Management characteristics of Pennsylvania dairy farms

26Citations
Citations of this article
52Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Objective: Our objective was to characterize dairy farming strategies in Pennsylvania to provide baseline data for modeling and assessing economic and environmental impacts of the industry. Material and Methods: The USDA's Agricultural Resource Management Survey (ARMS) data were used to characterize management practices for 5 dairy farm strategies and 4 herd size categories. Production strategies were confinement, semi-confinement, organic, management intensive rotational grazing, and Amish (use of draft animals with no use of electricity or mobile, powered equipment). Results and Discussion: Cattle breed and homegrown and purchased feed type and quantity differed significantly among the 5 strategies, whereas housing and manure management varied with herd size. Solid manure handling was used on 41% of farms, consistent with small herd sizes and wide use of tiestall housing (34% of farms). Confinement dairy farms maintained more cows with greater milk production per cow and had more crop area per cow with less reliance on purchased feeds than the weighted average dairy farm. These farms received the lowest net return per unit of milk, which is consistent with a reduction in the number of small confinement farms from the year 2000 to 2010. Although organic dairy producers had 37% greater variable costs, primarily from the high cost of organic feeds, these farms received the greatest return per unit of milk sold through a 51% greater milk price received. Implications and Applications: Management practices found on Pennsylvania dairy farms around the year 2010 are documented to support further assessment of production practices and sustainability of the industry.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Holly, M. A., Gunn, K. M., Rotz, C. A., & Kleinman, P. J. A. (2019). Management characteristics of Pennsylvania dairy farms. Applied Animal Science, 35(3), 325–338. https://doi.org/10.15232/aas.2018-01833

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free