Missouri Dairy Producers Needs Assessment. Commercial Ag Program, MU Extension

Similar documents
Missouri Dairy Industry Revitalization Study Section 3: Needs Assessment

Missouri Dairy Industry Revitalization Study. Joe Horner Extension Dairy Economist MU Commercial Agriculture Program

2012 Iowa Dairy Farm Survey

4-H Dairy Project Record Dairy Cow

What s New in Manure Equipment and Management

Herd Management. Lesson 4: Herd Management. Figure Parallel Milking Parlor. Production Costs

Other Unique Components

This guide examines the financial feasibility of

This guide examines the financial feasibility of

Manure Management on the Urban Fringe

This guide examines the financial feasibility of

Who Should Be Raising Your Heifers?

A Producer s Experience With Freestalls. By C.A. Russell Yosemite Jersey Dairy Bloss Ave, Hilmar, CA fax

Missouri 700-Cow Dairy Model. A Value Added Enterprise for Missouri Crop Producers

Management of TMR Feeding Programs

Keeping Your Herd Profitable in Today s Economic Environment

Real Herds Real Heifers: The Cost of Raising Today s s Dairy Heifer

Economics of Minimalist Fescue Belt Pasture-Based Dairies

2015 Michigan Dairy Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper November, 2016

Wisconsin Report. Victor E. Cabrera

2009 Michigan Dairy Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper December, 2010

2006 Michigan Dairy Grazing Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper November, 2007

2014 Michigan Dairy Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper December, 2015

Results of Organic Dairy Economic Survey. V.E. Cabrera University of Wisconsin-Madison Dairy Science

Management Practices on Virginia Dairy Farms Gordon E. Groover

Introduction to Management-intensive Grazing

Dairy Replacement Programs: Costs & Analysis 3 rd Quarter 2012

2007 PLANNING BUDGETS FOR DAIRY PRODUCTION IN MISSISSIPPI COSTS AND RETURNS. 112 and 250 COW DAIRY ENTERPRISES LARGE BREED CATTLE MISSISSIPPI, 2007

102 - PHOSPHORUS ON THE FARM FROM FEED GRAINS AND BY- PRODUCTS - by Mike Gamroth and Troy Downing, Oregon State University

New ISU Dairy MOOves In and Ahead

FINPACK. Livestock Budgets. Based on 2015 FINBIN Database Reports

Capturing Manure s Value. March 2008

Dry Matter Intake and Manure Production for Management Intensively Grazed Dairy Cattle

2007 Michigan Dairy Grazing Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper December, 2008

Determining the costs and revenues for dairy cattle

Observations of Custom Heifer Raising by WI Dairy Producers

3. Dairy Production Data: 3.1. Year-end milk check showing total pounds of milk sold for the year DHIA Herdcode

SECTION II THEORETICAL CAPACITY OF KINGS COUNTY TO HOST DAIRIES

Chenango County 4-H Livestock Project Record

Grazing Opportunities. Craig Saxe UW-Extension, Juneau Co. 211 Hickory Street Mauston WI (608)

Is Profitability in Cow-Calf Industry Really Possible???

PROJECTING CASH FLOWS ON DAIRY FARMS

Report on Experimental Feeding of Dairy Cattle with DDGS (Distiller s Dry Grains with Solubles ) *)

~il~~:~~ii~!. ~...~: {(.~i. !!.~I~ji!': i~i( l:;i;!i:i;i;i:::-: :: C: ..::::)~::m~:l::::t:m:;::;;%::;:!;:;:;:j;.:;:;::::;::j::j:j\:;..

Characteristics of Highly Profitable Dairy Farms: Striking the Right Balance.

Livestock Enterprise. Budgets for Iowa 2017 File B1-21. Ag Decision Maker

3. Total revenue 80,605 1,622

Grazing Economics 101 Keys to Being a Profitable Forage Producer MODNR-SWCP Mark Kennedy and John Turner

2004 Michigan Dairy Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper September 2005

Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%)

Heifer Economics. Geoff Benson, PhD Extension Economist NCSU

2007 Michigan Dairy Farm Business Analysis Summary. Eric Wittenberg And Christopher Wolf. Staff Paper December, 2008

An Economic Comparison of Organic and Conventional Dairy Production, and Estimations on the Cost of Transitioning to Organic Production

