ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO
DAIRY NEWSLETTER
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
The University of Arizona
New Mexico State University
February 2009
THIS MONTH’S ARTICLE:
Factors Affecting Profitability of Western Dairies
L. A. Rodriguez and J. M. DeFrain
Zinpro Performance Minerals
lrodriguez@zinpro.com
Reprinted from the Southwest Nutrition and Management Conference Proceedings
Phoenix, Arizona
February 2009
SAVE THE DATE
Arizona Dairy Production Conference
Hilton Garden Inn
Phoenix, AZ
October 8, 2009
Factors Affecting Profitability of Western Dairies
L. A. Rodriguez and J. M. DeFrain
Zinpro Performance Minerals
Correspondence author: lrodriguez@zinpro.com
SUMMARY
•
•
•
•
•
•
Besides milk price, milk yield is one of the most important factors affecting
profitability of California dairies.
Higher milk yield maximized milk income in high milk price years and minimized
losses in low milk price years.
Larger herds are more consistent but not necessarily more profitable.
At similar milk yields, herds milked 2X or 3X had similar profitability.
Management decisions based on sound research provide for more profit.
Choosing to focus all management decisions on reducing feed cost or total cost
compromise the financial position of the operation if that decision affects any of the
variables that support high milk production.
INTRODUCTION
In the last ten years milk price volatility has increased tremendously. Frequent milk price peaks
and valleys have become repetitive trends over time in the dairy industry. During times of high
milk prices, dairy owners are quite satisfied but when prices plummet, many dairy owners
quickly become quite stressed due to a compromised financial position. As you can see in
Figure 1, there have been four periods of stress in the last eight years in the western dairy
industry. Three of them have been due to low milk prices and the last one has been due to a high
feed price.
79 PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Historic CA Blend Milk And US Farm Corn Price
6.00
25.00
5.00
20.00
3.00
10.00
Corn Price $/bushel
Milk Price $/cwt
4.00
15.00
2.00
5.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
1 2000
13 2001
25 2002
37 2003
49 2004
Milk Price
61 2005
73 2006
852007
972008
Corn Price
Milk price source: California Department of Food and Agriculture
Corn Price source: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service
Figure 1. Historic California State blend (quota and over-base) price and US corn price pay to
corn growers.
This extreme market volatility has resulted in many dairy owners putting a renewed emphasis on
cutting costs whenever and wherever possible. Cutting costs is generally a good idea provided
milk yield is not sacrificed. Any cost-cutting, management or feeding decision made that lowers
milk yield is likely to decrease the profitability of the herd. Reducing milk output in the herd
has direct consequences on the financial position of many areas of the operation.
Many dairy owners have taken drastic measures to cut costs during low milk prices which have
occurred over the past couple of years. The effect of these drastic cost-cutting measures on the
financial position of the dairy was likely appealing at first glance. However, the ramifications
of these cost-cutting decisions on the herd performance and ultimately the financial position of
the dairy needs to be considered but data demonstrating these cause and effect relationships was
largely unavailable.
80 For over 50 years, the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CADFA) has been
collecting cost of production information from several dairies across the state of California on a
quarterly basis. Their analysis reports the average cost of production for individual dairies, a
comparison of these dairies within their region and across the state and compares it to the prior
year.
OBJECTIVE
Our objective was to collaborate with the CADFA to evaluate the cost of production on
California dairies using regression analyses to find financial trends that could lead to improved
profitability within the CA dairy industry.
METHODOLOGY
We used the database from the CADFA that consisted of 166 herds for the year 2006 and 148
herds for the year 2007. This represents nearly 8% of the herds in California and close 200,000
dairy cows. The database was divided into four California regions, North Coast, North Valley,
South Valley and Southern California. Organic herds were excluded from the dataset due to
differences in pricing relative to conventional dairies in the state. Herds were categorized as
Holsteins, Jerseys and Crossbreds. The herd size analyses included both lactating and dry cows.
