Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T07:30:15.679Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A constant goal, changing tactics: The Krusenbaum dairy farm (1996–2005)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 December 2008

Joshua L. Posner ,
Gary G. Frank ,
Kenneth V. Nordlund  and
Ronald T. Schuler
Joshua L. Posner*
Affiliation:
Agronomy Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53707, USA.
Gary G. Frank
Affiliation:
Center for Dairy Profitability, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Kenneth V. Nordlund
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary Medicine, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
Ronald T. Schuler
Affiliation:
Biological Systems Engineering Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
*
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This case study documents the trajectory of a successful alternative dairy farm in southeastern Wisconsin. The 1990s were a difficult period for dairying and the Krusenbaum family entered this shifting field in 1990 with a 37-cow Holstein herd in a stanchion barn, 88 tillable hectares and a vision to gradually develop a biodynamic dairy. Low milk prices and the unrelenting workload associated with conventional dairying forced the family to look for alternative strategies. By 1995 they had converted all their land to 47 rotationally grazed paddocks, increased herd size to 70 cows and their annual net farm income had grown to a solid $54,000. The workload remained very heavy, and during the next few years they introduced a swing-16 milking parlor that approximately doubled their milking efficiency and allowed them to again increase herd size, implemented seasonal dairying and constructed an outwintering shed (1997) that greatly facilitated animal management during the winter. By 2002 the farming system had been, by and large, consolidated and by not focusing solely on milk production and crossbreeding with non-Holstein breeds, the herd benefited from improved reproductive vigor. They were then able to synchronize annual calving and the herd's maximum nutritional needs with the spring flush of their pastures, which resulted in lowered purchased feed costs per cow. By this time, annual milk production was fairly constant [around 7400 kg rolling herd average (RHA)], herd health was good and annual net farm income had grown to $75,600. In 2003, the farm became certified organic. With this change the value of the milk increased dramatically from $0.31 liter−1 to $0.45 liter−1 ($14.27–$20.24 per hundredweight), but feed costs climbed sharply due to the high cost of organic feed, as did labor costs due to the decision to train new farmers in grass-based dairying rather than simply hire employees. Due to very sound farm management, good money management and an entrepreneurial philosophy, this farm, by most performance standards, is now both highly profitable and environmentally sound and the families living on it have a good quality of life.

Keywords

management intensive grazingseasonal dairyingsubacute ruminal acidosis (SARA)mastitisorganic dairyingshare milkingcase study
Type
Preliminary Report
Information
Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems , Volume 24 , Issue 1 , March 2009 , pp. 8 - 18
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Service. 2006. Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics-2005. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
2Barham, B. 1998. What is the future of Wisconsin's moderate-scale dairy farm? Program on Agricultural Technology Studies. Staff Paper No. 1. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Available at Website http://www.pats.wisc.eduGoogle Scholar
3Barham, B., Foltz, J., and Aldana, U. 2005. Expansion, modernization and specialization in the Wisconsin dairy industry. Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS). Research Summary No. 7. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Available at Website http://www.pats.wisc.eduGoogle Scholar
4Program on Agricultural Technology Studies. 2001. Dynamics of entry and exit on Wisconsin dairy farms in the 1990's. Wisconsin Family Farm Facts No. 14. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Available at Website http://www.pats.wisc.eduGoogle Scholar
5Taylor, J. and Foltz, J. 2006. Grazing in the dairy state: pasture use in the Wisconsin dairy industry, 1993–2003. Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems (CIAS) and the Program on Agricultural Technology Studies (PATS), University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
6Posner, J., Frank, G., Nordlund, K., and Schuler, R. 1998. Constant goal, changing tactics: a Wisconsin dairy farm start-up. American Journal of Alternative Agriculture 13:50–60.Google Scholar
7Agricultural Accounting Management System (AAMS) software. Available from the UW Center for Dairy Profitability. http://cdp.wisc.edu/Software.htm (accessed 30 July 2008).Google Scholar
8Agricultural Financial Advisor (AgFA) Interactive Data Set from the UW Center for Dairy Profitability. Available at Website http://cdp.wisc.edu/AgFA.htm (accessed 30 July 2008).Google Scholar
9Dairy Herd Improvement Association. Annual Benchmarks Website. http://agsource.crinet.com/page849 (accessed 30 July 2008).Google Scholar
10Fisher, D.K., Posner, J.L., and Baldock, J.O. 1996. Whole-farm nutrient budgeting on 30 crop/livestock operations in the Upper Midwest. Agronomy Abstracts. American Society of Agronomy. 1996 Annual Meetings, Indianapolis, IN, 3–8, November 1996. p. 59.Google Scholar
11Program on Agricultural Technology Studies. 2005. Manure Management on Wisconsin Dairy Farms. Fact Sheet 23. University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. Available at Website http://www.pats.wisc.eduGoogle Scholar
12University of Wisconsin-Extension. 2002. Wisconsin Custom Rate Guide-2001. Extension Fact Sheet A3656. University of Wisconsin-Extension, Madison, WI.Google Scholar
13Lucy, M.C. 2001. Reproductive loss in high-producing dairy cattle: where will it end? Journal of Dairy Science 84:1277–1293.Google ScholarPubMed
14Van Raden, P.M. and Sanders, A.H. 2003. Economic merit of crossbred and purebred US dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 86:1034–1044.Google ScholarPubMed
15Heims, B.J., Hansen, L.B., and Seykora, A.J. 2006. Fertility and survival of pure Holsteins versus crossbreds of Holstein with Normande, Montbeliarde, and Scandinavian Red. Journal of Dairy Science 89:4944–4951.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16Kolver, E. and de Veth, M. 2002. Prediction of ruminal pH from pasture-based diets. Journal of Dairy Science 85:1255–1266.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17Westwood, C.T., Bramley, E., and Lean, I.J. 2003. Review of the relationship between nutrition and lameness in pasture-fed dairy cattle. New Zealand Veterinary Journal 51:208–218.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18Garrett, E.F., Pereira, M.N., Armentano, L.E., Nordlund, K.V., and Oetzel, G.R. 1999. Diagnostic methods for detecting subacute ruminal acidosis in dairy cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 82:1170–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar