organizational behavior

J. Dairy Sci. 84:717–729 American Dairy Science Association, 2001.

An Overview of Experiences of Wisconsin Dairy Farmerswho Modernized Their Operations

J. Bewley,* R. W. Palmer,* and D. B. Jackson-Smith†*Department of Dairy Science†Program on Agricultural Technology StudiesUniversity of Wisconsin, Madison 53706

ABSTRACT

Wisconsin dairy producers who modernized their op-erations between 1994 and 1998 had positive feelingsabout their expansion experiences, accompanied by in-creased production and improved profitability and qual-ity of life. The average herd in this survey experiencedincreased production during the 5-yr period studied.Nearly all producers were satisfied with their expan-sion experience. The negative effect on milk productionnormally associated with expansion was minimal formost years and did not exist if all herds were summa-rized together. Managing labor appeared to be the mostdaunting challenge facing producers followingexpansion.

Respondents who built all new facilities observedhigher production, greater labor efficiency, and satisfac-tion with measures of profitability and quality of lifethan respondents who modified facilities or added nonew facilities. As herd size increased, milk production,labor efficiency, and satisfaction with herd perfor-mance, profitability, and quality of life increased. Pro-ducers who built all new facilities spent less time onfarm work, more time managing employees, and hadless difficulty finding, training, supervising, and keep-ing farm employees than producers who modified facili-ties or added new facilities to existing operations.Larger herds were associated with an increased reli-ance on nonfamily labor. Managing labor appears to bean easier task for managers of larger herds. The mostdifficult challenges for producers who modernized theiroperations were with labor management, financing, andloan procurement, construction and cost overruns, andfeet and leg health. Difficulties with expansion differedlittle between expansion types (same type, some new,or all new facilities) or herd sizes.(Key words: survey, expansion, modernization)

Received July 26, 2000.Accepted November 13, 2000.Corresponding author: R. W. Palmer; e-mail: rwpalmer@facstaff.

wisc.edu.

717

Abbreviation key: FTE = full-time equivalent,NAHM = National Animal Health Monitoring System,RHA = rolling herd average.

INTRODUCTION

The demographics of the Wisconsin dairy industryare changing rapidly. Producers are increasing herdsizes and incorporating modern technologies to helpimprove their efficiency and the quality of life of theirfamilies and workers. Many Wisconsin dairy producershave expanded or modernized their operations in recentyears. The average Wisconsin herd size increased from50.1 to 70.0 cows per herd between 1985 and 1998 (Wis-consin Dairy Facts, 1999). The percentage of Wisconsinherds with 100 or more cows increase from 9.0 to 11.6%(Wisconsin Dairy Facts, 1995, 1999) between 1994 and1998. Limited research has been conducted on the real-ized benefits achieved by producers who have modern-ized their facilities. Speicher et al. (1978) studied diffi-culties and challenges related to expansion of Michigandairies in the 1970s and determined that dairymen ex-perienced increased difficulties with animal health,heat detection, manure handling, and labor manage-ment following expansion. Norell et al. (1981) examinedchanges in milk production following expansion andfound that production often drops after expansion de-pending on the change in housing system and manage-ment. Minnesota research concluded that a commondenominator for herds that had increased milk produc-tion in the early 1990s was a move toward larger herdsizes and more modern facilities (Stahl et al., 1999).Faust et al. (1992) stressed the importance and impactof biosecurity and planning for culling after anexpansion.

The Wisconsin Dairy Modernization Survey was de-signed to examine both production responses and pro-ducer perceptions related to the modernization of theiroperation. Surveys that are designed to examine man-agement practices and production responses to man-agement changes are valuable in identifying adoptionrates and disparities between experimental findingsand field results (Howard et al., 1992). The survey used

BEWLEY ET AL.718

in the present study was designed to 1) determine whatmanagement practices and facility changes were made,2) identify changes in herd productivity resulting fromthese changes, 3) measure producer satisfaction withregard to these changes, 4) provide information to pro-ducers considering future expansion, and 5) identifytopics for further research.

This paper provides an overview of the modernizationexperiences of Wisconsin dairy producers. The primaryobjective was to examine responses in milk productionand labor efficiency resulting from the modernizationprocess, labor management adjustments needed, anddifficulties encountered during this process. Each ofthese factors is compared by type of expansion (sametype, some new, or all new facilities) and herd size. Thelessons learned by producers in this survey can be usedby other producers considering modernization in thefuture.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Information from 302 Wisconsin dairy producers,who responded to a survey from a sample of 694 herdsthat had modernized their operation between 1994 and1998, was analyzed. Herds were selected if herd sizehad increased by at least 50% for smaller herds (60 to100 cows) or at least 40% for larger herds (>100 cows).Survey methods are described in more detail by Bewleyet al. (2001). This survey was designed to gather infor-mation about the use of various management practicesand facility types, as well as farmers’ satisfaction withthe overall dairy operation and specific facility feature’sperformance in recently expanded dairies.

The survey included 280 questions related to herdsize, milking system, housing facilities, cropping andfeeding strategies, labor management, animal acquisi-tions, animal handling facilities, and satisfaction withthe expansion experience. Milk production data wereonly included for Holstein herds. Herds were catego-rized based on type of expansion, current herd size,and magnitude of expansion. Herd size categories wereestablished by dividing herds into quintiles using milk-ing cows and dry cows to calculate herd size. Cows perfull-time equivalent (FTE) was calculated by dividingthe reported number of milking and dry cows in 1998by the number of FTE (1 FTE = 50 h of labor per week).The FTE for a farm includes the labor for all enterprises(e.g., milking herd, heifer, and crop) associated withthat operation.

For many questions, producers were asked to indicatetheir satisfaction with a particular aspect of their opera-tion by choosing a number on a scale from one (verydissatisfied) to five (very satisfied). The authors editeddata to remove inconsistencies and physical impossibil-

Journal of Dairy Science Vol. 84, No. 3, 2001

ities. For example, reported hours worked per weekwere recorded as missing if respondents indicated anyemployee worked more than 116 h/wk (Bewley et al.,2001).

Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS forWindows, 1999. Comparisons between groups of herdswere conducted using an independent sample t-test.Comparisons for herd parameters between years wereconducted using a paired-samples t-test. Comparisonsinvolving multiple groups were conducted using thegeneral linear model univariate procedure with a one-way model. Differences among means were tested usingthe LSD (least significant differences) post hoc test.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Effect of Modernizationon Herd Management Parameters

Table 1 shows that herds in this survey more thandoubled their herd size during the 5-yr period studiedwith the median herd size in 1998 of 180 cows. Usingreported herd sizes, average herd sizes in 1994, beforethe most recent expansion, 1998, and in the future were103, 136, 252, and 435, respectively. The average herdsize for all Wisconsin herds increased from 51.5 to 59.5cows and from 59.0 to 70.0 cows for all DHI herds duringthe same period (Wisconsin Dairy Facts, 1995, 1999).Most producers in the survey appeared to still be in theexpansion process as they indicated that their long-term goal for herd size was over 450 cows on average.The experiences of producers in this survey may havebeen different from the experiences of producers whodid not respond to the survey. However, Table 2 illus-trates that the performance of herds that responded

Table 1. Mean (±SE) herd performance parameters for 1998 and1994.

