Final report for ONE20-360
Project Information
Access to information on a diversity of production practices can help farmers successfully evaluate and implement practices that improve farm viability. One practice increasing in popularity is altering milking frequency.
What are alternative milking strategies? Under seasonal production the entire herd is bred within a narrow window of time so that all the cows are dry
simultaneously and no milk is produced on the farm during that time. Some farms are interested in this practice as a way to align herd production curves with seasonal changes in milk pricing or reduce seasonal demands for labor, pasture or forage, or other limited resources on the farm. Farms are also interested in alternatives to a twice daily milking schedule. Some alternative milking frequencies include milking once per day, where there are 24 hours between milkings, or three times every two days where the herd is milked twice one day and once the following day resulting in 16-hour milking intervals. These lower milking frequencies are of interest because they may help reduce labor and resource constraints on farms as time and costs associated with milking are reduced.
Farmers are interested in utilizing this practice to overcome labor challenges, financial stress, cow and farmer quality of life concerns. However, as decreasing milking frequency ultimately results in lower milk production, the cost savings and other gains attained through this system must outweigh the costs of lower production and potential changes in milk quality. As farm economics are impacted by so many farm management and external factors, it is critical that we better understand the considerations and impacts associated with these systems in the Northeast. To our knowledge there has been no alternative milking frequency research conducted in the US let alone the Northeast. Through a regional survey, we gathered important data about the characteristics of northeast farms employing alternative milking frequencies. Of the 800 surveys sent to dairy farmers in the northeast, 134 farms returned their survey with the majority of those being certified organic dairy producers (64%) or grass-fed producers (34%). Of the 134, only 17% indicated they have tried or currently use an alternative strategy with 20% interested and 63% not interested or unsure. Interestingly, 18% of grass-fed respondents and 12% of organic respondents reported having tried an alternative strategy. While this suggests that a higher proportion of grass-fed farms have at least tried one of these alternative strategies, we do not know how many continued the practice. The average annual milk production of the twice-a-day milking farms was 13,479 lbs per cow while the once-a-day farms averaged 9,864 lbs per cow. Interestingly, the farms that reported milking three times every two days averaged 11,584 lbs per cow. These data suggest a 14% reduction in milk production when milking three-in-two compared to a 27% reduction milking once-a-day. Across all groups, the top benefit was increased flexibility in daily task timing which was cited by 75.9% of respondents in each group. Decreased milk production was the most cited impact. Approximately 35% of farms also experienced increases in somatic cell count ranging from 13.6% to 277%, indicating significant differences between herds in response to the strategies.
Through benchmarking and cost of production analysis we were able to create a first look at farm performance with alternative milking frequencies. The cost of production and benchmarking involved grass-fed organic dairies using alternative milking frequencies compared to grass-fed organic dairies using twice-a-day milking. The average total cost per cwt eq. across all farms using alternative strategies in all years was $49.70 which was similar to the farms milking year-round twice daily averaging $51.37. Looking at some of the expenses in more detail, total cash expense (not including interest) per cwt eq. was $26.60 on farms using alternative strategies, $1.29 higher than average grass-fed farms milking twice daily year-round. Cash expenses differed significantly in some categories between farms using alternative strategies and those using the standard year-round twice daily milking strategy. Under both scenarios purchased forages, repairs, supplies, hired labor, and other expenses were the top five cash expenses. This alignment was expected as both groups were managing 100% grass-fed. However, the largest differences were seen in custom hire, machine and land rentals, and purchased energy supplements. On average, farms utilizing alternative milking strategies were managing the herd using the equivalent of 1.94 full-time workers (FTE), including both paid and unpaid, while farms using the traditional year-round twice daily milking strategy had 2.71 FTEs. Overall, the total cost of production was similar between the two groups, although there were some differences in labor efficiency and cash expense categories. However, the small sample size for each alternative production system (i.e., milking once a day, milking three times in two days, and seasonal milk production) limits the specificity to which we can frame these data. In the future, if more farms begin utilizing these strategies and more years of data are collected, further analyses and conclusions on the use of each of these alternative milking schedule strategies can be made.
Further, education materials were developed (case studies, webinars, and factsheets) to aid farmers in understanding the risks and challenges associated with alternative milking frequencies as well as key factors leading to successful adoption of these practices to help them make successful management decisions. All written materials have been posted on the UVM Extension website (uvm.edu/extension/nwcrops). Outreach was delivered to over 200 agricultural stakeholders through webinars and field days. The interest in alternative milking frequencies is strong especially amongst organic producers. In particular, grass-fed organic producers maybe best suited to adopt these strategies with least impact on milk production.
This project seeks to understand the economic and production metrics for farms that have adopted alternative milking frequencies through implementing benchmarking on farms in the Northeast. This project benefits the farmers by strengthening their knowledge and providing them with decision making tools to assess the feasibility of adopting alternative milking frequencies on their farms,
Access to animal specific, high quality herd production and quality data through dairy herd monitoring programs is often too cost prohibitive, or perceived as such, for farmers to consistently use it for monitoring purposes. Although farmers have some idea of their production and quality, they don’t always know if they are on-par with other dairies of similar nature. Although there are currently available benchmarking programs for the dairy industry, these programs are typically offered through lenders with a heavy focus on financials and are not production system specific.
This project will create new information and benchmarks for farms currently or interested in utilizing alternative milking frequencies. The information and tools created will allow farmers to accurately decide if this practice is the right fit for the sustainability and viability of their farm.