Manure Management Milk Shake Dairy Ken Johnson Cache County, Utah

Economics 330 Fall 2005 Exam 1. Strategic Planning and Budgeting

JOB DESCRIPTION ASSISTANT HERDSMAN

Real-Life Implementation of Controlled Breeding Season

Livestock Enterprise. Budgets for Iowa 2010 File B1-21. Ag Decision Maker

Livestock Enterprise. Budgets for Iowa 2008 File B1-21. Ag Decision Maker

EBB-DR2-14 Costs and Returns for a 10,000-Head Heifer Raising Facility in Southern Idaho

Investment Analysis of Alternative Dairy Systems under MILC

Redtail Ridge Dairy, LLC Joe & Diane Thome Malone, Wisconsin, USA

The Use of Technology for Improved Cow Health to Increase Production and Reproduction

Organic Dairy Certification Requirements Overview

Beyond Feed Conversions: a Different Look at Feed Costs. Greg Bethard, Ph.D. G&R Dairy Consulting, Inc. DRMS, Raleigh, NC.

Determining Livestock Facility Needs

Backgrounding Calves Part 1: Assessing the Opportunity

Dairy Freestall & Parlor Planning Guide

Dairy Feed: a new cash crop. Mike Rankin Crops and Soils Agent University of Wisconsin-Extension Fond du Lac County

Chapter 1: Producer Demographics What the Looking Glass Shows

Recombinant bovine somatotropin, a growth hormone that stimulates milk production has been

Strategies for Dairying Success in the Future

Internal Herd Growth Generating Profits through Management

Section 5: Production Management

Your Dairy In Transition

Missouri Dairy Industry Revitalization Study

A Study into Dairy Profitability MSC Business Services during

Economic Research Service The USDA Commodity Costs and Returns (CAR) Estimation Project

Canadian Forage and Grassland Association s Strategy for the Future

PROJECTED COSTS AND RETURNS FOR BEEF CATTLE, DAIRY PRODUCTION, SWINE PRODUCTION AND FORAGE CROPS IN LOUISIANA, 1997

Carlisle County ANR Newsletter September, 2017

Feed Cost Indices for a Dairy Cow Enterprise Michael Langemeier, Associate Director, Center for Commercial Agriculture

EC Profitable Midwest Dairy Practices

Linking Crop Rotations & Feeding Programs

THE ECONOMICS OF HEIFER CONTRACTING ESQ 2305

Dairy Project Records

Calculating Dry Matter Intake from Pasture for Ruminants

Low Cost Rations for More Milk Dollars

Livestock Enterprise. Budgets for Iowa 2016 File B1-21. Ag Decision Maker

EC Estimating the Most Profitable Use of Center-Pivot Irrigation for a Ranch

PROJECTED COSTS AND RETURNS FOR BEEF CATTLE, DAIRY, BROILER AND FORAGE CROP PRODUCTION IN LOUISIANA, 2001

Assessing current calf- and heiferrearing

Controlling Feed Costs: Focusing on Margins Instead of Ratios

Planning and Economics of Forage Irrigation

Milk From Farm to Fridge

ECONOMICS OF PASTURE- BASED DAIRY FARMING

Green County DHIA Newsletter

Layout and Design of Grazing Systems

U.S. Beef Production Practices ---

Transcription:

Missouri Dairy Producers Needs Assessment Commercial Ag Program, MU Extension

Number of respondents by Missouri agricultural statistics district

Number of Responses What do dairy producers in your area need to be more successful? 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Higher milk prices & profit margins More dairy infrastructure More competitive milk markets Manage heat stress & other production issues Quality forages Increased labor More available capital Less regulation Favorable weather Better business management

Number of Responses What is your greatest challenge on you dairy farm? 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Labor Animal health Forage issues Weather Input costs Time management Profit margins Other production issues Access to land & capital Farm infrastructure needs

Rate the quality of dairy infrastructure in your area Average Manure/lagoon spreading contractors 5% 30% 34% 14% 17% 3.06 Dairy equipment sales and service 16% 35% 28% 14% 7% 2.61 Dairy quality forage contractors 6% 31% 43% 8% 12% 2.88 Veterinary service with dairy expertise 37% 36% 17% 4% 6% 2.07 Dairy nutrition/ration consulting 19% 42% 29% 5% 5% 2.35 Extension dairy advice 21% 54% 16% 6% 3% 2.18 Milk hauling 41% 42% 8% 7% 1% 1.85 Cooperative field service 22% 49% 23% 3% 3% 2.16 General farm supplies and fertilizer 29% 56% 10% 4% 1% 1.93 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1- Excellent 2- Ok 3- Could be better 4- Worried about future 5- Big problem now

