# Actual milking ability of dexters?



## Mountaineer (Jan 1, 2006)

I've read in numerous places how they are good for milk and meat. Then last night I read in John Seymour's self sufficiency book- that (in his experience) they were not efficient producers. He mentioned he got more milk from his 2 goats.
Is he right or just buyesy to jersey's?
I mean- you can milk any cow that will let you. Doesn't mean it's worth the hay. Is getting a dexter for the purpose of milk a poor plan? Would a jersey be a better bet?
Around here there are dexters, but I don't think anybody is breeding for milking ability.
Thanks for your thoughts!


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

I just sold a cow that is giving enough milk for a family of 5 and her calf. The family takes 4 or 5 quarts each day, and the calf drinks the rest. They were drinking goat's milk, but the Dexter milk tastes so much better, that they no longer drink goat's milk.

Not all Dexters are created equal. Unlike dairy herds, that have been extensively line bred to optimize their milk production, the Dexters are a fairly primitive breed. Milking ability varies. You should examine the parentage of a heifer that you're expecting to use as a milk cow. Some people have bought lower production Dexters and been dissapointed, but others are quite happy with their yields.

The Dexter has long been noted for it's high efficiency in converting feed. The claim has been made that Dexters are the most efficient converters. According to Oklahoma State University, the Dexter cow can produce more milk for its weight than any other breed. See: http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle/dexter/

Enzymes have been discovered in commercial dairy milk that are connected to the development of diabetes. Modern dairy milk is a little tough on the digestive system, too. Dexter milk has smaller molecules that are easier to digest, and none of the bad enzymes that have been introduced into most modern dairy breeds.

I'm sure that you would be happy with a Dexter from a higher yielding line. You would probably be dissapointed with one of the "beefier" lines, though. Look before you buy.

The advantage of the dual purpose Dexter cow is that you can get milk from the cow, and raise her calf for excellent beef. Dexters aren't the best in either department, milk or beef, but will give enough milk for average needs and the only thing lacking about the meat is the size of the cuts. It's delicious and looks just like good beef should look. None of that yellow fat associated with dairy breeds.

Genebo
Paradise Farm
Church Road, VA


----------



## Slev (Nov 29, 2003)

I think looking for that perfect dairy cow out of a whole herd, is much like looking for the perfect student in a large public school! So much of what you'd be happy with depends so much on your needs/wants. I think it would be hard for me to say a Dexter isn't worth it. I'll let you know how much milk my Dexter gives once she calfs! Genbo offers the best advice....



genebo said:


> Enzymes have been discovered in commercial dairy milk that are connected to the development of diabetes. Modern dairy milk is a little tough on the digestive system, too. Dexter milk has smaller molecules that are easier to digest, and none of the bad enzymes that have been introduced into most modern dairy breeds.
> Genebo
> Paradise Farm
> Church Road, VA


....one question Genbo, I understand that a Dexters give A2 milk vs. ???? does a Jersey only offer the A1?????


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Mountaineer said:


> Then last night I read in John Seymour's self sufficiency book- that (in his experience) they were not efficient producers.
> 
> He mentioned he got more milk from his 2 goats.
> 
> Is he right or just buyesy to jersey's? Thanks for your thoughts!


The man (John Seymour) was a writer and what Americans call a "homesteader" for a huge chunk of his life; well over 60 years, maybe longer. One supposes he had tried just about everything at one time or another, or had a friend or neighbor who did, and continued in this interest right up until his death a couple of years back; I would, and I do, take him at his word. Studies done to propel a breed into the forefront so that a few folks can make some money are the norm in the capitalist world, but in that same world the low heeled Jersey has been "the" homesteader breed since it became a fixed breed, and before. My little 750 pound first calf heifer, "Tulip", is still giving 2 1/2 gallons a day in a single milking, 9 months into her lactation, and she's just a grade Jersey of common stock.

Of course, a body ought to keep exactly the breed they want, and the very best breed is the one they prefer. For various reasons, I have several preferences other than Jerseys, but it is the Jersey that makes its home at Wolf Cairn Moor. Some of the other breeds seem to offer a chance to make money, but for the homestead cow, the house cow, the Jersey justs makes sense.


----------



## Up North (Nov 29, 2005)

genebo said:


> Modern dairy milk is a little tough on ... Dexter milk has smaller molecules that are easier to digest, and none of the bad enzymes that have been introduced into most modern dairy breed... None of that yellow fat associated with dairy breeds.
> 
> Genebo
> Paradise Farm
> Church Road, VA


Just a few clarifications, Genebo - The Ayrshire Dairy breed, like the Dexter, has fat molecules that are easily digested by humans. It could, I suppose, be argued about at length whether the Ayrshire is a modern breed or closer to primitive ancestral genetics.

As to yellow fat, or yellow tallow, this applies to the Guernsey and Jersey breeds, and hence results in their reduced value as beef animals in the mainstream marketplace.(They are still perfectly good for eating as family beef supply.)
The other dairy breeds, like the Ayrshire, Shorthorn, Normande, and Holstien do not have yellow fat, or tallow. These breeds and crosses of them produce viable, marketable dairy beef steers.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

Up North said:


> The other dairy breeds, like the Ayrshire, Shorthorn, Normande, and Holstien do not have yellow fat, or tallow. These breeds and crosses of them produce viable, marketable dairy beef steers.


Agreed! That's kind of like how the old standard British breed chickens had white skin, as traditionally Brits preferred white skin on their chicken, while the American breeds were wont to have yellow skin. It's a cultural and visual bias that cannot be tasted as far as my humble palate can determine.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Genebo is right. In any dual purpose breed, some of the individuals are better milkers than others. That applies to the dairy breeds also. The Woodmagic herd in England was a dairy herd for years. Depending on the background of the individual, a Dexter can be a good option for a family milk cow. Many people don't like Lucifer of Knotting; but I bred my Dexter to him because he is supposed to produce good udders and increase milk production.


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

There are a lot of good points to discuss here:

As I understand it, A1 milk has an enzyme that was introduced into commercial dairy lines some years ago. It's origin can't be traced. It spread due to the use of AI to increase the yield of the dairy cattle. Crossbreeding took place, so it wasn't confined to a single breed. It is reported to exist in up to 90% of all commercial dairy cows.

Now, Dexters have not been tested and found to be producers of A2 milk. Only commercial dairy cattle are currently being tested, to try to find some that still produce A2 type milk. These will probably become the foundation for future dairy herds.

In the meantime, your best bet to get A2 milk, that doesn't contain the enzyme that has been implicated in diabetes, is the milk cattle from breeds that would not have been cross-bred with commercial dairy cattle. That is what I mean when I say that the primitive breeds are most likely to produce healthy milk. Some breeds that I would look to would be the Dexter, the Highlander, the Devon and any other breeds that weren't traditionally used as commercial dairy cattle. It is the commercial dairy breeding program that is being blamed for the introduction of the enzyme.

On a different subject, a friend and I were discussing the old saw that a good dairy goat can produce more milk than a Dexter. He owns both. In his experience, it doesn't happen, although he admits that it's possible. The best dairy goat might well produce more than the worst Dexter, but that's no surprise. He just had never had a goat that good or a Dexter that bad.

About dairy beef: I've read that the majority of all beef consumed in this country comes from dairy breeds. The Holstein makes up most of the US dairy herd, and practically all of their male calves go into beef, as well as worn out cows. The beef from them doesn't grade very high. Most of it grades "commercial". A lot of the dairy beef becomes hamburger. One site claimed that almost all of the ground beef is dairy.

I'm perfectly happy with Dexters, both for beef and milk. The beef is delicious. I think it's better than Angus. I don't milk, but I keep a good milking line for those who want heifers that they can milk. Every one I've sold for milk has made their owner happy.

I suspect that there are not many people who require more than a gallon a day for their own consumption. Those that do would still probably be better off having two Dexters than a single higher producing cow. That way you could time the pregnancies to keep one fresh all the time.

Genebo
Paradise Farm
Church Road, VA


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Youâve got to question some of these claims. From the website Genebo listed:

âThe ideal three year old Dexter cow measures between 36 to 42 inches at the shoulder, and weighs less than 750 pounds.â

âA milking cow can produce more milk for its weight than any other breed. The daily yield averages 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 gallons with a butterfat content of 4 to 5 percent.â

End Quotes

More milk for its weight than any other breed? Okay, so this is saying that a Holstein cow twice the size could not produce twice the milk of a Dexter?? 1500 pound Holsteins will produce much more than 5 gallons daily on average.

From the same site, I just found this statement under Jerseys:
âWith an average weight of 900 pounds, the Jersey produces more pounds of milk per pound of body weight than any other breed.â


Haggis, Iâm trying to understand the sizes of Jerseys. Your heifer is 750 pounds and a âgrade Jersey of common stockâ, and I assume, nearly 3 years old. I thought the common Jersey of today has been bred up to 1000 pounds (most sources say). How tall is your heifer? Dexters are supposedly nearly 750 pounds at 40 inches tall. My Â¾ Jersey heifer is 42 inches already at under 8 months, and sheâs out of smaller stock.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

My old cow Lucy will weigh 1000 pounds, more if she's heavy with calf and on good summer grass. My heifer Tulip is smaller and will be smaller as a mature cow. I sold an older Jersey cow that was also smaller than Lucy by 100 pounds. Some sites and some experts in books will talk of big Jerseys but if one takes the time to look at few it is easy to find a 1000 pound Jersey cow to be a big girl. 

I gave Tulip's weight at 750, afterword I went out to the barn to give her another look, and I'd say 700 is more like it. She is pulled down some from the milking and Jerseys do give their all, so it's hard to fatten them while they are in milk. Jerseys will built a lot of frame their first year or so; then too, comparing the height of a long legged Jersey to a short legged Dexter kind of give a wrong view of things. Also, a Dexter being a beefy type animal is hard to compare weight wise with a Jersey when one is talking about pounds of beast divided by pounds of milk. When one talks of feeding a Jersey or a Dexter, one wants to not forget that with Dexters one has to feed all of that beef along with the cow in order to get milk, while a Jersey tends to be a skinny rack of bones with a large udder.

There are so many variables to take into account that comparing one breed to another becomes secondary to what one expects from a breed. The dairy farmer selling to a dairy wants lots of milk and fine steers for the beef market; they tend to stay within several bredds of really big animals, while the dairy farmer selling to a creamery wants plenty of milk but with a much higher butter fat content; when one finds a dairy man selling to a creamery most of his cattle will be Jerseys, or so it seems to me.

A person just needs to pick a breed that makes them happy, and satisfies their need for a cow.


----------



## Jennifer L. (May 10, 2002)

Does the average Dexter milk for the long haul? I mean, do they make a 305 day lactation, or are they short lactation milkers? I know Holstein with beef in their background can have a tendency to be short lactation cows.

Jennifer


----------



## Terry W (Mar 10, 2006)

Converting pounds of milk production per pounds of cow-- how about converting pounds of milk per pound of a feed equivalent? Would that not give a much better estimation of how much the milk actually cost the farmer to produce? The feed to milk production would also show how efficient the animal was-- Some animals can be more efficient on poorer feed quality than others, while others have to have "the best' in order to remain viable in the herd.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

And too, there is a "maintenance ration" and to get milk there must be an additional "production ration". A beefy bodied cow will cost more and eat more to keep its beefier average weight, than a bonier bodied cow. Some breeds of cattle will put on weight with the addition of the production ration, while other breeds will just make more milk, and stay boney.

Common sense says that a production ration will be balanced against the milk produced, but if a cow is naturaly carrying more weight in the form of beef, she is going to want more in the form of a maintenance ration. In this regard a bonier natured cow saves the crofter money before she gives her first gallon of milk.

My rule of thumb for a production ration is a 3# scoop of 18% feed for every gallon of milk she gives, and in winter another scoop for herself. The hay she eats is her maintenance ration (all of my cattle get the extra #3 scoop of 18% feed each and every winter day; steers too). If any breed were fed according to this recipe the production ration would be equal across the board, but then there is the hay for the maintenance ration. If a cow weighing 10 CWT were giving 6.5 gallons a day (my Jersey Lucy gives this much), and eating $2 bale of hay every day, while another weighing 7.5 CWT was giving 2 gallons a day and eating $1.50 a day in hay, it wouldn't take long for me to catch on to which was more thrifty for the small holder. In such a situation, I would be saving $.50 a day in hay costs with the smaller cow, and be giving up 4.5 gallons of milk a day to do it. Cleaning up the stall, mending fences, filling the water tank, throwing down hay, cleaning the milking equipment, and a thousand other cow related chores take as long to do for a cow weighing 7.5 CWT giving 2 gallons a day, as for one weighing 10 CWT and giving 6.5 gallons a day.

Again, using the feed recipe I use, both cows would get their grain according to the milk produced, so in that regards they would be on an even keel, but when it comes to the hay, they wouldn't even be close.

Someone in the cattle business is going to use many more factors, but the small holder needing for a house cow or two is primarily concerned with what will she cost to feed, and what in the way of dairy products will she give.

Still, a body ought to get just the cow they want, one that suits their temperment. Maybe that's why there are hundreds of breeds and everyone of them, according to their enthusiasts, better than all other breeds?


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

Haggis,

You did the same thing that the person with the extraordinary goat did, comparing it with a very UN-extraordinary cow. You compared your 6.5 gallon cow to a 2 gallon cow. That's a 70% reduction in output. But you only reduced the theoretical intake of hay by 25% and didn't reduce the input of feed at all. You also assumed that the Dexter cow would be of the "beefy" type rather than a dairy type.

You wouldn't want me to make comparisons similar to those to determine just how much the beef from your cow costs, would you?

The dry Dexter cow is going to eat considerably less than the dry Jersey. It has always been that way. Then, when you start taking milk from them, the amount of additional ration you have to feed will be relative to the amount of milk you get. Surely no one thinks that you can get 6.5 gallons of milk for the same amount of feed that it takes to get 2 gallons.

In practice, there are many Dexter cows being milked without ever tasting a drop of high priced 18% feed. Some of them do quite well on pasture, with only winter hay. Even the hay that they get doesn't cost what dairy grade hay does. Mine get fescue blends or pearl millet for far less than the silage that dairy cows get.

The whole concept of keeping a homestead cow to milk is different from production-oriented dairy management. Maximum production isn't always the end goal.

Another note: Holstein bull calves regularly sell at the Blackstone Livestock Auction for $10 to $50. Dexter bull calves sell for $300 and up. Take that off the cost of hay and you're getting a better bargain. Besides, most families who milked twice a day and got 6.5 gallons would be far happier milking just once a day and getting far less milk.

Higher milk production goes hand-in-hand with milk related diseases. Mastitis, milk fever, and others are far less likely in a lower production cow. Health maintenance is a big factor in heavy producers, too.

If I had a commercial dairy, I'd look at things a lot differently. But you can't apply the reasoning behind commercial dairying to homestead cows. The rules and reasons are different.

Genebo
Paradise Farm
Church Road, VA


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

I've only had three milking Jerseys here on this farm, two of them, older cows, give/gave over 6 gallons a day, and the little heifer I'm milking gave us 3 gallons a day with a single milking, while her calf had her for 12 hours and took what he wanted. Most likely the little heifer would have given us well over four gallons if we had milked her twice daily, maybe five; and she is a first calf heifer. She'll give more next time, but we'll likely put two calves on her and continue milking her once a day; she won't really be a fully mature cow until after she's had her third calf. I don't think she is extrodinary beyond any other Jersey, nor do I think my other two Jerseys are/were anything special as Jerseys go; one of them only had three working teats.

There are lots of folks who talk of their three gallon to the milking Jerseys, and some Jerseys give far more.


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

I agree that a Jersey is supposed to give more milk than a Dexter. It eats more, too. Many families would be hard pressed to use all the milk that a Jersey gives, so it makes sense for them to have a Dexter, that gives them as much as they want without having to feed the higher producing cow. Add in the advantage of the great beef that you get from the Dexter's calf, and you've hit a home run.

I like Jerseys. they are great milk cows. I sold a Dexter/Jersey cow that is a beautiful girl. She eats like a Dexter, and is smaller than a Jersey. She's also one of the gentlest cows you're likely to come across. That's the Dexter in her. She provides milk for a family of three. I doubt they take a gallon a day from her, with the calf getting the rest. 

The fact is, people who need a lot of milk shouldn't get a Dexter. They should get two Dexters. That way, they can time the pregnancies so that they always have milk.

Genebo
Paradise Farm
Church Road, VA


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

As I mentioned above, every breed has their enthusiasts, and to hear them tell, their's is the best breed going.

On the subject of getting two Dexters if one needs more milk; I would suggest getting one Jersey cow, as they average weighing only 150 to 200 pounds more than an average Dexter cow, but the average Jersey cow will give more milk than two or three average Dexters; given that the average Dexter is supposed to give between 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 gallons of milk a day.

Again, if one likes Dexters, have them, as they are after all the best breed out there, just as are all of the other breeds.


----------



## celestialfarms (Mar 26, 2006)

Hello there

I wanted to say a couple of things about milking Dexters. We had a older dexter cow that came from a very milky bloodline. On her 16th lactation she still gave an easy 2 gallons (those are imperial gallons on US ) and she was not on any special feeds. She was a great milker and I miss her a lot. 

Dexters will milk for the âLong haulâ and you will not be disappointed. We had three jerseys when I was younger on our farm and my uncle milked Aryshires, I would put my Dexters against them any day. I would question the weight of your Jerseyâs Haggis as I know that the jerseys that we had were closer to 1000 lbs. and the Ayrshires we closer to 1200-1300 lbs

If we were to base Hay consumption on 2% of body weight my 600 lb dexter is going to eat 8 lbs of hay less than the 1000 lb animal that is 240 lbs per month. Does not seem like much, but that is almost 2 Dexters for the same feed as one larger cow. 

Dexters will breed for a longer than conventional milking breeds too. I have not heard of too many Jerseys, Ayrshires, or Holsteins milking at 18 years. Not only the longevity of the breed but the smaller animals are a lot less wear and tear on the ground than the bigger animals tooâ¦..

Guys I have been around them all â¦..to each there own but I have had Dexters for going on 9 years and I would not trade them for anything.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

> â¦.but the average Jersey cow will give more milk than two or three average Dexters; given that the average Dexter is supposed to give between 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 gallons of milk a day.


I can see how 6 gallons daily would be good if you needed the milk. But I found it to be a burden. Extra work to milk, strain, cleaning jars and equipment, needing extra frig space, then trying to sell (illegal here), etc, eventually throwing the excess on the compost pile. I guess you could make lots of cheese, feed extra calves, etc, but thatâs a whole ânother level of work. I wanted to be in control of the milk, not have the milk control me. So my Jersey/Lowline angus works.

Youâre right, we all try to market our breed. Or I try to promote crossbreeding. Just seems if we advertise nearly free milk (4 extra gallons a day for only 50 cents), many newbies get excited without considering the work involved. I read on other forums discouraged people asking what to do with all the milk, or discussing the physical challenge of milking that much, especially if theyâre new or have never milked, or arenât strong.

What do you purebred Jersey owners do with many gallons daily?


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

We have two neighbors who buy all of the grain for my little first calf heifer, and in exchange they each get 2 gallons of milk each week. We have 5 children and 12 Grand-Darlings (number 13 is on the way), and they all drink a quite a bit of milk, they eat yogurt, they eat butter, they eat ice cream, they eat whipped cream, and they eat cheese. I've told my children from the time they were small that a person could raise most of what they eat, but that to do so they must eat mostly what they raise; if one has a large supply of anything, milk included, fine a way to use it.

When we have two cows in milk the extra goes a long way (or is it whey?) towards fatting hogs, chickens, and geese. We have never dumped a drop on a compost heap.

On Jerseys, one must remember that they are exclusively been bred as milk cows, not dual purpose cows, so as I mentioned above, they don't carry a lot of excess weight for one to feed in order to get milk. By the by, while Jerseys do range in weight from 800-1200 pounds, the average weight of a Jersey in America is around 900 pounds; again, just 150 pounds more than the average Dexter, and the average Jersey will give more than 13 times her body weight in milk each lactation. Dexters, if they give the aforementioned 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 gallons a day, and if they weigh only 750 pounds on average, will give 5 to 8 times their body weight in milk each lactation; that is based on an average 305 day lactation, an 8.6 pound gallon of milk, and a 750 pound cow.

http://www.ansi.okstate.edu/breeds/cattle//

Again, I'm not picking on Dexters, if one wants them and prefers them, have them, but they do not produce more milk pound for pound than any other breed of cattle. The only really profitable and widely used dual purpose breed in America is the Holstein, and the average Holstein will give some 17,500 pounds of milk each year; divided by their average weight (1500 pounds) they will only (it seems like a poor choice of words here), but they will only give a bit less than 12 times their body weight in milk each year. A lot of other large breeds are used, but it seems that they are often used to build a better Holstein.

The Holstein will produce more mik than a Jersey, but less pound for pound precisely because it is a dual purpose breed; there has to be a trade off to get the beefy steer calf; it takes a beefier dame to get a beefier calf. It is this way with all dual purpose breeds. The Jersey cow is all about the milk. Again, these are all averages and every cow is a bit different even within a breed.


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

Did you know that 94.3% of all statistics are made up on the spot?

I don't know how much the average Dexter cow weighs. The ADCA standard says that a Dexter cow should not exceed 750 pounds. Mine vary from 450 to 650 lb. My bull doesn't weigh 750 lb.

I also don't know how much milk the average Dexter or Jersey gives. I'm only concerned with whether a specific cow will fill the family's needs. On one of the other boards, the results of a test on dairy Dexter cows was posted. The heaviest milker exceeded 4 gallons a day.

Talking about stripping the cow's weight to get more milk makes me think about how I could throw out the back seat, spare tire and battery to make my car go faster. I think it's better to have a full featured luxury car than a sports car. Some people would rather have a cow that carries beef as well as gives milk. Even though you're not going to eat your milk cow, her bull calves can fill your freezer and her heifers can replace her as a milker.

It's unbelievable the prices that people are asking for Jersey milk cows. With the money I save buying a Dexter, I won't even have to milk her. I can buy milk from you.

It's fun talking back and forth like this, but I really don't want to run down anybody else's choices to boost mine. Everyone has different needs to meet. I'm thankful that there is a variety available to do this.

Genebo
Paradise Farm


----------



## MullersLaneFarm (Jul 23, 2004)

We researched the 'perfect' family cow before we bought ours. Dexters and Jerseys were the two top contenders. Because of the price and availability, we have a Jersey. she's a full blood, but not registered. 

She has a hard time settling with AI so we had her in milk for nearly 23 months and she was still giving 1.5 gallons a day. Her first breeding was to a dun Dexter. bull calf that we sold. Bred her back to a young Jersey bull and she produced a wonderful heifer, which we also sold.

She is grass fed in the summer and alfalfa hay in the winter. Minimum grain at milking. She has produced as much as 7 gallons with two milkings. We're only milking her once a day and she's giving 3-4 gallons daily.

We sell milk when we can, make cheese, butter, et al and the pigs & poultry get their fair share.

If we had both Jersey & Dexter available to us for compariable prices, we would have gone with the Jersey.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

MullersLaneFarm said:


> She is grass fed in the summer and alfalfa hay in the winter. Minimum grain at milking. She has produced as much as 7 gallons with two milkings. We're only milking her once a day and she's giving 3-4 gallons daily.
> QUOTE]
> 
> I expect that our Tulip will give more milk next time, this being her first lactation, and given that we have milked her but once a day this time. I wish we had better hay and better pasture, but we have what we have until we can do better. Our pasture is about the same stuff we buy in hay, and that is mostly wild grasses with a touch of Timothy; most folks around here figure our local wild hay at 7%, so we have to trade milk for grain to get the diet up to 15% protein.
> ...


----------



## LMonty (Jul 31, 2006)

well, I wanted Dexters before I read this discussion- now I am DEFINTELY even more concvinced they are right for us!

This was a very educational discussion for me, thanks to all that partcipated. I have enjoyed it quite a lot.

genebo, I sent you a PM. TIA for reading it.

Laura


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

One of my Dexters will calve in April. I can't wait to try her milk. She was never handled before we got her; but has become very gentle with handling. I love her beautiful, shiny black coat.


----------



## Terry W (Mar 10, 2006)

linn said:


> One of my Dexters will calve in April. I can't wait to try her milk. She was never handled before we got her; but has become very gentle with handling. I love her beautiful, shiny black coat.


 Are you getting her used to having her udder handled now, before you want to take that mi;lk from her?


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Terry W said:


> Are you getting her used to having her udder handled now, before you want to take that mi;lk from her?


Terry,
Thanks for the concern. Yes, she is used to having her udder handled. We always try to get our cows used to being handled before milking them.


----------



## Mountaineer (Jan 1, 2006)

I completely forgot I asked this- I think I was just going off to bed that day when I wrote it. THANKS! So much good information here, way more than I expected. I'll have to go through it slower tonight.


----------



## Tam319 (Jan 6, 2007)

I just had the chance to read this thread from start to finish...what a great discussion! Lively and well informed debate, and lots of great insight. I am still trying to determine what breed I want to go with for our family cow. I would a cow to have enough milk for her calf, our family (2 adults plus toddler) plus a bit extra for emergency bottle babies (goats). Any extra on that would be a bonus and I would use to fatten our pigs.

I found a Dexter cow for sale, coming 3. She was hand milked on her first lactation. The story is that her calf was left on her and and she was milked for the family on top of that. At weaning time they stopped milking her and sold her. The new owners started milking her again after she hadn't been milked/nursed in a couple of weeks. Bringing her back into lactation they managed to get 4 L a day out of her.

OK, I am clueless as to milking ability and amounts...but do you think this girl would be a good milker when fresh, if she was giving 4 L after being brought back into lactation after several weeks to dry off?? She is a nice, compact registered cow, perhaps a little more a beefier build than dairy (looks like a mini Angus). They are asking $800 Canadian for her and she's bred Hereford, due to freshen in April. Is that reasonable? They are selling her b/c they found out one of their kids can't tolerate cow's milk and they are getting goats. They said she is pretty good to deal with but they tie her foot up for each milking...is that normal?

Sorry for all the questions...I am a beef and goat girl and this home dairy thing is new to me!

Thanks in advance for any advice you can lend.


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

Tam,

The cow should be OK. Some people like to tie the foot while they milk because it makes them feel safe. I'd ask if she ever kicked or had some reason for tying other than for safety. This cow has led an unsettled life, with the moves she's made. I'm sure she would love to be in a permanent caring environment, where she could bond with her milker.

Giving 4L after being dried off for two weeks is an indication that she'll give more next time. The 4L was her total output at that time, and I'm sure you'll need triple that in order to feed her calf and have that much left for yourself. Ask how much the old owners got from her before the calf was weaned. I'm sure the new owners asked before they bought her, so they should know.

I'm a little worried about her being bred to a Hereford. There could be some danger to her there. Large calf, you know. Even if the birth goes well, the big calf could take a lot of her milk.

The price sounds like a bargain from this side of the border.

I'd go see this cow, if you want her. See if she's friendly and will allow handling. A good breeder will be glad to have you inspect. This owner should be, too. Be leery if they won't.

Get her registration number, too. There's a lot of good information in a pedigree.

Genebo
Paradise Farm


----------



## Tam319 (Jan 6, 2007)

Thanks for the info!! I was a bit leery of the Hereford thing as well. The owner reassured me that after the 1st calf a Dexter can be bred to a beef breed. I'm concerned about dystocia, and now that you mention it, that makes sense that the calf would require more milk. Hmmm, I'll have to think about this one. The owner said she's never been around cows before and finds it intimidating to work with this one. I'm not sure if that is a reflection of the cow's temperament, or the owners!! Yes, poor thing has been juggled around quite a bit!

Thanks!


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

My feelings about milking Dexters - don't - is fully expressed here:

http://homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=127687&page=1&pp=30

Some folks have commented about temperment, so I'll throw this out: I'd wager a fair amount of money that the average dairy breed is calmer than the average Dexter. SOME Dexters are milked - the rest are used for beef in scrub country - so temperment would not have been a cull factor. You can put up with a nasty animal if you only work with it once a year. Milk cows get culled for temperment. No one wants to deal with a wild bloody monster twcie a day. Some modern dairies will put up with it - if she is a particularly high producer, but I doubt a homesteader is going to go for one the high-producing lines. There are large variations of temperment within breeds, so I am talking averages here. I would take any anecdotal evidence about a particularly sweet or vicious cow to be meaningless to larger averages. The way you handle the animal has a big influence too - pushing the animal one way or the other from its natural genetic disposition.

We raised bottle calves one year - some were pure Holstein and others were 1/2 Holstein and 1/2 Angus. They were raised in the same gentle manner. The Holstein steers got very tame. The crosses weren't wild - but didn't want you to pet them either. They would put up with a hand on their flank, but would usually start to back away. The only difference was genetics - the dairy side had been bred (partially) for temperment and the beef side had not.

One thing that I've discovered in the last several years of putting my homesteading dreams into action is that the professionals generally have good reasons for what they do. You don't always have to follow the lead of full-time farmers, but if you decide to go a different route, then do so carefully. I know of no dairymen who actually depend on the milk check who raise Dexters. If Dexters really were such good milkers and cheaper to keep, there would be Dexter dairies. Not even among the grass-fed, low input grazing dairies. Crossbred dairy breeds and Jerseys are the choice of the low-input producers. Believe me, they have crunched the numbers.

Several folks have said that people ought to do what makes them happy. I agree. But if you are going to be happy with a house cow, it strikes me that you will enjoy scratching the ear of a Jersey as much as scratching the ear of a Dexter. So some clear calculation of costs and production isn't out of place.

So, when it comes to Dexters - don't.


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

Mark T,

Do I understand you to say that you've never owned a Dexter? Are you just striking out at them out of liking for a different breed? Well don't. Some of the groundless things you said are just mean.

Dexters aren't put forth as dairy animals. That's the whole point of this thread, comparing dual purpose Dexters with dairy cattle. However, you're wrong about there being no Dexter dairies. There are some in the UK, where the unique quality of the Dexter milk is sought after. There may be others. I wouldn't bet against it.

You're entitled to your feelings about Dexters, no matter where you got them from, but some things are better left unsaid. You know what your Grandmother always told you .......

So "Dexters are used for beef in scrub country"? Humpfh!

Genebo
Paradise Farm
Church Road, VA


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

I remember that thread, Mark. Guess I have to set you straight again

As Genebo said, apparently the main point is being missed. Yes, if you need great amounts of milk, and little beef, a dairy cow is the most efficient. But in the larger picture, it is less efficient if you have to throw away milk.

This reminds me of the macho guys who brag about the payload their trucks can handle, yet the most they haul is a bag of groceries while wasting gas. Some of us donât need much capacity and donât like throwing fuel away. Commercial truck drivers need a big rig, as hauling huge loads is more efficient that way. It just depends on your needs.

Iâm beginning to see mine as a beef cow who gives extra milk, rather than a milk cow. As half dairy, probably the ideal beef cow, as Haggis explained, less muscle mass to support vs. a pure beefer. Breed her to a beef bull and have a mostly beefer calf that puts on the flesh. Now if your goal is to raise replacement dairy heifers, this wonât interest you. Many of us are into growing our own food.

Seems to me the best dual purpose cow would be a mix of the best beef animal, crossed with the best dairy animal. Rather than milk and beef production as average between the two, with hybrid vigor, get better than average. But you donât have the problems with the extremes of either.


----------



## Slev (Nov 29, 2003)

Mark T,

I respectfully disagree with you.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Our three Dexters had never been handled much when we got them. One of them was more skittish than the others; but with close confinement and regular handling they tamed right down. The one I handle most is really quite gentle. Dexters have been used as house cows for decades. I believe that there are Dexter dairies in New Zealand and Africa as well as Great Britian.


----------



## IMContrary (Sep 22, 2004)

You might also be able to meet a market demand for milking dexters if you were able to get a good milking line and breeding for milk production. I'm sure there would be a market for animals who you can show are good milkers for their size.


----------



## Timberline (Feb 7, 2006)

"So, when it comes to Dexters - don't."

I have a problem with this statement, just based on the fact that what works for some doesn't for others. I have raised Dexters, Jerseys and Dexter X Jerseys for 10 years. I just sold off the last of my Jerseys and crossbreds based on hay and feed prices here in Colorado (very expensive and hay is hard to find right now). My Dexters provide our milk and beef on much less than the Jerseys or crossbreds. 