As farms struggle to remain viable in today’s dairy economy, farmers are looking for innovative ways to adapt and diversify their businesses. Dairy farmers have largely relied on transitioning to management systems that offered higher milk prices such as certified organic or 100% grass-fed. However, as both of these systems rely heavily on grazing, additional land and labor are required. Finding qualified and reliable labor is challenging and may increase farm expenses beyond the benefits of the higher milk prices. Additionally, as more farmers are relying on off-farm income, looking to increase quality of life, or working on business succession, more flexibility in scheduling is desirable. As both organic and 100% grass-fed production systems already experience lower milk production than a conventionally managed dairy, many farmers have expressed interest exploring and/or adopting a once-a-day (OAD) or a three times in two days (3-in-2) milking schedule. A recent survey of grass-fed organic dairy producers found that 15% (n=167) of respondents were already using alternative milking frequencies on their farms. Interest in transitioning to alternative milking frequencies is rising throughout New England. During the summer of 2019, field days held at two farms utilizing alternative milking schedules (OAD and 3-in-2) drew over 125 farmers curious about this option. Unfortunately, there was little data available to answer farmers' questions about the benefits and risks associated with these milking strategies. At the 2020 UVM Organic Dairy Conference, 76% (n=52) of attendees responding to a post event survey indicated they wanted to know more about characteristics and economics of farms implementing alternative milk frequencies.
These alternative milking schedules can theoretically lower labor costs and provide more time during the day for farm management tasks, other enterprises, or family time. But are these systems profitable? Studies have shown that reducing milking frequency from twice-a-day (TAD) to OAD reduces milk yield, fat, and protein yields (Rémond et al., 2004; Davis et al., 1999). Furthermore, some research shows minimal milk yield reductions if milking intervals remain <18 hours (3-in-2). The economics of OAD milking has shown to decrease farm operating expenses by an average of 25.5% in New Zealand (Anderle and Dalley, 2007).
As so many farm management and external factors impact farm economics, it is critical that we understand the risk/benefits associated with these alternative milking frequencies in the Northeast. Currently there is limited accurate information available to farmers interested in transitioning to alternative milking frequencies. This project will expand our existing benchmarking and milk testing programs (DHI), gaining an additional 12 participants using alternative milking strategies that will contribute information on cost of production, farm production, and farm management data. From this information, we will develop and deliver outreach including 2 webinars, 1 conference, 2 on-farm workshops, and 3 factsheets that will aid farmers in understanding the risks and benefits associated with alternative milking frequencies.
Cooperators
- - Producer
- - Producer
- (Researcher)
- (Researcher)
Research
2020 Report
Since the grant was awarded, we have notified our farmer partners and key collaborators and supporters of the award. The first step in the project is to complete a survey of dairy producers in the northeast to obtain information relating to the prevalence of use and interest in alternative milking strategies as well as challenges, barriers, and knowledge or resource gaps needed to successfully assess and adopt these strategies. In the fall of 2020, a draft survey was created and has been reviewed by two of our farmer partners. The survey and methods was submitted in November of 2020 to the University of Vermont Internal Review Board (IRB) for review and approval.
Logistics planning for survey deployment has been started between our team, milk buyers/cooperatives, and other outlets that will help advertise the survey. Both online through Qualtrics and mail-in options will be available.
A project announcement was created and posted to the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association (NODPA) ODairy forum (510 subscribers) and Vermont Agriview agricultural newspaper (over 1000 recipients). Similar avenues will be used to distribute an announcement of the survey but will also be advertised on our program website and distributed directly through milk buyers/cooperatives. We expect to distribute the survey in February.
In December of 2020, the online benchmarking program was updated to include some specific questions geared towards farms that use alternative milking strategies. The next step will be to enroll 12 farmers using alternative milking strategies in our production benchmarking, DHI testing, and cost of production analysis programs. A list of potential participants known to be employing alternative milking strategies has been created and will be used in the new year to begin to recruit participants.
2021 Report
Since the last reporting period the survey of dairy producers in the northeast was completed. Survey questions and implementation strategy was designed using the Tailored Design Method (Dillman, 2000). The survey method and tool were approved through IRB at the University of Vermont. In the spring of 2021, the survey was sent to approximately 800 dairy producers through both physical mailings and online communications. The survey was closed at the end of June 2021 and the results compiled.
The survey included questions about the use of OAD and 3-in-2 milking systems including time in the year the practices are employed, how long they have been in use on the farm, information needed and desired on the practices, and benefits/impacts realized from adopting the practices.
As with past surveys, we partnered with the major regional milk buyers and certifiers to identify the mailing list of recipients and for communication support with their membership about participating in the survey. The final survey can be found at Alternative Milking Strategies Survey.
A goal of twelve farms currently utilizing or transitioning to OAD or 3-in-2 milking strategies were approached to participate in benchmarking and monitoring (DHI testing and benchmarking program) as well as financial analyses (Dairy TRANS Financial Analysis software, Iowa State University) to help develop comparisons to establish commonalities and address challenges and considerations of these alternative systems.
In the DHI testing program, farmers gain access to monthly milk testing services in which milk yield, components, quality (SCC, MUN), and reproductive performance (calving interval) data are collected for each cow currently milking that month. This provides the farmer with a very detailed snapshot of their herd and can provide insight into breeding, culling, and milk withholding decisions which can significantly impact herd success and economic return both in the short and long term, especially under alternative milking schedules.
The cost of production data will be collected with Dairy TRANS software developed by Larry Tranel at Iowa State University and has been used by the UVM project team since 2018. Currently Dairy TRANS software is being used to collect cost of production data from over 30 grass-fed organic dairy farms. This data is being used to create a financial benchmark by which other grass-fed organic dairy farms can compare. Although our data set will be relatively small from this project it will allow us to develop an initial financial benchmark for farms using alternative milking frequencies. Once the data is collected, the farmer will immediately have access to a simple report outlining their farms income, expenses, and cost of production metrics and will compare that to current benchmarks for their respective production system (i.e. organic, grass-fed). Each year, data will be anonymously compiled and analyzed via descriptive statistics and correlations.