Rate the quality of dairy infrastructure in your area district ratings East North Northeast South Southeast Southwest West Veterinary service with dairy expertise 1.67 1.85 2.25 1.29 2.40 3.18 2.04 2.00 2.07 Dairy equipment sales and service 2.51 2.50 3.25 2.14 2.64 3.45 2.32 3.50 2.61 Dairy nutrition/ration consulting 2.16 1.90 2.42 1.57 2.52 3.00 2.40 2.44 2.35 Dairy quality forage contractors 2.65 3.00 3.25 2.57 3.02 3.00 2.72 3.78 2.88 Manure/lagoon spreading contractors 2.94 2.88 3.30 2.86 2.85 3.63 3.18 4.00 3.06 Milk hauling 1.53 2.20 1.75 1.71 2.00 1.91 1.80 2.00 1.85 Cooperative field service 1.97 2.28 2.18 1.71 2.26 2.00 2.24 2.33 2.16 General farm supplies and fertilizer 1.56 1.80 1.92 1.57 2.20 2.09 2.08 1.80 1.93 Extension dairy advice 2.07 1.90 2.17 2.00 2.24 2.55 2.23 2.38 2.18 State Average 1 signifies excellent, 2 signifies OK, 3 signifies could be better, 4 signifies worried about future, and 5 signifies big problem now.

Which topics should have more training and information available in Missouri? Reproductive management 4.9% 9.3% 23.9% 35.6% 26.3% 3.69 Average Mastitis prevention and treatment 5.2% 7.2% 27.6% 33.6% 26.4% 3.69 Forage quality improvement 5.7% 6.9% 27.5% 40.9% 19.0% 3.61 Heat stress 4.5% 10.2% 30.6% 31.0% 23.7% 3.59 Calf feeding and young stock management 5.3% 9.3% 30.8% 35.6% 19.0% 3.54 Financial and business management 9.0% 9.4% 29.4% 30.6% 21.6% 3.47 Basic nutrition 7.2% 9.6% 31.3% 35.3% 16.5% 3.44 Milk and feed price risk management 12.6% 9.3% 27.6% 32.5% 17.9% 3.34 Vaccination, herd health and treatent 6.5% 12.6% 31.3% 30.1% 19.5% 3.43 Feed mixing/ration formulation 9.4% 11.5% 30.3% 31.6% 17.2% 3.36 Farm succession planning 13.1% 13.1% 25.7% 25.7% 22.4% 3.31 Feed and forage systems 5.3% 10.3% 38.3% 31.7% 14.4% 3.40 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1- Not a priority 2 3 4 5- High priority

Which topics should have more training and information available in Missouri? Cont. Average Labor management 15.9% 11.8% 29.8% 24.1% 18.4% 3.17 Energy Savings 7.7% 15.4% 35.4% 26.0% 15.4% 3.26 Herd Record Keeping 10.2% 17.6% 31.1% 28.3% 12.7% 3.16 Water availability 12.9% 18.1% 30.2% 23.4% 15.3% 3.10 Feed and forage contracting 12.7% 13.5% 35.2% 27.9% 10.7% 3.10 Nutrient management plans 12.1% 16.1% 35.9% 22.6% 13.3% 3.09 Parlor renovation 13.8% 19.5% 32.9% 23.6% 10.2% 2.97 Value-added product processing 16.9% 17.8% 32.2% 18.2% 14.9% 2.96 Housing and ventilation 15.7% 20.2% 34.3% 22.2% 7.7% 2.86 Manure handling equipment 12.7% 21.4% 38.5% 17.9% 9.5% 2.90 Bedding 16.2% 25.5% 38.9% 15.0% 4.5% 2.66 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1- Not a priority 2 3 4 5- High priority