Yes, I understand why dairies raise the breeds they do, but that isn't always what a homesteader is looking for. Yes, there are a zillion uses for gallons and gallons of milk a day, but sometimes a person doesn't have time for that, or just doesn't want to hassel with it. Yes, there are some lines of Dexters that produce better than others, it does pay to research before buying a cow or heifer.

Dexters are a small dual purpose breed, they won't milk like Jerseys or produce as much beef as Angus, they weren't bred to. They will provide a family with milk and beef on less feed, and they provide a lot of entertainment and fun at the same time. They are different and that appeals to a lot of people. Sure I could raise Holsteins like most dairies, or Angus like most ranches, but I don't want to. I like to be different. 

The choice of a breed, be it cow, goat, chicken, whatever, is a very personal thing, based on many different situations and emotions. There is no perfect breed for all homesteads, each much make his/her own decision. 

"So, when it comes to Dexters - don't." It is statements like this that have contributed the extinction of so many heritage breeds. You may think loss of diversity in our livestock breeds it ok, but I don't. That is another reason I chose Dexters.

One last thing, there are Dexter dairies in other countries, maybe they know something we don't. I think you will appreciate this pic of a South African Dexter cow.


----------



## Slev (Nov 29, 2003)

nice picture, but I bet the nay-sayers out there will question if that cow has been surgically altered, or had a teat job. (...I didn't know they had plastic surgeons


----------



## Timberline (Feb 7, 2006)

Slev, you're probably right, oh well. I would have felt the same if that statement had been made about any minor breed. If Mark T., or you, or I don't agree with the breed someone else chooses, that doesn't make it a bad or wrong decision, merely different. I support the choice any breed of cow, after all, they could have chosen to feed their family that hormone filled, cooked and processed beyond recoginition, white stuff the grocery store calls milk.

Here's another pic for you. This was one of my first Dexters. She was a purebred, registered Dexter.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Chalk Creek said:


> Here's another pic for you. This was one of my first Dexters. She was a purebred, registered Dexter.


 Wow! What a great looking cow. I hope my Dexters have an udder like hers.


----------



## Rick Allen (Jun 5, 2006)

We currently have a Jersey and a Milking Devon. The Jersey is a better milker. The Devon is a better duel purpose cow and probably as good as any beef breed for meat.

At 1200 lbs the Devon is sort of a big version of a dexter who gives what a good Dexter will give; 1 1/2 to 2 gallons of milk every 12 hours. 

We have 4 growing children and realized over the years that, rounding up the cows, cleaning the cows, graining the cows, milking the cows, and straining the milk every day, was time consuming. We often had conflicts with things like piano lessons and youth groups. With this in mind last year we seperated our cows from their calves 2 times a week, whenever it was convienient, and milked 3 gallons each time. This was enough for our family and cut down on the roundup, cleanup, straining time, etc. Roundup, feeding, and cleanup are the same for 3 gallons milkings as it is for a 1/2 gallon milking.

Because of what we've learned our plan is to breed for a higher milk producing duel purpose cow. We're in the process of breeding our Devon with a high producing Holstein. I'll buy one or two 100 dollar newborn calves at the sale barn and put them on our new cow along with her own calf. We'll milk her once a week for 6 or 7 gallons, and freeze half. With this one cow we'll reduce our chore time even more while still producing more then enough milk and beef for the family. 

What we've learned is that more milk isn't more work if you let the calves have what you don't use. More milk is less work because the more milk you have the less often you have to milk in order to get what you need. You don't have to milk when you'r sick, or when you're called into work, you don't have to milk on your aniversary, or on Christmas Day, and you don't have to milk in the middle of birthday parties. You don't have to even buy extra calves for heavy milkers if you don't want to. The cow will adjust to the demand. 

Just keep in mind the novelty of milking wears off pretty quick and early on it starts to seem an awful lot like work! If you buy a light milker you'll be out there 7 days a week, rain snow sleet and heat, not to mention the flies. Most just burn out and go back to the check out line at Wallmart. If you want to make a milk cow part of your life for the long haul don't allow her to take it over. Make it easy on yourself. Buy the fattest cow you can find that will give you all the milk you need in just one or two milkings a week. God Bless /RA


----------



## Timberline (Feb 7, 2006)

HI Rick. I share milk with my Dexters as well. It works out great, I can milk as often or as little as I please. I had to put an extra calf on the Jerseys and crossbreds and still had occassional problems with mastitis. Have never had mastitis in a Dexter. They are so easy on our fences, pastures and feed bill, and much less manure to clean up. I do like the smaller size of them.

My problem with Mark T's post was that blanket statement covering an entire breed. I feel it was unfair because, while Dexters may not be the right choice for him, they are for a lot of people.

Good luck with your Devons and crossing them, sounds like a good plan. Would love to see calf pix when the time comes.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Look, I don't mean to gore anyone's sacred cow (pun intended).

I seem to have raised some hackles.

The intent of this board is to offer advice - Forum members have helped me several times. In good conscience, I think that ceding the ground to the Dexterphiles would be doing a disservice to folks who really are considering the issue.

But let me be clear: Folks SHOULD choose a breed they will enjoy. But they shouldn't do so based on faulty reasoning.

If you like the look of Dexters, go for it.

If you like the idea of preserving genetic diversity of minor breeds, go for it.

But when folks try to make a practical case for the Dexter as a dual breed, I'm not convinced. And note that, while Genebo may think I'm being "mean," if you read what I wrote, the things I said are not "groundless." Which of the following is inaccurate?

Dexters give less milk - sometimes much less (even defenders admit that there is "wide variation").

Dexter calves are smaller. Dexterphiles like to argue that the smaller size is better for a family's meat needs - while ingoring the fact that more suitable breeds will put the same size carcass in the freezer in half the time without the effort of winter feeding.

Dexters do not have much salvage value.

Dexter calves will not bring much at the auction - if you plan to sell them you have to find a specialty market. If one was cynical, one might start wondering how many vocal Dexterphiles are lining up customers. I don't begrudge someone making a living - but folks who come to the board seeking advice on their fist cow should have a counterpoint to the sales pitch.

Dexterphiles like to point out that one can raise two dexters on the same pasture used by a Holstein. (Though they don't seem to look at the Jersey, perhaps because the comparison is less favorable). They also don't talk about the fact that increasing numbers increases workload, increases veterinary costs, and doubles handling. Can anyone honestly argue that two small cows are the same workload as one large cow?

There are no professional dairymen using Dexter genetics. If they really were "pound for pound" the best producers, American, Canadian, and New Zealand producers would be using Dexter genetics as they attempt to build smaller grass-fueled milkers. This hasn't happened.

Genebo says that there are Dexter dairies in the UK. I'd be fascinated if this was the case - what a neat thing - finding a way to preserve the genetics of a minor breed while turning a profit. I tried finding some information on Google but struck out. I'd love to see some information about this. If Genebo wants to point me in the right direction, I'd be willing to eat my words that there aren't any Dexter dairies. I'd be glad to do it. But readers should note that Genebo's

_"However, you're wrong about there being no Dexter dairies. There are some in the UK, where the unique quality of the Dexter milk is sought after. There may be others. I wouldn't bet against it."_

effectively cedes the argument in North America. I would bet against it - if there were financially viable Dexter operations, don't you think the Dexterphile marketers would be trumpeting it for the rooftops? You can find this type of thing for other minor breeds - there are Normande dairies, dairymen who use Dutch Belted, Pinzgauer, Montbeliarde, Red Dane, Red Poll, Scandanavian Red, New Zealand genetics, etc. 

NOTE: I did come across one small dairy in New York that makes cheese from three Dexter cows. A neat operation - but I have to wonder about profitabilty on three cows. I officially eat my words - there is one (somewhat professional?) Dexter dairy. In the interest of full disclosure, here is the link:

http://www.fingerlakesdextercreamery.com/

Some folks like to argue that extra milk is a bad thing. The answer to this is to simply take what you want, let the calf take the rest (maybe cut you milking chores in half and do once-a-day milking). What the calf can't take will gradually stop being produced. You don't have to run a Jersey/Guernsey/Holstein/Ayrshire at her maximum genetic potential - I doubt any homesteader would do so because it shortens their life expectancy. Most folks could find things to do with the extra milk, but if you don't want it - get a bigger calf in the freezer faster.

Some folks have mentioned milking time. For one cow, more milking time is taken in prep and clean up than the actual milking, so there isn't that much of a difference. If there is a difference, the difference favors the traditional breeds. If you go to once a day milking, all of the saved prep and cleaning time outweighs the extra two minutes of squeezing teats. Others have suggested milking two dexters instead of one traditional cow - same milking time and double the prep and clean-up.

I just thought of one extra quibble. For a homesteader with a single cow reliant on artificial insemination, it is quite easy and cheap to acquire semen from traditional channels - traditional milk cows can almost always calve the progeny of AI beef bulls. Any local inseminator can pretty much get you your choice of bulls from the traditional dairy and beef breeds. The selection is vast. Getting Dexter semen requires moving outside the traditional AI system and (I suspect - I don't know for sure) moving outside the traditional semen delivery network will bump costs considerably.

If any of the statements above are groundless, please specifically explain why. Don't just call them groundless. Support that acccusation.

To sum up - I hereby acknowledge that Dexters may make excellent pets. I hereby acknowledge that some people love them.

But I stand by my statement that owning a Dexter cannot (and yes, I am lumping in all of the breed) be justified on a dual-breed economic analysis.

Excuse me while I pull on my fire-retardant clothes. I hope this won't trigger a flame war. If you disagree, don't take it personally - simply give evidence that the statements above aren't facts.


----------



## Sher (May 10, 2002)

Ya know mark T..we are so lucky to have you on this thread. I see no bias in your posts. You just know more than the rest of us about all the breeds.

We have Dexters. We wanted them for the meat end of things. There are only two of us and we kept having to find others to "share". We don't have to do that with these guys..they fit nicely into our freezer. So...we were actually looking for a bull that throws beefy types. We bought a small herd when we got into them. Low and behold.. two of those pesky girls have bags alot like the one pictured. Oh my...

So then we are crossing this beefy bull with these nice uddered girls...what to do. What will we call them..how will we sell them? Egads! We could possibly call them dual purpose. The heifers are long gone to people who want to milk them...the boys are in route to freezers. What a LUCKY deal!

Seriously..if people like Dexters..and if they are wanting them for milking..then they need to get ahold of some Dexter owners and "talk" to them about great milking lines in the Dexters. We wouldn't be one of those people..but there are alot of them that have this knowledge.

It would seem you have a bone to pick with either the Dexters or owners of Dexters. I don't get why everyone automatically gets hesterical when someone wants to buy a Dexter. I mean..yes..they are easy on fences..easy to handle..easy on feed..and on and on we go. I always hear that they are so blamed expensive. I just don't see that part. There are alot of bred Dexters going for 1000-1200. Are they red and polled? No..but there's alot of nice girls out there for the picking. How much cheaper should they get? Is $500 for a bull with nice progeny on the ground too much? Gee..how much cheaper do you want .. I mean, he does have the future of your herd at hand.

I would guess you think you have been taken by some breed, maybe Dexters, and you are bent on riling people up. I guess if that trips your trigger its fine. But I know you're not changing Dexter owners minds..and if someone is serious about the breed..I doubt that they will take one persons word and dismiss Dexters altogther.

There's a breed for every need!


----------



## Slev (Nov 29, 2003)

well I guess everyone is entitled to their opinion Mark T, even you to yours, and to share that opinion is valuable and helps others. heck, I guess there's even value in a plug nickel to some folks, a lot like fools gold back in the mid 1800's where many a miner went looking to strike it rich, but wound up with a pocket full of fools gold because they believed what someone else was telling them. Mark T, you speak of putting on flame-proof clothes. If you were flaming a fellow human that would be wrong, but you seem to be flaming cattle, and that in my book spells BROILED STEAK! You speak of people not basing their decisions on faulty reasoning, but then you only tell one side of the story. You left so many holes in your statements, they look like Swiss cheese pal. You leave out the FACT, that if a person had 2 Dexters and one got sick and died, then you'd still be left with one. Not so for the folks with one larger cow, (dual purpose or not, dead is dead...) Many of your statements only list one side, which by the way, you could take out the word Dexter and insert just about any breed of cow, horse or chicken for the same results.(Go ahead, try it, it's fun and it works!) Rather than push someone else into falsifying your statements, why don't YOU do that work, just tell both sides of the story, heck even write a book about it where you can share your knowledge, but try to give a non bias total picture of the issue will you? 

I'll admit, I own 1 Dexter heifer now. I have had several one time but sold them in order to buy a camper for my family. I have read and reread most every cattle post that had anything to do with a homestead cow, and/or the great Jersey vs. Dexter debate, which I added to, by asking that people who have had BOTH Dexter and Jersey respond by stating so. Otherwise, how really could some honestly debate the issue. From what I recall, there are more people convinced that the Jersey makes the better milk cow for amount of milk, taste, and what not. But there were also people out there that came up with all sorts of reasons for why they got rid of their Jerseys and kept the Dexters, most were, (if I recall) from health reasons and amount of food intake issues, I think there may have been one who commented on how friendly their Dexter was over the Jersey. BUT, there were loads of people who commented on the friendliness of their Jerseys, even reading a book while laying out in the pasture. But I think some of those folks only had Jerseys. So you're right when you say they should pick a breed they enjoy. 

My thoughts are, for the vast and many folks out there that call the Dexter a dual purpose breed, (maybe not the BEST dual purpose breed for some) but still a dual purpose breed none-the-less, I think they out rank the few, (or even one) who would state the Dexter is NOT a dual purpose breed. Not that I'm the type to go with the majority, but I did my homework, visited Dexter breeders, read a book or two on them, looked at many web sites, and made my decision. I suggest everyone else do the same. I'm still pondering and/or looking for a little Jersey so I can be one of the few who have dealt first hand with both breeds. As far as you eating your own words, you might be better off eating your typing fingers..... it certainly would keep less people from tossing plug nickels around.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Sher,

The definition of bias is that one allows pre-existing opinions to color one's ability to interpret information. I haven't been "taken" by any breed. Based on my four years of cow owning, I'd probably go with a Holstein over an Ayrshire for some of the same reasons I indicated Dexters don't make an economical choice. However, when we are talking about two traditional dairy breeds, the difference is one of slight degree rather than one of magnitude as it would be with a Dexter.

Sher, I'm also puzzled by your tagging me "hesterical." I don't think my post has any irrational, wild statements that aren't supported by reasoned interpretation of fact, so I'm not sure why any of those could possibly be considered hysterical.

Sher, I'm also puzzled my why you think my intent is to get people all riled up - you will notice that I specifically say that there are reasons like personal preference and preserving genetic diversity to keep the breed. This is an advice board, that's what we are supposed to provide. Folks can take my advice or discard it.  When it comes down to it, we are all just disembodied voices on the internet. I don't arrogate to myself some special knowledge or claim to "know more than the rest of us about all the breeds." I do however, lay real facts that contradict some of the statements being made about Dexters - none of which I notice that you dispute.

Some folks seem to get riled up when you point out the economics of Dexter ownership - should folks with an economic turn of mind not give their input to people asking for advice for fear that other folks might get riled up?

In an ideal world, discussions would be civil and people could disagree and debate without throwing around charges of bias or hysteria. In an ideal world we might see some Dexterphiles respond to my post in the following way:

Although dairy breeds have been breeding for temperment for a hundred generations, Dexters were also bred for temperment because...

Mark T.'s calculation of salvage value is incorrect. Although a salvage Dexter weights several hundred pounds less and is unfamiliar with auction buyers, buyers who are unfamiliar with Dexters will bid MORE for them, pound for pound because...

Mark T. points out that running two Dexters per larger size cow would result in more labor, veterinary costs, and AI costs, that additional labor and expense is more than offset by...

Mark T. says that the beef side of the dual purpose favorts traditional dairy breeds, but that isn't the case. Even though it would take overwinter feeding, more labor, and more cost to get a Dexter 18 month to the same size as a 9 month Holstein steer, the numbers actually favor a slower-growing, smaller beef animal because...

Heck, here's a chance to observe the process in action. In the last couple of threads, two more claims about Dexters have been advanced. Note how I respond - without name-calling, bias, or hysteria - just dealing with the facts.