1998 1994 Change

Herds, no. 252 252Median herd size 180 80 +100RHA1 milk, lb 21956 ± 195a 20103 ± 187b +1853ME2 milk, lb 23698 ± 198a 21741 ± 189b +1957Peak milk3, lb 88.6 ± 0.6a 83.6 ± 0.6b +5Linear SCS 2.91 ± 0.03 * *Days dry 61 ± 1b 63 ± 1a −2Calving interval, mo 13.8 ± 0.1a 13.2 ± 0.0b +0.6Days open 140 ± 2a 126 ± 2b +14Age at first calving, mo 26.1 ± 0.1 * *Culling rate, % 33.2 ± 0.7 * *

a,bMeans within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1RHA = DHI calculated rolling herd average.2ME = DHI calculated mature equivalent herd average.3Peak milk = DHI calculated herd average highest level of milk

produced in a lactation.*Data not available.

OUR INDUSTRY TODAY 719

Table 2. Mean (± SE) herd performance parameters for 1998 and 1994 for respondents and nonrespondents.

1998 1994

Respondents Nonrespondents Respondents Nonrespondents

Herds, no. 252 308 252 308Median herd size1 180 130 80 68RHA2 milk, lb 21927 ± 194 21573 ± 175 20103 ± 187 19774 ± 187ME3 milk, lb 23698 ± 198 23483 ± 170 21741 ± 189 21608 ± 177Peak milk4, lb 88.6 ± 0.6 88.6 ± 0.5 83.6 ± 0.6 83.9 ± 0.6Linear SCS 2.91 ± 0.03 2.97 ± 0.03 ** **Days dry 61 ± 1b 63 ± 1a 63 ± 1 64 ± 1Calving interval, mo 13.7 ± 0.1 13.8 ± 0.1 13.2 ± 0.0 13.3 ± 0.0Days open 138 ± 2 140 ± 2 128 ± 2 133 ± 2Age at first calving, mo 26.1 ± 0.1 26.3 ± 0.1 * *Culling rate, % 33.2 ± 0.1 33.2 ± 0.1 * *

a,bMeans within main effects within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1Median herd size = herd size for nonrespondents calculated using DHI values.2RHA = DHI calculated rolling herd average.3ME = DHI calculated mature equivalent herd average.4Peak milk = DHI calculated herd average highest level of milk produced in a lactation.*Data not available.

to the survey was similar when examining some DHIperformance parameters. Average days dry was sig-nificantly longer for nonrespondents than respondentsand herd size was smaller for nonrespondents.

Mean rolling herd average (RHA) milk productionincreased by 1875 lb for herds in this study, althoughreproductive performance appeared to decrease basedon increases in calving interval and days open (Table1). The average Wisconsin DHI Holstein herd increasedby 1645 lb for the same period observed; thus, the in-creased production observed in this study was similar tothe overall population trend (J. Pinter, 2000, personalobservation). A portion of this increased milk produc-tion can be attributed to the implementation of modernfacilities, and management practices conducive tohigher milk production, and better managers may haveexpanded more than average managers. The averagefor all Wisconsin herds in 1998 was 16,685 lb, and theaverage for all Wisconsin Holstein herds on DHI was20,707 lb (Wisconsin Dairy Facts, 1999). Average daysopen and calving interval increased by 14 d and 0.6 mo,respectively, for herds in this study but only increasedby 4 d and 0.3 mo for all DHI Holstein herds duringthis period (J. Pinter, 2000, personal communication).Poorer reproductive performance is often associatedwith expansion as herd managers modify their cullingpractices to maintain herd size by allowing animals toremain in the herd despite extended calving intervals.The availability of bST during this time changed man-agement practices and may be responsible for part ofthe change observed. Days dry decreased. This is likelyrelated to intensified management of larger, special-ized dairies.


Previous research (Speicher et al., 1978) indicatedthat herds experience a decrease in milk productionfollowing an expansion and that previous milk produc-tion levels were not recovered until the fourth year afterexpansion. Our research did not show this effect. Table3 shows the change in RHA milk production relative tothe beginning of the most recent expansion. The aver-age RHA milk production for all herds did not changeduring the year of expansion and increased significantlythe year after expansion. RHA milk production datawas only available for 1994 to 1998. As a result, thesecomparisons could only be made for 3 yr. Comparedwith RHA milk production during the year beforeexpansion, herds that expanded in 1995 and 1996 expe-rienced a temporary decline in milk production duringthe expansion process, although this difference was notsignificant for herds that expanded in 1995. This lostproduction was recovered by the year following expan-sion for all three groups, although this difference wasnot significant for herds that expanded in 1995. Herdsthat expanded in 1997 did not observe the decreasein milk production and actually increased productionduring both the year of expansion and the year followingexpansion. A portion of the production gained duringthis period can be attributed to population trends asdiscussed earlier. It appears that the disadvantagesassociated with expansion were outweighed by the im-proved cow comfort and management of these herds ina free-stall environment.

How They Modernized

This survey attempted to answer questions regardingwhat types of animals were purchased, where these

BEWLEY ET AL.720

animals were sourced, what practices were used to min-imize health problems with new animals, what benefitswere provided to full-time employees, why respondentsexpanded, and if they would expand again. Table 4summarizes producer responses to these questions.This allows producers to compare responses to availableoptions and provides industry professionals informa-tion about areas in which education efforts should befocused.

As herds expand, their managers must determinehow additional animals will be obtained. Faust et al.(1998) concluded that purchasing heifers or lactatingcows could provide similar success, although extra pre-cautions should be taken when purchasing older ani-mals. Buying heifers rather than older cows reduces therisk of bringing in another’s herds mastitis problems(Smith et al., 1996). In this study, 63% of the respon-dents reported purchasing mature animals which washigher than that reported by Faust et al., 1998. Most(66%) expanding herds in our study purchased heifersbefore they calved or bought mature animals. The prac-tice of buying heifers after they calved is interesting tonote as 21% of producers purchased this type of animal.In order of prevalence, animals were sourced from 1)other dairy producers, 2) cattle dealers, 3) auctions, and4) sale barns. The percentage of known sources appearsto be higher than that reported by Faust et al. (1998).Ideally, all animals would be purchased from knownsources; however, this is not always an option when alarge number of animals are required to meet herdsize requirements.

Working with a veterinarian when animals are in-troduced from outside sources should help reduce therisk of introduction of new diseases into the herd. In-creased incidence of clinical and subclinical mastitisand outbreaks of diseases such as Johne’s may occurafter a group of animals is introduced into the herd.Disease agents that can be purchased unknowinglywith incoming animals include bovine viral diarrheavirus, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bovine respi-ratory syncytial virus, bovine leukemia virus, Pasteur-ella hemolytica, Salmonella species, Mycobacteriumparatuberculosis, Streptococcus agalactia, Staphylo-coccus aureus, Hemophilus somnus, Leptospira spp.,roundworms, tapeworms, flukes, hairy heel warts, and

Table 3. Mean rolling herd average production (± SE) by year of most recent expansion.

1995 1996 1997 All

Herds, no. 40 50 72 162Year before expansion 20484 ± 412 20979 ± 409a 20692 ± 320c 20729 ± 215b

Year of expansion 20361 ± 330 20464 ± 422b 21287 ± 359b 20804 ± 223b

Year after expansion 20503 ± 378 21240 ± 466a 21641 ± 337a 21236 ± 229

a,bMeans within columns with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).


coccidian (Carmell, 1994). These disease agents affectherd profitability through reduced milk production,poor reproduction, higher treatment costs, increasedculling rates, and animal deaths.