Which topics should have more training and information available in Missouri? district ratings East North Northeast South Southeast Southwest West Basic nutrition 3.11 3.35 3.45 2.33 3.71 3.45 3.51 3.88 3.44 Feed mixing/ration formulation 3.23 3.20 3.50 2.83 3.62 3.55 3.22 3.71 3.36 Feed and forage contracting 2.75 3.11 2.55 2.50 3.59 3.40 3.10 2.63 3.10 Forage quality improvement 3.50 3.60 3.73 2.67 3.77 3.70 3.56 3.89 3.61 Feed and forage systems 3.17 3.35 3.45 3.00 3.70 3.40 3.30 3.44 3.40 Calf feeding and young stock management 3.28 3.80 3.36 2.67 3.79 3.36 3.52 3.75 3.54 Mastitis prevention and treatment 3.58 4.15 2.64 2.83 3.76 3.82 3.78 3.89 3.69 Reproductive management 3.41 3.80 3.40 3.17 3.81 3.91 3.80 4.00 3.69 Vaccination, herd health and treatment 3.21 3.55 3.00 2.40 3.63 3.36 3.51 4.00 3.43 Housing and ventilation 3.02 3.25 2.64 2.83 2.90 2.82 2.61 2.88 2.86 Bedding 2.63 2.95 2.82 3.33 2.70 2.91 2.39 2.75 2.66 Energy Savings 2.96 3.25 3.09 3.33 3.32 3.91 3.36 2.88 3.26 Water availability 2.80 2.75 3.55 2.50 3.24 2.70 3.22 3.88 3.10 Heat stress 3.58 3.79 3.45 2.67 3.56 3.55 3.71 3.75 3.59 Parlor renovation 2.68 3.10 3.45 2.33 3.13 3.00 2.97 2.88 2.97 Herd Record Keeping 3.00 3.47 3.09 2.50 3.31 3.00 3.12 3.13 3.16 Farm succession planning 2.89 3.70 3.45 2.67 3.47 3.55 3.26 4.25 3.31 Financial and business management 3.18 3.37 3.36 2.33 3.66 3.64 3.47 4.38 3.47 Labor management 2.77 3.05 3.00 2.67 3.37 3.36 3.25 3.75 3.17 Milk and feed price risk management 2.89 3.20 3.09 2.17 3.48 2.82 3.82 3.25 3.34 Value-added product processing 2.44 3.15 3.45 2.67 3.10 3.18 3.07 2.88 2.96 Manure handling equipment 2.88 3.10 2.64 2.33 3.00 3.09 2.76 3.50 2.90 Nutrient management plans 2.95 3.15 3.09 2.67 3.26 3.27 2.91 3.88 3.09 1 signifies not a priority, and 5 signifies a high priority. State Average

Usage of information sources Average Veterinarians 2% 4% 18% 38% 38% 4.05 Other dairy producers 3% 9% 28% 36% 24% 3.70 University of Missouri Extension 3% 13% 26% 38% 19% 3.56 Nutrition consultants 5% 10% 29% 29% 27% 3.64 Associations (breed, DHIA, MDA) 14% 16% 21% 28% 21% 3.28 Magazines 9% 9% 33% 30% 19% 3.41 Dairy cooperative fieldmen 8% 13% 34% 29% 17% 3.35 Internet websites or searches 22% 11% 24% 28% 16% 3.04 Newsletters (print or electronic) 10% 9% 40% 26% 14% 3.24 Industry vendors 7% 22% 36% 24% 10% 3.07 Missouri Dairy Resource Website (MU) 18% 17% 31% 22% 12% 2.93 Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) 40% 21% 23% 13% 4% 2.21 Webinars 35% 20% 32% 11% 2% 2.30 Podcasts 48% 24% 20% 5% 3% 1.90 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 1- No value 2 3 4 5- A lot of value

Usage of information sources district ratings East North Northeast South Southeast Southwest West University of Missouri Extension 3.46 3.95 3.80 3.40 3.60 3.75 3.41 3.83 3.56 Veterinarians 4.05 4.20 4.00 3.50 3.97 4.09 4.03 4.78 4.05 Nutrition consultants 3.63 3.85 4.18 4.33 3.69 3.91 3.27 4.00 3.64 Industry vendors 2.86 3.53 3.00 4.50 3.20 3.10 2.91 2.71 3.07 Dairy cooperative fieldmen 3.23 3.75 3.18 4.17 3.21 3.60 3.39 3.50 3.35 Other dairy producers 3.86 4.00 4.36 4.17 3.52 3.64 3.60 3.11 3.70 Missouri Dairy Resource Website (MU) 2.84 3.50 3.20 2.67 2.71 3.00 3.00 2.67 2.93 Newsletters (print or electronic) 3.20 4.00 3.18 3.20 3.16 2.67 3.24 3.00 3.24 Magazines 3.57 3.95 3.45 3.50 3.18 3.36 3.26 3.75 3.41 Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter) 2.34 2.62 2.20 1.50 2.27 2.22 2.13 1.40 2.21 Associations (breed, DHIA, MDA) 3.45 3.72 3.20 4.17 3.30 3.64 2.98 2.86 3.28 Webinars 2.45 3.10 2.70 2.25 2.30 2.22 2.07 1.67 2.30 Internet websites or searches 2.74 3.58 2.80 2.40 3.04 3.36 3.10 3.00 3.04 Podcasts 1.68 2.70 2.11 1.50 1.96 1.75 1.84 1.60 1.90 1 signifies no value, and 5 signifies a lot of value. State Average

