881.44
395.00
54.17
8.43
0.00
68.65
16.84
0.00
8.05
12.45
0.00
48.72
38.33
17.73
36.84
160.55
28.41
23.92
118.36
11.84
1.58
0.00
52.94
11.26
0.00
50
99776

'17058

31

13000
1950
748
14203
710125
85925
160
8000

93925

894.82
523.58
54.17
8.43
0.00
68.65
16.84
0.00
8.05
12.45
0.00
48.72
38.33
17.73
36.84
184.63
42.62
35.88
118.36
11.84
1.58
0.00
79.41
16.89
0.00
50
110991

-17066

70

50

2X

15000
750

14250

712500
86213

192

9600
95813

952.15
431.00
56.33

71.25
22.50

13.98
0.00
59.92
42.77
21.27
41.25
185.25
29.91
29.89
136.36
12.55
1.80
0.00
54.23
12.45
0.00

109673
-13860

COWS
31

15000
2250
863
16388
819375
99144
192
9600

108744

972.96
560.80
56.33

59.92
42.77
21.27
41.25
213.04
44.87
44.84
136.36
12.55
1.80
0.00
81.35
18.68
0.00
50
121754

-13010

2X
17000

850
16150
807500
97708
230
11500

109208

993.29
440.00
58.22
9.95
0.00
74.23
24.39
0.00
9.55
14.20
0.00
64.49
43.50
22.81
43.28
209.95
30.38
32.17
140.04
12.93
1.88
0.00
55.61
13.13
0.00
50
114700

-5493

31

17000
2550
978
18573
928625
112364
230
11500

123864

1016.05

571.36
58.22
9.95
0.00
74.23
24.39

127263
-3399

Herd Aye.
Hilklnc.
Hilkloss
Milk/Cow
Tot.HilkShipp.
Grossnilksal.
Cat.Inc
GrossCat.Inc.

Gross Inc.

FeedCost
LaborCost
Reprs&Veh.Hain
FueI.Oil,Grea.
Cust.hirs&1ea.
Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Conserv.
Repairs

Insur.

Lease

Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
SenenhBreed.
Vet.fled&Drug
Mktg.Truck
Lvstck Supp.
DHIAhBedd.
Int. Alloc.
Land Tax
LandInt.Alloc.
Rent
Utilities
Misc.

‘3x Deprec.

8 of 0098
Total Exp.

Net Income

2X
19000

950
18050
902500
109203
240
12000

121203

1041.11
470.00
60.08
10.32
0.00
75.63
28.46
0.00
9.86
15.35
0.00
68.12
45.78

23.52_

45.29
234.65
32.17
33.06
142.37
13.40
2.10
0.00
60.13
13.85
0.00
50
121262

-60

31

19000
2850
1093
20758
1037875
125583
240

12000

137583

1060.84
603.44
60.08
10.32
0.00
75.63
28.46
0.00
9.86
15.35
0.00
68.12
45.78
23.52
45.29
269.85
48.26
49.59
142.37
13.40
2.10
0.00
90.20
20.78
0.00
50
134161

3422

71

50
2X
21000

1050
19950
997500
120698
255
12750

133448

1089.17
495.00
62.86
11.72
0.00
78.87
31.13
0.00
10.41
15.86
0.00
71.21
47.37
25.25
48.66
259.35
33.41
34.50
146.38
13.75
2.25
0.00
62.31
14.46
0.00
50
127596

5851

COWS
3X

21000
3150
1208
22943
1147125
138802
255

12750

151552

1113.66
631.36
62.86
11.72
0.00
78.87
31.13

50
141201

10352

2X
23000

1150
21850
1092500
132193
270
13500

145693

1135.64
525.00
63.51
11.85
0.00
81.14
32.15
0.00
10.89
16.17
0.00
73.48

65.83
15.02
0.00
50
133760

11933

3X

23000
3450
1323
25128
1256375
152021
270

13500

165521

1169.05
664.45
63.51
11.85
0.00
81.14
32.15
0.00
10.89
16.17
0.00
73.48
48.98

14.08
2.29
0.00

98.75

22.53
0.00

50
148303

17218

Herd Awe.
Hilklnc.
Hilkloss
Milk/Cow
Tot.HilkShipp.
Gross-iiksai.
Cat.Inc
GrossCat.Inc.

Gross Inc.

FeedCost
LaborCost
ReprshVeh.Hain
Fuel,Oil,Grea.
Cust.hirs&10a.
Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Conserv.
Repairs

Insur.