It appears that most producers in this survey visuallyinspected animals and increased vaccination levelswhile fewer producers were isolating or blood testingincoming animals. Twenty-seven percent of the surveyrespondents reported quarantining incoming animalsand for an average of 25 d. A quarantine period of 3 to4 wk is recommended for purchased animals in whichno contact between purchased animals and the existingherd occurs (Carmell, 1994). The National AnimalHealth Monitoring System (NAHMS, 1996) study re-ported 6 to 27% of animals brought into the operationwere quarantined for an average of 9 to 41 d. Approxi-mately 50% of respondents reported vaccinating ani-mals before bringing them into the herd, 9 to 31% usedblood testing, 5.8% used a bulk tank culture, and 25.7%used individual SCC (NAHMS, 1996). The most pre-dominant biosecurity measure was pre-entry vaccina-tions, while the least predominant was quarantininganimals (NAHMS, 1996). Faust et al. (1998) reportedthat animals were quarantined on 47% of the herdsfor an average of 2.9 wk. Producers with higher herdaverage milk production vaccinated against more dis-eases than those with lower milk production(NAHMS, 1996).

Benefits provided to dairy farm employees listed inprevious studies include social security, worker’s com-pensation, farm produce, housing, bonuses, utilities,health insurance, performance incentives, retirementplans, unemployment insurance, paid vacation, paidsick leave, performance-linked pay, and feedback mech-anisms (Fogleman et al., 1999; Maloney et al., 1989;Stahl et al., 1999). Producers in this survey reportedproviding the following benefits, in order of prevalence:paid vacation time, health insurance, milk or meat,housing, profit-sharing, employee owned animals inherd, retirement plans, and a share of calves born.

Producers have a myriad of reasons for modernizingtheir operations. Respondents to this survey were askedto indicate all reasons for expansion and to specifywhich of these was the most important (Table 4). Theranking of reasons changed considerably between these


Table 4. Number herds using selected practices during expansion.

Responses No. %

Where did the additional animals come from?1

Bought bred heifers before they calved 198 66%Bought mature animals 188 63%Grew from within 145 48%Bought bred heifers which had recently calved 64 21%Bought calves/heifers and raised them 50 17%

If bought, where did you buy these animals?1

Other dairy producers 214 81%Cattle dealers 131 50%Auctions 108 41%Sale barns 29 11%

Practices used to minimize health problemswith new animals?1

Visually inspected animals before purchase 238 91%Increased level of vaccination in existing herd 177 67%Vaccinated incoming cattle after moving them 134 51%Vaccinated incoming cattle before moving them 129 49%Examined individual SCC records 110 42%Isolated animals after moving them 72 27%Examined individual cow health records 67 26%Blood tested animals before purchase 56 21%Did bulk tank cultures before purchase 39 15%

Benefits provided to full-time employees1

Paid vacation time 144 48%Health insurance 143 47%Milk or meat 107 35%Housing 89 29%Other 38 13%Profit-sharing 24 8%Allow employee owned animals in herd 20 7%Retirement Plan 19 6%Share of calves born 7 2%

Why did you decide to expand your herd?1

To increase our farm’s profitability 265 89%To improve labor efficiency 217 73%To improve physical working conditions 207 69%To get time away from the farm 181 61%To allow a family member to join the operation 103 34%Other 52 17%

Which reason was most important to your decisionto expand?To increase our farm’s profitability 123 44%To allow a family member to join the operation 40 14%To improve physical working conditions 35 13%To get time away from the farm 33 12%To improve labor efficiency 22 8%Other 28 10%

Knowing what you do now, expand your operationas you did?1

Yes, the same way 148 51%Yes, only quicker 84 29%Yes, only bigger 66 23%Yes, but slower 17 6%No 16 6%

1Multiple answers could be selected.

two questions (example: the option “to allow a familymember to join the operation” was ranked fifth for totalresponses, but second for most important). Most produc-ers had multiple reasons for expanding their herd. Themajority of producers in this study appeared to be moti-vated by a need to increase the farm’s profitability.


Some producers who expanded to allow a family mem-ber to join the operation recognized the need for addi-tional cows to support multiple families. Other reasonsfor expansion included improving physical working con-ditions, creating time away from the farm, and improv-ing labor efficiency.

When asked the question (referring to expansion)“Knowing what you do now, would you do it again?”only 16 (6%) producers indicated they would not expandagain. Many producers indicated they would expand ata more rapid rate or to a larger herd size. Survey resultsindicate that most producers surveyed achieved the ex-pected gains in profitability and labor efficiency ex-pected from expansion. These results should be inter-preted with caution because the experiences of nonre-spondents may not have been as positive as for theproducers who responded to the survey.

Satisfaction with Modernization

A common question asked by producers consideringan expansion is “Should I start with all new facilitiesor modify what I have?” Most producers (72%) whoresponded to this survey indicated they used existingfacilities along with some new facilities. Table 5 com-pares postexpansion experiences of producers who 1)expanded cow numbers without changing facility type,2) modified existing facilities and built some new facili-ties, or 3) built all new facilities. Schwarzweller (1999)demonstrated that newer facilities were associatedwith higher labor efficiency and higher production, al-though this effect was confounded by herd size. Thiswork showed that producers who built all new facilitieshad the highest RHA milk production following expan-sion, while producers who did not change facility typehad the lowest RHA milk production (Table 5). Produc-ers who modified existing facilities observed a lowerincrease in RHA milk production during the 5-yr periodstudied than the producers who expanded withoutchanging facility type. The highest production was asso-ciated with all new facilities and may be attributed toadvantages in cow comfort and cleanliness associatedwith facilities designed without building restrictions.Producers who expanded without changing facility typehad smaller herd sizes and a higher increase in produc-tion, which may be related to having the ability to ex-pand totally from within their herd or to buy higherquality animals than producers that needed more cows.

Producers who built some or all new facilities hadlower average age at first calving (Table 5). Labor effi-ciency; based on cows per FTE was highest for the pro-ducers who built all new facilities, followed by produc-ers who modified facility type and those who did notchange facility type. Satisfaction with heat detection,

BEWLEY ET AL.722

Table 5. Mean (± SE) production and performance measures by type of expansion.

Expanded cow Modified existingnumbers without facilities; built Built all newchanging facility type some new facilities

Herds, no. 31 218 531998 median herd size1 95 170 4201994 median herd size1 54 77 1201998 RHA2 milk, lb 20503 ± 549c 21920 ± 220b 23218 ± 514a

1994 RHA2 milk, lb 17985 ± 519b 20300 ± 210a 20897 ± 487a

Change in RHA3 2519 ± 386a 1658 ± 156b 2321 ± 362ab

Linear SCS 3.07 ± 0.09 2.89 ± 0.04 2.82 ± 0.09Days open 143 ± 6 136 ± 2 141 ± 5Calving interval 14.0 ± 0.2 13.6 ± 0.1 14.0 ± 0.2Days dry 63 ± 1 61 ± 1 62 ± 1Age at first calving 26.9 ± 0.3a 26.0 ± 0.1b 25.7 ± 0.3b

Culling rate 34.7 ± 2.2ab 33.7 ± 0.9a 29.2 ± 2.0b

Cows per FTE4 30 ± 3c 38 ± 1b 52 ± 2a

a,b,cMeans within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1Median herd size = Herd size for nonrespondents calculated using DHI values.2RHA = DHI calculated rolling herd average.3Change in RHA = 1998 RHA Milk-1994 RHA Milk.4Cows per FTE = Number of milking and dry cows/(total h worked per week/50).

production costs per hundredweight, net farm income,and disposable household income was higher for pro-ducers who built all new facilities than for producerswho modified facilities or did not change facility type.Producers who built all new facilities were more satis-fied with overall quality of life than producers who didnot change their facilities (Table 6). Producers who didnot change their facility type were more satisfied withneighbor relations than were producers who built allnew facilities. Building a large, commercial dairy oftencreates resistance within the community related to con-cerns for animal welfare and odors from animal waste.No statistical differences were observed for linear SCS,

Table 6. Mean (± SE) satisfaction measures by type of expansion.