Farms have enrolled in our production benchmarking and DHI testing programs. These farms complete a monthly survey detailing their farm management and production and receive individual cow production and quality data through the DHI test. Each month they receive a report summarizing their farm’s data and as more data become available additional reports will be created and distributed. Finally, financial data on 11 farms were collected and compiled in 2021. At the time the data were collected, the participating farms received a summary of their data which included their overall cost of production and farm financial health metrics. The data are currently being analyzed and summarized. Results will be shared with the participating farmers and posted to our website and shared through various outreach methods.
Also, during this reporting period, a webinar focused on alternative milking strategies was held on 9-Mar 2021. The webinar included a dairy scientist from New Zealand who discussed current research on the impacts of altering milking frequencies, as well as two local farmers who discussed their experiences with alternative strategies. The webinar was recorded and is posted on our website along with a copy of the slides used during the presentation.
2022 Report
Survey data was summarized in a farmer friendly article that was distributed to the survey recipients, to farmer publications, and on our website. Results have been highlighted in webinar hosted through our UVM Extension Northwest Crops Team.
Farms continued to complete a monthly survey detailing their farm management and production and receive individual cow production and quality data through the DHI test. Each month (until August of 2022) they receive a report summarizing their farm’s data and as more data become available additional reports will be created and distributed. Finally, financial data on 11 farms were collected and compiled in 2022. At the time the data were collected, the participating farms received a summary of their data which included their overall cost of production and farm financial health metrics. The data have been summarized and shared with participants and the dairy community.
Results have been summarized into a Bulletin and shared with participating farmers and posted to our website (https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Northwest-Crops-and-Soils-Program/Articles_and_Factsheets/UVM-Extension-AltMilkStrategiesCOP_FINAL.pdf) and shared through a webinar.
Also during the report period 3 alternative milking strategy case studies were created through data collection and interviews with local farms.
Survey of Farms Utilizing Alternative Milking Strategies
Of the respondents, 62.6% indicated that they operated a certified organic operation while 34.4% were certified grass-fed. The remaining 3% of respondents were managing their operation under one of those production systems but not certified and 0.8% managed conventionally. The average herd size was 55 mature cows with 42.5% managing Holsteins, 33.1% Crossbreeds, and 19.7% Jerseys. Annual milk production averaged 12,849 lbs per cow but ranged from 4,400 to 27,375 lbs. The majority (60.4%) of farms milk in a tie stall while 38.1% milk in a parlor and 1.5% milk with a robot.
Of the total respondents, 17.2% indicated they have tried or are currently using an alternative strategy. Of these, 69.6% have tried or are using once-a-day milking, 56.5% seasonal production, and 13.0% milking three times in two days. An additional 8.7% utilize robotic milking and 4.34% milk 13 times each week. It is important to note that farms could have tried or be utilizing multiple strategies. The average duration farms employed once-a-day milking was 44 months or 3.7 years while the average duration for seasonal production was 107 months or 8.9 years. We would expect the duration of once-a-day milking to be shorter as these responses include both the duration for farms that are currently using the practice but also the duration of trialing the practice; one cannot as simply try seasonal production over a short period of time as is possible with altering milking frequency. Interestingly, farms who have tried or are milking three times in two days have done so for an average of 15 months indicating that this practice is relatively new and rare in the northeast compared to the other strategies.
The most common impacts observed by respondents who have tried or are currently using an alternative strategy included decreased milk production (69.6%), improved body condition (43.5%), increased reproductive performance (43.5%), and increased somatic cell count (34.8%). The estimated decrease in milk production averaged approximately 25% but ranged from no change up to 50%, indicating that some herds were better suited to the alternative strategy employed. Similarly, farms indicated that increases in somatic cell counts ranged from approximately 15% to more than 300%. Managing somatic cell count and mastitis were the challenges cited the most by farms who tried or are milking once-a-day. The most common challenge cited among farms who tried or are milking three times in two days was managing the variation in the daily schedule including milking late at night. The most common challenge cited among farms who tried or are producing milk seasonally was getting the herd bred within the narrow window necessary and having to cull otherwise high-producing cows who do not fit this reproduction schedule. Despite these challenges, the most common benefits of interest to farms who tried or are using an alternative strategy were increased flexibility in daily task timing (73.9%) and decreased facilities wear and tear (43.5%).
Of the total respondents, 20.1% indicated that they were interested in but have not yet adopted an alternative strategy. For this group, the most common benefits of interest were flexibility in daily task timing (77.8%), ability to participate in other income generating ventures on or off the farm (59.3%), decreased facilities wear and tear (40.7%), and increasing job attractiveness to potential employees (40.7%). The most common concerns cited among these farms were economics due to lower milk production (74.1%), managing milk quality (48.1%), and maintaining cow health (40.7%). Interestingly, 84.0% of farms interested in adopting an alternative strategy indicated that they would adopt one of these strategies if they could overcome these challenges.
Of the total respondents, 62.7% indicated that they were unsure or not interested in adopting an alternative strategy. For these farms the most common concerns were uncertainty in the economic viability (64.3%), maintaining milk quality (38.1%), and uncertainty about the herd being a good fit for the strategy (31.0%). In addition, 22.6% of farms indicated that they do not understand the potential benefits of these systems and 15.5% indicated that they do not understand the strategies themselves. When asked if they would adopt an alternative strategy if their challenges were overcome, 42.5% still indicated they would not while 42.5% remained unsure. Interestingly, 15.1% of these farms indicated that they would adopt an alternative strategy if they could overcome these challenges.
