2001 BUSINESS ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL LIVESTOCK FARMS

Livestock Production/Industries,

DAIRY FARMS IN MICHIGAN'S U.P., 1999

This report is a summary of the financial and production records kept by U.P. dairy farmers enrolled in the Telfarm/MicroTel record program through Michigan State University Extension, or were accounting clients of Farm Credit Services. Farm records were included if a financial summary was completed on 1999 data including beginning and ending balance sheets, plus income and expenses.Livestock Production/Industries,

Dairy Animal Ratios From Michigan Annual Financial Analyses

Year end financial analyses from 158 Michigan dairy farms for 2001 were studied to see if useful information about numbers of animals could be derived. It was found that 121 farms had records adequate to calculate turn over and cull rates. The average turn over rate for cows averaged 37 %. The median turn over rate was 35 %. The turn over rate exceeded 42 % on 30 % of the farms. A scatter diagram indicated lower turn over rates might be weakly associated with net farm income per cow. About 8 % of the farms had problems in reporting bull calf sales or other disposition. Nearly 11 % of the farms appeared to not be actually making animal counts at year end.Agricultural Finance, Livestock Production/Industries,

1998 MICHIGAN PRELIMINARY DAIRY FARM BUSINESS ANALYSIS AVERAGES

The following tables are presented as an early draft indicating what Michigan Dairy Farmers in the Telfarm accounting system achieved in terms of financial returns during 1998. Page 6 is for doing comparative business analysis on a cost per unit basis. These tables were developed using the Finansum software from the University of Minnesota. The format is nearly identical to that used for individual farms using Finpack's Finan to do their 1998 year end business analysis. A farm was included if 50 % or more of gross sales came from milk plus dairy livestock. The 47 farms averaged together in this report came from the following Michigan counties. Barry 2; Branch, 5; Calhoun 4; Eaton, 2; Hillsdale, 7; Jackson, 2; Kalamazoo, 2; Allegan, 5; Mason, 3; Mecosta, 3; Newaygo, 2; Osceola, 2; Ottawa, 2; and one each in Gladwin, Ingham, Ionia, Montcalm, Muskegon, and St. Joseph. These locations favor the South and West of Michigan. My thanks for early analyses submitted by Roger Betz and Vincent Greiner plus the MSUE agents who worked with them. These farms were not randomly selected. The are among the larger and better managed dairy farms in Michigan. A later paper will present dairy averages from nearly three times as many farms and they will come from more counties throughout the state.Livestock Production/Industries,

BUSINESS ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR GENERAL CROPS FARMS

Crop Production/Industries,

EVOLUTION OF DAIRY GRAZING IN THE 1990'S

A literature review of selected items from 1985 to 2002 shows the evolution of management intensive grazing (MIG) with emphasis primarily on Michigan, and secondarily on the Great Lakes Region. There are sections on 1) Using Pasture, 2) The Technology of MIG, 3) Great Lakes People, 4) Economics of MIG, 5) Private Sector Response, 6) Public Sector Response, 7) Agricultural Experiment Station Response, 8) Conjugated Linoleic Acid, 9) a Disclaimer, and 10) Future Directions for MIG Research. The author also draws on his experience as a farm management extension specialist during those years.Livestock Production/Industries,

2000 BUSINESS ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR SWINE FARMS

Livestock Production/Industries,

COST BY MILK SOLD AND HERD SIZE, 1995

This staff paper presents the 1995 financial and production results of a sample of Michigan dairy farms in two ways. First, the sample is divided into groups by size of herd; averages for each group of several costs and factors are shown. Second, the sample is divided by milk sold per cow; factors that vary with milk production are discussed. Appendix tables give all the cost data available from the accounting summary. A major conclusion from this data is that neither size nor production per cow consistently explains much about the major variability in profits that occur from farm to farm, given the analysis done. Average results on a few farms with over 300 cows may be of cursory interest. (Note: Figure 1 does not appear in the electronic file.)Livestock Production/Industries,

1999 BUSINESS ANALYSIS SUMMARY FOR CASH GRAIN FARMS

The sources of the 51 cash grain farms analyzed in this report were Telfarm/MicroTel at Michigan State University, plus the AgriSolutions offices in East Lansing, Adrian, Mt. Pleasant, and Alpena. Farm types were assigned using the 1992 Census of Agriculture's Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) definitions. Basically, any farm with 50 percent or more of value of farm sales from one item becomes a farm of that type. Cash grain farms have 50 percent or more of value of combined sales from corn, soybeans, wheat, all varieties of navy beans, oats, and other small grains. This report is a summary of the financial and production records kept by cash grain farmers enrolled in the Telfarm/MicroTel record program through Michigan State University Extension., or were accounting clients of AgriSolutions in Michigan. Farm records were included if a Finan summary was completed on 1999 data including beginning and ending balance sheets, plus income and expenses. The summary was included if cash discrepancy was less than 10% of gross cash inflow, and if the debt discrepancy was less than $1,000. The averages are reported in the tables below; it should be recognized that considerable variability exist in the data. The unweighted mean of the net farm income for the 51 farms was$39,049; the standard deviation of the mean was $92,641; and the median was$16,184. The unweighted mean of acrescropped (owned plus rented) on the 46 farms that reported crops and yields was 1,153 acres; the standard deviation of the mean was 1,083 acres and the median was 805 acres. This report has three purposes: 1)to provide statistical information about the financial results on cash grain farms during 1999; 2)to provide production costs for comparative analysis and forward planning; and 3)to provide information on the trends in resource use, income and costs during the last few years. For cash grain farm averages for 1995, see Staff Paper No. 96-86, Michigan Farm Database, New Directions for 1995; it contains averages of 48 cash grain farms calculated with Finansum. Staff Paper No. 97-27, Business Analysis Summary for Cash Grain Farms, contains averages of 37 cash grain farms for 1996. Staff Paper No. 98-21, 1997 Business Analysis Summary for Cash Grain Farms, contains averages of 38 cash grain farms for 1997. Staff Paper No. 99-35, 1998 Business Analysis Summary for Cash Grain Farms, contains averages of 60 cash grain farms for 1998. These staff papers are available from the author, or from the bottom of the list at: http://www.msu.edu/user/nott Finansum allows rapid analysis of group averages with some degree of choice over how the results are presented. I prefer to show the average of the high or low 25 percent by net income, but only if the 25 percent means 6 or more farms. The farm was accepted in the average regardless of whether the farm was a proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation. Finansum will produce a variety of report options; I included a subset in this publication. The farms included in the averages below are not a random sample. They kept their financial records with Michigan State University's Telfarm/MicroTel accounting project, or had their accounting supervised by AgriSolutions. A higher percentage of these farms use debt capital than do all farms in the state. The averages may be representative of bigger and better managed cash grain farms. This document may be found and downloaded from the following: http://www.msu.edu/user/nottCrop Production/Industries,