Expanded cow Modified existingnumbers without facilities; built Built all newchanging facility type some new facilities

Herds, no. 31 218 53Culling rate1 3.23 ± 0.19 3.32 ± 0.07 3.46 ± 0.15Animal health, general1 3.71 ± 0.15 3.79 ± 0.06 4.00 ± 0.11Heat detection1 3.32 ± 0.17b 3.56 ± 0.06b 3.87 ± 0.13a

Conception rate1 3.19 ± 0.16 3.36 ± 0.06 3.53 ± 0.13Calving interval1 3.39 ± 0.16 3.41 ± 0.06 3.57 ± 0.12Milk quality1 3.55 ± 0.17 3.77 ± 0.06 3.79 ± 0.13Production costs per cwt1 3.61 ± 0.15b 3.66 ± 0.06b 4.04 ± 0.12a

Net farm income1 3.26 ± 0.19b 3.59 ± 0.07b 4.04 ± 0.15a

Neighbor relations1 4.29 ± 0.16a 3.95 ± 0.06ab 3.77 ± 0.12b

Personal satisfaction with my role1 4.00 ± 0.15 4.03 ± 0.16 4.25 ± 0.12Personal health1 3.32 ± 0.19c 3.78 ± 0.07b 4.23 ± 0.15a

Disposable household income1 3.23 ± 0.18b 3.59 ± 0.07b 4.08 ± 0.14a

Relationship with spouse and family1 4.16 ± 0.17 4.01 ± 0.06 4.10 ± 0.13Time away from the farm1 2.71 ± 0.20c 3.29 ± 0.08b 3.79 ± 0.16a

Overall quality of life1 3.65 ± 0.16b 3.82 ± 0.06ab 4.06 ± 0.12a

a,b,cMeans within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1Average satisfaction reported on a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).


calving interval, days dry, or satisfaction with cullingrate, animal health, conception rate, calving interval,milk quality, personal satisfaction with my role, andrelationship with spouse and family. The advantagesof new and modified facilities are reflected in the resultsabove. These producers appear to be more satisfied withherd productivity, labor efficiency, profitability, andquality of life. A possible explanation for this increasedsatisfaction is that producers who built all new facilitiescould select designs that optimized cow comfort, cowcleanliness, and labor efficiency without being hinderedby the constraints of existing facilities, but these resultsare confounded by herd size effects. Producers who built


Table 7. Mean (± SE) production and performance measures by 1998 herd size.

60 to 105 106 to 145 146 to 220 221 to 360 > 360

Herds, no. 61 62 59 60 601998 Median herd size1 88 125 180 259 4691994 Median herd size1 46 70 87 100 1701998 RHA2 milk, lbs 19766 ± 361d 21642 ± 368c 22370 ± 371bc 22737 ± 403b 24113 ± 457a

1994 RHA2 milk, lbs 18136 ± 354d 19643 ± 360c 20690 ± 364b 20894 ± 391ab 21998 ± 443a

Change in RHA3 1660 ± 284 2017 ± 289 1725 ± 292 1843 ± 314 2115 ± 356Linear SCS 3.03 ± 0.07a 2.96 ± 0.07ab 2.83 ± 0.07b 2.85 ± 0.08ab 2.80 ± 0.09b

Days open 130 ± 4b 136 ± 4ab 143 ± 4a 136 ± 4ab 143 ± 5a

Calving interval 13.6 ± 0.2 13.7 ± 0.2 13.9 ± 0.1 13.7 ± 0.2 13.8 ± 0.2Days dry 64 ± 1a 61 ± 1ab 60 ± 1b 61 ± 1ab 61 ± 1ab

Age at first calving 26.8 ± 0.2a 26.2 ± 0.2a 26.3 ± 0.2a 25.4 ± 0.3b 25.2 ± 0.3b

Culling rate 31.5 ± 1.6 33.5 ± 1.6 33.4 ± 1.6 35.1 ± 1.7 32.4 ± 1.9Cows per FTE 27 ± 2c 34 ± 2b 40 ± 2b 49 ± 2a 51 ± 2a

Acres per cow 3.38 ± 0.19a 3.37 ± 0.18a 2.64 ± 0.19b 2.61 ± 0.19b 2.31 ± 0.19b

a,b,cMeans within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1Median herd size = Herd size for nonrespondents calculated using DHI values.2RHA = DHI calculated rolling herd average.3Change in RHA = 1998 RHA Milk-1994 RHA Milk.

all new facilities had the largest average herd size inthe study. Although building all new facilities has someadvantages, increasing herd sizes without modifyingfacilities or adding new facilities remains a valid optionbecause of their lower investment levels.

Economies of scale exist in the dairy industry. In-creasing the size of the herd often allows for betterutilization of facilities and investments. Milking morecows allows for on-farm specialization. Having employ-ees responsible for specific areas improves focus andmay result in increased productivity. For example, hav-ing one employee responsible for herd reproduction willlikely improve the reproductive performance andprofitability of a herd. Bailey et al. (1997) modeled dif-ferent herd sizes and found that only larger units (500and 1000 cows) would be economically feasible for start-up dairies in the Midwest given the economic parame-ters selected. Producers with larger herds tend to expe-rience economies of scale related to decreased expendi-tures per cow (Schwarzweller, 1999). Investments percow normally are lower for larger herds because of re-duced acquisition costs for major investments such asfacilities and equipment.

Results from this survey demonstrate clear advan-tages for larger herds for most variables measured. Ta-ble 7 provides postexpansion comparisons for differentherd sizes. Statistical differences are listed in the table.RHA milk production increased as herd size increased.A similar effect of higher RHA milk production beingassociated with larger herd sizes was found in theNAHMS (1996) study. No significant differences wereobserved among herd sizes for change in RHA milkproduction from 1994 to 1998. As a group, the producerswho had the largest herd size in 1998 had higher RHAmilk production in 1994 and 1998, were larger in 1994,


and expanded more than owners of smaller herds. Theowners of these larger, higher producing herds mayhave had greater financial strength, which allowed thelarger increase in herd size. A trend for decreasing lin-ear SCS, decreasing age at first calving, decreasingacres per cow, increasing labor efficiency, and increas-ing days open was observed with increasing herd size.This agrees with previous studies indicating that largerherds tend to have low SCC than smaller ones (Howardet al., 1992). Managers of larger herds may place moreemphasis to the details necessary to improve these im-portant herd performance measures. Acres per cow de-creases with increasing herd size with the owners ofthe largest herds having 2.31 acres per cow.