Profit on these dairies was defined as milk income. Milk income consisted of the mailbox price
paid to each dairy less the total cost of producing milk for each dairy. The total cost included
feed cost (forage, concentrate and supplements), labor cost, herd replacement cost (value of
cows entering the herd less the total receipts for the same number of cows culled and dead),
operating cost (utilities, supplies, veterinarian, nutritionist, medicine, outside services, repairs
and maintenance, bedding, manure haul, fuel and oil, interest, insurance, taxes, depreciation and
miscellaneous), and milk marketing cost.
The total cost did not include management costs (manager’s salary) since manager salaries are
quite variable. Heifer replacement costs were accounted as a separate enterprise and were not
used in the dataset. Income from the sale of heifer replacements and bulls was also excluded to
further unify the data set, removing income from sale of genetics.
Dry matter intake was calculated as the amount of feed dry matter provided to the cows (orts or
weigh-backs were not measured). Solids-corrected milk was calculated to 3.5% milk fat and
3.0% milk protein content. Feed efficiency was calculated using the average solids-corrected
milk divided by average dry mater intake for the herd.
Each point in the figures below represents the income or cost of a single dairy for the year of
analysis. The data were analyzed by fitting regression lines to the data points represented under
each category. The best curve fit (highest R2) for a particular set of variables was utilized. No
81 statistical analysis was performed as our main objective was to look only for trends in the
dataset.
DOES MILK YIELD AFFECT PROFITABILITY BY BREED?
Each variable was analyze for the year 2006 and 2007 (Figure 2). Total cost/cow/year increased
in all breeds as milk yield increased. The range for total cost in 2006 was $1,500 to
$3,500/cow/year. Total cost/cow/year increased $500 in 2007, ranging from $2,000 to
$4,000/cow/year. In 2006, Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged
$2,582/cow/year while high producing herds (>80 lbs/day) averaged $2,972/cow/year. In 2007,
Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged $2,780/cow/year while herds producing
>80 lbs/day averaged $3,483/cow/year.
There was a negative trend between total cost and milk yield when analyzed on a hundredweight (cwt) basis. As milk yield increased, total cost/cwt decreased in all breeds. In 2006,
Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged $13.17/cwt while herds >80 lbs/day
averaged $11.19/cwt. In 2007, Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged
$13.93/cwt while herds producing >80 lbs/day averaged $13.01/cwt. This data indicates that
even though higher producing herds within each breed have higher cost/cow than lower
producing herds, high producing herds had lower cost/cwt of milk produced.
The milk mailbox price in 2006 was quite low, averaging $11.46/cwt for the Holsteins herds.
However milk rebounded to an average of $17.69/cwt in 2007. The relationship between milk
yield and milk income/cow/year in 2006 was weak. However, there was a stronger trend
between the two variables in 2007, milk income/cow/year increased as milk yield increased.
More consistent trends were observed when total cost and milk income/cow were analyzed on a
hundred-weight basis. As milk yield increased, total cost/cwt decreased and milk income/cwt
increased regardless of year, breed or milk price.
Milk income/cwt ranged from -$6.00/cwt to $1.50/cwt in 2006 and from -$2.00/cwt to
$7.00/cwt in 2007. Most herds had a negative milk income/cwt in 2006; however income losses
were minimized in herds with greater milk yield. In fact, Holstein herds milking between 60-65
lbs/day averaged ($1.80) loss/cwt while high producing herds (>80 lbs/day) averaged $0.21/cwt,
even though milk price averaged $11.46/cwt during 2006. In 2007, most herds had a positive
milk income/cwt with higher producing herds generally yielding the highest milk incomes.
Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged $3.59/cwt while herds producing >80
lbs/day averaged $4.30/cwt. This indicates the importance of maintaining high milk yield even
when low milk prices are experienced. High producing herds minimize their losses in low milk
price years and maximize their returns in high milk price years.