Lease

Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Selen&Breed.
Vet.Hed&Dru3
Hktg.Truck
Lvstck Supp.
DBIAhBedd.
Int. Alloc.
Land Tax
LandInt.Alloc.
Rent
Utilities
Hisc.

'3x Deprec.

t of Cows
Total Exp.

Net Inca-e

21

13000.00

650
12350
1235000
149435
160
16000

165435

881.44
270.00
52.56
8.76
0.00
63.62
17.25
0.00
7.52
10.98
0.00
65.81
38.71
19.54
41.18
160.55
28.69
24.04
116.93
12.90
1.57
0.00
52.41
12.81
0.00
100
188727

-23292

3X

13000
1950
748
14203
1420250
171850
160
16000

187850

894.82
368.98
52.56
8.76
0.00
63.62
17.25
0.00
7.52
10.98
0.00
65.81
38.71
19.54
41.18
184.63
43.04
36.06
116.93
12.90
1.57
0.00
78.62
19.22
0.00
100
208269

~20419

72

100
2x
15000

750
14250
1425000
172425
192
19200

191625

952.15
278.00
59.33
9.14
0.00
69.93
17.83
0.00
7.93
11.89
0.00
71.73
40.43
25.14
46.07
185.25
29.36
29.08
119.32
13.46
1.79
0.00
55.35
13.00
0.00
100
203618

-11993

COWS
31

15000
2250
863
16388
1638750
198289
192
19200

217489

972.96
378.92
59.33
9.14
0.00
69.93
17.83
0.00
7.93
11.89
0.00
71.73
40.43
25.14
46.07
213.04
44.04
43.62
119.32
13.46
1.79
0.00
83.03

19.50 .

0.00
100
224910

—7421

2X
17000

850
16150
1615000
195415
230
23000

218415

993.29
314.00
65.66
9.34
0.00
70.50
18.74
0.00
8.48
12.45
0.00
76.06
41.09
31.18
56.18
209.95
31.94
43.51
123.90
14.06
1.82
0.00
57.35
13.46
0.00
100
219296

-881

3X

17000
2550
978
18573
1857250
224727
230
23000

247727

1016.05
418.06
65.66
9.34
0.00
‘70.50
18.74
0.00
8.48
12.45
0.00
76.06
41.09
31.18
56.18
241.44
47.91
65.27
123.90
14.06
1.82
0.00
86.03
20.19
0.00
100
242440

5287

Herd Awe.
MilkInc.
Milkloss
Milk/Cow
Tot.MilkShipp.
Gross-ilksal.
Cat.Inc
GrossCat.Inc.

Gross Inc.

FeedCost
LaborCost
Reprtheh.Main
Fue1,011,Grea.
Cust.hirs&1ea.
Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Conserv.
Repairs

Insur.

Lease

Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
SenenhBreed.
Vet.Med&Dru¢
Mktg.Truck
Lvstck Supp.
DBIAEBedd.
Int. Alloc.
Land Tax
LandInt.Alloc.
Rent
Utilities
Misc.

‘3x Deprec.

t of COWS
Total 319.

Net Inca-e

2X
19000

950
18050
1805000
218405
240
24000

242405

1041.11
320.00
68.41
10.56
0.00
78.16
20.83
0.00
9.22
12.92
0.00
78.32
42.37
35.82
58.69
234.65
33.18
45.48
139.60
14.52
2.10
0.00
60.49
15.15
0.00
100
232158

10247

3X

19000
2850
1093
20758
2075750
251166
240

24000

275166

1060.84
426.48
68.41
10.56
0.00
78.16
20.83
0.00
9.22
12.92
0.00
78.32
42.37
35.82
58.69
269.85
49.77
68.22
139.60
14.52
2.10
0.00
90.74
22.73

73

100
21
21000

1050
19950
1995000
241395
255
25500

266895

1089.17
335.00
69.90
11.10
0.00
82.56
21.54

244224
22671

0098
31

21000
3150
1208
22943
2294250
277604
255

25500

303104

1113.66
444.48
69.90
11.10
0.00
82.56
21.54
0.00
11.21
13.53
0.00
81.46
43.83
39.16
60.42
298.25
52.01
71.42
145.21
15.15
2.38
0.00
93.54
24.95
0.00
100
269575

33530

2X
23000

1150
21850
2185000
264385
270
27000

291385

1135.64
350.00
73.32
11.80
0.00
85.50
23.05
0.00
12.68
14.46
0.00
84.21
45.89
42.14
65.31
284.05
36.32
48.96
150.09
15.86
2.84
0.00
65.18
17.47
0.00
100
256477

34908

331043

1169.05
464.81
73.32
11.80
0.00
85.50
23.05
0.00
12.68
14.46
0.00

283956
47087

Herd Awe.
MilkInc.
Milkioss
Milk/Cow
Tot.MilkShipp.
Grossnilksal.
Cat.Inc
GrossCat.Inc.