These data suggest that northeast dairy producers are interested in adopting alternative milking strategies but require assistance in overcoming common barriers including farm economics, milk quality, and herd health/adaptation to the system. These data also suggest that there are opportunities for education and outreach around what these alternative strategies entail, their potential costs, benefits, and considerations.
Survey data was summarized in a Farmer Friendly Article that was distributed to the survey recipients, to farmer publications, and on our website (https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Northwest-Crops-and-Soils-Program/Articles_and_Factsheets/UVM-Extension-AltMilkStrategies_FINAL.pdf).
Results have been highlighted in webinar hosted through our UVM Extension Northwest Crops Team.
Blog post on Dec 2022 webinar
Dec 2022 Alternative Milking Strategies webinar
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgAirEXOa0g&ab_channel=UVMExt_NWCrop%26Soils
Benchmarking, Cost of Production, and DHIA
There are a variety of alternative milking strategies being employed by farms in the cost of production study. Not every farm is using the same strategy so difficult to compare data. The farms have been divided by type of milking strategy and seasonality. The preliminary data is below and a second year of data collection will help to build more information on costs for operating under these different types of management.
| 2019-2020 | Seasonal milking 2x/day | Seasonal, alternative milking frequency | Year-round, alternative milking frequency | Seasonal (all milking frequencies) | Alternative milking frequency (all seasonalities) | Overall | Year-round 2x/day | ||||||||||||||
| Average (n = 10) | Minimum | Maximum | Average (n = 6) | Minimum | Maximum | Average (n = 4) | Minimum | Maximum | Average (n = 16) | Minimum | Maximum | Average (n = 10) | Minimum | Maximum | Average (n = 20) | Minimum | Maximum | Average (n = 23) | Minimum | Maximum | |
| Farm Information | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Herd Size | 76 | 23 | 220 | 58 | 42 | 88 | 60 | 44 | 70 | 69 | 23 | 220 | 59 | 42 | 88 | 67 | 23 | 220 | 59 | 33 | 106 |
| Acres | 281 | 97 | 699 | 465 | 285 | 850 | 373 | 210 | 475 | 350 | 97 | 850 | 428 | 210 | 850 | 354 | 97 | 850 | 342 | 69 | 793 |
| Acres per cow | 4.54 | 2.02 | 11.7 | 7.61 | 6.25 | 10.3 | 6.14 | 4.77 | 7.79 | 5.69 | 2.02 | 11.65 | 7.02 | 4.77 | 10.30 | 5.78 | 2.02 | 11.65 | 5.56 | 1.71 | 10.34 |
| Fertilizer & seed expenses ($/cow) | $151 | $0 | $640 | $65 | $0 | $166 | $183 | $0 | $366 | $119 | $0 | $640 | $112 | $0 | $366 | $132 | $0 | $640 | $131 | $0 | $538 |
| Fertilizer & seed expenses ($/acre) | $39 | $0 | $201 | $8 | $0 | $16 | $30 | $0 | $63 | $27 | $0 | $201 | $17 | $0 | $63 | $28 | $0 | $201 | $29 | $0 | $120 |
| Purchased forage expenses ($/cow) | $370 | $0 | $1,288 | $186 | $0 | $458 | $408 | $0 | $1,037 | $301 | $0 | $1,288 | $275 | $0 | $1,037 | $323 | $0 | $1,288 | $308 | $0 | $1,064 |
| Purchased forage expenses ($/acre) | $147 | $0 | $637 | $27 | $0 | $73 | $63 | $0 | $133 | $102 | $0 | $637 | $41 | $0 | $133 | $94 | $0 | $637 | $111 | $0 | $509 |
| Milk Information | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Total milk sold (lbs/year) | 653514 | 149180 | 1919543 | 374511 | 188362 | 580000 | 449895 | 372047 | 608161 | 548888 | 149180 | 1919543 | 404665 | 188362 | 608161 | 529089 | 149180 | 1919543 | 533058 | 256257 | 1148174 |
| Total milk sold (CWTs) | 6535 | 1492 | 19195 | 3745 | 1884 | 5800 | 4499 | 3720 | 6082 | 5489 | 1492 | 19195 | 4047 | 1884 | 6082 | 5291 | 1492 | 19195 | 5331 | 2563 | 11482 |
| Total milk sold (CWT eq.) | 7507 | 1703 | 21710 | 4499 | 2542 | 7195 | 5124 | 4258 | 5756 | 6379 | 1703 | 21710 | 4749 | 2542 | 7195 | 6128 | 1703 | 21710 | 6219 | 2917 | 13244 |
| Milk per cow (lbs/cow) | 8923 | 5906 | 14990 | 6546 | 4485 | 10007 | 7678 | 5724 | 9970 | 8031 | 4485 | 14990 | 6999 | 4485 | 10007 | 7961 | 4485 | 14990 | 9083 | 6457 | 12970 |