82 PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Total Cost/Cow By Milk Yield
2006
2007
$4,000
$4,000
R² = 0.5159
$3,500
$3,500
$3,000
$2,500
Cost/cow/year
Cost/cow/year
R² = 0.5995
R² = 0.6556
$3,000
R² = 0.6491
R² = 0.2081
$2,500
R² = 0.3745
$2,000
$2,000
$1,500
30.0
$1,500
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
30.0
40.0
Milk Yield (lbs/day)
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Milk Yield (lbs/day)
Holsteins
Jerseys
Cross-Bred
Holsteins
Jerseys
Cross-Bred
Power (Holsteins)
Poly. (Jerseys)
Poly. (Cross-Bred)
Power (Holsteins)
Linear (Jerseys)
Poly. (Cross-Bred)
As milk production increases: Cost/cow/year increases
Figure 2. Total production cost per cow per year by milk yield
IS THERE A RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MILK INCOME,
FEED COST AND TOTAL COST?
During low milk price years, dairy owners rely more heavily on nutritionists to take drastic
measures to reduce feed cost/cow/day. Milk yield and composition, herd health, reproductive
performance and other factors are derived from nutrients ingested by the cow. Nutritional
advisors are always striving to determine how to reduce feed cost without sacrificing herd
performance. Using the data provided by CADFA, we were able to examine the relationship
between feed cost/cow/year and milk income/cow/year as an indicator of profitability.
As expected, regardless of breed, higher milk yields were accompanied by greater feed
cost/cow/year. Feed cost/cow/year ranged from $1,000 to $2,000 in 2006 and from $1,250 to
$2,250 in 2007, a $250/cow increase from 2006 to 2007 representing half of the total
83 cost/cow/year increase of $500 as previously noted. In 2006, Holstein herds milking between
60-65 lbs/day averaged $1,428/cow/year while high producing herds (>80 lbs/day) averaged
$1,704/cow/year. In 2007, Holstein herds milking between 60-65 lbs/day averaged
$1,618/cow/year while herds producing >80 lbs/day averaged $1,995/cow/year. The highest
producing herds were generally the most expensive herds to feed on a per cow basis within each
breed. However, when analyzed on a feed cost/cwt of milk produced, the highest producing
herds had the lowest feed cost/cwt. Feed cost/cwt ranged from $5.00 to $8.25 in 2006 and from
$6.00 to $8.50 in 2007.
When milk price is low, it is not uncommon to see dairies focus on reducing feed cost/cow as a
means to reduce total cost. Our analysis indicates no such relationship exists when comparing
milk income/cow/year and feed cost/cow/year. In addition, there was no relationship between
total cost/cow/year and milk income/cow/year among all breeds. However, there was a strong
relationship (average R2=0.76 for all breeds and both years) between milk income/cow/year and
total cost/cwt. Decreasing total cost/cwt of milk increased milk income/cow/year in both 2006
and 2007 among all breeds. This indicates that when making a decision to change rations at any
point in time, during high or low milk prices, one should take into consideration how this
decision affects milk production.
DOES HERD SIZE AFFECT PROFITABILITY BY BREED?
Larger herds can often capitalize on economies of scale by diluting costs of production. Herd
size in this data set ranged from 100 to 4,600 cows. Figure 3 shows the relationship between
total cost/cow/year and herd size. There was no apparent relationship between these two
variables for Holsteins and crossbreds. However, as Jersey herds increased in size they had a
higher cost/cow/year. One other noteworthy observation is that the relationship is a funnel-type,
indicating a great deal of variability and a wider range of cost/cow/year in small herds relative to
the larger herds. As herds become larger they seem to become more consistent.
84 PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Total Cost/Cow By Herd Size
2006
2007
$4,000
$4,000
$3,500
$3,500
$3,000
$3,000
Cost/cow/year
Cost/cow/year
R² = 0.0024
R² = 0.0226
$2,500
R² = 0.0085
R² = 0.0071
R² = 0.2028
$2,500
R² = 0.3469
$2,000
$2,000
$1,500
$1,500
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
0
1,000
Herd Size (Cows)
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
Herd Size (Cows)
Holsteins
Jerseys
Cross-Bred
Holsteins
Jerseys
Cross-Bred
Log. (Holsteins)
Log. (Jerseys)
Expon. (Cross-Bred)
Power (Holsteins)
Log. (Jerseys)
Expon. (Cross-Bred)
No relationship between Herd Size and Cost/cow/year
Figure 3. Total production cost per cow per year by herd size.