Gross Inc.

FeedCost
LaborCost
Reprs&Veh.Main
Fue1,0i1.Grea.
cust.hirs&1ea.
Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Conserv.
Repairs

Insur.

Lease

Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
SenenhBreed.
Vet.Med&Dru3
Mkt3.Truck
Lvstck Supp.
DHIAfiBedd.
Int. Alloc.
Land Tax
LandInt.Ailoc.
Rent
Utilities
Misc.

‘3x Deprec.

8 of COWS
Total Exp.

Met Inca-e

2X
13000

650
12350
1852500
224153
160
24000

248153

881.44
245.00
52.17
8.89
0.00
65.63
17.20
0.00
9.31
9.55
0.00
66.47
37.15
23.81
46.32
160.55
25.50
31.18
123.67
11.23
0.86
0.00
53.91
11.83
0.00
150
282251

-34099

31

13000
1950
748
14203
2130375
257775
160
24000

281775

894.82
331.45
52.17
8.89
0.00
65.63
17.20
0.00

310018
-28243

74

150
' 21
15000

750
14250
2137500
258638
192
28800

287438

952.15
260.00
54.86
9.50
0.00
68.69
17.80
0.00
9.51
10.44
0.00
68.50
38.00
25.93
48.50
185.25
27.54
33.00
125.45
11.96
0.95
0.00
54.50
12.51
0.00
150
302256

-14819

COWS
31

15000
2250
863
16388
2458125
297433
192
28800

326233

972.96
347.93
54.86
9.50
0.00
68.69
17.80

150
332302

-6069

2X
17000

850
16150
2422500
293123
230
34500

327623

993.29
275.00
57.16
9.66
0.00
69.26
18.22

3X

17000
2550
978
18573
2785875
337091
230
34500

371591

1016.05
364.70
57.16
9.66
0.00
69.26
18.22
0.00
9.81
11.00
0.00

0.00
82.95
19.82

0.00

150
348722

22869

Herd Awe.
Milklnc.
Milkloss
Milk/Cow
Tot.MilkShipp.
Grossnilksal.
Cat.Inc
GrossCat.Inc.

Gross Inc.

FeedCost
LaborCost
ReprshVeh.Main
Fuel,Oil.Grea.
Cust.hirs&lea.
Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Conserv.
Repairs

Insur.

Lease

Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
SenenhBreed.
Vet.Med&Dru¢
Mktg.Truck
Lvstck Supp.
DHIARBedd.

Int . Alloc.
Land Tax
LandInt.Alloc.
Rent
Utilities
Misc.

‘3x Deprec.

8 of 0098
Total Exp.

Net Incone_

2X
19000

950
18050
2707500
327608
240
36000

363608

1041.11
290.00
57.91
10.04
0.00
75.39
23.08
0.00
11.52
13.33
0.00
73.69
41.82
33.55
68.21
234.65
31.27
35.71
137.92
14.38
1.24
0.00
64.05
14.12
0.00
150
340948

22659

3X

19000
2850
1093
20758
3113625
376749
240

36000

412749

1060.84
381.39
57.91
10.04
0.00
75.39
23.08
0.00
11.52
13.33
0.00
73.69
41.82
33.55
68.21
269.85
46.91
53.57
137.92
14.38
1.24
0.00
96.08
21.18
0.00
150
373781

38967

75

150
21
21000

1050
19950
2992500
362093
255
38250

400343

1089.17
300.00
58.72
10.63
0.00
75.82
25.44
0.00
12.96
14.10
0.00
76.22
44.66
35.39
74.19
259.35
33.10
38.18
140.36
14.80
1.48
0.00
66.50
14.83
0.00
150
357885