Number of responses Age distribution of survey respondents 65 60 55 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-85 Age in Years

Rolling herd average for milk, pounds per year 25,000 28,000 3% 28,000 or more 1% Less than 10,000 3% 22,000 25,000 10% 10,000 13,000 14% 19,000 22,000 23% 13,000 16,000 22% 16,000 19,000 24%

Number of Responses Size of milking cow herd 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Less than 50 50-99 100-249 250-499 500-999 1,000+

Average somatic cell count by district Ag District SCC # of Responses 226,794 63 East 239,850 20 North 149,444 9 Northeast 218,571 7 South 241,984 64 Southeast 338,700 10 Southwest 284,514 72 West 302,222 9 State Average 251,864 257

Number of Responses Dairy farm plans for the next five years 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Discontinue milking Downsize Continue at same level Expand <10% Expand 10-50% Expand >50%

Dairy farm plans for the next five years by district East North Northeast South Southeast Southwest West State Average Discontinue milking 13.8% 15.8% 0.0% 0.0% 17.5% 9.1% 11.6% 11.1% 13.2% Downsize 1.5% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 4.8% 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 3.5% Continue at same level 43.1% 36.8% 72.7% 50.0% 38.1% 45.5% 50.7% 11.1% 44.0% Expand <10% 7.7% 5.3% 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 18.2% 5.8% 11.1% 7.0% Expand 10-50% 29.2% 36.8% 27.3% 33.3% 22.2% 18.2% 18.8% 55.6% 25.3% Expand >50% 4.6% 0.0% 0.0% 16.7% 9.5% 9.1% 8.7% 11.1% 7.0%

Type of housing system Other 5% None or open air 47% Free stall 36% Compost/Bedding system 12%

Type of housing system by district East North Northeast South Southeast Southwest West State Average Free Stall 49.2% 68.4% 54.5% 57.1% 15.6% 45.5% 29.2% 20.0% 35.9% Compost/Bedding system 12.7% 15.8% 18.2% 28.6% 9.4% 36.4% 5.6% 30.0% 12.2% None or open Air 36.5% 10.5% 9.1% 0.0% 73.4% 9.1% 58.3% 50.0% 46.2% Other 1.6% 5.3% 18.2% 14.3% 1.6% 9.1% 6.9% 0.0% 5.7%

Type of milking system Carousel/rotary 1% Swing/parabone parlor 11% Other 10% Parallel parlor 18% Herringbone parlor 60%

Number of Responses Use of grazing in operation 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 No grazing in my operation Grazing heifers only Minimal grazing Moderate grazing Intensive grazing

Use of grazing in operation by district East North Northeast South Southeast Southwest West No grazing in my operation 0.0% 15.0% 0.0% 14.3% 1.6% 18.2% 4.1% 0.0% 3.8% State Average Grazing heifers only 20.3% 35.0% 16.7% 42.9% 14.1% 45.5% 6.8% 11.1% 17.0% Minimal grazing 31.3% 25.0% 16.7% 14.3% 7.8% 9.1% 13.7% 22.2% 17.7% Moderate grazing 37.5% 15.0% 25.0% 0.0% 48.4% 27.3% 43.8% 33.3% 38.1% Intensive grazing 10.9% 10.0% 41.7% 28.6% 28.1% 0.0% 31.5% 33.3% 23.4%

Acres in operation Categories State Average Total acres owned and operated 440.52 Acres in corn silage 45.83 Acres in alfalfa 30.83 Acres in other hay or haylage 117.18 Acres for grazing livestock (cows and heifers) 173.97

Practices used to handle livestock manure Other 3% Put manure directly into the spreader and/or spread daily 13% Store manure in lined structure (concrete pit, slurry system, etc.) 33% Pile manure on the ground or a slab 31% Store in unlined manure storage basin 20%

Days of manure storage Manure management practice Days of storage Pile manure on the ground or slab 76.59 Store in unlined manure storage basin 264.13 Store manure in lined structure (concrete pit, slurry system, etc.) 101.01 Other 94.29

Number of Responses Written nutrient plan for farm 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Yes No Unsure

Number of Responses Asses the nutrient content of manure 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 Yes, by testing yearly Yes, by testing less frequently No, I use book values No, I don t take nutrient credit