When total cost/cwt of milk was regressed against herd size there was a slight trend toward
lower total cost/cwt as herd size increased for Jersey and crossbred herds but not Holstein herds.
This is likely due to the higher milk yields in the color breed herds as herd size increased.
Holstein herds had similar milk yield across herd size, although there was more variability in the
smaller herds relative to the larger Holstein herds. Herd size explained only 7% of the reduction
in total cost/cwt of milk.
There was no relationship between feed cost/cow/year and herd size in any of the breeds.
However, regressing feed cost/cwt against herd size resulted in a weak, negative trend for
Holstein herds and a strong, negative relationship among color breeds. As herds become larger
they had lower feed cost/cwt of milk produced. This is likely a result of the higher milk yield in
the larger color breed herds.
IS FEED EFFICIENCY AFFECTING PROFITABILITY BY BREED?
In order to validate the feed intake data, dry matter intake was regressed on milk yield. There
was a strong, positive relationship (average R2=0.78 for all breeds and both years) between dry
matter intake and milk yield. Herds producing around 60 lbs of milk/day had dry matter intakes
between 46 to 51 lbs/day while herds producing 80 lbs of milk/day had dry matter intakes
between 54 to 58 lbs/day.
85 Feed efficiency had a strong relationship with milk yield (average R2=0.71 for all breeds and
both years). As milk yield increased feed efficiency increased. Feed efficiency of Holstein herds
ranged from 1.0 to 1.6, Crossbred herds from 1.2 to 1.5 and Jersey herds from 1.35 to 1.65.
There was a positive relationship between milk income/cwt of milk produced to feed efficiency.
Increasing feed efficiency increased milk income/cwt in all breeds and both years. There was a
negative relationship between feed cost/cwt and feed efficiency. Increasing feed efficiency
decreased feed cost/cwt in all breeds and both years 2006 and 2007. For example, in Holsteins,
lower feed efficiencies (~1.1) had a feed cost/cwt near $7.0 while higher feed efficiencies (~1.5)
had feed cost/cwt between $5.0 and $6.0 in 2006 and increased in 2007 by $1.0 for both low and
high feed efficiency herds. Clearly, one way of reducing feed cost is improving the feed
efficiency of the herd and careful consideration should be given when making changes in
nutrition or management factors that affect feed efficiency.
DOES MILKING A HERD 3 TIMES VS 2 TIMES PER DAY MAKE DIFFERENCE?
The analysis for 2X vs. 3X milking includes only the Holsteins herds as there was not enough
color breed herds milked 3X. Figure 4 shows the relationship between total cost/cwt of milk and
milk yield. On average, herds milked 2X produced 68 lbs/day of milk while herds milked 3X
produced 78 lbs/day. As milk yield increased total cost/cwt decreased in both years. Herds
milked 3X clustered to the right of the graphs indicating the higher milk yield. As a group in this
analysis, herds milked 3X had lower total cost than herds milked 2X. However, if one considers
only herds producing over 70 lbs of milk/day, total cost/cwt of 2X and 3X herds were quite
similar (Figure 5).
PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Total Cost/Cwt By Milk Yield
2007
2006
20.0
18.0
18.0
16.0
16.0
Cost/cwt
Cost/cwt
20.0
R² = 0.308
14.0
14.0
R² = 0.4106
R² = 0.2273
12.0
R² = 0.2604
12.0
10.0
10.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
Milk Yield (lbs/day)
2X
3X
Expon. (2X)
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
Milk Yield (lbs/day)
Poly. (3X)
2X
3X
Poly. (2X)
Poly. (3X)
As milk production increases: Cost/cwt decreases
Figure 4. Total cost/cwt of milk produced by milk yield.