42457

COWS
31

21000
3150
1208
22943
3441375
416406
255

38250

454656

1113.66
393.37
58.72
10.63
0.00
75.82
25.44

392846
61811

2X
23000

1150
21850
3277500
396578
270
40500

437078

1135.64
315.00
59.88
11.10
0.00
77.46
26.13
0.00
14.10
14.96
0.00
78.81
46.22
38.27
78.56
284.05
35.18
41.16
143.66
16.25
1.91
0.00
67.72
15.42
0.00
150
375222

61855

3X

23000
3450
1323
25128
3769125
456064
270

40500

496564

1169.05
410.76
59.88
11.10
0.00
77.46
26.13
0.00
14.10
14.96
0.00
78.81
46.22
38.27
78.56
326.66
52.77
61.74
143.66
16.25
1.91
0.00
101.58
23.13
0.00
150
412949

83615

Herd Awe.
Milklnc.
Milkloss
Milk/Cow
Tot.MilkShipp.
Gross-ilksal.
Cat.1nc
GrossCat.Inc.

Gross Inc.

FeedCost
LaborCost
Reprs&Veh.Main
Fuel.Oil,Grea.
Cust.hirs&lea.
Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Conserv.
Repairs

Insur.

Lease

Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
SenenhBreed.
Vet.Med&Drus
Mktg.Truck
Lvstck Supp.
DHIARBedd.
Int. Alloc.
Land Tax
LandInt.Alloc.
Rent
Utilities
Misc.

'3x Deprec.

8 of COWS
Total Exp.

Met Inca-e

21
13000

650
12350
2470000
298870
160
32000

330870

881.44
230.00
50.46
8.10
0.00
62.18
16.30
0.00
8.10
8.85
0.00
59.13
33.72
23.50
41.62
160.55
24.50
29.20
119.75
10.66
0.81
0.00
52.15
10.97
0.00
200
366399

-35529

3X

13000
1950
748
14203
2840500
343701
160
32000

375701

894.82
309.60
50.46
8.10
0.00
62.18
16.30
0.00
8.10
8.85
0.00
59.13
33.72
23.50
41.62
184.63
36.75
43.80
119.75
10.66
0.81
0.00
78.23
16.46
0.00
200
401493

-25792

76

200
21
15000

750
14250
2850000
344850
192
38400

383250

952.15
240.00
52.18
8.62
0.00
64.10
16.75
0.00
8.25
9.13
0.00
61.72
34.26
25.21
43.23
185.25
26.20
30.75
122.65
11.40
1.19
0.00
53.75
11.85
0.00
200
391728

-8478

COWS
3X

15000
2250
863
16388
3277500
396578
192
38400

434978

972.96
321.59
52.18
8.62
0.00
64.10
16.75
0.00
8.25
9.13
0.00
61.72
34.26
25.21
43.23
213.04
39.30
46.13
122.65
11.40
1.19
0.00
80.63
17.78
0.00
200
430021

4956

2X
17000

850
16150
3230000
390830
230
46000

436830

993.29
250.00
54.36
9.75
0.00
65.57
17.94
0.00
8.75
9.75
0.00
63.52
36.20
27.10
45.72
209.95
29.10
31.98
125.24
12.51
1.25
0.00
53.98
12.24
0.00
200
411641

25189

3X

17000
2550
978
18573
3714500
449455
230
46000

495455

1016.05
333.15
54.36
9.75
0.00
65.57
17.94
0.00
8.75
9.75
0.00
63.52
36.20
27.10
45.72
241.44
43.65
47.97
125.24
12.51
1.25
0.00
80.97
18.36
0.00
200
451850

43604

Herd Awe.
Milklnc.
Milkloss
Milk/Cow
Tot.MilkShipp.
Grossnilksal.
Cat.Inc
GrossCat.Inc.

Gross Inc.

FeedCost
LaborCost
Reprs&Veh.Main
Fuel,Oil,Grea.
Cust.hirs&lea.
Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Conserv.
Repairs

Insur.

Lease

Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
SenenfiBreed.
Vet.Med&Drug
Mktg.Truck
Lvstck Supp.
DHIARBedd.
Int. Alloc.
Land Tax
LandInt.Alloc.
Rent
Utilities
Misc.

'3x Deprec.

i of COWS
Total Exp.