"I always hear that they are so blamed expensive. I just don't see that part. There are alot of bred Dexters going for 1000-1200. Are they red and polled? No..but there's alot of nice girls out there for the picking. How much cheaper should they get? Is $500 for a bull with nice progeny on the ground too much? Gee..how much cheaper do you want .. I mean, he does have the future of your herd at hand."

Sher makes a point - perhaps not having been in the market for a bred Dexter cow for the last four years, I don't know what the cost of a springing Dexter heifer is. We'll go with her figure and assume that is the price for member of one of the "milky lines" that will give more milk than her other Dexter sisters. The cost is less then bred Holsteins - I recently saw an auction where grade Bred Springers went for $1300-1500. We'll use the higher price for the sake of argument and to give the Dexter side of the equation the benefit of the doubt. When initially buying an animal, a homesteader who is making decisions based on economics will take salvage value into account - how much money am I risking? If God forbid, an animal breaks a leg, what can I get for the meat? If we figure 35 cents a pound at the auction, your $1500, 1300 pound Holstein would bring $455 - so you have $1045 at risk. The $1000, 700 pound Dexter would bring $245 - so you have $755 at risk. This assumes that there is a cull buyer who is willing to be bothered with an unusual breed at the auction. I'm reasonably sure that the unusualness would result in a serious reduction in bidding - but I'll assume same salvage value in order to give the Dexter the benefit of the doubt. Assuming Sher's low price for a Dexter and the high end price for a Holstein and then giving that benefit of the doubt means that the Dexter is $290 better than the Holstein. This also assumes that you don't have another market for hamburger. If you can slaughter and direct sell, the Holstein's extra pounds overwhelms the Dexter's lower intitial price. So on day one, the Dexter is favored.

However, there are other economic elements to cowholding. Because feeding programs and use of milk vary so widely, let us side those aside for now with the note that if you buy all your feed, you will have a significant savings for the Dexter, but if you have pasture, the feeding costs are the same. For the sake of argument, let us assume that the higher production of the Holstein in any system balances out the lower feed costs in some system. (Though if you are the buy-all-feed and throw-away all milk past a gallon type, the Dexter is better for your system)

If feed and production even out, then we can move on to the beef production side of the equation. Remember that the salvage value of our hypothetical is almost $300 on the side of Dexters if the animal dies the day you bring it home. If the beef produced has a value difference of $300, then the Holstein makes more sense after ONE year. We will go with the Dexterphile argument that the smaller Dexter is a better freeze animal so that the Dexter steer will be put in the freezer at 18 months at 700 pounds live weight. If I'm off on numbers, let me know. We'll assume you want a similar size freezer animal on the other side of the ledger, so will slaughter the Holstein at 700 pounds at 10 months. We'll also assume no grain, all milk/grass diet since that is what most homesteaders probably do - and getting the animals bigger faster would favor the Holstein - we are, after all, giving the Dexter the benefit of the doubt. The only out of pocket expenses will be overwintering (but not for the Holstein steer since it goes to the butcher in November/Decemeber if you calve with the season). Both animals give equal meat. The Holstein does it faster, but the slower Dexter growth won't add much in the terms of labor on a grass-only system. If your system is more labor intensive, this longer growing period should push you toward the Holstein. If you calculate your labor and overwintering costs at less than $300, the Dexter is for you on the two-year basis. (We'll call the extra Spring flush grazing even since the Dexter cow, yearling, and new calf would eat about the same amount of grass as a Holstein cow and new calf - the yearling being in the freezer already).

If you can overwinter for, say $150, the Holstein breaks even at two bull calves and pulls away thereafter.

Not all calves are bulls - you'll get 50% heifers. A Holstein heifer is worth $500 the second she hits the ground. The market demand is huge so to sell her for that amount you'll have to make a single phone call to the buyer listed in your local paper. I've not seen bob Dexter heifers for sale - but, assuming one can find a buyer in the niche homesteader market, she would probably be worth $500 at weaning time. If we assume that you just let the mom raise her own calf and put no labor into her, we won't have to calculate the labor. But the Mom-raised Holstein calf would be worth more than $500 at weaning time. Heck, if we leave them on grass, the Holstein heifer gets to be a better and better deal - remember we are assuming bred Dexter heifers are worth $1000 and Holsteins are worth $1500. Pencil-pushers would do well to remember that artificially knocking down the heifer sale price would counteract the only thing keeping Dexters in the game to this point - the lower initial purchase price. A heifer calf heavily favors the Holstein breed and completely outweighs the initial salvage advantage the Dexter had. In other words, the Dexter is not a sound economic choice if you expect your animal to live long enough to produce one heifer or two bull calves. Since its a 50-50 crapshoot (though sexed semen is now available for Holsteins and Jerseys), we'll call it a year and a half.

Another claim made in favor of the Dexter is that a Dexter is easier to control when handling them. I would point out that handling ease has little to do with size. No one can control a spooked 1300 pound Holstein. If you have the arm strength to control a 700 pound Dexter, well, God bless you. Referencing size for control doesn't seem to this humble cowhand to be a very good argument. I'm a big lad, but a 700 pound steer can knock me on my can if he gets excited. If the cow is calm, her size matters not at all.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Slev, I'll try to respond to your swiss cheese argument when I have a bit of time. You point out one situation - one cow dies and one cow lives - where you think my analysis falls down. Now we are getting somewhere - you have actually posited a situation where the double cow could conceivably be more economically effective. I don't think this holds up under closer analysis, but I don't have time to break it down now. If you would like to provide other examples of all those "swiss cheese" holes, I would love to see them - you seem to see them, so please let me know. But do me a favor - try not to take things so personally and get all riled up over this "fools gold" poster. I don't think your ad hominem attack is likely to convince the newbie looking for cow advice that my arguments are wrong. Actually dealing with the arguments would be more convincing. Not to mention more civil.


----------



## Sher (May 10, 2002)

Wow..with the ability to go on and on and the great vocabulary..and most importantly..the vast amount of experience that comes with four years of cattle..well heck..uncle.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Sher said:


> Wow..with the ability to go on and on and the great vocabulary..and most importantly..the vast amount of experience that comes with four years of cattle..well heck..uncle.


Sher,
I too got a chuckle out of that statement "based on four years of cow ownership."  Some of us, including me, have owned cows for over thirty years; and I still don't consider myself an expert. I keep learning every day. We have owned Jerseys, Milking Shorthhorns, various breeds of beef cattle, Jersey/Angus cross and now we have 3 Dexters. If I only had enough room for one or two cows, I would choose two Dexters of a good milking line. That way when one was dry the other one could be milking. Dexters also don't overwhelm you with milk. With just three of us in the family that is great. The bulls calves are also beefier than a Jersey. Anyone who has owned a Dexter loves their unique personality. I am now milking a Jersey/Red Angus cross. She is a good little milk cow; but doesn't have the personality of my Dexter.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

One has to wonder whether a farm hand, ranch hand, or a cowboy, who has worked with cows their entire life yet never owned one, might have more knowledge of cattle than a person who has owned, as an investment, a cattle ranch or dairy for many decades but doesn't work at all with cattle.

There can be vast experience without ownership, there can be no experience with ownership, and there can be some combination of the two. When I used to teach I met folks who read every new thing on teaching, they changed their lesson plans every year to meet new needs, and they talked only of changes within the craft. I also met no few teachers who were yet teaching from their first years lesson plans, and only spoke or retirement plans. It is the same in all enterprises.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Haggis,
I have been teaching for over 20 years and farming for over 30 years. There is nothing like first-hand experience. Theory is just that, "theory". By the way, all the farmers in my neck of the woods are owner-operators. None of us have the desire or money to hire someone to do it for us. We are farming because that is the way of life we choose.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Linn,

Discount my experience if you will - tell me how your vast experience negates the numbers. If we are really going to rely on the experienced folk, do we have any professional dairymen milking Dexters who can explain why they are economically efficient?


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Mark,
I am not going to get suckered into a yelling match with you; but there are Dexter dairies in Great Britian, New Zealand and South Africa. Apparently these dairies find the Dexter economically feasible. Contact one of them if you want the numbers.


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

True: we should all learn something new everyday, and experience is best, but again, one need not have "owned" cattle to have had a vast experience with cattle; besides, what is at issue here is the crunching real numbers, and those numbers based on breed averages, not on personal experience with one, a half dozen, or even 100 head of a given breed of cattle, but on breed averages.


----------



## Timberline (Feb 7, 2006)

Mark T, here are a few numbers and stats for you. Some of these records are older, some newer, and from different countries. Just what I could find quickly in my library. I'm not trying to change your mind about Dexters, just hoping to illustrate the fact that are some good Dexter milkers around. I'm not arguing your other points about breed averages and comparisions, just trying to point out there are Dexters worth milking. Ecnomically speaking, most Dexter heifers that I know of sell for about the same money as registered purebred heifers of other breeds. When I see high selling registered Jersey heifers bringing several thousand dollars, it amazes me, I could not afford one. The highest selling Dexter cow at last year's ADCA show and sale brought $2300.00, the average selling price was $1209. One thing that makes Dexter cows more ecnomical for me, is the longevity of the cattle. Cows produce and milk well to their late teens, this is common, not just a few outstanding cows.

I acknowledge and respect your opinions about milk cow breeds, please do the same for me. You may call me a "Dexterphile" if you like, however I think it's rather rude and uncalled for. Having raised and milked these little cows for 10 years (along with other breeds, both dairy and beef), in my experience, they make a very nice homestead animal. I would not still be raising them after a decade if they didn't pay their way. Dexters are certainly not for everyone, but they are the right breed for many. 

World Cattle III, Cattle of North America by John E. Rouse
"The Dexter cow is a surprisingly good milk producer, good representatives giving 5,000 pounds of 4.5 percent butterfat."

Dairy Cattle and Milk Production by Clarence H. Eckles
"In size the Dexters are about a hundred pounds below the Kerrys, the cows averaging 600 to 700 pounds. Under government supervision cows of this breed in Ireland have produced up to 8,000 pounds of milk in a year with a fat content of about 4 percent."

The Dexter Bulletin from The Dexter Cattle Society June 1957:
" Grinstead Trixie gave the following yields:
7.935 lbs in 399 days with her 8th calf
7,568 lbs in 290 days with her 10th calf
9,555.5 lbs in 356 days with her 11th calf
7,925.5 lbs in 357 days with her 12th calf
from the Preface of Vol. 1: Mr. E. Sydney Woodiwiss's Dexter Red Rose, whose weight was only 6.75 cwt, in a period of about nine months yielded 5 tons, 11 cwt. 45 lbs, or over 1220 gallons of milk, or nearly 16.5 times her own weight."

Kerry and Dexter Cattle, and Other Ancient Irish Breeds by PL Curran
"The South African brochure states that the average milk production of adult Dexter cows under normal feeding conditions is between 4,000 and 6,000 lbs per lactation of 300 days. 
This is substantially in agreement iwth Joubert and Hammond (1958) who reported that "Dexter average lactation yields as shown by National Milk Records is about 5,100 lb tesing at 4.22% butterfat." Milk recorded Dexters in South Africa produced an average of 3,593 kg (8000 lbs) milk in 1974. This may be set in contrast to two lots of Jersey cows in that country yielding averages of 3,918 kg and 3,480 kg (CAB Dairy Science Abstracts 1977). 
Milk records for 15 Dexter cows were provided for the 1982-1983 period. The mean yield for 240 - 300 day lactions were 2,579 kg (3.83% butterfat), ranging from 1,673 kg for a 2 year old and 3,189 kg for a 6 year old."

Dexter Cattle by John Hays
"In England there are several herds on which government figures are kept, and the brochure furnished by the Dexter Cattle Society of England in 1983 includes the following list of "a few recent representative officially recorded milk yields." Converted to pounds. 
......Cow..........Lacation.........Lbs.............%................Days in Milk
Daren Jane...........6..............7836...........4.17....................305 
Daren Jane...........7..............9335...........4.04....................302
Cherry Rush 3rd.....1..............6324..........4.43.....................304
of Knotting
Jamous of.............1..............5878...........4.73....................302
Knotting
Rock Raisin...........11.............7545...........4.65....................305
Rock Raisin...........12.............6898...........4.65....................305
Woodmagic............6..............6538...........4.60...................305
Musket 2nd
Woomagic.............7...............6797..........4.25...................305
Warbler 
Woodmagic............6..............7006..........5.14....................305
Zephyr's Dowitcher
Zephyr's Dowitcher..7..............6324..........4.84....................305
Woodmagic.............6.............7479...........4.17....................279
Magpie 2nd 
Jarush of................5.............6768...........4.38....................288
Knotting
Madarush 2nd..........3.............6748..........4.02.....................256
of Knotting
Templeton Carina.....3.............8119...........4.01....................305
Templeton Lotus......4..............7468..........4.26....................290
Templeton Tressie....6.............7468...........4.06....................301
Woodmagic.............7.............6865...........4.28.....................305
Zephyr's Dunlin

The Country Gentleman March 8, 1913 by CS Plumb
"The great argument in behalf of these cattle is that they are extremely hardy, and will thrive on an amount of feed that is very small compared with what would be required by cattle of other breeds. The very small size of the Dexter has been commented on by many as suited only to miniature farming, yet a cow weighing 500 to 600 pounds that will milk 5000 pounds of four percent milk a year certainly is worthy of consideration, especially if we take cos of production into account."

The Cattle of Great Britian by Frank H. Garner
Table XX Dual -Purpose Breeds - Dairy Characteristics

Breed............Avg Live.................Avg Milk..............Yield per
....................Weight.....................yield.................1000 lb
.......................lbs......................lbs/day.............live weight
Dairy
Shorthorn........1376......................65.65..................46.99
Dexter..............638......................31.46..................49.28
Lincoln Red.......1373.....................50.68..................36.92
Red Poll............1255.....................56.98..................45.40
South Devon......1615.....................39.26.................24.31


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Haggis said:


> True: we should all learn something new everyday, and experience is best, but again, one need not have "owned" cattle to have had a vast experience with cattle; besides, what is at issue here is the crunching real numbers, and those numbers based on breed averages, not on personal experience with one, a half dozen, or even 100 head of a given breed of cattle, but on breed averages.


Haggis,
I respectlfully wish to differ with you. This thread started out with someone asking if Dexter vs. Jersey was a good plan. Leave the number crunching for the Ag. Dept. Homesteaders are interested in a cow for family use. I would much rather take the advise of an experienced farmer than someone who is full of theory.  In most cases someone who owns an animal is more concerned about the production and health of the animal because that animal represents the owner's bread and butter. There are exceptions to every rule. We all have our favorite breeds and so it should be. This creates diversity.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Chalk Creek -

Excellent post. Your numbers are a good guideline. Your post is an excellent example of how I believe this type of discussion should go - you make points based on actual numbers.

The information from the 1913 Gardner book is particularly applicable to they way most cowholders raise their family cows - with low input. I'm sorry that it doesn't include the more traditional dairy breeds for comparison, but it gives us good numbers for the Dexter under smallholding conditions. The numbers are probably still in the right ballpark in 2007 because the Dexter hasn't been turned into a grain-fed milk factory like Holsteins have since WW II. I would note, however, that smallholding in Britain is a bit different from the American experience. They had cheap labor and land was expensive. Still, as I have said before, the Dexter could make sense under those conditions IF some other things fell into place.

At 8,000 lbs a lactation for a very good animal, that is about 1/3 of an average Holstein on grain. I'm not sure if the Dexters making those numbers were on full feed, but one assumes that they are grained if they are going for production records. Assuming that they weren't on full feed, we could compare to a Holstein without supplementary feed, and you'd probably get in the neighborhodd of twice as much milk. My poor genetic quality Ayrshire, assuming the calf average two gallons a day in late lactation made in the neighborhood of 10-12000 without any grain at all (though she did lose condition). I imagine a Jersey would be in that ballpark too. We won't compare the top notch dairy cows because a homesteader won't want one anyway. There are show cows out there that have made 50,000 pound lactations. Still, comparing the top level Dexter to an average to low level traditional dairy cow is fair - it is highly unlikely that a homesteader would have the show cow monster and Dexter folks seem to universally agree that good milking lines are easily available. Without the selection pressure of commercial production and AI, I would be very surprised if the top Dexter milker is way past a good Dexter milker - maybe drop the good milker to 6000 from 8000 - a much smaller drop than the 50,000 to 24,000 (or heck, the 50,000 to 16,000). If someone is considering Dexters, then you can crunch the numbers between a great Dexter milker and a low Jersey in fairness - this would definitely favor the Dexter side of the equation.