| Milk per acre (lbs/acre) | 2604 | 557 | 5119 | 906 | 505 | 1534 | 1282 | 921 | 1869 | 1967 | 505 | 5119 | 1057 | 505 | 1869 | 1830 | 505 | 5119 | 2264 | 653 | 5534 |
| Fat per cow (lbs/cow) | 400 | 291 | 639 | 334 | 201 | 559 | 323 | 240 | 423 | 376 | 201 | 639 | 330 | 201 | 559 | 365 | 201 | 639 | 378 | 263 | 519 |
| Fat per acre (lbs/acre) | 116 | 26 | 208 | 47 | 25 | 86 | 54 | 39 | 78 | 90 | 25 | 208 | 50 | 25 | 86 | 83 | 25 | 208 | 96 | 26 | 248 |
| Labor efficiency | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Full Time Equivalents (FTEs)§ | 2.15 | 1.18 | 3.33 | 1.56 | 1.46 | 1.67 | 2.08 | 1.43 | 3.23 | 1.93 | 1.18 | 3.33 | 1.77 | 1.43 | 3.23 | 1.96 | 1.18 | 3.33 | 2.71 | 1.58 | 5.48 |
| Cows per FTE | 34 | 10 | 66 | 37 | 27 | 56 | 31 | 19 | 38 | 35 | 10 | 66 | 35 | 19 | 56 | 34 | 10 | 66 | 23 | 15 | 39 |
| Milk Sold per FTE (CWT eq.†) | 3435 | 719 | 6520 | 2860 | 1741 | 4620 | 2623 | 1781 | 3012 | 3220 | 719 | 6520 | 2765 | 1741 | 4620 | 3100 | 719 | 6520 | 2480 | 1061 | 5609 |
| Return to labor | $46,845 | -$53,518 | $99,589 | $24,711 | -$25,180 | $69,658 | -$36,846 | -$87,344 | $24,604 | $38,545 | -$53,518 | $99,589 | $88 | -$87,344 | $69,658 | $23,467 | -$87,344 | $99,589 | $34,065 | -$42,663 | $138,738 |
| Labor earnings per hour | $10.44 | -$10.57 | $34.89 | $8.31 | $2.91 | $16.05 | $2.59 | -$13.55 | $23.04 | $9.73 | -$10.57 | $34.89 | $5.77 | -$13.55 | $23.04 | $8.22 | -$13.55 | $34.89 | $4.37 | -$4.61 | $15.39 |
| Unpaid labor (cost) | $53,000 | $40,000 | $80,000 | $46,667 | $40,000 | $60,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 | $40,000 | $50,625 | $40,000 | $80,000 | $44,000 | $40,000 | $60,000 | $48,500 | $40,000 | $80,000 | $45,217 | $40,000 | $80,000 |
| Unpaid labor (hours) | 5609 | 2800 | 7300 | 4691 | 4380 | 5020 | 4881 | 2636 | 5928 | 5264 | 2800 | 7300 | 4767 | 2636 | 5928 | 5188 | 2636 | 7300 | 7286 | 3650 | 16450 |
| Farm Income | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Milk price ($/CWT) | $38.11 | $35.41 | $40.60 | $40.20 | $31.68 | $46.18 | $40.66 | $36.97 | $45.64 | $38.90 | $31.68 | $46.18 | $40.39 | $31.68 | $46.18 | $39.25 | $31.68 | $46.18 | $38.13 | $29.13 | $45.58 |
| Gross Milk Income | $248,578 | $54,336 | $729,570 | $154,093 | $68,817 | $222,380 | $181,950 | $157,595 | $242,588 | $213,146 | $54,336 | $729,570 | $165,236 | $68,817 | $242,588 | $206,907 | $54,336 | $729,570 | $199,406 | $115,604 | $431,097 |
| Gross Cull, Calf, & Livestock Sales | $16,868 | $1,536 | $67,060 | $10,280 | $1,688 | $18,400 | $3,175 | $0 | $7,600 | $14,398 | $1,536 | $67,060 | $7,438 | $0 | $18,400 | $12,153 | $0 | $67,060 | $6,098 | $0 | $20,264 |
| Gross Crop Sales | $764 | $0 | $5,200 | $267 | $0 | $1,000 | $465 | $0 | $1,400 | $577 | $0 | $5,200 | $346 | $0 | $1,400 | $555 | $0 | $5,200 | $2,371 | $0 | $31,842 |
| Other Income* | $11,163 | $2,090 | $24,630 | $17,101 | $0 | $65,500 | $32,393 | $18,765 | $57,464 | $13,390 | $0 | $65,500 | $23,218 | $0 | $65,500 | $17,190 | $0 | $65,500 | $21,010 | $0 | $79,245 |
| Total Gross Income | $277,373 | $75,036 | $799,881 | $181,741 | $85,875 | $270,508 | $217,983 | $184,173 | $275,506 | $241,511 | $75,036 | $799,881 | $196,238 | $85,875 | $275,506 | $236,805 | $75,036 | $799,881 | $228,885 | $129,305 | $452,326 |
| Farm Expenses ($/CWT eq.)† | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Bedding | $1.08 | $0.00 | $2.35 | $1.33 | $0.00 | $6.07 | $0.52 | $0.45 | $0.59 | $1.17 | $0.00 | $6.07 | $1.00 | $0.00 | $6.07 | $1.04 | $0.00 | $6.07 | $1.13 | $0.00 | $4.06 |
| Breeding Fees | $0.08 | $0.00 | $0.29 | $0.41 | $0.00 | $1.36 | $0.57 | $0.40 | $0.73 | $0.21 | $0.00 | $1.36 | $0.48 | $0.00 | $1.36 | $0.28 | $0.00 | $1.36 | $0.18 | $0.00 | $0.58 |
| Custom Hire | $1.36 | $0.00 | $3.84 | $1.30 | $0.00 | $3.41 | $1.10 | $0.00 | $4.41 | $1.34 | $0.00 | $3.84 | $1.22 | $0.00 | $4.41 | $1.29 | $0.00 | $4.41 | $0.70 | $0.00 | $5.44 |
| Machine Rentals | $0.51 | $0.00 | $4.83 | $0.13 | $0.00 | $0.27 | $0.05 | $0.00 | $0.20 | $0.37 | $0.00 | $4.83 | $0.10 | $0.00 | $0.27 | $0.31 | $0.00 | $4.83 | $0.59 | $0.00 | $3.40 |