Met Incone

2X
19000

950
18050
3610000
436810
240
48000

484810

1041.11
260.00
55.62
10.25
0.00
66.33
19.63
0.00
10.53
10.93
0.00
65.38
38.65
28.25
50.31
234.65
30.44
35.10
129.18
13.69
1.29
0.00
54.64
12.83
0.00
200
433762

51048

3X

19000
2850
1093
20758
4151500
502332
240

48000

550332

1060.84
345.43
55.62
10.25
0.00
66.33
19.63
0.00
10.53
10.93
0.00
65.38
38.65
28.25
50.31
269.85
45.66
52.65
129.18
13.69
1.29
0.00
81.96
19.25
0.00
200
475133

75198

77

200
21
21000

1050
19950
3990000
482790
255
51000

533790

1089.17
265.00
55.98
11.02
0.00
69.14
22.47
0.00
11.76
12.33
0.00
68.22
40.36
30.15
55.19
259.35
32.81
37.90
133.65
14.65
1.45
0.00
55.31
13.26
0.00
200
455835

77955

COWS
3X
21000

4588500
555209
255
51000

606209

1113.66
352.58
55.98
11.02
0.00
69.14
22.47
0.00
11.76
12.33
0.00
68.22
40.36
30.15
55.19
298.25
49.22
56.85
133.65
14.65
1.45
0.00
82.97
19.89
0.00
200
499957

106252

2X
23000

1150
21850
4370000
528770
270
54000

582770

1135.64
275.00
57.26
11.66
0.00
72.23
24.19
0.00
13.18
14.06
0.00

480212
102558

3X

23000
3450
1323
25128
5025500
608086
270

54000

662086

1169.05
365.12
57.26
11.66
0.00
72.23
24.19
0.00
13.18
14.06
0.00
72.83
42.98
34.06
63.75
326.66
50.12
57.57
138.56
15.95
1.86
0.00
87.44
20.58
0.00
200
527819

134267

Herd Ave.
MilkInc.
Milkloss
Milk/Cow
Tot.MilkShipp.
Gross-ilksal.
Cat.Inc
GrossCat.Inc.

Cross Inc.

FeedCost
LaborCost
Reprs&Veh.Main
Fue1,0il,Grea.
Cust.hirs&lea.
Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Conserv.
Repairs

Insur.

Lease

Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
SenenhBreed.
Vet.Med&Drug
Mkts.Truck
Lvstck Supp.
DHIAEBedd.
Int. Alloc.
Land Tax
LandInt.Alloc.
Rent
Utilities
Misc.

'3x Deprec.

i of COWS
Total Exp.

Net Inc.

2X
13000

650
12350
4940000
597740
160
64000

661740

881.44
205.00
48.34
6.88
0.00
53.17
13.96
0.00
7.59
7.36
0.00
49.38
29.18
21.92
33.82
160.55
23.17
27.77
110.35
10.14
1.10
0.00
49.61
9.96
0.00
400
700278

-38538

3X

13000
1950
748
14203
5681000
687401
160
64000

751401

894.82
289.55
48.34
6.88
0.00
53.17
13.96
0.00
7.59
7.36
0.00
49.38
29.18
21.92
33.82
184.63
34.76
41.66
110.35
10.14
1.10
0.00
74.42
14.94
0.00
400
771183

-19782

78

400
21
15000

750
14250
5700000
689700
192
76800

766500

952.15
220.00
49.17
7.37
0.00
55.27
14.51
0.00
8.66
7.47
0.00
52.18
31.16
23.81
38.62
185.25
25.35
29.16
115.41
11.37
1.23
0.00
50.75
10.63
0.00
400
755809

10691

COWS
3X

15000
2250
863
16388
6555000
793155
192
76800

869955

972.96
306.82
49.17
7.37
0.00
55.27
14.51
0.00
8.66
7.47
0.00
52.18
31.16
23.81
38.62
213.04
38.03
43.74
115.41
11.37
1.23
0.00
76.13
15.95
0.00
400
833155

36800

2X
17000
850
16150
6460000
781660
230
92000
873660

993.29
235.00

801549
72111

400
883554

107355

Herd Awe.
Milklnc.
Milkloss
Milk/Cow
Tot.MilkShipp.
Gross-ilksal.
Cat.Inc
GrossCat.Inc.

Gross Inc.

FeedCost
LaborCost
ReprshVeh.Main
Fuel,Oil,Grea.
Cust.hirs&1ea.
Deprec.

Int. A1100.
Conserv.
Repairs

Insur.

Lease

Deprec.

Int. Alloc.
Senen&Breed.
Vet.Med&Druz
Mktg.Truck
Lvstck Supp.
DHIAhBedd.
Int. Alloc.
Land Tax
LandInt.Alloc.
Rent
Utilities
Misc.