Satisfaction by Herd Size

Buttel et al. (2000) found that herd size did not affectcurrent satisfaction with quality of life although satis-faction had improved more for producers with morethan 200 cows. In this study (Table 8), managers oflarger herds appeared to be more satisfied with milkproduction level, heat detection, net farm income, per-sonal health, disposable household income, time awayfrom the farm, and overall quality of life. Respondentswith more than 360 cows were more satisfied with ani-mal health than were respondents with 221 to 360 cowsand were more satisfied with conception rates than re-spondents with 106 to 145 cows or 221 to 360 cows.Respondents with more than 360 cows were more satis-fied with calving intervals and production costs perhundredweight than were respondents with 106 to 145cows. Satisfaction with calving interval varied, al-though actual calving intervals did not. This patterncould be related to expectations as producers with

BEWLEY ET AL.724

larger herds were expecting decreased reproductiveperformance but were satisfied with the levels actuallyachieved. Respondents with smaller herds (60 to 105cows) were more satisfied with neighbor relations thanrespondents with larger herds (more than 360 cows).Respondents with 221 to 360 cows were more satisfiedwith their relationship with their spouse and familythan herds with 106 to 145 cows. No statistical differ-ences were observed for calving interval, culling rate,or satisfaction with culling rate. Satisfaction levels didnot increase linearly for all variables considered. How-ever, respondents with larger herds appeared to experi-ence advantages for nearly all herd performance mea-sures, labor efficiency, satisfaction with quality of lifeand profitability, and satisfaction with many herd per-formance measures.

For this study, respondents were divided into fourexpansion size categories (increased herd size by <50%,50 to 100%, 101 to 200%, >200%) to compare differencesby magnitude of expansion. Results from these compari-sons were highly correlated to the results for respon-dents by herd size in that producers with larger herdshad a strong tendency to undertake greater percentincrease in herd size. The results of this analysis bymagnitude of expansion are not shown because of thesimilarity of results. Expanding rapidly was associatedwith cash flow and operational problems in Michiganherds (Speicher et al., 1978). A New York study foundthat herds that expanded by at least 30% had the high-est increases in net farm income (Smith et al., 1996).Managers who recently expanded may have learnedfrom past expansions of others and are better at plan-ning and implementing new operations.

Table 8. Mean (± SE) satisfaction measures by 1998 herd size.

60 to 105 106 to 145 146 to 220 221 to 360 > 360

Herds, no. 61 62 59 60 60Milk production level1 3.53 ± 0.11b 3.55 ± 0.11b 3.97 ± 0.12a 3.82 ± 0.12ab 3.92 ± 0.12a

Culling rate1 3.46 ± 0.14 3.16 ± 0.14 3.36 ± 0.14 3.25 ± 0.14 3.43 ± 0.14Animal health, general1 3.76 ± 0.11ab 3.79 ± 0.10ab 3.91 ± 0.11ab 3.65 ± 0.11b 4.00 ± 0.11a

Heat detection1 3.48 ± 0.12b 3.37 ± 0.12b 3.60 ± 0.12ab 3.58 ± 0.12ab 3.92 ± 0.12a

Conception rate1 3.39 ± 0.11ab 3.23 ± 0.11b 3.48 ± 0.12ab 3.22 ± 0.12b 3.55 ± 0.12a

Calving interval1 3.44 ± 0.11ab 3.26 ± 0.11b 3.50 ± 0.11ab 3.37 ± 0.11ab 3.62 ± 0.11a

Milk quality1 3.64 ± 0.12ab 3.58 ± 0.12b 3.91 ± 0.12a 3.73 ± 0.12ab 3.88 ± 0.12ab

Production costs1 3.53 ± 0.11bc 3.50 ± 0.11c 3.83 ± 0.11ab 3.71 ± 0.11bc 4.03 ± 0.11a

Net farm income1 3.26 ± 0.13b 3.33 ± 0.13b 3.77 ± 0.14a 3.73 ± 0.14a 4.10 ± 0.13a

Neighbor relations1 4.13 ± 0.12a 3.97 ± 0.11ab 3.88 ± 0.12ab 4.02 ± 0.12ab 3.78 ± 0.12b

Personal satisfaction with my role1 3.98 ± 0.11b 3.92 ± 0.11b 4.03 ± 0.11ab 4.10 ± 0.11ab 4.30 ± 0.11a

Personal health1 3.38 ± 0.14c 3.65 ± 0.13bc 3.71 ± 0.14bc 4.02 ± 0.14ab 4.30 ± 0.14a

Disposable household income1 3.33 ± 0.13c 3.39 ± 0.13c 3.55 ± 0.13bc 3.87 ± 0.13ab 4.12 ± 0.13a

Relationship with spouse andfamily1 4.08 ± 0.11ab 3.80 ± 0.12b 4.07 ± 0.12ab 4.17 ± 0.12a 4.08 ± 0.12ab

Time away from the farm1 2.85 ± 0.14b 3.02 ± 0.14b 3.22 ± 0.15b 3.63 ± 0.14a 3.88 ± 0.14a

Overall quality of life1 3.75 ± 0.11bc 3.60 ± 0.11c 3.69 ± 0.12c 4.03 ± 0.11ab 4.13 ± 0.11a

a,b,cMeans within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1Average satisfaction reported on a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).


Labor Management

As dairy operations become larger, more nonfamilylabor is required for daily activities. In general, satisfac-tion values were lower for labor-related issues than forother areas examined suggesting that expanding dairyproducers had more difficulty with labor managementthan other areas. This could be expected because manyproducers are not trained to manage people and manyare not comfortable in that role. Historically, dairy pro-ducers have struggled with the long hours and lack oftime away from the dairy operation. Increasing herdsize creates the need for nonfamily labor and providesfamily members the opportunity to spend more timeaway from the farm. Table 9 compares labor manage-ment practices by type of expansion. Time spent onfarmwork has been reduced more for the families ofowner-operators who built all new facilities than thosewho modified facilities. Respondents who modified facil-ities spent less time on farmwork than those who didnot change facility type, and more of their time wasdevoted to activities related to employee managementthan to farmwork. Producers who built all new facilitiesor some new facilities observed a larger increase in timehiring, training, and managing employees comparedwith 1994 than did producers who did not change facil-ity type.

The amount of work done by nonfamily members alsoincreased more for respondents who modified facilitiesor built all new than for herds who did not changefacility types. Producers who did not change facilitytypes reported more difficulty in finding and keepinggood farm employees than did those who modified facili-


Table 9. Mean (± SE) labor management parameters by type of expansion.

Expanded cow Modified Builtnumbers without existing facilities; all newchanging facility type built some new facilities

Herds, no. 31 218 531998 Median herd size1 95 170 4201994 Median herd size1 54 77 120Time I spend on farmwork2 3.57 ± 0.19a 3.09 ± 0.07b 2.67 ± 0.15c

Time I spend on hiring, training, and managing2 3.22 ± 0.18b 3.79 ± 0.07a 4.00 ± 0.14a

Time my family members spend on farmwork2 3.66 ± 0.18a 3.19 ± 0.07b 2.85 ± 0.13c

Amount of work done by non-family members2 3.30 ± 0.20b 3.94 ± 0.07a 4.22 ± 0.15a

Finding good farm employees3 1.96 ± 0.23c 2.54 ± 0.08b 3.19 ± 0.23a

Training farm employees3 2.64 ± 0.18b 3.19 ± 0.06a 3.28 ± 0.12a

Supervising farm employees 3 2.96 ± 0.18b 3.34 ± 0.06a 3.43 ± 0.12a

Keeping good farm employees3 2.55 ± 0.21c 3.23 ± 0.07b 3.66 ± 0.14a

Availability of employees4 2.52 ± 0.24b 2.98 ± 0.09ab 3.10 ± 0.17a

Quality of job applicants4 2.52 ± 0.22b 2.86 ± 0.08ab 3.08 ± 0.16a

Employee morale and attitude4 3.22 ± 0.18b 3.68 ± 0.07a 3.66 ± 0.13a

Quality of work of non-family members4 3.44 ± 0.18 3.73 ± 0.06 3.80 ± 0.13Labor efficiency being achieved4 3.22 ± 0.17b 3.60 ± 0.06a 3.69 ± 0.13a

Ability to get necessary farm work done4 3.30 ± 0.17b 3.82 ± 0.06a 3.96 ± 0.13a

a,b,cMeans within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1Median herd size = Herd size for nonrespondents calculated using DHI values.2Average change since 1994 reported on a scale from 1 (much less) to 5 (much more).3Average difficulty reported on a scale from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy).4Average satisfaction reported on a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).

ties. Producers who built all new facilities reported lessdifficulty in finding and keeping good employees thandid producers who modified facilities. As indicated ear-lier, respondents with larger herds and those who builtall new facilities had higher production. Owners ofhigher producing herds tend to provide employees withlarger compensation packages (Fogleman et al., 1999;Maloney et al., 1989). This ability of owners of largerherds to pay more and the worker comfort associatedwith new facilities explains some of the observed differ-ence in employee retention. Producers who did notchange facilities reported more difficulty with trainingand supervising employees and with employee absencescompared with producers who modified facilities orbuilt all new facilities.