| Land Rentals | $1.41 | $0.00 | $6.13 | $0.87 | $0.00 | $1.78 | $0.51 | $0.00 | $1.36 | $1.21 | $0.00 | $6.13 | $0.73 | $0.00 | $1.78 | $1.07 | $0.00 | $6.13 | $1.66 | $0.00 | $7.32 |
| Supplies | $1.85 | $0.58 | $5.87 | $4.18 | $2.29 | $8.57 | $4.89 | $2.14 | $10.95 | $2.72 | $0.58 | $8.57 | $4.46 | $2.14 | $10.95 | $3.16 | $0.58 | $10.95 | $2.29 | $0.53 | $4.39 |
| Farm Insurance | $0.53 | $0.00 | $3.87 | $0.92 | $0.45 | $1.44 | $1.62 | $0.60 | $2.58 | $0.68 | $0.00 | $3.87 | $1.20 | $0.45 | $2.58 | $0.87 | $0.00 | $3.87 | $0.90 | $0.00 | $3.55 |
| Fuel, Gas and Oil | $1.91 | $0.79 | $8.76 | $1.52 | $0.76 | $2.44 | $1.33 | $0.89 | $1.99 | $1.76 | $0.76 | $8.76 | $1.44 | $0.76 | $2.44 | $1.68 | $0.76 | $8.76 | $1.51 | $0.68 | $3.04 |
| Hired Labor | $1.79 | $0.00 | $10.63 | $0.20 | $0.00 | $0.50 | $3.53 | $0.23 | $7.86 | $1.20 | $0.00 | $10.63 | $1.54 | $0.00 | $7.86 | $1.66 | $0.00 | $10.63 | $2.52 | $0.00 | $7.29 |
| Property Taxes | $1.14 | $0.00 | $4.48 | $1.46 | $0.70 | $2.32 | $1.75 | $0.68 | $2.68 | $1.26 | $0.00 | $4.48 | $1.58 | $0.68 | $2.68 | $1.36 | $0.00 | $4.48 | $1.10 | $0.00 | $3.17 |
| Purchased Forages | $3.39 | $0.00 | $11.41 | $2.12 | $0.00 | $5.33 | $4.44 | $0.00 | $10.99 | $2.91 | $0.00 | $11.41 | $3.05 | $0.00 | $10.99 | $3.22 | $0.00 | $11.41 | $2.93 | $0.00 | $9.27 |
| Minerals | $0.53 | $0.00 | $1.37 | $0.63 | $0.00 | $0.95 | $0.83 | $0.53 | $1.13 | $0.57 | $0.00 | $1.37 | $0.71 | $0.00 | $1.13 | $0.62 | $0.00 | $1.37 | $0.51 | $0.00 | $1.37 |
| Energy Supplements | $0.59 | $0.00 | $3.72 | $1.02 | $0.00 | $2.36 | $3.00 | $0.37 | $4.82 | $0.75 | $0.00 | $3.72 | $1.81 | $0.00 | $4.82 | $1.20 | $0.00 | $4.82 | $0.29 | $0.00 | $3.94 |
| Repairs | $2.53 | $0.86 | $5.98 | $4.04 | $2.50 | $7.81 | $5.49 | $1.70 | $10.31 | $3.09 | $0.86 | $7.81 | $4.62 | $1.70 | $10.31 | $3.57 | $0.86 | $10.31 | $2.64 | $0.00 | $7.13 |
| Seed & Fertilizer | $1.73 | $0.00 | $6.48 | $0.92 | $0.00 | $2.61 | $2.34 | $0.00 | $5.14 | $1.42 | $0.00 | $6.48 | $1.49 | $0.00 | $5.14 | $1.61 | $0.00 | $6.48 | $1.22 | $0.00 | $4.02 |
| Utilities | $0.49 | $0.00 | $1.69 | $1.12 | $0.24 | $2.17 | $1.32 | $0.05 | $2.92 | $0.72 | $0.00 | $2.17 | $1.20 | $0.05 | $2.92 | $0.84 | $0.00 | $2.92 | $1.05 | $0.00 | $2.54 |
| Veterinary & Medicine | $0.31 | $0.04 | $0.99 | $0.55 | $0.11 | $1.34 | $0.57 | $0.25 | $1.01 | $0.40 | $0.04 | $1.34 | $0.56 | $0.11 | $1.34 | $0.43 | $0.04 | $1.34 | $0.31 | $0.01 | $1.75 |
| Stop & Hauling | $0.77 | $0.00 | $1.48 | $1.32 | $0.53 | $2.30 | $1.15 | $0.90 | $1.48 | $0.98 | $0.00 | $2.30 | $1.25 | $0.53 | $2.30 | $1.01 | $0.00 | $2.30 | $1.37 | $0.33 | $3.21 |
| Other** | $1.43 | $0.57 | $2.82 | $2.70 | $1.28 | $4.36 | $1.25 | $0.72 | $1.94 | $1.91 | $0.57 | $4.36 | $2.12 | $0.72 | $4.36 | $1.78 | $0.57 | $4.36 | $1.68 | $0.39 | $9.51 |
| Total Cash Expense ($/CWTeq.) | $24.31 | $16.68 | $43.32 | $26.74 | $18.85 | $30.83 | $36.28 | $20.90 | $49.47 | $25.22 | $16.68 | $43.32 | $30.56 | $18.85 | $49.47 | $27.43 | $16.68 | $49.47 | $25.31 | $11.69 | $39.03 |
| Total Cash Expense ($/cow) | $2,416 | $1,273 | $4,143 | $2,100 | $1,550 | $3,312 | $3,129 | $2,023 | $4,668 | $2,298 | $1,273 | $4,143 | $2,512 | $1,550 | $4,668 | $2,464 | $1,273 | $4,668 | $2,609 | $1,130 | $4,024 |
| Total Cash Expense ($/farm) | $194,109 | $47,106 | $683,956 | $115,222 | $78,361 | $152,350 | $191,411 | $89,019 | $284,752 | $164,526 | $47,106 | $683,956 | $145,697 | $78,361 | $284,752 | $169,903 | $47,106 | $683,956 | $149,851 | $67,989 | $322,518 |
| Net | |||||||||||||||||||||
| Net Cash Income¥ | $83,264 | $1,257 | $150,215 | $66,519 | $7,514 | $139,761 | $26,572 | -$9,246 | $95,960 | $76,985 | $1,257 | $150,215 | $50,540 | -$9,246 | $139,761 | $66,902 | -$9,246 | $150,215 | $79,034 | $15,470 | $189,943 |
| Inventory change‡ | -$2,793 | -$29,813 | $67,745 | -$10,435 | -$31,457 | $5,596 | -$23,992 | -$47,285 | $4,601 | -$5,659 | -$31,457 | $67,745 | -$15,858 | -$47,285 | $5,596 | -$9,325 | -$47,285 | $67,745 | -$9,616 | -$86,893 | $92,053 |
| Net farm income from operations (NFIFO)€ | $80,471 | -$25,957 | $183,670 | $56,084 | $2,112 | $108,305 | $2,580 | -$56,531 | $62,074 | $71,326 | -$25,957 | $183,670 | $34,682 | -$56,531 | $108,305 | $57,577 | -$56,531 | $183,670 | $69,418 | -$7,747 | $185,177 |