Still, I think the number crunching alone is unfavorable to choosing a Dexter over a Jersey even based on comparing a top notch Dexter over a Jersey, except in some narrow circumstances (someone doesn't count labor as an issue, all feed is purchased, there is no use for extra milk, beef production is relatively unimportant, high marketing skill to sell heifers to a niche market). Some of the angry posters seem to think I'm attacking their beloved Dexters and miss my point that there a reasons to pick them, they just aren't economic ones.

P.S. If you thought the phrase Dexterphile was rude, I apologize - I was simply creating a shorthand word for Dexter supporters (Dexter + "phile" meaning love - think Anglophile or Francophile, neither of which is considered insulting - heck, the word "bibliophile" is a great complement in my household).


----------



## LMonty (Jul 31, 2006)

actually I like the term Dexterphile- I am proud to be one! LOL



> Still, I think the number crunching alone is unfavorable to choosing a Dexter over a Jersey even based on comparing a top notch Dexter over a Jersey, except in some narrow circumstances (someone doesn't count labor as an issue, all feed is purchased, there is no use for extra milk, beef production is relatively unimportant, high marketing skill to sell heifers to a niche market).


I'd like ot comment on a few items you mention. I think you're looking at the economics solely (or mostly) of milk production from a commercial dariying standpoint.

What I dont know and what genebo and some of our experienced members might be able to contribute is the inputs necessary to produce a similar amont of milk betwwen the two breeds. Lets look at it backwards of the current issue- what are the total input and costs for a specified poundage of milk? Pick one that an average small dairy would produce and go from there. Assume you need more animals of low producing capacity to equal the volume of milk produced by the # of Holsteins, and then go from there. Admittedly I cant do this myself, my pencil and knowledge arent up to it. I wish they were , and hope some day to get there. 

I wonder if that would give you real answers. Even though you say the progency sell for less- lets compare the total $$ return when more progeny are produced by the higher number of stock. Also the cost of upkeep on acerage, equiptment and time. More labor for milking admittedly, but it may well be balanced by the sales of more offspring. 

Anothe rfactor is the sales of bereeding quality registered stock. "Gen'rally" costs as much to keep a registered animal as it does a grade- but sales of progeny can produce much more,. Your economic arguement relies eavily on slaughter prices for grade animls that are less desireable than holstein or holstein croses. Private breed specific sales of breeding stock seem much more lucrative (And as a researching soon to be buyer, I can verify that!). Private treaty custom meat sales of organicly grown animals (even uncertified) again are much more lucrative than running them in the auction ring. 

If you are assuming the producer is going to go the auction route I think your economic arguements do contain some validity. I think the way the end product is sold does make a big difference and tips the scale in the favor of some specialty breeds, even if you factor in the extra labor and expense of marketing.

Thoughts?


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

linn said:


> Haggis,
> leave the number crunching for the Ag. Dept. Homesteaders are interested in a cow for family use. I would much rather take the advise of an experienced farmer than someone who is full of theory.


Aye, the homesteader wants a cow for the family, but whether it be common dairy breeds or one of the rare/novelty breeds the numbers are all one has to use in recommending a breed or breeds. The bigger the spread in acquiring those numbers, the better picture one has in making a rational decision.

On experience, I've an uncle, I often speak of him here, who has kept his own house cow for more than 50 years, he has never had a cow for more than a couple of lactations before they go bad with mastitis, die of mistreatment, or die having a too large calf. I pulled a calf for him nearly 40 years ago when he had breed his small Jersey to a Charolais in hopes of bigger beef to sell for his winter's hay, and the calf's front legs weren't positioned properly. His thoughts on the matter were, "Pull it if you want or let her die. I can get another cow for $75.", and with that he went in to bed. He is the same today as he was back then.


----------



## Timberline (Feb 7, 2006)

Mark T., thank you for replying to my post and for explaining your meaning of Dexterphile, what popped into my mind at the time was pediphile (not a good association).

I, too, wish the Gardner book talked more about what the cows on the test were fed, but it didn't. 

While I was milking this morning, I had time to think about our opposing viewpoints, and here's what I came up with. Please correct me if I am wrong, as I don't want to make a wrong assumption. You are looking at the economics of a milk cow as maximum gallons of milk per dollar of feed, maintainance, etc., easy marketability of calves and final salvage value. You have obviously done your homework and found the breeds that provide this.

My view of economics is a bit different. I have decided how much milk I want, and am going for the most economic way to get it. I have had Guerneys, Jerseys, Jersey x Dexters, and Dexter milkers. I have found the Dexters to be the most economic for my goals. I am not replacing one Jersey with two Dexters or anything like that. One milk cow for a full lactation is what I mean here. For me, the Dexters eat less hay, less grain in the stanchion, less pasture forage, and they drink much less water (which is a nice feature when I have to haul it in the coldest part of the winter). They have been easier on the fences and equpiment and are cleaner (smaller and not quite as watery pies and less urine) in the barn. And they provide that amount of milk that I'm after. Does the way I stated that make sense?

I also add into my economics enjoyment and satisfaction. I have enjoyed all my milk cows, but the Dexters are just different somehow. They have this quirky personality that I really like. I have culled my herd from day one for a number of things, disposition included. My small herd is gentle and quiet, they come and investigate strangers, love to be around the barns and corrals, come when called, etc. Bull behavior is one area where I think the Dexters beat any other dairy breed hands down. Now, I know most dairies and homesteaders use AI and that's great, but I do like to have a bull around and the Dexters, in my experience, are quiet and easy to handle. I give them the proper respect and training, don't make pets of them and never turn my back on them. I'm not a large woman and often times I have to work the cattle by myself, I've never had a problem working any of my Dexter bulls.

You'll probably get a kick out of this. In my experimenting to get the amount of milk I want for the least amount of time and money, I am now milking my first goat. I bought a nice coming 3 year old, bred, in milk, purebred Nubian in October. I have been learning a lot about goats and talk about economic!! That little goat eats less in a week than one Dexter does in a day, and I can't get over how long my last 50# bag of feed has lasted. She is extremely clean, and my barn has never smelled so clean and fresh after having an animal in it all winter. I have her cleaned, milked and back in her pen in about the same amount of time it takes just to get my cow in and get her cleaned up (definite advantages to just two teats). Her kids are due April 21, so she is starting to slack off and I'm now getting about a quart and half (I milk once a day). According to her production records kept by the seller, she gives an average of a bit over a gallon when fresh. Last time, she had 3 kids, so it will be interesting to see how many she has this time. 

Her milk tastes wonderful, there's no goaty taste or smell at all. And I've recently learned how goat's milk is believed to be better for us than cow's milk. And I only paid $100 for her.  

You guys aren't gonna kick me off the cow forum for milking a goat are you?


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Linn,

I'm not trying to draw you into a shouting match. If you look closely, I've been nothing but civil. The vitriol seems to be coming from your side of the fence.

I hereby officially agree with you - if you wish to "leave the number crunching" to the Ag-Department, one should only make a decision based on your personal preference for cuteness.

However, if someone is asking for advice other than people's personal preference, I think the numbers do matter. If someone has a tight budget, the higher return one is likely to receive (outside of the narrow circumstances discussed above) would matter to the person. If someone is indpendently wealthy, more power to them. Heck, milk a Watusi cow if money doesn't matter.

As to your charge that folks who are evaluating whether to go with a Jersey of a Dexter should disregard my numbers because "I'm full of theory," I suspect we have different definitions of what that word means. If the numbers in my analysis are incorrect - and no one has challenged them - then we aren't talking theory. If money doesn't matter to you, good for you. But allow me to humbly suggest that you might be doing a disservice to folks by denying the existence/relevence of the numbers.

As a further note - and I'm treading carefully here because I am not the sort to engage in personal vituperation and this might be perceived as such - please allow me humbly suggest something.

I'm not trying to convince you and you aren't trying to convince me - we are operating from different premises, economic analysis and personal preference so there is no economic evidence that will pry you away from your preference and there is no personal preference argument that will sway me because I don't make farming decisions on that basis alone (except for my handful of Tunis sheep - which I acknowledge don't make any sense economically).

My humble suggestion is that in a situation where one is engaged in a difference of opinion with a target audience (potential new cow owners), failing to address the points of the argument and poking fun at (relative) inexperience, implying that someone's opinions are less worthy because of their "going on and on" and "great vocabulary" (Actually that was Sher) - as if taking the time to explain your points with evidence and clear, appropriate language was negatively dispositive - only serves to highlight the power of the evidence you ignore. You would be more persuasive to the reading audience if you provided evidence relevent to the crux of the dispute (I wish you had provided links to the Dexter dairies you mentioned) or simply fell back - as you eventually did - on saying that one should "leave the numbers to the ag department" and essentially vote with your heart. Just saying "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain - he's only owned a cow for four years" doesn't make the numbers magically vanish. An Ad Hominem attack that ignores evidence is likely to be counter-productive to your argument. The reader is likely to say - "Huh. Linn responds to numbers with personal dismissiveness. I wonder why she doesn't want to deal with the numbers?"

When it comes to voting with the heart, it is quite clear that Dexterphiles (and I mean that to be "People who love Dexters"), do indeed love their animals. The message has been received loud and clear. I would hope that you (Linn and Sher and Genebo) will take me at my word that I don't mean to upset you or attack you personally. I thought long and hard about the previous few paragraphs - they aren't meant sarcastically or meanly but really represent my hope that it might improve the discourse. 

For the readers who are really trying to decide on what type of cow to buy, I will give you full disclosure. It is true that Linn has owned cows five times longer than I. I don't claim to be an absolute authority on any topic. Opinions may differ, your milage may very, yadda yadda yadda. That said, although I'll never be able to make a living on my nine acres, I work to show a profit for my labor and do crunch numbers (except for the Tunis sheep which I keep for the same reason that many Dexter owners love their cows - I want to preserve a rare breed and think they are cool looking). The numbers I have presented are replicable based on your own research online and are the closest I can develop.

I've tried to present the numbers giving the Dexter side the benefit of the doubt and even given a link to what might be a viable Dexter enterprise, but if I was starting over the numbers I modeled for you would be dispositive.

I'm not trying to sell you anything or prop up prices of traditional dairy cows over Dexter cows (how could I? The dairy cow price market is set by the demands of a huge marketplace, not on small niche marketing).

Take my advice for what it cost you to read it.

f numbers matter to you, check for yourself if my estimates are reasonable. If numbers don't matter and personal preference is what counts, why are you asking for input? Get what you want - Holstein or Ayrshire or Dexter or Watusi. It's a big ol' world and all that.

I'll post one more time - because I owe Shev a thoughtful answer to his posited situation of losing one Dexter and having a fallback for milk production. Shev's point, even though I think it doesn't add up financially, is at least an attempt to engage on the issues and is a legitimate criticism - I had left out that situation from my original analysis.

Other than that point, I'll cede the post to the Dexterphiles - people who are looking for advice have my two cents and we protaganist posters have such divergent premises that further discussion wouldn't be useful.


----------



## LMonty (Jul 31, 2006)

Mark, I'm sorry you decided to back off, though I understand. I really enjoyed this thread (well, not the edgy stuff, the information and opinions and experience of evryone posting) and it has really been helpful for me, a total newbie. If my posts contributed to your discomfort with the subject, I'm sorry. I would really have liked your opinion as well as the input of the rest of the posters on the thoughts I posted. 

My goal is to be able to run 15-20 animals on my acreage (and if it goes well and profitable, may increase acreage as time goes on) and sell in private sale. I want to target the grass fed market. Would like to go for Naturally Grown certification. 

Ive been researching as much as I can, and it looks to me the best way to approach this is to start with Dexter cow/heifers. Hence my Dexterphile comment- i am plannign to look for some cows/heifers to start with this spring. I'll AI breed to lowlines. That gives me 50% lowlines which sell pretty well from what I can find out. I can breedup the percentage as time goes on, increasing value. But even at 50% I should get a good beef animal that is pretty profitable, for my particular circumstances. YMMV. It sounds like you already have the system that works best for you pretty well figured out. 

There is a market for the smaller sized family milk cows that require reasonable input to produce family use quantities of milk. The milky Dexter may be a good mom for the mixes I'd like to try for that, trying to breed for a hybrid that milks acceptably while retaining good carcass value (home use, not auction or commercial sales) for the bull calves. The best mix to produce the ultimate multipurpose "homestead cow". This is a fantasy project right now  but one i'd love to try. The Dexter itself already fits the bill for many, but I have some ideas I'd like to try.


----------



## Slev (Nov 29, 2003)

Let me throw out this twist also, though it may not apply with your cattle option. ...Back when I first made my water pond and wanted to make sure the liner had a good chance to off-gas before stocking it with high quality/costly fish, I was told to go buy the .29 cent goldfish from Wal-mart! 1 reason was they were .29 cents, and 2 if they can live under the poor conditions from the Wal mart staff, they must be healthy fish! 

I wonder if having a good plan and starting out with some healthy cross/grade stock until you "get your feet wet" or run through some of the "ooops, made a mistake on that one" errors that we all seem to make starting out, may save some hard earned cash? Kind of like a dry run, for a season or two? I know it is true with raising sheep. We processed some serious mistakes on our first cross breds, that I would have hated making on our Reg. Border Leicesters.

PS. Not to imply YOU are not a good producer, just that we all make mistakes starting out...


----------



## LMonty (Jul 31, 2006)

> I wonder if having a good plan and starting out with some healthy cross/grade stock until you "get your feet wet" or run through some of the "ooops, made a mistake on that one" errors that we all seem to make starting out, may save some hard earned cash? Kind of like a dry run, for a season or two? I know it is true with raising sheep. We processed some serious mistakes on our first cross breds, that I would have hated making on our Reg. Border Leicesters.


Not sure if youre talking to me slev- but the observation certainly applies!

Yes, its a good point- one I'm definitely considering. I hate to "practice" on any animals, but I recognize my cattle inexperience (and potential adverse outcomes of that) enough to agree that putting real expensive ones into the mix before we get our feet wet is more risk than I want to assume. 

That is one reason I'm not rushing out to buy lowlines right away. I can breed up via AI very affordably. Dexters are common enough to have come down in cost and are a fairly forgiving breed from what Ive heard. Seems like the older heifers and open cows can be purchased for about 650 if you look for them. I'm assuming it will take me about 5 yrs before I get comfortable enough with this to start spending money on expensive show quality stock-if I ever do go that route.by that time (I hope!) I'll have a better idea of the economics and the reality of our own situation and capabilities to better evaluate whats likely to increase income while controlling risk.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Slev wrote:

"You speak of people not basing their decisions on faulty reasoning, but then you only tell one side of the story. You left so many holes in your statements, they look like Swiss cheese pal. You leave out the FACT, that if a person had 2 Dexters and one got sick and died, then you'd still be left with one. Not so for the folks with one larger cow, (dual purpose or not, dead is dead...) Many of your statements only list one side, which by the way, you could take out the word Dexter and insert just about any breed of cow, horse or chicken for the same results.(Go ahead, try it, it's fun and it works!) Rather than push someone else into falsifying your statements, why don't YOU do that work, just tell both sides of the story, heck even write a book about it where you can share your knowledge, but try to give a non bias total picture of the issue will you?"

Well, Slev, I'm not sure why you say I don't present both sides - in all of my economic analysis I have used numbers provided by the Dexter supporters and always given them the benefit of the doubt as to production. The problem, from the people selling Dexters is that even given the benefit of the doubt, the traditional dairy breeds make more economic sense. Imagine how large the gap would be if we gave moved the traditional up towards their breed averages and didn't assume every Dexter in the comparison is a top milker.

Furthermore, I've also acknowldeged some situations where Dexters can be useful. One wonders whether you have actually read the post or just gone into attack mode when you saw a conclusion that might undermine your sales brochures. If you claim there are holes in the argument, you have to point them out. "Nuh-uh" isn't particularly persuasive.