'3x Deprec.

9 of COWS
Total Exp.

Net Inc.

2X

19000

950
18050
7220000
873620
240
96000

969620

1041.11
250.00
52.23
9.54
0.00
60.03
17.63
0.00
11.10
10.88

0.00.

56.18
35.37
27.86
49.16
234.65
30.28
32.93
123.44
13.60
1.55
0.00
52.66
12.15
0.00
400
848940

120680

3X

19000
2850
1093
20758
8303000
1004663
240

96000

1100663

1060.84
341.77
52.23
9.54
0.00
60.03
17.63
0.00
11.10
10.88
0.00
56.18
35.37
27.86
49.16
269.85
45.42
49.40
123.44
13.60
1.55
0.00
78.99
18.23
0.00
400
933223

167440

79

400
2X

21000

1050
19950
7980000
965580
255
102000

1067580

1089.17
260.00
53.46
9.85
0.00
63.28
18.93
0.00
12.51
11.22
0.00
60.15
36.90
29.42
54.55
259.35
31.53
33.65
129.18
14.03
1.69
0.00
53.10
12.95
0.00
400
893969

173611

COWS
3X

21000
3150
1208

22943

9177000
1110417
255
102000

1212417

1113.66
354.42
53.46
9.85
0.00
63.28
18.93
0.00
12.51
11.22
0.00
60.15
36.90
29.42
54.55
298.25
47.30
50.48
129.18
14.03
1.69
0.00
79.65
19.43
0.00
400
983340

229077

2X

23000

1150
21850
8740000
1057540
270
108000

1165540

1135.64
275.00
54.92
10.15
0.00
66.39
20.53
0.00
13.10
12.69
0.00
63.17
38.64
32.86
58.76
284.05
32.98
35.73
133.18
14.76
1.76
0.00
53.38
13.71
0.00
400
940560

224980

3X

23000
3450
1323

25128

10051000

1216171
270
108000

1324171

1169.05
372.44
54.92
10.15
0.00
66.39
20.53
0.00
13.10
12.69
0.00
63.17
38.64
32.86
58.76
326.66
49.47
53.60
133.18
14.76
1.76
0.00
80.07
20.57
0.00
400
1037100

287071

Net Incomes For 3X Milking Strategies
HERD SIZE

13’ 000 -

15,000 -

15,000

17,000
17.000

19.000
19,000

21.000
21.000

23.000
23.000

2X
3X

2X
3X

2X
3X

2X
3X

2X
3X

2X
3X

50

-17058
-17066
-13860
-13010

-5493
~3399

-60
3422

5851
10352

11933
17218

100

-23292
-20419

-11993
-7421

-881
5287

10247
19152

22671
33530

34908
47087

80

150

-34099
-28243
-14819

-6069

10435
22869

22659
38967

42457
61811

61855
83615

200

-35529
'25792
-8478
4956

25189
43604

51048
75198

77955
106252

102558
134267

400

-38538
-19782

10691

36800

72111
107355
120680
167440
173611
229077

224980
287071

BIBUIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agarwala, O.P. and D. Sundaresan. 1955. Influence of
frequency of milking on milk production. Ind. J. Dairy Sci.
8:94.

Allen, D.B., E.J. DePeters and R.C. Laben. 1986. Three
times a day milking: Effects on milk production,

reproductive efficiency and udder health. J. Dairy Sci.
69:1441.

Amos, H.E., T. Kiser and M. Lowenstein. 1985. Influence of
milking frequency on reproductive efficiencies of dairy
cows. J. Dairy Sci. 68:732.

Armstrong, D.V. 1978. Three times a day milking on
commercial dairies. Dairy Science Handbook. University of
Arizona, Tuscan, Int. Stock School. 11:321.

Bath, D.L.. 1983. Feeding management should be different
when milking 3X. Vol. 13, No. 8. Dept. Animal Sci.,
University of California, Davis.

Bath, D.L., F.N. Dickinson, H.A. Tucker and R.D. Appleman.
1978. Dairy cattle: principles, practices, problems,
profits. Lea & Febiger, Philadelphia, PA.

Bickert, W.G.. 1983. Milking parlor selection. Proceedings
of the Second National Dairy Housing Conference. ASAE,
Madison, Wisconsin. pp. 159 - 165.

Bohling, M.W., J.B. Stone and A.C. Bywater. 1984. 3X
Milking: its effects on production and profitability.
California Agriculture, September 1984.