| 4% Equity | $33,626 | $12,159 | $101,616 | $31,373 | $27,293 | $38,815 | $39,426 | $30,813 | $44,736 | $32,781 | $12,159 | $101,616 | $34,594 | $27,293 | $44,736 | $34,110 | $12,159 | $101,616 | $35,353 | $10,407 | $102,760 |
| Rate of Return on Assets (ROA) | 3.72% | -9.57% | 19.04% | 0.85% | -5.55% | 5.00% | -4.23% | -12.53% | 2.36% | 2.65% | -9.57% | 19.04% | -1.18% | -12.53% | 5.00% | 1.27% | -12.53% | 19.04% | 3.72% | -12.52% | 32.07% |
| Operating Profit Margin (OPM) | -2.13% | -106.32% | 29.21% | -2.83% | -41.03% | 19.95% | -17.00% | -42.05% | 12.91% | -2.39% | -106.32% | 29.21% | -8.50% | -42.05% | 19.95% | -5.31% | -106.32% | 29.21% | 4.98% | -64.06% | 42.55% |
| Asset Turnover Ratio (ATR) | 40.59% | 9.00% | 71.58% | 23.08% | 13.05% | 31.33% | 21.75% | 16.49% | 29.80% | 34.02% | 9.00% | 71.58% | 22.55% | 13.05% | 31.33% | 31.57% | 9.00% | 71.58% | 36.55% | 9.65% | 116.82% |
| Time period (years) | 3.4 | 1.4 | 11.1 | 4.9 | 3.2 | 7.7 | 4.8 | 3.4 | 6.1 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 11.1 | 4.9 | 3.2 | 7.7 | 4.1 | 1.4 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 0.9 | 10.4 |
| DairyTrans Total Expense per CWTeq. | $44.08 | $30.44 | $91.33 | $47.84 | $39.89 | $58.31 | $55.08 | $43.77 | $62.01 | $45.49 | $30.44 | $91.33 | $50.74 | $39.89 | $62.01 | $47.41 | $30.44 | $91.33 | $42.12 | $25.51 | $67.46 |
Results have been summarized into a Bulletin and shared with participating farmers and posted to our website (https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Northwest-Crops-and-Soils-Program/Articles_and_Factsheets/UVM-Extension-AltMilkStrategiesCOP_FINAL.pdf) and shared through a webinar.
Webinar: Cost of Production on Farms Using Alternative Milking Strategies
Three farms involved with the benchmarking program collaborated on the development of case studies to share production information with other farmers. These case studies were created through farmer interviews and summary of benchmark data collected from each farm.
Case studies have been posted on our website and include an example of 3 alternative milking strategies.
A Case Study with Severy Farm on Milking a Grass-fed Dairy Herd 10-in-7 (PDF)
A Case Study with Swallowdale Farm on Milking a Grass-fed Dairy Herd 3-in-2 (PDF)
A Case Study with Whispering Grass Dairy on Milking a Grass-fed Dairy Herd Once-A-Day (PDF)
100% of respondents said they gained valuable information from participating in the project and found the data summaries they received interesting.
63% said they used the information they gained through the project to make management decisions on their farms.
50% said they experienced increased economic viability as a result of participating
38% said they experienced increased milk quality as a result of participating
13% said they experienced increased milk production as a result of participating
13% said they experienced increased herd reproductive performance as a result of participating.
Here are some impact statements from those too:
We are aware of our production cost now. Better grazing and feeding management than tracking feed analysis and pasture performance. I was surprised at how differently the pastures are in content and cow performance. Watching MUN, PI, and SCC has helped us capture quality premiums and made better culling choices. It’s been a good experience.
We could see how we compare to other farms and the data helped us determine which cows to cull. We gained access to information we otherwise could not afford.
Comparative information month to month and year to year on our farm.
The programs have been relevant in putting light to what is happening on our grass-fed dairy farms.
Education & Outreach Activities and Participation Summary
Participation Summary:
Our project will combine a variety of educational strategies, fostering learning, adoption, and positive change on farms interested in altering milking strategies. We expect to reach at least 300 stakeholders through our outreach efforts.