However, since you did offer one situation in which you claim Dexters are superior, let us look at that: A family that milks two Dexters so that if one of them dies, they have an uninterrupted supply of milk. People who keep cows tend to love their milk, so this is a legitimate consideration. Let's see how much that milk security costs them.

We'll start with some assumptions based on numbers that have been offered by folks in this thread:

A Dexter cow costs $1000 and weighs about 650 pounds. She is one of those milky types (do the milky types cost more?), and gives two gallons of milk a day.

A Holstein cow costs $1500 and weighs 1300 pounds. She is a low-producer when not fed grain. We'll say four gallons a day (which would be a sub 10,000 pound lactation - ridiculously low, but as always, I am favoring the Dexter side in every approximation).

We'll assume no grain input - because this fits the model of the frugal homesteader and because it favors the Dexter heavily - start giving that Holstein grain and she will double production. We'll assume that the family under consideration doesn't want the extra milk for calf rearing, pig-rearing, chickens, cheesemaking, etc., becuase acknowledgement of the extra utility of the extra milk also wipes out the Dexter. But we're being generous here.

We'll assume that since hay consumption is based on body weight, hay consumption would be equal - so the ledger is balanced. A balanced ledger, of course, favors keeping two Dexters so that if one dies you still have half the milk. Additionally, if one doesn't want a January/Febuary cold weather break from milking, the Dexter lactations could be staggered so there is a constant supply of milk (The Holstein would milk 4 gallons a day for ten months, the Dexters would milk 4 gallons a day for the 8 months they overlapped and 2 gallons a day for the four months they were offset - which is even as far as total production goes).

We'll assume that the combined weight of the Dexter calves will match the weight of the Holstein calf, and we'll assume that the meat is sold private treaty so that the Dexter isn't penalized by the market - so we have a wash again. Since the ledger is equal, the advantage still lies with the Dexters.

We'll also assume that labor is free and that Slev's imagined family has all the free time in the world and loves spending it with the cows. Putting a dollar figure on the extra labor required by doubling the number of cows - grooming (if one does it), cleaning the udder, milk preparation, AI breeding, etc won't enter into the equation because that too would mitigate against the Dexter - an extra twenty minutes of milking time eight months a year when both are in milk, equal milking time for two months a year when only one Dexter is milking and the Holstein is finishing up, and an extra thirty minutes a year for two months when one Dexter is being milked and the Holstein is dry brings me to a difference of 110 hours per year in labor for the same amount of milk. Feeding should take about the same amount of time, but handling activities would again add hours. But let's assume that the family has the time and inclination to provide that extra labor.

So Slev's imagined family has now broken even on milk production, broken even on beef sales, and therefore has as it's only expense being 110 hours of labor to guard against the chance that a cow might die and leave you without milk.

A solid economic analysis by one of those reviled ag department types would have a risk multiplier to reflect the fact that there is twice the likelihood of one Dexter dying than there is of the one Holstein dying. Actually, it would be a bit more, because some of the causes of mortality might be contagious and some causes of mortality might arrive in the form of feed (a neighbor lost several cows and goats when she fed hay that had oleander in it). But we'll set aside that risk for now - I'm just a humble farmer with only four years of experience, so I won't set it aside. It would only mitigate agains the Dexters anyway, and we are, after all, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Let's say that a cow dies. We'll assume that it takes a month to replace her with another purchase. It shouldn't take that long - arranging a purchase would only take a couple of days, but again, we will prolong the period in order to give the Dexters a fighting chance.

So preventing a 30 day gap in milk would only "cost" 110 hours of labor per year. If we assume the chance of a random death is about 10%, we can say that over ten years, 1100 hours of labor will most likely prevent a 30 day gap in milk.

If labor is no object, then the actual cost of keeping two Dexters is minimal.

Oh, wait a second, we forgot the purchase price! The two Dexters were purchased at the bargain price of $1000 each (which is a bargain, since we recently had someone post a $650 price for a four month old heifer)! That's $500 more than the solo Holstein.

One wonders whether a homesteading family is willing to pay an extra $500 AND spend the extra labor?

I know what this homesteader would choose. Of course, your preference may be different. This analysis does not apply to people who put personal preference above labor and money.


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Mark,

I was going to respond to many points, but I'm tired. So I'll limit my comment to one indisputable fact.

Holsteins are ugly.

Wouldn't have one if it was given to me (except to sell to you).


----------



## Slev (Nov 29, 2003)

Mark T,

Counted in your statements: 10 "assume" & 8 "if's" not quite the factual information you have requested of others to have yourself proved wrong, would ya say???? Am I wrong, or are other people seeing this as flawed logic????? 

As I have stated earlier, I only have the one Dexter. So I donât believe that grants me membership in the National Cattlemanâs Association. And, while I am very proud of her, I donât believe she warrants me taking the time or expense to develop a master marketing plan intent on Dexters taking over the cattle populations of the world! 

MARK T SAID
"If you claim there are holes in the argument, you have to point them out. "Nuh-uh" isn't particularly persuasive."

No Mark T, Iâm afraid I donât HAVE to point them out or do anything. Many of your statements are based on false or misleading information. âASSUMINGâ as part of your basis for an âargumentâ does not hurt or damage my side of the argument; it hurts yours as you did not offer up proof, but assumption for the basis. And Iâd like to point out; Iâm not looking for an âargumentâ. In as much as you feel inclined to offer your thoughtful and wise advice based on assumptions and mixing factual statements, good for your statements. Iâm not trying to persuade the newbieâs out there looking for a good homestead dual purpose breed of cow, into only looking at the Dexter as the breed of choice, Iâm more concerned that you are pointing out a lot of assumptions and only pointing out the best qualities of say the Holstein and flaming the Dexter. 

As I have stated earlier, I only have the one Dexter. So I donât believe that grants me membership in the National Cattlemanâs Association. And, while I am very proud of her, I donât believe she warrants me taking the time or expense to develop a master marketing plan intent on Dexters taking over the cattle populations of the world! 
Look at the advise and proâs vs. cons offered from several other âDexterphilesâ or in my opinion the best advice is coming from all of those people who claim to have been in the cattle business for X number of years, (and/or including 30+ years) who offer their advice that they prefer the Dexter. Those people Mark T, are the real voices the newbie homesteaders should be listening too, not people like you or I who appear to be locking horns defending our points. (Letâs try not to forget the original post topicâ¦) 

MARK T SAID: "We'll assume that since hay consumption is based on body weight, hay consumption would be equal - so the ledger is balanced"

Sorry Mark T, but as every Dexterphile knows âDexters do very well on pastures of poor quality, not just pound for pound so your statement of equality is false. 

MARKT SAID: " - an extra twenty minutes of milking time eight months a year when both are in milk, equal milking time for two months a year when only one Dexter is milking and the Holstein is finishing up, and an extra thirty minutes a year for two months when one Dexter is being milked and the Holstein is dry brings me to a difference of 110 hours per year in labor for the same amount of milk."

Ok, here we go again, do you mean to tell me that you could open your fridge and drink 7-10 gallons of Holstein milk in the same time it would take to drink just 4 gallons of Dexter milk? I donât think so. So that means you should be adding all of that extra time it takes to extrapolate those extra gallons from the Holstein, just be sure to place those empty bottles back in the fridge so it will tick off your wife as much as it does mine! 

MARK T SAID: "But let's assume that the family has the time and inclination to provide that extra labor." 

Letâs set one more thing on the table Mark T, I think it fair to say that not all homesteaders are created equal, or worry about how much time they spend caring for their animals, crops, gardens, fences, barns etc. or what-not. I know I'd rather see my kids spending time with our animals or helping in the garden, than making meth labs, or chillin' with hudlums.

You seem to be pointing out those numbers as gospel, and not everyone cares about your ânumber crunchingâ figures. You pipe up real quick to say but you must offer real numbers, then you fill in 10 times the word âassumeâ when others on here have taken the time to answer with what must have taken hours of research and time to post. Well, thatâs proof enough for me pal, I donât need to waist my time trying to disprove all of your claims, I only hope everyone out there looking will not listen to all of the âassumptionsâ you have enlisted into your statements.

Oh, and back to your model for a moment, as quick as you are to state that 2 Dexters cost $500 more than the single Holstein, in your model, you forgot to include yet another $1500 for your replacement Holstein! Again, more swiss in your cheese Mark T. As far as the additional 110 hours for milking time of 2 Dexters vs. 1 Holstein as I pointed out jokingly above, it will take more time for all of that additional milk to be milked out. 

And while you're digging holes for your statements, here's a shovel pal, to go bury that dead animal of yours, because you got home late and found your dead cow, so you really are not sure what it died from and now you have to bury it. I'm not going to eat it! And though some may disagree, I'm not calling out the Vet. to add additional cost to a dead animal, (unless something too strange added up, plus my wife being a nurse helps out a lot in medical matters) So you better add up some hours for burrying that thing, too bad it's sooooo large, a dead Dexter should be a smaller hole, I would think? 

Mountaineer started this thread about if milking a Dexter is worth it, while I'm sure folks have enjoyed the other options pointed out, I do understand how some have been turned off by all of the locked horn issues brought up, maybe all of this anti-productive bantering should have been placed on another post? too late for that now, but since her post was directed at the milking ability of Dexters, that's the direction this thread should have went.


----------



## linn (Jul 19, 2005)

Slev,
I did some number crunching on my own, yesterday. Now before anyone gets mad at me, these are just general figures I came up with by doing research on the computer and talking with my husband, who has been a farmer all of his life. 
A 800-900 lb milking Jersey will consume about 45 lbs of hay per day along with at least 6-8 lbs. grain. 
A 600-700 lb. milking Dexter will consume 18-20 lbs of hay per day along with about 3 lbs grain.
I figured the hay at 60 lbs per square bale @$5.00 per bale and a 50 lb. sack of feed at about $8. per bag. 
The internet averages I came up with for milking ability were:
the (average) Jersey gave about 4 1/2 gallons per day
the (average) Dexter gave about 2 gallons per day
If I remember right, the cost of the Jersey milk was about 1 cent more per gallon than the cost of the Dexter milk.
DH pointed out that he thought a Dexter could produce well on grass hay while a Jersey produces better with quality alfalfa.
After all is said and done, I think a person should get the cow that will fit their family's need. If you will consume 6-10 gallons per day get a holstien. If you don't need that much milk and want a beefy calf, get a Dexter or Jersey/Beef cross.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Slev,

When you were counting the "asssumes", did you notice that every single assume was weighted to give the advantage to the Dexter side of the equation?

Good lord man, what numbers will satisfy you? Is it okay to have any tenuous connection to reality? Go back and re-read the numbers.

You do bring up a point that is woth addressing. Sorry that I did not include the replacement cost of lost animals. If everyone was interested in actually discussing the reality instead of flakking for a breed, we might get somewhere if people actually could contribute sincere data that would add to the picture.

I'll assume (once again giving you the benefit of the doubt) that you are sincerely asking for inclusion of the replacement cost. You are correct - the replacement cost of the Holstein is $1500. With a 10% annual chance of things going horribly wrong, that cost is $150 per year. I'm sure you'll agree to that - since it makes the Dexter side of the ledger look better.

But - uh-oh - we also have to calculate for both sides of the ledger if we are going to be intellectually honest. With a 10% annual death rate over two animals, the cost of EACH of your postulated two Dexters has to be factored in to the ledger as well. Assuming - here I go again, giving the Dexter the benefit of the doubt, that a good milky line Dexter does indeed cost the $1000 that was postulated by the Dexter folks on this very thread (potential buyers take note - if someone is charging more than $1000 for a springing heifer, they are overcharging), that would be a charge of ($1000+$1000)*10% = $200 annual charge. Once again, Slev, an honest acknowledgement of both side of the ledger supports the position that Dexters are NOT the economical solution for the homesteader.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Slev,

You also wrote:

_MARKT SAID: " - an extra twenty minutes of milking time eight months a year when both are in milk, equal milking time for two months a year when only one Dexter is milking and the Holstein is finishing up, and an extra thirty minutes a year for two months when one Dexter is being milked and the Holstein is dry brings me to a difference of 110 hours per year in labor for the *same* amount of milk."

Ok, here we go again, do you mean to tell me that you could open your fridge and drink 7-10 gallons of Holstein milk in the same time it would take to drink just 4 gallons of Dexter milk? I donât think so. So that means you should be adding all of that extra time it takes to extrapolate those extra gallons from the Holstein, just be sure to place those empty bottles back in the fridge so it will tick off your wife as much as it does mine!_

Bold faced emphasis is mine here.

Slev, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and "assume" that you were so busy counting assumes that you mised the same part of the very sentence you quoted. If you will recall, I assumed a low-producing Holstein so that the low production would in order to favor the Dexter side of the equation. You'll also note that in order to do this, I accepted your statement that for many people the extra milk would just be wasted - I did this because the extra value of the milk produced by even an average Holstein on pure grass would tip things into the traditional breed camp.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Slev,

You also wrote:

_MARK T SAID: "But let's assume that the family has the time and inclination to provide that extra labor." 

Letâs set one more thing on the table Mark T, I think it fair to say that not all homesteaders are created equal, or worry about how much time they spend caring for their animals, crops, gardens, fences, barns etc. or what-not. I know I'd rather see my kids spending time with our animals or helping in the garden, than making meth labs, or chillin' with hudlums._

I'm not sure why you are arguing with me here - we both agree on this point. We both say that for people who don't mind the extra 110 hours of annual labor, milking two Dexters is not a drawback. Hey, we agree!

We also seem to agree that the extra labor would matter to some people and not to others.

I hope we also agree that it is both honest and responsible to help folks weighing their options consider all elements of their potential decision.

You did, however, lose me when you talked added in all the other labor requirements like crops and gardens. All of those other labor issues are outside the scope of the analysis of two Dexters vs. one traditional. And I think it would actually hurt the Dexter side of the argument to bring it in. If we agree that Dexters take more labor - and we might quibble on how much extra labor based on your personal milking speed, animal cleanliness, walking distance to the barn, etc., the amount of labor is going to be with in twnety hourse above or below that 110 hour figure.

If we agree - and we seem to - that most homesteaders also have other responsibilities like gardens, crops, barn repair, fence repair, then wouldn't diverting 90-130 hours a year to those other tasks actually improve the homestead? I know - and I'm sure that most homesteaders would agree - that farm work is never complete - there is never enough time to do everything you like. You can always clear a bit more brush, subdivide a field, paint the barn, divided hives, stockpile bedding, frost seed, cut out cedars, build another raised bed. I wish that I had an extra four hours every day. 

Now, if the extra time isn't going to go to other tasks, then it's up to personal choice. If a person's potential holding is only going to include milking and nothing else, then the Dexter labor issue wouldn't be important. But one imagines that the vast majority - and I'll admit I'm "assuming" here - of people committed enough to the homestead ethic to take on milking chores will also want to grow other crops and do other homesteading things.

Basically, saving those 90-130 hours of annual labor by milking a single cow don't have to be spent watching T.V. or building meth labs. You can do other productive things. Heck, one imagines that reading a book now and again could be fun.

But if you fear that reduction of farm labor will turn your children into juvenile delinqunets, I encourage you to 1) improve your parenting skills and 2) buy THREE Dexters. That'll change everything.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Slev,

You also wrote:

_MARK T SAID: "We'll assume that since hay consumption is based on body weight, hay consumption would be equal - so the ledger is balanced"

Sorry Mark T, but as every Dexterphile knows âDexters do very well on pastures of poor quality, not just pound for pound so your statement of equality is false. _ 

The ability to do well on scrub pastures is indeed a good point of the Dexter breed. This ability is not because they eat less, but because they are more willing to move toward the browsing of non-grasses in the pasture. If we are talking hay, then that wouldn't matter - so the hay statement is true.

But you do bring up a good point (and note here that I'm once again pointing out where the Dexter makes sense, even though I'm sure I'll still be painted as one side) about scrub pasture.

Of the many claims made by Dexterphiles, this is one that I buy. The Dexter's origin on hilly northern Irish farms where every piece of remotely arable land was farmed, the only areas Dexters could graze where where you couldn't set a seed. For a couple of centuries, the Dexters who could not make a living heavily supplemented by browsed woody lignins did not survive - that is some pretty heavy evolutionary pressure. In fact, this is probably the single most important factor to the creation of the Dexter breed - larger cows simply could not survive where they browsed.