Cash, J.G. and W.W. Yapp. 1950. A study of the effect of 2
and 3 times a day milking upon milk yield. J. Dairy Sci.
33:382.

Dahlberg, A.C.. 1924. Two versus three milkings. Hoard’s
Uairyman 68:436.

Dean, H.H.. 1899. Milking cows twice and thre times per
day. Ontario Agr. Col. and Expt. Farm Report. 24:

e
5

81

82

DePeters, E.J., N.E. Smith and J. Acedo Rico. 1985. Three or
two times daily milking of older cows and first lactation
cows for the entire lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 68:123.

Edwards, J. 1950. 3X milking for a lactation. J. Agric. Sci.
40:100.

Edwards, R.A. and R.B. Schwart. 1980. 3X economics. Dairy
Herd Management. 17:12.

hisenreich, L. and Mennicke, U. 1950. Intramammary pressure
in the mammary gland. Milchwissenschaft. 5:140.

Elliot, G.M.. 1961. The effect on milk yield of three times
a day milking and of increasing the level of residual milk.
J. Dairy Res. 28:209.

Flatt, W.P., P.W. Moe, A.W. Munson and T. Cooper. 1969.
Energy utilization of high producing dairy cows: II. Summary
of energy balance experiments with lactating Holstein cows.
Proc. 4th Symp. Energy Metab. Eur. Assoc. Anim. Prod. Publ.
12:235.

Flatt, W.F., L.A. Moore, N.W. Hooven and R.D. Powman. 1965.
Energy metabolism studies with a high producing lactating
dairy cow. J. Dairy Sci. 48(Suppl. 1)797.

Gaines, W.L.. 1943. An analysis of Milking Shorthorn milk
records. Bull. lllinois Agric. Exp. Stn. 498:549.

Gasnier, M., M.A. Leroy and M. Maitrejean. 1945. Buildup of
pressure in the mammary gland. Ann. Agron. Paris, France.
p.434.

Gisi, D.B., E.J. DePeters and C.L. Pelissier. 1986. Three
times daily milking of cows in California dairy herds. J.
Dairy Sci. 69:863. -

Goff, K.R. and W.S. Gaunya. 1977. Three X daily milking: a
study of production and economic gain in six 3X herds. Proc.
N.E. Amer. Soc. Anim. Sci. and Am. Dairy Sci. Assoc.

Hanson, A. and G. Bonnier. 1947. Studies of monozygous
cattle twins. Amount and composition of the milk as
affected by frequency of milking. Acta Agr. Suec. II. 211.

Hills, J.L. 1891. Milking two and three times per day. Vt.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Ann. Rpt. 4:90.

Hlubik, J.G., R.S. Adams and L.D. Muller. 1986. Does 3X/day
pay? DSE — 86 - 19. Dept. Dairy and Anim. Sci., The Penn.
State Univ., Univ. Park, PA.

83

Hungerford, C.W.. 1929. Dairy Husbandry. Idaho Agr. Expt.
Sta. Bull. 164 25 - 28.

Huynen, E. 1923. Contribution a l’etude des variation de la
composition du lait. World’s Dairy Cong. Syracuse, NY. Proc.
221067.

Jarrett, J.A.. 1977. See better udder health with 3X
milking. Board’s Dairyman. 122:86.

Jasper, D.E., J.S. McDonald, R.D. Mochrie, W.N. Philpot,
h,J. Farnsworth and S.B. Spencer. 1982. Bovine mastitis
research: Needs, funding and sources of support. Proc. of

2lst Annual Meeting of National Mastitis Council,
Louisville, Ky., 184 -193.

Kelso, B.F.. 1979. Milking parlors in our area - How do they
work?; Extension mimeograph, Washington State Univer.
Pullman, Washington.

Knoblauch, W.. 1977. An economic analysis of hay crop
production, storage and feeding systems. Agric. Econ. Ext.
77 - 2. Dept. Agric. Econ., Cornell Univer., Ithaca, NY.

Laben, R.C., R. Shanks, P.J. Berger and A.E. Freeman. 1982.
Factors affecting milk yield and reproductive performance.
J. Dairy Sci. 65:1004.

Lalim, A. and I. Grande. 1912. Increasing the milking
frequency. Beretn. Foringforsok Norg. Landbr Hoisk. 8:11.

Logan, T.R., D.V. Armstrong and R.A. Selley. 1978. Three
times a day milking. West Reg. Ext. Publ. WREP - 4. June,
1978.