Producers who built all new facilities were more satis-fied with availability of employees and quality of jobapplicants than producers who did not change facilitytype. It appears that higher quality employees may bemore likely to want to work for these dairies. Respon-dents who built all new facilities or modified facilitieswere more satisfied with employee morale and attitude,labor efficiency being achieved, and ability to get neces-sary farm work done than did respondents who did notchange facility type. These differences in satisfactionwith labor management agree with the differences incows per FTE shown in Table 5. No statistical differ-ences were observed for quality of work done by nonfam-ily members.


Table 10 compares labor management practices byherd size. Time spent on farmwork was reduced morefor primary operators and family members of largeroperations. Producers with larger herds spent moretime hiring, training, and managing employees com-pared with 1994 and relied on nonfamily workers to agreater extent. Producers operating larger herds re-ported that it was easier for them to find, train, super-vise, and keep employees and that employee absenceswere less of a problem. Satisfaction with employee mo-rale and attitude, labor efficiency being achieved, andability to get necessary farm work done appears to in-crease as herd sizes increase. These results were similarto those demonstrated for type of expansion. This alsosuggests that economies of scale may be associated withemployee management. Managers of larger farms han-dle more employees, and a higher proportion of theirtime is spent managing employees. This allows produc-ers to develop employee management skills more rap-idly and provides the opportunity to adjust to the chal-lenges of employee management sooner.

Nonfamily labor is generally more expensive, lessexperienced, and less flexible than is family labor(Schwarzweller, 1999). Recruitment of employees isconsidered a major management problem by dairy pro-ducers (Fogleman et al., 1999). This change necessitatesthe development of labor management skills by dairyproducers who may have been accustomed to workingonly with family members. Dairy operations face the

BEWLEY ET AL.726

challenge of providing employees compensation pack-ages comparable to other employers in their area. Dairyowners who expand their dairy operation often mustmake the transition from managing cows to managingpeople. This responsibility is one of the biggest manage-ment hurdles that expanding dairy producers en-counter.

Expansion Difficulties

Dairy producers are faced with many challenges anddifficulties before, during, and after an expansion proj-ect. Large capital investments are often required fordairy farm modernization, and the loan procurementprocess is often more difficult than producers antici-pate. As dairy herds continue to grow, considerationsfor manure management become more complex. Pro-ducers must take into account manure collection, ma-nure storage, nutrient management, and site selectionoptions during expansion (Fulhage, 1997). Owners oflarge herds often have more stringent permitting re-quirements. Many producers experience difficulties inobtaining necessary permits from regulatory agencies.An economic evaluation of manure systems in Missouri(Fulhage, 1997) showed that costs of manure manage-ment are lower for larger herds. Some other difficultiesencountered during expansion include incorrect initial

Table 10. Mean (± SE) labor management parameters by herd size.

60 to 105 106 to 145 146 to 220 221 to 360 > 360

Herds, no. 61 62 59 60 601998 Median herd size1 88 125 180 259 4691994 Median herd size1 46 70 87 100 170Time I spend on farmwork2 3.65 ± 0.13a 3.21 ± 0.13b 3.10 ± 0.13b 2.92 ± 0.13b 2.42 ± 0.13c

Time I spend hiring, training, andmanaging2 3.06 ± 0.12c 3.56 ± 0.12b 3.68 ± 0.12b 4.24 ± 0.11a 4.24 ± 0.11a

Time my family members spend onfarmwork2 3.50 ± 0.12a 3.27 ± 0.12ab 3.02 ± 0.12bc 3.29 ± 0.12ab 2.80 ± 0.12c

Amount of work done by non-familyworkers2 3.20 ± 0.13c 3.55 ± 0.13bc 3.89 ± 0.13b 4.38 ± 0.12a 4.49 ± 0.12a

Finding good farm employees3 2.33 ± 0.19b 2.37 ± 0.16b 2.63 ± 0.15ab 2.61 ± 0.15ab 2.95 ± 0.14a

Training farm employees3 2.88 ± 0.15b 3.12 ± 0.12ab 3.12 ± 0.12ab 3.18 ± 0.11ab 3.36 ± 0.11a

Supervising farm employees3 3.09 ± 0.15b 3.30 ± 0.12ab 3.12 ± 0.11b 3.39 ± 0.11ab 3.59 ± 0.11a

Employee absences3 2.73 ± 0.19c 3.17 ± 0.16bc 3.57 ± 0.15ab 3.78 ± 0.14a 3.88 ± 0.14a

Availability of employees4 2.82 ± 0.18a 2.74 ± 0.16a 3.13 ± 0.16a 2.95 ± 0.16a 3.14 ± 0.16a

Quality of job applicants4 2.79 ± 0.17ab 2.54 ± 0.15b 3.02 ± 0.16a 2.93 ± 0.15ab 3.03 ± 0.15a

Employee morale and attitude4 3.41 ± 0.13b 3.46 ± 0.12b 3.75 ± 0.12ab 3.62 ± 0.12ab 3.88 ± 0.12a

Quality of work done by non-familymembers4 3.62 ± 0.14 3.61 ± 0.12 3.74 ± 0.12 3.68 ± 0.11 3.88 ± 0.11

Labor efficiency being achieved4 3.59 ± 0.13ab 3.32 ± 0.12b 3.64 ± 0.12ab 3.52 ± 0.12b 3.85 ± 0.12a

Ability to get necessary farmwork done4 3.42 ± 0.12c 3.62 ± 0.12bc 3.88 ± 0.12ab 3.92 ± 0.12ab 4.10 ± 0.12a

a,b,cMeans within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1Median herd size = Herd size for nonrespondents calculated using DHI values.2Average change since 1994 reported on a scale from 1 (much less) to 5 (much more).3Average difficulty reported on a scale from 1 (very difficult) to 5 (very easy).4Average satisfaction reported on a scale from 1 (very dissatisfied) to 5 (very satisfied).


cost estimates, construction delays, and difficulty find-ing the cows and labor needed.

The challenges do not stop after the facilities, people,and animals are in place. Approximately 68% of ex-panded dairy farms experienced cash flow problems inthe first 2 yr following expansion (Speicher et al., 1978).Stress levels associated with expansion may continuefor 3 yr after the expansion project begins (Faust et al.,1998). Dairy producers who expand their operationsexperience difficulties with animal health, heat detec-tion, manure handling, and labor management(Speicher et al., 1978). Faust et al. (1998) reported prob-lems with diseases during expansion in the followingorder: bovine viral diarrhea, hairy footwarts, Johne’s,salmonella, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, and clos-tridium. The most difficult problems experienced byMinnesota producers (Stahl et al., 1999) were, in orderlisted, uncertain economic times, limited capital access,employees difficult to find, expert opinions differed, en-vironmental regulations, and developing a financialplan for credit institutions.