You can see a similar dynamic at work with the Florida Cracker cow - which also minituarized. I recall reading about some Carribbean breeds that followed the same path, but can't remember their names right now.

*If a homesteader has some particularly nasty and hard to clear land and doesn't have good pasture, a Dexter makes great sense over a traditional breed. If you threw a Jersey or a Holstein back into the brambly woods, you'd need to feed hay because they are poorer digersters of woody lignin.*

So note, oh Dexterphiles: Mark T has given a clear example where the Dexter is going to trump the traditional breeds every time. Not that this should be a surprise - I have stated all along that the Dexter does make sense in some circumstances - perhaps my refusal to agree in all circumstances has made you so angry that you weren't able to carefully read my posts. But I put this one in bold so it can't be missed.

Now, lest you think I've gone all soft, I do have to point out that given scrubby woodland, a pair of goats might make even more sense because they are even better at earning their living on browse.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

DJ,

You wrote:

Mark,

_I was going to respond to many points, but I'm tired. So I'll limit my comment to one indisputable fact.

Holsteins are ugly._

LOL.  

Indeed. Dexters are prettier than most Holsteins, in my opinion. I also like the look of my Bonnie Ayrshire lass. I've never disputed the cuteness quotient - because it all comes down to personal opinion. I've been talking about milking ability/return to money and labor. So I'll say it again: If money and labor don't matter, ignore everything I've said and but whatever pleases your eye.

Heck, I hope that a lot of people ignore the dollars and go with what they like. Diversity is a neat thing. I like Dexters and Crackers and Pinzgauers and Taranteise and British White, etc. I'm just too poor to collect half-ton pets*.

* Okay, Bonnie is a half-ton pet, but at least I can tell the wife she pays her own way, unlike her runty dog.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

linn said:


> Slev,
> I did some number crunching on my own, yesterday. Now before anyone gets mad at me, these are just general figures I came up with by doing research on the computer and talking with my husband, who has been a farmer all of his life.
> A 800-900 lb milking Jersey will consume about 45 lbs of hay per day along with at least 6-8 lbs. grain.
> A 600-700 lb. milking Dexter will consume 18-20 lbs of hay per day along with about 3 lbs grain.
> ...


Careful Linn, Slev doesn't like it when you assume averages.  

With those assumptions you mention and if you included the purchase price of the cows in your equation (if you didn't that would throw your numbers out of whack - let us know. Am I correct that you have set aside the larger beef byproduct of the Jersey and are just looking at the milk cost?), I'm onboard with your once cent more per gallon for Jersey milk. When the numbers are that close, everyone will go with the breed they personally prefer.

Under your analysis, as the cost of hay rises, the Jersey milk would become even more expensive. (I think your model is hay feeding year round without any pasture - yes?)

But if the cost of hay is less, doesn't that then tip things back towards the Jersey?

Which brings us right back to the issue of numbers. If you have to go with square bales, at $5 a square bale things are even and go pro-Dexter with every price increment upwards.

Handling square bales is easier, there is no doubt. But I've discovered that buying square bales puts me into competetion with the horse folks and I can't afford to pay horse-people prices.

Right now hay prices are dear - but I can get an 1100 pound 5 x 5 round bale that was stored inside for $50/bale. That's almost 50% cheaper. Not having all your numbers in front of me, I suspect that that would seriously affect your caclulated milk price.

Disclaimer: Using round bales without a tractor does increase labor. Rather than cut off the string and shake, I have to use the pitchfork to manually unroll the hay - it probably takes me an extra fifteen minutes a day, which come to 25 precious hours a year of extra labor for the 100 days a year I feed hay. I'll feed 30 large bales this winter to all my animals (A milking Ayrshire, her young calf, a springing charlais, and eight feeder steers avergaing 400 pounds, along with twleve sheep and a goat). If I'm halving my feed bill, the extra 25 hours of labor saves me (30 bales x $25) $750. In a number crunching way, I make $30/hour for breaking off the round bales. That said, I sure would like to stop doing that - it is hard labor and I could use those 25 hours elsewhere. In twenty years or so, I'll either have to start buying square bales or buy a tractor so that I can use mechanical horsepower to do the work. Knowing me, I'll have to end up putting pencil to paper to make that decision.

If we are to be fair to Linn's model, I think she is postulating year-round hay feeding, so the extra labor to cut the feed bill in half would be year round. Additionally, if we are limiting the number of animals fed, the labor to cost ratio goes down - the act of breaking down the round bale will take time whether you are feeding one animal or my menagerie. You may have less hay to peel off, but you still have to pick up the pitch fork, set down your other tools, roll the bale into postition, etc. I think it would be reasonable to assume (oops - sorrt Slev - I hope you'll forgive me since this is helping the Dexter side of the equation - again) a ten minute addition to chore time - a reduction of one third time balanced with getting 1/6 of the amount of hay fed. So there won't be much in the way of time reduction feeding Linn's hypothetical single cow. If we charge that ten minutes annually, that will come to 60 hours a year - for a 50% savings in the feed for one cow.

Square bale Jersey = 45 lbs/day at $5/60 pound bale (8 1/3 cents per pound) * 365 days = 45 * $.0833 * 365 = $1368/year

Round bale Jersey = 45 lbs/day at $50/1100 pound bale (4.55 cents per pound) = 45 * $.0455 * 365 = $747/year.

The savings would be about $621/year for 60 hours of labor. For only $10/hour, the small square bales seem good.

Square bale Dexter = 19/lbs day (*SEE BELOW*) = 19* $.0833* 365 = $578/year

Round bale Dexter = 19 * $.0455 * 365 = $316/year.

If we assume (again to the benefit of the Dexter in this analysis) that the figure of ten minutes a day cannot be reduced further because of the other elements of the unrolling task have to be followed even though less than half the hay is being pulled) the 60 hour labor figure stays constant, then the $262 savings is only a little over $4 an hour - the square bales sound mighty good.

The round bale savings for the Jersey are tremendous enough that we could seriously reduce the cost per gallon - at 4 1/2 gallon a day rate, we are talking 1372 gallons over a 305 day lactation (that unrealistically assumers a flat persistancy curve - a more reasonable number would be 900 gallons to allow for late lactation drop off - the rule of thumb to calculate a full lactation at average persistancy is to multiply peak production by 200. 4.5 * 200 = 900 gallons). Saving $621 a year over 1372 gallons reduced the price per gallon of milk by *45 * cents per gallon. Using the more realistic number, spreading $621 over 900 gallons would be a savings of 69 cents per gallon.

The numbers for the Dexter come out to:
Flat persistancy lactation = 610 gallons
Realistic persistancy lacation = 400 gallons
(Note: I have no data on what a Dexter persistancy curve looks like - the 305 production curve is something that has undergone tremendouse selection pressure in dairy cattle over the last century. Most beef breeds have a major drop of at five months, so the 200 multiplication factor would be more like a 100 multiplication factor. Since Dexters aren't used by DHIA dairymen, I would be greatly surprised if ANYONE knows what a Dexter curve looks like. I have assumed a full-on dairy curve despite the lack of selection pressure because, as always, we like to give the underdog the benefit of the doubt).

With a $316 savings per year, the Dexter cost per gallon goes down 53 cents under flat pl conditions and 79 cents a gallon.

*Stop the presses - getting cheaper hay actually improves the value of the Dexter.*

I'm honest enough to admit it when my calculations come out differently than I expect. It seems counter-intuitive, because the Dexter saves because it consumers less hay. So reducing the cost of the hay should reduce that advantage. But it didn't. Savings based on less hay consumption ought to go down when the price of hay goes down - but it didn't. I can't see where I made a mathematical mistake, so will say it here: Buying round bales favors the Dexter.

I put a SEE BELOW next to the estimate for Dexter consumption. Lin owns Dexters so she knows what they eat and her husband has dealt with Jerseys so he knows what they eat, but it ASTONISHES me that a Jersey eats about 5% of her body wreight per day and a Dexter eats just 3% of her body wieght per day. Everything I've read on cattle says consumption is a direct factor of body weight. If Dexters are really that much more efficient, then everyone ought to get them. I don't see how two members of the same species (albeit different breeds) can have a 40% digestive gap of the same feed type.

Now, I'd see this if Linn was calculating access to scrub pasture - as I noted in a previous post, Dexters and other upcountry breeds have an improved ability to forage browse. But hay isn't browse. (Though Linn's husband is right - this genetic background would mean that a Dexter could do better on lower quality hay as opposed to the Jersey on alfalfa)

I'm sincerely asking here - what accounts for the greatly improved efficiency? Does everyone else have the same experience with improved feed efficiency? Perhaps the small Dexters pick more carefully (as part of the browsing pattern even if it is hay in the manger) and therefore waste a smaller percentage of the feed?

If Linn's numbers are correct, the Dexter's incredible feed efficiency does produce comparably priced milk (one cent less per pound, improving slightly with half price hay).

If, however, either the Jersey's feed intake is actually lower or the Dexter's feed intake was actually higher, then the equation would leapfrog the other way, dramatically increasing the comparative price of the Dexter milk.

Interesting stuff. Thanks, Linn, for posting some numbers we could sink out teeth into.


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

When it comes to efficiency of converting feed, there is a lot of difference in cattle.

I have 8 head here almost all the time. They all get the same rations. 7 acres of grass, 3 acres of trees and brush, and about a pound of mixed grain with minerals. Plus one round bale of hay every 8 days. The pure Dexters maintain their condition at all times, even getting a little fat. The Dexter/Shorthorn cross always looks a little thin. The Dexter/Hereford/Charolais cross stays fat all the time. I think she'd get fat eating just air.

Next door, my neighbor keeps Angus on identical pasture. He also feeds hay, distiller's grain, corn gluten and more. He has a had time getting them to sleek up. Their ribs are always showing. He has 65 Angus on 70 acres of grass and 30 acres of trees. The cattle don't spend much time in the trees.

My cattle, on the other hand, spend a lot of time in the trees. They even eat the bark off of some of them. If I carry them some white pine limbs during the winter, they attack them. My cattle like the rough forage and seek it out. They like honeysuckle, sweet gum, cedar, poison ivy, rose bushes, blackberry bushes and pines.

Genebo
Paradise Farm
Church Road, VA


----------



## DJ in WA (Jan 28, 2005)

Mark,

I havenât read every word here. Is Bonnie your Holstein? You say sheâs 1000 pounds. Adult weight?

In other posts you used the figure of 1300 pounds for a Holstein. Most sources I read say 1500 pound average. And talking to some dairy people at our county fair, some of their cows are near a ton.

While not a Dexter fan, I do favor small dairy/beef crosses. According to the physics I know, itâs nicer to be stepped on by a 800 pound cow than a 1500 pounder. And sometimes I need to push her around to position her for milking, etc. I also lift her feet to trim them in the winter â snow doesnât wear them much. Itâs hard enough on a small cow, canât imagine it on a Holstein.

Your analysis assumes reducing production from a Holstein. Essentially convert a dairy cow into more of a beef cow. Of course, then you lose on the beef end of things. You rightly claim there are few/no Dexter dairies, and I would say there are few Holstein ranches.

If you want to reduce production of a Holstein, breed her to beef, and make that calf your cow. You base figures on only 4 gallons a day from a Holstein, yet Linn gets that from her Jersey/Angus cross, while feeding a smaller animal. And she can get more beef out of the deal per pound of feed, as beefers convert feed better.

My brother has an Angus/Holstein cross cow that they donât milk. Well, they do milk her the first week after calving as her udder is huge and swollen, even as a half beef cow. Iâm guessing they could get 6 gallons daily out of her.

Not a good idea to go against strong production genetics. Always a greater risk of mastitis when trying to reduce production by letting the milk back up. And I believe it was Michiganfarmer who explained that many dairy cows will lose condition badly if feed is reduced. I guess you can try to get a Holstein with bad genetics for milk production, but again, why not get a beef cross? And I donât know if Iâd always believe when sellers say theyâre getting rid of a cow only because of poor genetics. Could be other issues like chronic mastitis reducing production.


----------



## LMonty (Jul 31, 2006)

So, how do those numbers then stack up if youre loking for a homestead cow with a family that only uses a gallon or two a week (maybe three if they make cheese) and only milk once a day and let the calf have the rest? 

Does the calf growth suffer enough (delay in reaching sales weight or decreased weight at weaning) that it makes a difference? Or does that heavily shift the finances to favor the dexter too? I would think so, just from looking it over, I havent put it on paper, but even if theres a month delay to calf sale, if it doesnt affect breedback, then it should wash, right? 

I guess I'm just looking at it from a different perspective. I dont like milking all that much, and dont have a market for it. I just want a bit extra for a pig and to drink for two, not enough to bathe in! My main product is going to be meat- beef, pork and chicken. I know the available milk reduces the feed costs of the other animals, but I dont see that figured in. Does it reduce it so dramatically that the higher production is the only cost effective way to go?

My other option, since I want to raise some goats with show potential, is to feed the goats cows milk and then feed the calf the goats milk. Thats an effective way to do CAE prevention that avoids having to pasteurize. If I do that, I then need to consider how to get enough milk to feed the goat kids. THEN i'd need the increased production. For that, I'd either need to milk more than one Dexter or consider a milk cross that has higher production potential. 

How do the Dexter crosses you guys have stack up on milk potential and do they retain the other benefits such as thriftiness and feed efficiency? Do they retain the ability to semi-browse and produce well on lower quality feed? What about progeny carcass value? I'm thinking Highlander/Normande cross, then using Dexter semen to produce a triple cross breed that has the efficiency of the wilder breeds, but increased milking ability. Highlanders browse too, and i know where I can buy a cow, had one offered to me.


----------



## LMonty (Jul 31, 2006)

I was looking for Dexters for sale just now, and ran into this- a Dexter dairy here in the US
http://www.fingerlakesdextercreamery.com/


----------



## Haggis (Mar 11, 2004)

I see they started their creamery two whole years ago with just one Dexter, then increased their herd to 3, and by the spring will have 4 cows in their herd. I hope they make a fortune.


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

Lmonty,

Thanks for the link to the Dexter dairy. I've emailed them to see about buying some of their cheese.

I keep my cattle and goats together. They each benefit from the arrangement. Each of them have worm parasites, but they're not the same ones. When the goats eat the cattle worms, it kills the worms. Same thing the other way. That reduces the worm pressure on each species.

The cattle won't eat around their own manure piles. That's why the grass grows so tall there. The goats don't mind. My pastures don't have the tall clumps you usually see in a cow pasture.

I also keep Muscovy ducks. They readily scatter manure piles looking for something to eat. This dries out the manure and the flies don't hatch as much. I save the labor of dragging the pasture to spread the manure. You can't find any piles to spread. Cattlemen who visit are amazed by this.

Pigs will do the same job as the Muscovy ducks, but I chose the ducks because the pigs are destructive to the pasture.

The idea is to keep the animals that will do the work for me, instead of me doing the work for them.

I chose Dexter cattle for their easy keeping abilities and have been very pleased with the results. All births have been unassisted.

My goats are fainters, brush goats and crosses between the two. Both are among the hardiest of goats, but the cross between them is supposed to be hardier. They've been trouble-free, just like the Dexters.

I had a heart attack a year ago and if the animals hadn't been so low-maintenance, I wouldn't have been able to keep them. 

Genebo
Paradise Farm
Church Road, VA


----------



## Slev (Nov 29, 2003)

Mark T,

I think if I were your neighbor, ...I think I'd move


----------



## LMonty (Jul 31, 2006)

thanks gene! I'm going for the same synergy-and if it saves me from having to buy a tractor for pasture management- all the better! and If I dont need it to keep the pastures in shape- then maybe I dont need one at all....evin if I had to buy all my hay, I wonder if it would still be big savings compared to buying a tractor and doing my own since I have such a small acreage to hay.


----------



## Slev (Nov 29, 2003)

I quit trying to bale my own pasture a few years back when I was charged a buck a bale, but I could buy the guys better quality bales for $2 bucks. Plus, he took out part of my fence when he was turning his tractor and equipt. around. I'm a lot better off now. Plus he needs my barn loft space, so we work out great deals now! 





LMonty said:


> thanks gene! I'm going for the same synergy-and if it saves me from having to buy a tractor for pasture management- all the better! and If I dont need it to keep the pastures in shape- then maybe I dont need one at all....evin if I had to buy all my hay, I wonder if it would still be big savings compared to buying a tractor and doing my own since I have such a small acreage to hay.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Hey, I posted the Dexter daiy link back in post #44 (part of being evenhanded).


