’B4 AI Sire Summary (Continued from Page D 26)
The Predicted Differences (PD’s) for milk (PDM) and fat (PDF)
yields and fat percentage (PD%) are expressed relative to the
1982 genetic bases for those traits. Therefore, the PD’s from
the January 1984 Sire Summary run, especially those for milk
and fat yields, are of a different magnitude from those from
previous years. As a consequence of the genetic base changes
for yield traits, the PD’s for dollars (PDs's) from the January
1984 summary are considerably lower than those from previous
summaries. However, bulls rank the same as they would have if
Breed
Ayrshire
Guernsey
Holstein
Jersey
Brown Swiss
Milking Shorthorn---
Red and White
All breeds
1 Includes AI bulls not now active.
1 Prepared by W. E. Shainline, Jr., Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Beltsville, Maryland 20703.
Table 2.--Distnbution of PDM by breed for active AI bulls listed in the January 1984
Modified Contemporary Comparison
Brown Milking
Range of PDM Ayrshire Guernsey Holstein Jersey Swiss Shorthorn
+ 1,600 and above —
+ 1,400 to + 1,599
+ 1,200 to + 1,399-
+ 1,000 to +1,199
+BOO to +999
+ 600 to + 799
+4OO to +599
+ 200 to +399
oto + 199
-199 to -I—-
-399 to -200—
-599 to -400
-799 to -600
-999 to -800—-
-1,000 and below—
T otal—
Considerations for reducing
Editor’s Note: This article was
written by Jack J. Kirkland and
Blair J. Smith, Penn State Ex
tension dairy marketing
specialists.
UNIVERSITY PARK -
Dairymen who are considering
reducing milk production in order
to receive the |lO incentive
payments should consider the
following points in their decision
making process.
1) The decision should involve
your financial position not only
during the fifteen month tenure of
the diversion payment period but
your financial position after the
program is over and how your
decision during that period affects
your longer run financial position.
2) If you decide to reduce your
marketings to obtain the diversion
payment, there are several
strategies you might use to ac
complish this. The selection of a
strategy may have an impact on
your financial position in the
longer run. Total cash receipts
may be affected by the strategy
you selected. For example, if you
get rid of the milk by feeding it to
calves or to your milking cows, you
will have extra cash from the sale
of the calves or by having to buy
1984 Modified Contemporary Comparison
Number PDM PD% PDF PD;
-217
-240
-419
-306
-293
-15
-99
215
491
10,260
956
286
110
84
12,402
-391
Number of bulls
1 2
3 4
2 12
3 9
1 4
16 33 543 58 43 II
less feed for your cows. On the
other hand, if you cull cows to
reduce marketings, the cash
received from the sale of calves
will decrease.
3) If you decide to reduce
marketings to obtain the diversion
and then increase it at the end of
the 15 months, there will be an
effect on your financial position. If
you retain heifers to add to the
herd at the end of the 15 months,
there will possibly be a higher feed
cost during the 15-month period
due to feeding the extra heifers. If
you buy heifers or cows after the IS
month period, this will add to your
costs and possibly increase out
standing debt.
4) If you have a tight cash flow
need, you should remember if you
reduce marketings and obtain the
diversion payments that at the
very best you will receive the
payments quarterly. This may
cause problems in your cash flow
needs and should be considered.
5) For those dairymen under a
base plan (Federal Order 4), a
reduction in marketings may
cause you to lose some of your
base. This will decrease your
future cash receipts and your
decision should take account of
Table 1.--Average PDB2's for bulls summarized in January 1984
All bulls 1
-0.01
-.01
+ .01
+.02
+ .03
-.01
+ .02
-12
13
14
10
umber PDM PD% PDF PD!
33
543
58
43
11
-46 705 +507
this. There may be a way to reduce
marketings and keep your base,
but it would probably involve some
tightly controlled management
practices.
6) The timing of the culling of
cows will probably be controlled in
some way. This may have an effect
on your cash receipts and costs. If
you have to spread the sale of your
cull cows over a certain time
period, you may not get the full
savings in feed costs since the cull
cows will have to be fed until they
are sold.
7) If you have part of your milk
check going to some of your
creditors, or if some creditors hold
a lien on your cows, perhaps you
should check with them before
making a decision. A creditor may
not like to see the amount of money
he is receiving reduced, or the
cows serving as collateral on his
loan to you sold, so that you can
meet your reduced marketing
goals.
8) If you reduce the use of
feeding, either by culling cows or
by reducing feed per cow, you may
have extra feed on hand. However,
this doesn’t necessarily mean you
will be able to sell it. You may be
able to sell some of the hay and
the genetic bases had not been changed, and the percentile
rankings on PD$ are the same. Dairy producers are encouraged
to pay close attention to the percentile ranking of each bull to
help interpret the genetic superiority represented by the PO's
for yield traits relative to the 1982 genetic bases.
Table 1 reports the average PDB2’s for PDM, PD%, PDF, and
PDS for each breed and service group. Tables 2 and 3 show the
distribution of PDM and PDS for active Al bulls.
Active AI bulls
-0.02
-.06
-.01
-.03
.00
-.02
+ .05
+242
+469
+535
+453
+ 583
+4OB
+ 273
+l7 +62 8,664
Table 3.-Distribution of PD$ by breed for active AI bulls listed in the January 1984
Brown Milking
Range of PD$ Ayrshire Guernsey Holstein Jersey Swiss Shorthorn
219
199
179
+ 200 to
+lBO to
+l6O to
+ 140 to
+ 120 to
+ 100 to
+BO to
+6O to
159
139
119
+ 99
+ 79
+ 59
+ 39
+4O to
+2O to
+ 19
-1
-20
.40
0 to
-19 to
-39 to
-59 to
-60
-80
100
120
-79 to
-99 to
-119 to
-139 to
-140 and below—
T otal--
milk production
grain, but probably won’t be able
to sell the silage. This unsold
feedstuff should be counted as an
increase in inventory and not as a
cash saving. It may affect your
future operation in that you will be
able to change your feeding
program to feed more roughages
and less grain since you have
additional hay or silage on hand.
This may reduce your purchased
feed costs for the next year.
9) Above all, this decision should
Lancaster Farming, Saturday, February 4,1984—027
Number RDM PD% PDF PDI
149
326
7,169
709
164
80
67
Modified Contemporary Comparison
Number of bulls
2 5
3 5
1 12
2 5
4 3
5 1
1
r —>-I—l
I
(
THINKING OF
BUILDING?
9 READ LANCASTER FARMING'S !
i ADVERTISING TO FIND ALL I
| YOUR NEEDS! j
Non-AI bulls
-284
-329
-573
-411
-447
-44
-132
-0.02
-.01
+.02
+.03
+.03
-.01
+ .01
-535
543 58 43 11
not be taken lightly. There are
many implications from the
decision dairymen will make and
they should consider all of these.
The decision which any one
dairyman makes should be for
his/her individual situation. Do not
make a decision based on exam
ples, averages, or what you
neighbor does. Evaluate your own
position and alternatives and then
make a decision on what seems to
be best for you.
-63
-17
3
2
1