IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/cudarb/121582.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Dairy Farm Management Business Summary New York State 2005

Author

Listed:
  • Knoblauch, Wayne A.
  • Putnam, Linda D.
  • Karszes, Jason

Abstract

Business and financial records for 2005 from 225 New York dairy farm businesses are summarized and analyzed. This analysis demonstrates the use of cash accounting with accrual adjustments to measure farm profitability, financial performance, and costs of producing milk. Traditional methods of analyzing dairy farm businesses are combined with evaluation techniques that show the relationship between good management performance and financial success. The farms in the project averaged 340 cows per farm and 22,998 pounds of milk sold per cow, which represent above average size and management level for New York dairy farms. Net farm income excluding appreciation, which is the return to the operator's labor, management, capital, and other unpaid family labor, averaged $187,446 per farm. The rate of return to all capital invested in the farm business including appreciation averaged 10.7 percent. Differences in profitability between farms continue to widen. Average net farm income excluding appreciation of the top 10 percent of farms was $838,892, while the lowest 10 percent was a negative $23,283. Rates of return on equity with appreciation ranged from 35 percent to negative 10 percent for the highest decile and the lowest decile of farms, respectively. Large freestall farms averaged the highest milk output per cow and per worker, the lowest total cost of production and investment per cow, and the greatest returns to labor, management and capital. Farms milking three times a day (3X) were larger, produced more milk per cow and had higher net farm incomes than herds milking two times per day (2X). Operating costs per hundredweight of milk were $0.28 per hundredweight higher for 3X than 2X milking herds, while output per cow was 3,787 pounds higher. In 2005, farms supplementing the herd with bovine somatotropin (bST) attained higher rates of milk production per cow, had larger herds and were more profitable than farms not supplementing with bST for all measures of profitability. Farms adopting rotational grazing generally produced less milk per cow than non-grazing farms but had lower costs of production and higher profitability. One should not conclude that adoption of these technologies alone were responsible for differences in performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Knoblauch, Wayne A. & Putnam, Linda D. & Karszes, Jason, 2006. "Dairy Farm Management Business Summary New York State 2005," Research Bulletins 121582, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:cudarb:121582
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.121582
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/121582/files/Cornell_Dyson_rb0606.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.121582?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Neyhard, James & Tauer, Loren & Gloy, Brent, 2013. "Analysis of Price Risk Management Strategies in Dairy Farming Using Whole-Farm Simulations," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 45(2), pages 1-15, May.
    2. Nicholson, Charles F. & Stephenson, Mark W., 2006. "Financial Performance and Other Characteristics of On-Farm Dairy Processing Enterprises in New York, Vermont and Wisconsin," Research Bulletins 121583, Cornell University, Department of Applied Economics and Management.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Livestock Production/Industries;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:cudarb:121582. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dacorus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.