Table 11 describes expansion difficulties by type ofexpansion. Producers who modified facilities experi-enced more difficulty with construction and cost over-runs than did producers who did not change facilitytype. Producers who built all new facilities had moredifficulty procuring feed than did producers who modi-fied facilities. It is likely that the owners of smaller


Table 11. Mean (± SE) expansion difficulties by type of expansion.

Expanded cow Modifiednumbers without existing facilities; Built all newchanging facility type built some new facilities

Herds, no. 31 218 531998 Median herd size1 95 170 420Permitting and zoning2 3.74 ± 0.28 4.11 ± 0.09 3.94 ± 0.17Financing and loan procurement2 3.39 ± 0.26 3.62 ± 0.09 3.73 ± 0.17Facility design and site selection2 3.81 ± 0.23 3.50 ± 0.07 3.77 ± 0.15Construction and cost overruns2 3.80 ± 0.27a 3.18 ± 0.09b 3.40 ± 0.17ab

Finding labor2 2.96 ± 0.22 3.14 ± 0.08 3.45 ± 0.15Managing labor2 3.29 ± 0.21 3.23 ± 0.07 3.16 ± 0.14Labor turnover2 3.44 ± 0.22 3.42 ± 0.08 3.53 ± 0.15Finding animals2 3.77 ± 0.22 3.56 ± 0.08 3.77 ± 0.15Procuring feed2 4.11 ± 0.19ab 4.13 ± 0.07a 3.75 ± 0.13b

Animal health–udder health2 3.58 ± 0.20 3.68 ± 0.07 3.67 ± 0.14Animal health–feet and legs2 3.31 ± 0.23 3.12 ± 0.08 3.39 ± 0.16Animal health–reproduction2 3.31 ± 0.21 3.35 ± 0.07 3.41 ± 0.15

a,b,cMeans within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1Median herd size = Herd size for nonrespondents calculated using DHI values.2Average difficulty reported on a scale from 1 (most difficult) to 5 (least difficult).

operations were able to raise more of their own feedrather than purchase it. No statistical differences wereobserved based on type of expansion for permitting andzoning, financing and loan procurement, facility designand site selection, finding labor, managing labor, laborturnover, finding animals, and animal health. No sig-nificant differences were found for producer satisfactionwith herd health issues when analyzed by type ofexpansion.

Respondents with more than 360 cows experiencedmore difficulty with permitting and zoning than herdswith 106 to 145 cows (Table 12). Regulatory agenciesappear to pose a greater challenge for owners of largerherds. Respondents with 221 to 360 cows reported moreproblems with reproduction than herds with 146 to 220cows or herds with more than 360 cows. No statistical

Table 12. Mean (± SE) expansion difficulties by herd size.

60 to 105 106 to 145 146 to 220 221 to 360 > 360

Herds, no. 61 62 59 60 601998 Median herd size1 88 125 180 259 469Permitting and zoning2 3.96 ± 0.17ab 4.38 ± 0.16a 4.11 ± 0.17ab 3.98 ± 0.16ab 3.81 ± 0.16b

Financing and loan procurement2 3.70 ± 0.17 3.61 ± 0.16 3.59 ± 0.17 3.51 ± 0.16 3.69 ± 0.16Facility design and site selection2 3.61 ± 0.15a 3.67 ± 0.14a 3.15 ± 0.14b 3.73 ± 0.14a 3.66 ± 0.14a

Construction and cost overruns2 3.26 ± 0.17 3.37 ± 0.16 3.22 ± 0.17 3.25 ± 0.16 3.22 ± 0.16Finding labor2 3.27 ± 0.16 3.16 ± 0.14 3.28 ± 0.15 3.02 ± 0.14 3.22 ± 0.14Managing labor2 3.37 ± 0.15 3.32 ± 0.13 3.23 ± 0.14 3.00 ± 0.13 3.22 ± 0.13Labor turnover2 3.51 ± 0.15 3.60 ± 0.14 3.37 ± 0.15 3.28 ± 0.14 3.46 ± 0.14Finding animals2 3.67 ± 0.16 3.63 ± 0.14 3.46 ± 0.15 3.53 ± 0.14 3.80 ± 0.14Procuring feed2 3.96 ± 0.13 4.10 ± 0.13 4.00 ± 0.13 4.19 ± 0.13 4.02 ± 0.13Animal health–udder health2 3.44 ± 0.14 3.76 ± 0.13 3.78 ± 0.14 3.73 ± 0.13 3.61 ± 0.13Animal health–feet and legs2 3.15 ± 0.16 3.10 ± 0.15 3.18 ± 0.16 3.20 ± 0.15 3.29 ± 0.15Animal health–reproduction2 3.46 ± 0.14ab 3.35 ± 0.14ab 3.51 ± 0.14a 3.05 ± 0.13b 3.48 ± 0.14a

a,b,cMeans within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1Median herd size = Herd size for nonrespondents calculated using DHI values.2Average difficulty reported on a scale from 1 (most difficult) to 5 (least difficult).


differences were observed for financing and loan pro-curement, construction and cost overruns, finding la-bor, managing labor, labor turnover, finding animals,procuring feed, udder health, or feet and leg health. Nosignificant differences were found for producer satisfac-tion with udder health and feet and leg type animalhealth areas when analyzed by herd size, but somedifferences were seen with reproduction.

AI Use

The NAHMS (1996) study found that 45.4% of dairiesdid not use natural service at any level. Reproductivemanagement often becomes more of a challenge inlarger herds. Training hired labor to detect heats andallocating labor for this task is sometimes difficult in

BEWLEY ET AL.728

Table 13. Mean (± SE) production and performance measures of AI usage levels.

Don’t use AI, use Predominantly Predominantly AInatural service natural service with minimal use Use AI(bulls) exclusively with some AI use of clean-up bull exclusively

Herds, no. 14 12 71 1431998 Median herd size1 222 186 349 2061994 Median herd size1 67 80 90 761998 RHA2 milk, lb 21319 ± 783ab 19677 ± 845b 22069 ± 348a 22075 ± 245a

1994 RHA2 milk, lb 18329 ± 779b 17931 ± 811b 20462 ± 333a 20245 ± 237a

Change in RHA3 3088 ± 579a 1746 ± 602ab 1607 ± 248b 1868 ± 176b

Calving interval, mo 13.0 ± 0.3b 13.7 ± 0.3ab 13.9 ± 0.13a 13.7 ± 0.1a

Days open 122 ± 8b 129 ± 9ab 144 ± 4a 136 ± 2ab

Days dry 59 ± 2ab 65 ± 2a 64 ± 1a 60 ± 1b

Age at first calving 25.3 ± 0.5 25.8 ± 0.5 25.9 ± 0.2 26.2 ± 0.2

a,bMeans within rows with different superscripts differ (P < 0.05).1Median herd size = Herd size for nonrespondents calculated using DHI values.2RHA = DHI calculated rolling herd average.3Change in RHA = 1998 RHA Milk–1994 RHA Milk.

newly expanded herds. Problems with reproduction andheat detection were the most predominant problemsencountered by Michigan dairy producers who ex-panded (Speicher et al., 1978). Many larger producersuse a bull to combat this problem despite the differencesin production attributed to AI use.