86 In 2X and 3X herds, milk income/cwt and milk yield were positively correlated. As milk yield
increased so did milk income/cwt in both years. On the other hand, milk income/cow/year and
total cost/cwt were negatively related (average R2=0.77). Total cost/cwt of milk increased as
milk income/cow/year decreased. Feed cost/cwt of milk and total cost/cwt were positively
correlated. Increasing feed cost/cwt resulted in an increase in total cost/cwt. When variables
were positively correlated (milk income/cwt by milk yield and feed cost/cwt by total cost/cwt),
3X milked herds clustered to the right side of the graphs while the 3X herds clustered to the left
on negatively correlated variables (total cost/cwt by milk yield and milk income/cow by total
cost/cwt). Interestingly, when all these variables were analyzed for herds producing 70 lbs of
milk or more, regression lines for 2X and 3X herds were nearly identical, indicating that there
were no differences between the herds.
This data indicates that at similar milk yields (over 70 lbs) there is no difference for the
variables analyzed for 2X versus 3X herds. Therefore, 2X herds producing over 80 lbs of milk
were as efficient as 3X herds producing over 80 lbs of milk. However, one cannot determine
from this dataset if herds milked 3X would produced less milk/cow if they were milked 2X.
PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Total Cost/Cwt By Milk Yield > 70 lbs
2007
2006
20.0
18.0
18.0
16.0
16.0
Cost/cwt
Cost/cwt
20.0
14.0
R² = 0.308
14.0
R² = 0.4106
12.0
12.0
R² = 0.1318
R² = 0.1335
10.0
65.0
10.0
70.0
75.0
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
65.0
70.0
75.0
MIlk Yield (lbs/day)
2X
3X
Poly. (2X)
80.0
85.0
90.0
95.0
MIlk Yield (lbs/day)
Poly. (3X)
2X
3X
Poly. (2X)
Poly. (3X)
Over 70 lbs 2X and 3X very similar
Figure 5. Total cost/cwt of milk produced by milk yield in Herds producing over 70 lbs of
milk/day.
87 FINDING PROFITABLE HERDS
In order to find profitable herds, milk income/cwt in 2006 was regressed on milk income/cwt in
2007 (Figure 6). On the horizontal axis (2006), herds on the right side of the bold vertical line
(herds with milk income/cwt >$0) had a positive milk income/cwt while herds on the left side
had a negative milk income/cwt. On the vertical axis (2007), herds above the bold horizontal
line (milk income/cwt >$0) had a positive milk income/cwt while herds below the line had a
negative milk income/cwt. There were 16 profitable Holsteins herds; herds that were able to
have a positive milk income/cwt in both years. These herds averaged 75.6 lbs of milk/day with a
standard deviation of 7.6 lbs.
CONCLUSIONS
One cannot dispute the fact that the price of milk has a significant impact on the profitability of
dairies in California; however, milk yield is a very important part of the profitability equation.
The trends reported herein indicate that herds with higher milk yield maximized milk
income/cwt in high milk price years and minimized losses in low milk prices years. Differences
among herds became less variable as Holstein herds became larger in size but this did not
always yield more profit. However, larger color breed herds were more profitable than smaller
ones. At similar milk yields, herds milked 2X or 3X yielded similar profitability.
In conclusion, one effective way to reduce feed cost and improve milk income in CA dairy
herds is to increase milk yield. We can accomplish this by improving the herd’s reproduction,
days in milk, cow comfort, cow health, transition management, forage quality, feed efficiency,
using research proven technologies and feeding well balance diets. We have to make
fundamentally sound decisions based on repeatable research responses whenever possible.
Making sound decisions will help us be more profitable as an industry. Focusing strictly on
reducing feed cost or the total cost of producing milk will compromise the dairy’s financial
position if that decision sacrifices milk yield.
88 PROFITABILTY OF WESTERN DAIRIES
Milk Income/Cwt 2006-2007
$8
$6
$4
$/cwt - 2007
$2
$0
-$2
-$4
-$6
-$8
‐8
‐6
‐4
‐2
0
2
4
6
8
$/cwt - 2006
Holsteins
Jerseys
Profit both years =16 Dairies; Avg = 75.6 lb/d; Std = 7.6 lb/d
Figure 6. Milk income/cwt in 2006 and 2007.