Report 2020
A Program Announcement was created and posted to the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Association (NODPA) ODairy forum (510 subscribers) and Vermont Agriview agricultural newspaper (over 1000 recipients).
Our project team met in December 2020 to discuss outreach options for the winter of 2021. Given a need to deliver information virtually we have decided to plan at least 1 webinar focused on alternative milking strategies.
Report 2021
Twelve farms currently utilizing or transitioning to OAD or 3-in-2 milking strategies are participating in on-farm data collection and monitoring (DHI testing and benchmarking program) as well as financial analyses (Dairy TRANS Financial Analysis software, Iowa State University) and comparisons to establish commonalities and address challenges and considerations of these alternative systems. This combined data (as well as general survey data) will be used in 2022 and 2023 to develop the outreach materials and highlighted at the events described below.
Due to the pandemic our in-person field days, workshops, and conference have not been held. We are hopeful that we will be to hold field days in the summer/fall of 2022. Farmers involved in the benchmarking program will host field days and also participate in a conference farmer panel.
As part of an organic dairy webinar series, a focus on alternative milking strategies was included on 9-Mar 2021. A dairy scientist from New Zealand and two farmers from Vermont discussed research and personal experience altering milking frequencies and milk production seasonality. A recording of the webinar can be found at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWY_k6Vgzr8&ab_channel=UVMExt_NWCrop%26Soils and a copy of the presentation shared during that webinar at https://www.uvm.edu/sites/default/files/Northwest-Crops-and-Soils-Program/2021%20Events/Online%20Dairy%20Series/PaulEdwards_March9.pdf
The webinar focused on alternative milking strategies had 111 attendees. The entire webinar series advertisement can be found at 2021 Online Dairy Series Flyer.
In the June-July 2021 edition of Graze Magazine, an article summarizing the webinar and this research project was published. Digital copies of this edition can be purchased at https://www.grazeonline.com/digital-back-issues.
An on-farm field day was hosted at the Severy Farm in Cornwall, VT on 28-September 2022. The Severy Farm is grass-fed and has also adopted a 10-in-7 alternative milking schedule. The field day highlighted their grass-fed strategies and benefits and challenges to the alternative milking schedule. There were 48 attendees.
Case studies were developed to highlight farms that have tried or adopted alternative milking schedules. These have been posted online and shared during outreach events.
A Case Study with Severy Farm on Milking a Grass-fed Dairy Herd 10-in-7 (PDF)
A Case Study with Swallowdale Farm on Milking a Grass-fed Dairy Herd 3-in-2 (PDF)
A Case Study with Whispering Grass Dairy on Milking a Grass-fed Dairy Herd Once-A-Day (PDF)
Blog post on Dec 2022 webinar
Dec 2022 Alternative Milking Strategies webinar was hosted to deliver information on alternative milking strategies. There were 55 attendees.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgAirEXOa0g&ab_channel=UVMExt_NWCrop%26Soils
Factsheet: Alternative Milking Strategies Survey Summary was completed and posted online as well as provided to survey participants.
Factsheet: Cost of Production on Farms Using Alternative Milking Strategies was completed and posted online as well as provided to farmer participants.
Learning Outcomes
Farmers involved and cooperating on the cost of production and benchmarking aspects of this project were surveyed in August to better understand the impact on their farm.
100% of respondents said they gained valuable information from participating in the project and found the data summaries they received interesting.
63% said they used the information they gained through the project to make management decisions on their farms.
50% said they experienced increased economic viability as a result of participating
38% said they experienced increased milk quality as a result of participating
13% said they experienced increased milk production as a result of participating
13% said they experienced increased herd reproductive performance as a result of participating.
Impact statements:
We are aware of our production cost now. Better grazing and feeding management than tracking feed analysis and pasture performance. I was surprised at how differently the pastures are in content and cow performance. Watching MUN, PI, and SCC has helped us capture quality premiums and made better culling choices. It’s been a good experience.
We could see how we compare to other farms and the data helped us determine which cows to cull. We gained access to information we otherwise could not afford.
Comparative information month to month and year to year on our farm.
The programs have been relevant in putting light to what is happening on our grass-fed dairy farms and has helped our farm increase profitability by reducing unnecessary costs.
Project Outcomes
Farmers participating in the benchmarking program were able to receive DHIA services allowing them to track cow productivity. In addition, these farms were able to take advantage of cost of production tracking and analysis. From this information farmers were able to make better management decisions leading to some improving profitability as a result of improving milk quality, production, and decreasing costs. Analyzing cow performance also allowed farmers to be able to cull cows that were dragging down the herd and profitability.
50% said they experienced increased economic viability as a result of participating
38% said they experienced increased milk quality as a result of participating
13% said they experienced increased milk production as a result of participating
13% said they experienced increased herd reproductive performance as a result of participating.
We are aware of our production cost now. Better grazing and feeding management than tracking feed analysis and pasture performance. I was surprised at how differently the pastures are in content and cow performance. Watching MUN, PI, and SCC has helped us capture quality premiums and made better culling choices. It’s been a good experience.
We could see how we compare to other farms and the data helped us determine which cows to cull. We gained access to information we otherwise could not afford.
Overall this was a successful project although it came in during the height of the pandemic. It was difficult to complete all of the in-person outreach but we adapted with virtual offerings. We learned how to collect cost of production data efficiently/effectively via phone and email. This has helped us streamline our process. The biggest issue was a small sample size and really lack of farms in the region that have adopted alternative milking strategies. This was an excellent start to creating information on these types of practices but more farms over a longer period of time would be helpful in building a stronger dataset.