Table 13 demonstrates productive and reproductiveperformance differences between varying levels of AIuse. Respondents who used AI exclusively or predomi-nantly observed higher RHA milk production than re-spondents who used predominately natural service. Re-spondents who used a bull exclusively observed a largerchange in RHA milk production than respondents whoused AI exclusively or predominantly. Herds that usedAI exclusively or predominantly had longer calving in-tervals than herds that used bulls exclusively. Herdsthat used predominantly AI had more days open thandid herds that used bulls exclusively. These results sug-gest that using natural service to some extent mayimprove reproductive performance. Days dry werehigher for respondents with herds using predominantlyAI or predominantly bulls than those that used AI ex-clusively. This was probably caused by the producer’sinability to predict subsequent calving dates withoutaccurate breeding information. No differences were ob-served for age at first calving. These results suggestthat utilizing natural service may improve reproductiveperformance but not without a tradeoff in reducedmilk production.

CONCLUSIONS

The 1999 Wisconsin Dairy Modernization Surveycompared production responses and producer percep-tions based on their modernization experiences. Theaverage herd in this survey experienced increased pro-


duction during the 5-yr period studied. More than 90%of producers were satisfied with their expansion experi-ence. Producers who built new facilities or expanded tolarger herd sizes appeared to be more satisfied withtheir choices. These producers probably are less riskaverse or in a better financial position. Part of the in-creased satisfaction with their choice may be the statusassociated with their choices. Reduced production dur-ing expansion, observed in previous studies, was rela-tively small for herds in this sample. Producers followedindustry biosecurity recommendations to minimizehealth problems at different levels, with isolation ofanimals introduced into the herd occurring in only 27%of herds in this sample. Extension efforts should befocused on stressing the importance of preventing theintroduction of new diseases into the existing herd.Managing labor appeared to be the biggest challengefacing producers following expansion.

Respondents who built all new facilities observedhigher production, greater labor efficiency, and satisfac-tion with measures of profitability and quality of lifethan respondents who modified facilities or added nonew facilities. As herd size increased, milk production,labor efficiency, and satisfaction with herd perfor-mance, profitability, and quality of life increased. Pro-ducers who built all new facilities spent less time onfarmwork, more time managing employees, and hadless difficulty finding, training, supervising, and keep-ing farm employees than producers who modified facili-ties or added new facilities. Respondents with largerherds were associated with an increased reliance onnonfamily labor. Problems with labor management de-creased with increasing herd sizes. The most difficultchallenges for producers who modernized their opera-tions were with labor management, financing and loanprocurement, construction and cost overruns, and feet


and leg health. Very few differences in difficulties withexpansion were found when respondents were summa-rized by expansion type or herd size.

The results of this survey can be used by industryprofessionals and producers who are considering mod-ernizing their operations. Our use of large random sam-ple survey data identified some impacts associated withchanges in facilities or management practices that dif-fer from those expected (based on the results of pre-viously published case studies, controlled experimentsand engineering models). These differences reflect theeffects of variation in farmer management ability, envi-ronmental and economic conditions, and other intangi-ble factors. The experiences of farmers in our surveycan be combined with other types of research data toprovide a more complete picture of how modernizationchoices affect dairy farm performance. Further researchis merited regarding animal acquisitions, employeemanagement on large dairy farms, cost comparisonsbetween new and modified facilities, differences be-tween herd sizes, and the effects of using a bull asopposed to AI.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the producers whoparticipated in the survey for the valuable informationprovided, AgSource DHI and Richland County DHICfor herd summary data, the Professional Dairy Produc-ers of Wisconsin for producer names, and the Programon Agricultural Technology Studies for assistance indesigning the survey. The authors also thank DougHemken, Social Science Microcomputer Laboratory, forhis assistance in the statistical analysis of the data.This research has been sponsored in part by USDA/Hatch project number 1892 and the Wisconsin Centerfor Dairy Profitability.

REFERENCES

Bailey, K., D. Hardin, J. Spain, J. Garrett, J. Hoehne, R. Randle,R. Ricketts, B. Steevens, and J. Zulovich. 1997. An economic


simulation study of large-scale dairy units in the Midwest. J.Dairy Sci. 80:205–214.

Bewley, J. 2000. The 1999 Wisconsin Dairy Modernization Project.M. S. Thesis, Univ. Wisconsin, Madison, WI.

Bewley, J., R. W. Palmer, and D. B. Jackson-Smith. 2001. A compari-son of free-stall barns used by modernized Wisconsin dairies. J.Dairy Sci. 84:705–716.

Buttel, F. H., D. Jackson-Smith, and S. Moon. 2000. A Profile ofWisconsin’s Dairy Industry, 1999. PATS Research Rep. No. 3.Program on Agricultural Technology Studies, Univ. of Wisconsin,Madison, WI.

Carmell, D. K. 1994. Good intentions gone bad: Animal disease consid-erations in expansion. Pages 13–24 in Expansion Strategies forDairy Farms, Ellicott City, MD. Penn. St. Univ., State College,PA.

Faust, M. A., and M. L. Kinsel. 1998. Culling, health, and biosecurityduring dairy herd expansions. DSL-152. Iowa St. Dairy Rep.,Ames.

Fogleman, S. L., R. A. Milligan, T. R. Maloney, and W. A. Knoblauch.1999. Employee compensation and job satisfaction on dairy farmsin the Northeast. RB 99–02. Dept. Agricultural, Resource, andManagerial Economics. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.

Fulhage, C. D. 1997. Manure management consideration for ex-panding dairy herds. J. Dairy Sci. 80:1872–1879.

Howard, W. H., R. W. Blake, T. O. Knight, C. R. Shumway, and M.A. Tomaszewski. 1992. Estimating the effectiveness of extensioninformation systems using farm trials and subjective probabili-ties. Agric. Econ. 7:77–90.

Management practices associated with high-producing U.S. dairyherds. 1997. Natl. Animal Health Monitoring System. Dairy ’96Info Sheet. USDA: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service:Veterinary Services, Fort Collins, CO.

Maloney, T. R., and S. A. Woodruff. 1989. Wages and benefits of fulltime non family employees on larger than average New York statedairy farms. 89–20. Dept. Agric. Econ. Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.

Norrell, R. J., and R. D. Appleman. 1981. Change of milk productionwith housing system and herd expansion. J. Dairy Sci.64:1749–1755.

Schwarzweller, H. K. 1999. Dairy farms in mid-Michigan: Structuralcharacteristics, labor inputs, and operational efficiencies. Re-search Rep. 564. Michigan State Ag. Exp. Stn., East Lansing, MI.

Smith, J. F., and J. Harner. 1996. Planning a dairy expansion. MF-2318. Kansas State Univ. Agric. Exp. Stn. and Cooperative, Man-hattan, KS.

Speicher, J. A., S. B. Nott, and T. L. Stoll. 1978. Changes in produc-tion, cash flow, and income with dairy herd expansion. J. DairySci. 61:1242–1249.

SPSS Base 10.0 User’s Guide. 1999. SPSS Inc. Chicago, IL.Stahl, T. J., B. J. Conlin, A. J. Seykora, and G. R. Steuernagel.

1999. Characteristics of Minnesota dairy farms that significantlyincreased milk production from 1989–1993. J. Dairy Sci.82:45–51.

Wisconsin Dairy Facts. 1995. Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Ser-vice, Madison, WI.

Wisconsin Dairy Facts. 1999. Wisconsin Agricultural Statistics Ser-vice, Madison, WI.