Lotus 123. 1983. Lotus Development Corporation. Second
Release, Cambridge, MA.

Ludwick, L.M., A. Spielman and W.E. Peterson. 1941. The
influence of frequency of milking on milk production. J.
Dairy Sci. 24:505.

Lund, J.L.. 1911. Milking 3X compared with 2X. Beretn.
Forsogslab. Kbh. 78.

Lush, J.L. and R.R. Shrode. 1950. Changes in production with
age and milking frequency. J. Dairy Sci. 33:338.

Meinhold. K. and S. Rosegger. 1950. importance of milking
and feeding frequency for the profitability of milk
production. Terzuchter 2:632.

84

Mulvaney, J.. 1985. Telfarm specialized dairy production
sorts. Telfarm Farm Business Records. Dept. Agric. Econ.,
Michigan State Univer., E. Lansing

Nilsson, I.. 1922. 3X milking for the whole herd. Sver.
allm. Fordbrukstidskr. 23:353.

Norell, R.J., J.A. Speicher and R.D. Appleman. 1981. Feeding

chore labor requirements for free stall barns with
mechanical feeding systems. Michigan Agric. Exp. Stn.
Journal Article No. 10182, Michigan State Univer." E.
Lansing.

Ormiston, E.E., S.L. Spahr, R.W. Touchberry and J.L.

Albright. 1967. Effects of milking at unequal intervals for
a complete lactation on milk yield and composition. J. Dairy
Sci. 50:1597.

Owen, F.G.. 1985. Profit potential of ”3X daily" milking.
Dept. Agric. Econ., pp. 685 - 765, Univer. of Nebraska,
Lincoln.

Pearson, R.E., L.A. Fulton, P.D. Thompson and J.W. Smith.
1979. Three times a day milking during the first half of
lactation. J. Dairy Sci. 62:1941.

Pelissier, C.L.. 1978. Milking three times daily - to do or
not to do? Georgia Dairyfax (DS 1 - 3). Univ. of Georgia,
College of Agric., Athens, Ga.

Pelissier, C.L., L.J. Koong and L.F. Bennett. 1978.
lnfluence of 3X milking on milk and milk fat production. J.
Dairy Sci. 51(Suppl.1):132.

Poole, D.A.. 1982. The effects of milking cows three times
daily. Anim. Prod. 34:197.

Quesenberry, N.. 1980. Most herds aren’t ready for 3X
milking. Board’s Dairyman. 125:1518.

Riford, L.S.. 1922. Does it pay to milk three times a day.
Hoard's Dairyman, October 25.

Rundell, R.W. and J.A. Speicher. 1967. Comparison of-
common values reported by dairy production and farm account
records. J. Dairy Sci. 50:(Suppl. 1)1015.

Schmidt, G.H.. 1971. pp 151 - 155 in Biology of lactation.
W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA.

Schmidt, 6.8. and G.W. Trimberger. 1963. Effect of unequal
milking intervals on lactation milk, milkfat and total
solids production of cows. J. Dairy Sci. 46:19.

85

Smeyers, F.. 1909. L’influence du nombre des traites sur la
production de lait et de beurre. Laiterie. 19:58.

Spartan Dairy Ration Evaluator Program. 1984. Michigan
State University Cooperative Extension Service. Dept. of
An. Sci.

Speicher, J.A. 1986. Returns from 3X milking as affected by
level of milk production and herd size. Dept. An. Sci.,
Michigan State Univer., E. Lansing.

Tucker, H.A., R.P. Reece and R.E. Mather. 1961. Udder
capacity estimates as affected by rate of milk secretion and
intramammary pressure. J. Dairy Sci. 41: 1725.

Walker, F.P. 1915. Report on further experiments on the
feeding of dairy cows at Offerton Hall. Durham Co. Council,
Ed. Com. Offerton Bul. 5:40.

Waterman, D.F., R.J. Harmon, R.W. Hemken and B.E. Langelois.
1983. Milking frequency as related to udder health and milk
production. J. Dairy Sci. 66:253.

Wiggans, G.R. and C.A. Ernst. 1984. USDA Summary of 1984 U.S
Cow Herd Averages. An. Improvement Programs Laboratory.
Agric. Research Service, Beltsville, Md.

Woodward, T.E.. 1931. The production of dairy cows as
affected by frequency and regularity of milking and feeding.
United States Depart. of Agric. Circular No. 180.