REFERENCES
California Dairy Information Bulletin. January 2009. California Department of Food and
Agriculture. Dairy Marketing Branch. Volume LXVI, Number 1.
California Department of Food and Agriculture. Publications. Cost of Production.
http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/dairy/dairycop_annual.html
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2009. United States Department of Agriculture. Prices
received by farmers, Corn by month.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/Charts_and_Maps/Agricultural_Prices/pricecn.asp
89 HIGH COW REPORT
January 2009
MILK
Arizona Owner
*Goldman Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Mike Pylman
*Stotz Dairy
*Shamrock Farms
*D & I Holstein
*Shamrock Farms
*Stotz Dairy
*Goldman Dairy
*Shamrock Farms
Barn#
9246
23356
22286
23556
12271
155
15980
23640
9016
10791
Age
06-04
03-03
04-05
03-02
05-06
08-09
04-05
03-01
06-05
06-01
Milk
40,570
36,090
35,950
35,120
34,600
34,350
34,270
34,000
33,740
33,600
*Stotz Dairy
*Riggin Ranch
*Riggin Ranch
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Rio Blanco Dairy
*Stotz Dairy
*Rio Blanco Dairy
*Danzeisen Dairy, Llc.
23556
96736
96010
23356
15824
23253
7154
21948
6437
1772
03-02
05-11
07-04
03-03
08-05
03-05
05-05
04-05
06-04
04-03
1,513
1,472
1,447
1,423
1,407
1,306
1,298
1,295
1,290
1,280
New Mexico Owner
*North Star Dairy Llc
*Providence Dairy
*North Star Dairy Llc
*Providence Dairy
*North Star Dairy Llc
*North Star Dairy Llc
*Providence Dairy
*North Star Dairy Llc
Tres Hermanos Dairy Llc
*North Star Dairy Llc
Barn #
2966
7117
2265
7207
2152
3256
3350
8432
1022
11655
Age
4-03
5-01
5-06
5-01
6-06
4-03
-----6-06
4-02
5-06
Milk
38,840
37,410
37,190
35,510
35,470
35,330
35,130
34,910
34,904
34,580
*Goff Dairy
Pareo Dairy
Mccatharn Dairy
*North Star Dairy Llc
*North Star Dairy Llc
Pareo Dairy
Wayne Palla Dairy
*North Star Dairy Llc
*North Star Dairy Llc
Mccatharn Dairy
6963
4868
1400
2152
1676
3890
------2265
12264
2783
4-03
6-09
5-05
6-06
6-06
7-08
6-06
5-06
5-06
7-01
1,402
1,346
1,342
1,325
1,309
1,292
1,289
1,263
1,262
1,249
2152
2265
2031
7152
2966
3332
12712
12252
6127
3153
6-06
5-06
6-06
5-07
4-03
4-03
3-04
3-04
4-10
4-03
FAT
PROTEIN
*Mike Pylman
*Stotz Dairy
*Riggin Ranch
*Mike Pylman
*Stotz Dairy
*Shamrock Farms
*Danzeisen Dairy, Llc.
*Shamrock Farms
*Stotz Dairy
*Goldman Dairy
*Shamrock Farms
22286
23356
96736
1877
23556
12651
4854
15980
23517
9246
8961
04-05
03-03
05-11
03-03
03-02
05-05
07-02
04-05
03-02
06-04
06-07
*all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
1,084
1,057
1,044
1,033
1,027
1,000
997
996
996
986
985
*North Star Dairy Llc
*North Star Dairy Llc
*North Star Dairy Llc
Tres Hermanos Dairy Llc
*North Star Dairy Llc
*North Star Dairy Llc
*North Star Dairy Llc
*North Star Dairy Llc
Pareo Dairy
*North Star Dairy Llc
1,258
1,104
1,088
1,088
1,086
1,086
1,080
1,068
1,064
1,063
ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
January 2009
OWNERS NAME
*Stotz Dairy West
*Goldman Dairy
*Danzeisen Dairy, Inc.
