c «
Dixit L.BwrfetM'sbiTfWpDmltfMtt,
f v (MI-MMNII-TWrrhrtafcnmllna
• ' IMlry I Ur* li»ni»»«uM A—riillmi
OHIA SarrUt CmUt, Orchard Rm*. Umhnk; Fvt, PA IMtl
How Does Your Herd Compare?
STATE COLLEGE (Centre Co.) These data are calculated using
information pulled from Pennsylvania DHIA’s mainframe computer
each week. It is a one-week summary representing approximately one
fourth of the herds on test, as they are tested monthly.
These data are valuable from a business management standpoint and
can be used for comparing your operations to the averages from about
one-fourth of the herds across the state.
DHIA Averages for ail herds processed between 5/21/94 and 5/28/94
Number of Herds Processed
Number of Cows Processed
Number of Cows Per Herd
Milk Per Cow (Lbs)
%-Fal
Fat Per Cow (Lbs) >
%-Prolcin
Protein Per Cow (Lbs)
Average Days in Milk Per Cow
♦Value for CWT Milk(s)
♦Value for CWT Grain(s)
♦Value for CWT Hay(s)
♦Value for CWT Silage(s)
♦Value for Pasture Per Day(s)
♦Value for Milk Per Cow Per
Ycar(s)
FOR DOUBLE-CROP SOYBEANS THERE'S
ONLY ONE LEADER OF IHE PACK.
PURSUIT* herbicide is today’s
best tool for double-crop beans. It
not only delivers the highest .
degree of overall weed control,
it’s also the only postemergence
product that combines contact
and residual activity to give you
superior control of more than 40
tough-to-control grasses and
broadleaf weeds; Including velvet
leaf, foxtails, cocklebur, pig
weeds, nightshades, common
ragweed, giant ragweed, sun
flower, shattercane and seedling
Johnsongrass. Without causing
crop injury. And because of its
’ ~, '111». t 1 ijj'M 11 * 1 (‘ rjh,•
fj .1, iij ! P< i‘ 1 i 'if ‘ . 1 itiijl |y { r .if u||, ' 'fi 'ift’r i
; 'W i.j |( !i|! L i f ,i i « i*i, 1, •' , , i , ].mWv “iw i" \
1 i ■(' r t ' f‘ *’
i i Irii* VAr Ma
.i w * - ■■
"Vi siij'M
FOCUS
1,041
66,666
64.0
18,695
3.67
687
3.19
597
319
13.13
7.67
4.30
1.54
.29
Now Available in 10A Eco Pak’s
AgriCentwA Dealer Nearest Tfiott
jfci
I#!
"I .i'l 'lI 1 1
Information Call four ryan^tnld
iipp™ ■ i’''"'' l f ' ' , 1
Al
1 "\,S
I ~ \ I 'i! w
Average Farm Feed
Costs For Handy
Reference
To help farmers across the state
to have handy reference of com
modity input costs in their feeding
operations for DHIA record sheets
or to develop livestock feed cost
data, here’s this week’s average
costs of various ingredients as
compiled from regional reports
across the state of Pennsylvania.
Remember these are averages so
you will need to adjust your figures
up or down according to your loca-
2,455
Ha,' 1 "' i
■l 1 '
' i'
J r.i i ll ' ■
■ r ,.M
”,;f, ,r ■; f’ 1 .
♦Feed Consumed Per Cow Per
Ycar(Lbs)
A; Grain
B; Hay
C: Silage
D; Day Pasture
♦Feed Cost per Cow PCr Year(s)
A; Grain
B: Hay
C: Silage j
D: Pasture
♦Total Feed Cost Per Cow Per
Ycar(s)
♦lncome Over Feed Costs Per
Ycar(S)
♦Grain to Milk Ratio
♦Feed Cost Per CWT Milk{s)
Avg Level For 942 SCC Herds
♦Member >genc rated figures
advanced chemistry and low
rates of application, PURSUIT
offers a responsible choice for the
environment. That’s the kind
of leadership everyone can
respect. And reason enough to
try PURSUIT. See us soon.
AgriCenterA
J—l«r
NlmlMillHi • Service • Environ mantal HaapenaihiUty
Alwiyi tead and follow label direction eaiahlly.
"'Trademark, American Cyenandd CempanyC 1994
Uncwiwr Farming, Saturday, Juna it. 19»4*35
7,544
2,104
14.858
53
578
90
229
15
914
1,540
1:2.4
4.89
365,245
tion and the quality of your crop.
Com, No. 2y - 3.054 bu. 5.45
cwt.
Wheal, No. 2 - 3.37 bu. 5.63
cwt.
Barley, No. 3 - 2.28 bu. 4.87
cwt.
Oats, No. 2 - 1.64 bu. 5.12 cwt.
Soybeans, No. 1 -6.56 bu. 10.95
cwt.
Ear Com 84.14 ton 4.21 cwt.
Alfalfa Hay - 105.00 ton 5.25
cwt.
Mixed Hay - 106.25 ton 5.31
cwt.
Timothy Hay - 117.50 ton 5.88
cwt.
/■
,L J '
Rep.
fi ! 1 i i ! i ii. ,
iii i i
NFU Wants
Investigation
WASHINGTON, D.C.
Recent large drops in the prices of
fed cattle and soybeans have led
the National Fanners Union to call
for-a Justice Department investi
gation into possible price manipu
lation and antitrust violations on
the part of buyers.
In a letter to Assistant Attorney
General Anne Bingaman, NFU
President Leland Swenson said he
believes the precipitous market
price drops are “a direct result of
die highly concentrated, oligopo-'
lisdc structure of the marketing,
transportation, processing, retail
ing, and trading industry.”
Cattle futures prices have
dropped 13 parent in just the last
four weeks, according to NFU,
while soybean futures went down
the daily 20 cent limit several days
this week. Farmers in several Mid
west areas found themselves
unable to sell soybeans at all to
local elevators. Some farmers
believe buyers simply held out
until prices dropped rather than
paying farmers more.
“Agriculture policymakers in
the U.S. have been pushing the
issue of more market flexibility
for farmers,” said Swenson. “Bui
as soybean farmers have once
again experienced this week,
many times farmers have no
marketing flexibility because of
the lack of market competition.”
« ! . .
Swenson also pointed
out that the slide in
cattle prices of S2O per
hundredweight over the
past year comes at a
lime when beef exports
to Mexico have repor
tedly “surged” as a
result of the North
American Free Trade
Agreement. Traders
received a 20 percent
reduction in tariffs on
beef exported to Mexico
when NAFTA went into
effect.
All in all, Swenson
says the “inequities”
associated with the price
drops result in economic
hardship for producers
and emotional stress on
farm families as a result.
“Today’s farmers and
ranchers must be com
petitive business mana
gers, but the unjustifi
able market manipula
tion results in every
decision made by pro
ducers to be a make or
break decision.”
NFL) believes anti
trust laws should be
enforced to limit the
control over farm pro
duct marketing, pro
cessing, retailing, and
trading that only a hand
ful of firms enjoy today.
In cattle, 75 percent of
slaughtering is done by
four firms. Soybean
crushing is handled to a
great extent by only two
firms.