*Riggin Ranch
*Stotz Dairy East
*Shamrock Farms
*Zimmerman Dairy
*Withrow Dairy
Paul Rovey Dairy
Lunts Dairy
Parker Dairy
*Mike Pylman
*Saddle Mountain
*Rio Blanco Dairy
*Cliffs Dairy
*DC Dairy, LLC
*Yettem
*Shamrock Farms Emerald
*Dutch View Dairy
*Jal Dairy
Number of Cows
MILK
FAT
3.5 FCM
CI
2,257
2,441
1,694
1,162
1,251
8,210
1,268
5,267
253
696
4,480
6,799
3,062
2,148
326
1,128
3,686
17
2,342
18
26,856
25,045
24,511
25,040
23,669
24,640
23,204
23,054
22,716
21,884
21,920
22,602
21,601
20,287
20,801
21,396
17,985
20,186
20,724
16,825
974
863
874
847
855
808
813
805
804
811
787
768
792
819
778
754
838
753
711
806
27,408
24,824
24,772
24,562
24,100
23,756
23,218
23,023
22,861
22,615
22,241
22,227
22,184
22,055
21,612
21,474
21,361
20,940
20,491
20,349
15
14
14
13
14
14
13
14
13
15
16
14
14
14
16
15
13
NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
January 2009
OWNERS NAME
Number of Cows
MILK
FAT
3.5 FCM
CI
*Pareo 2
*SAS
McCatharn
*Butterfield
*Clover Knolls
*Milagro
*Do-Rene
*Vaz
Vaz 2
Cross Country
*Providence
*Goff
Stark Everett
*Tee Vee
*Tallmon
Ridgecrest
1,687
1,799
1,140
2,243
3,499
3,481
2,411
2,130
1,969
3,423
3,313
6,033
3,309
1,137
539
3,844
24,884
24,261
24,717
26,026
25,011
23,801
24,794
23,164
22,942
23,234
23,348
24,421
23,059
22,504
21,911
22,353
914
908
873
827
844
874
827
859
857
837
824
785
813
821
830
801
25,581
25,215
24,844
24,664
24,501
24,464
24,132
23,946
23,817
23,619
23,458
23,289
23,154
23,044
22,934
22,654
13.50
13.10
13.30
13.40
12.90
13.82
12.00
14.70
14.00
13.00
13.30
13.30
13.50
14.12
13.70
12.70
b
* all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
average milk and fat figure may be different from monthly herd summary; figures used are last day/month
ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO HERD IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY
FOR OFFICIAL HERDS TESTED January 2009
ARIZONA
1. Number of Herds
NEW MEXICO
35
26
2. Total Cows in Herd
70,949
63,297
3. Average Herd Size
2,027
2434.52
88
87
5. Average Days in Milk
194
202
6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day
58.8
63
3.6
3.61
61,628
55,068
67.6
69.32
88
76
11. Average Days Open
165
148
12. Average Calving Interval
14.5
14.11
13. Percent Somatic Cell – Low
83
82
14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium
12
14
15. Percent Somatic Cell – High
5
4
16. Average Previous Days Dry
63
62
17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd
32
33
21,857
20,4096
Percent butterfat
3.57
3.60
Percent protein
3.02
3.12
Pounds butterfat
778
842
Pounds protein
660
700
4. Percent in Milk
7. Average Percent Fat – All Cows
8. Total Cows in Milk
9. Average Daily Milk for Milking Cows
10. Average Days in Milk 1st Breeding
Milk
Department of Animal Sciences
1650 E. Limberlost Drive
Tucson, AZ 85719
Phone: 520-626-1754
Fax: 520-626-1283
Email: stefanic@ag.arizona.edu
SAVE THE DATE
Arizona Dairy Production Conference
Hilton Garden Inn
Phoenix, AZ
October 8, 2009