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

Slev,

I'm not sure why you are so angry at me personally - it seems your problem is with the math. Don't kill the messanger.

Note that I've always said that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

No one is entitled to their own facts - and that is where we seem to have the disagreement.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

LMonty,

Bonnie is an Ayrshire. I was looking for grass-based genetics and the Ayrshires aren't as bred for grain consumption as Holsteins. I got her for $250 as a week-old calf. I put three bags of milk replacer ($150) (and a lot of labor) into her, so my cost was $400 and labor. When I was looking for her, a dairyman would have sold me a day-old Holstein heifer for $500. Considering the risks of raising a bottle-calf, I took the lower risk and got a lower producer (which was fine for my system). I also looked at Dexters - they were only available at weaning for $800 for a four month old heifer. I thought about it - the weaned calf would be more likely to survive, but the Dexter her owner did not dehorn - and I have kids. Dehorning at 4 months is a messy business. I also was concerned about the small size of the beef side of things.

So, long story short, I went with the Ayrhsire. The dairyman warned me that she was not top of the line genetics - her mother was 14 (Bonnie was her 12th calf) and so we were about 5 generations behind in the AI breeding progress. But I went with her anyway because I didn't need high production (I was getting about 4 gallons at peak plus what the calf took) and I figured that it was five generations less of being bred for grain. Plus, I figured that if she had survived in a profit-driven commercial herd for 12 lactations, she must be a pretty solid animal - plus quick at breedback.

Knowing what I know now, I would go with the Holstein if I had it to do over - for the reasons mentioned in other posts. I can use as much milk as I can get - I raise bottle calves, pigs, and chickens, so milk is pure profit on the hoof. Additionally, since I don't plan on becoming a major herd, I will be selling heifers at some time and Holsteins bring high prices with ZERO marketing. I'll have to find buyers for Bonnie's heifers, but now that I am part of a dairy grazing group, I should be able to make sales to some of the guys who are going for grass genetics and cross-breeding. I like experimenting with crosses - I'll use Montbeliarde semen this year - but if I had a Holstein and wanted to have a pure Holstein for resale, the huge amount of semen out there means I could correct any flaws the cow had. For instance, Bonnie has short teats. Diary semen has data on the effect a bull will have on his daughter's teats, but there are only a few Ayrshire bulls that throw longer teats - and they might not have other qualities I want. Within the Holstein breed I could "fix" a flaw without sacrificing other elements simply because the range of semen is so great.

Did I make a mistake going with the Ayrshire? Maybe. But now that she is a 1000 pound pet (1100 at end of the grass flush), I'll have her for twenty years.

Oh, someone mentioned the impact of a cow stepping on your foot - It hurts like hell no matter whether it is 700 or 1300 pounds. The pain is equal, but I don't think either one will break bones. You will bruise up like heck. It has happened to me once in four years, so I'm not sure how big a consideration it would be. Leading happens more often, but a 700 cow leads because it wants to be led - if it wants to go, you will be no better able to control her than a 1700 pound Charlais.

Actually, the toe-stepping was entirely my fault - Bonnie loves attention so much that I have to put her in another paddock when I am messing with fence. I had a quick repair so I didn't bother, but she leaned in and pinned me against the fence and was stepping on my fence. I hollered at her, but she kept asking for love. The pain drove me to open-hand slap her on the side of the head - the only time I've ever hit her. She held a grudge too - the next few times I milked her she didn't want attention - she'd just stand there pouting. It is possible for your animals to be too tame.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

LMonty,

You wrote:

I guess I'm just looking at it from a different perspective. I dont like milking all that much, and dont have a market for it. I just want a bit extra for a pig and to drink for two, not enough to bathe in! My main product is going to be meat- beef, pork and chicken. I know the available milk reduces the feed costs of the other animals, but I dont see that figured in. Does it reduce it so dramatically that the higher production is the only cost effective way to go?

If you don't like milking that much, the traditional breed with a calf on her is the way to go - you can cut your milking in half and milk once a day. I haven't figured in the extra milk in any of my calculations in response to the Dexterphiles insistance that some people don't want the extra milk and, as you recall, all of my calculations gave the Dexters the best possible chance. If we do add in the extra milk, it does make a huge deal to the bottom line. If you aren't going to throw the extra milk away, the extra milk can be very profitable.

Milk can seriously cut feed costs for chickens and pigs.

We can put a definite dollar figure if we are doing bottle calves. Milk replacer in my area costs about $50 and will last 30 days or so. When the replacer is mixed with water, the calves drink a gallon a day. If you have four extra gallons a day, that saves $200 per month - which is a huge hit. Additionally, you won't get scours like you do with replacer. The calves will grow faster. And since the milk is essentially free for your labor, you are much more likely to let them drink longer - resulting in faster weight gains and greatly reduced grain consumption (if you use grain). Commercial dairies wean at around 28 days. With free milk, you might let them have milk for four months and then get another set of bottle calves. Even better is if you can get the calves to foster - they harvest the milk and your labor is zero. There is a dairyman up the road from me who does this. His kids had a 4-H pet cow that he is not allowed to cull now that she has fallen below his culling threshold of sixty pounds of milk a day. So he keeps her penned with eight calves at a time. They foster on to her and he and has excellent calf growth (caveat: most cows won't put up with this without a huge amount of labor on your part).

There is a couple outside of Harrisonburg who keep - for genetic diversity reasons - eight milking Pinzgauer cows (An Austrian breed not used in commercial milk factories but now being used as grass-only dairy cows somewhat experimentally). They buy bob calves, feed them for three months, then sell them back at the market an bring a new set of bob calves home. At the time when I talked to them, bob Holstein calves were about $60. They bought 40 at a time, then sold them at three months when they had reached 200 pounds with very little input. The market didn't pay as well as it does for black calves, but they could get 90 cents/pound. So the calves they bought for $2400 could then sell for $7200 (actually a little less because with bottle calves there is mortality - though they did much better than the 10-20% typical of calves on milk replacer). There were some additonal expenses - milking supplies, a milking machine, calf hutches (to avoid disease spreading from sale barn stock), some hay for the calves, a taste of grain, and the hay for the cows, but this was quite the little profit for them for work that took three hours a day of labor. They did three sets of this per year - so probably made around $12000 annually with their cottage operation. I'm not sure what last year's surge in Valley calf prices did to their business - day old Holstein steers were going for $250 because a new veal operation had jacked up demand. The weaning prices improved, but I doubt that the improvement was enough to allow them to make profit anymore.

My initial foray into selling beef was somewhat based on this model - my first couple of years I bought bottle calves on the day after New Year's, bottle-fed them for three months, and then weaned them onto the Spring flush. My costs were $60 per calf, $150 for milk replacer, and about $10 for equipment. Getting the calf set for pasture cost me $220 (plus about a hundred and fifty hours of labor spread over six calves and three months). This was much cheaper than buying a weaned animal or buying and overwintering a beef cow.

These boys grazed grass until November and went into the freezer as organic, petit beef - I sold out each year. At $2.90 a pound liveweight for animals in the 500 pound range, this was a sale of $6000 for an start-up cost of a little over $1300. Now, that's not pure profit - crossfencing my land for intensive rotational grazing was expensive - but labor requirements declined rapidly once they got on pasture - down to about one hour of pleasant labor a day for two moves, water top-offs, and manure kicking (poor man's manure spreader). There were some weekend hours to fix mistakes, but again, this was pleasurable work. The workload went to zero for November and December and there was no hay cost at all to speak of (just a little while they were calves).

I saw that by far my biggest expense was milk replacer - if I could drop that, I could actually be profitable. This allowed me to justify getting a family milk cow. My estimate for an Ayrshire was that she could raise three calves. The calves would still cost the same (her calf would have AI fees), but three calves would save $450 of milk replacer - more than enough to pay for Bonnie's annual feed bill. I initially thought I would rotate three sets of calves a year, doing what the Pinzgauer folks did. I eventually abandoned that because I decided I didn't want the hassle of messing with bob calves every three months and wanted them to be on grass at the right time for their development. What I didn't expect was the huge jump in growth having continual access to milk would provide - Bonnie's first calf tipped the scales at 708 pounds when we harvested it.

My model was also thrown out the window by the jump in calf prices - but they have now dropped again, so if I can convince my wife to let me go back to January twice-a-day feedings, I may do that again next year.

A Holstein's extra milk would have even greater returns.


----------



## Mark T (Jan 7, 2003)

LMonty,

Sorry I took a bit to get back to your earlier note - I had decided to walk away, but I am enjoying the thoughtfullness of your quotes. So here's my thoughts on something else you wrote:

"Anothe rfactor is the sales of bereeding quality registered stock. "Gen'rally" costs as much to keep a registered animal as it does a grade- but sales of progeny can produce much more,. Your economic arguement relies eavily on slaughter prices for grade animls that are less desireable than holstein or holstein croses. Private breed specific sales of breeding stock seem much more lucrative (And as a researching soon to be buyer, I can verify that!). Private treaty custom meat sales of organicly grown animals (even uncertified) again are much more lucrative than running them in the auction ring."

You are correct - registered stock can return a better return. Breeding stock can be very valuable. I'll come back to that, but let me first hit the easier question of beef sale prices. You are correct that I relied heavily on auction ring prices in my calculation. This was to give, once again, the Dexter the benefit of the doubt. If we go to organic marketing, like I do, then you can command higher prices. My 5-700 pound animals (we'll call it an average of 600) after a year will gross $1200 per. A two year old Dexter steer is probably about the same size as the year-old Ayrshire, so call it $1200 for that - but has the added expense of winter feeding and the associated labor. The Dexter's smaller pasture advantage goes away too - it might eat less grass, but eats it for two years and in the second year is eating alongside that year's calf. You also have twice as long for an accidental mortality to occur.

One of the problems of marketing a 600 pound animal is that people are used to larger cuts. I can highlight the petit, more tender aspect of the meat to offset the smaller size, since the tenderness of meat is most influenced by the age of the animal (as an veal or venison eater can tell you). One of the biggest complaints against grass-fed beef is that it is tougher - because it takes much longer to get an animal to traditional slaughter size without grain. I can get an animal to 5-700 pounds on intensively managed pasture and zero grain. I wish more graziers were content to slaughter their animals at the one year market - my job marketing would be easier if I didn't have to overcome the "grassfed is tough" perception of the public.

I think you'd have a really hard time selling the half-sized Dexter at a year - who wants a three hundred pound non-veal animal? If you are a genius marketer who thinks you can do that, great, but remember that you are grossing $600 when I am grossing $1200. You may have slightly lower winter hay costs and might use some marginal pasture with the Dexter, but your initial investment was higher per pound sold. You probably also had to pay more for breeding due to availability of semen - or, as many Dexter folks seem to do, keep a bull - which has some serious costs.

So direct selling your meat is a huge advantage for the traditional dairy side of the ledger.

Going back to the other issue about breeding stock. The high cost of calves that is unrelated to their actual nuts-and-bolts economic value can be an advantage if you find buyers.

The problem is, the disconnect between meat/production value and Dexter prices is dangerous. When choosing to get a lower amount for beef or to sell an animal as breeding stock, human nature is going to push people into trying to find buyers for the breeding stock. This doesn't bode well for the Dexter breed - too many animals that ought to be culled, particularly bulls, are being allowed to breed. The failure to rigorously cull substandard animals can be directly seen in the continued prevalence of the bulldog gene.

See here:

http://homesteadingtoday.com/showthread.php?t=158650

Note that many Dexter breeders actually defend breeding animals that carry this bad gene. In the real commercial world, such an animal would be culled - no ifs, ands, or butts. If such an astonishing awful gene persists, one wonders how much other poor genetic material is being sold as breeding stock. In my analysis - to give the benefit of the doubt to the Dexter folks, I have used claims of two gallons a day profligacy. I seriously doubt that many such animals exist - I imagine the actual average of a run-of-the-mill Dexter is much less.

Regardless of whether it is justified or leads one to allow poor animals to stay in the genetic mix, your point about high dollar sales is one to consider. If economic factors enter into your decision process, you should consider this.

First of all, if one is going to sell breeding quality stock, it should only be from the top twenty percent of your herd - keeping the best for reproduction. If you plan on selling all of your animals for breeding stock, you should be comfortable wih a caveat emptor mentality - if the buyer doesn't realize that buying an animal from your 50th percentile is a bad move, well, let him pay the fool's tax.

Let's assume that you are fine with that - it is a business world after all. The higher prices will only hold until the market for hobby cows is filled - and then the price will fall to reflect the real economic value - which may be even less because of the failure to cull the poor quality animals. This has happened before - think of the ratite craze. I'd also advise against buying $5,000 alpacas.

LMonty, you say that you have been shopping for Dexters. What prices are you being quoted for a springing heifer or cow? I used one figure that was advanced on this thread in my analyses - but would be interested in what the number is.

Secondly, do the folks you are buying beef any animals? Are they selling you stock from the top 20% of their herd, or are they offering animals from the other proportion. How do they explain why they are selling breeding quality stock - are they "out of room" or overstocked? Do they explain why they aren't culling their lower-quality animals so they can keep the best? This is a serious question.

If you wanted to go registered breeding stock with a traditional breed, the path is much harder. I think we have someone on Homesteading Today who is trying this (UpNorth?) Selling cows as foundation animals in the dairy world is difficult because there are rigorous quality controls in place. There is a rigorous DHIA testing system that is much more transparent then "oh, she's got a pretty udder" you see with non-commercial breeds. If the cow isn't well-above milk and solids averages, she's not going to bring breeding dollars. And the world of creating AI bulls is beyond the means of a homesteader. It's a multi-million dollar investment and years of testing - not, oh, I can make more money selling the little guy as a herd bull to some yokel than I could selling him for beef.

Any seedstock producers out there who care to comment?


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

Have you heard about the discovery of a protein in commercial dairy cow's milk that has been linked to diabetes?

Over the years, the commercial dairy breeds were outcrossed and AI'ed to a small number of heavy producers in order to up their milk production. Along the way, a protein appeared in the milk of the major milk producing breeds. This protein is now linked to diabetes. It was first discovered in New Zealand, by a group that then formed a company to produce milk without this protein, the "A1" protein. They call the milk without it "A2" milk.

The bad protein was found in up to 90% of all the dairy cattle they tested with the DNA test they perfected. They are trying to locate and breed a new herd from those few dairy cattle they can find that were not affected.

I contacted the New Zealand compny to have my cattle DNA tested for the protein but they refused. Only one herd has been granted permission to be tested in this country. It is a very good possibility that the most primitive breeds, those that have not been outcrossed to improve milk production, will have escaped the introduction of this new protein. It's probably a given that most beef cattle will not be affected, unless they were crossed with a dairy breed in the last 40 years.

I feel that the odds are in my favor not to have the bad A1 protein in Dexter milk, since I can trace the pedigrees of my Dexters back to beyond the time when the protein got into the dairy herds. You could probably say the same about any other breed that didn't allow outcrossing in it's registered animals. So many of them do, though.

Both of the US Dexter associations forbid registration of outcrossed animals, so hooray for them. We probably dodged a bullet, there.

Genebo
Paradise Farm
Church Road, VA


----------



## LMonty (Jul 31, 2006)

Mark- good info and I need time to digest it. Prices Ive been quoted run from 600 to 1200 for open cows and heifers, but I'm only going by a few Ive talked to. I wouldnt call that firm.

My plan is to use the Dexters to produce Percentage Lowlines. They sell better and are well suited to being "beefed" Theres even a (small but allegedly growing) market for percentage lowline bulls for traditional producers wanting to decrease birth weights. That I need to look into further, to determine how firm that is.

1/2 lowlines sell prety well, the demand exceeds supply (so I am hearing) Heres figures from January big sale
12 Â½ blood females grossed $24,050 to average $2,004

I anticipate that to soften as supply increases- but the production in my area is fairly limited. There may be a benefit to that. 

So Dexters seem a good "other half" to start with- I get fairly decent milk prodcution for size- good for all the reasons you mention, besides my own use! and still produce a "beefy" animal. If I get one or two heifers a year the first few years that will sell well at those types of prices- yipee! Yea, most I'll keep the first few years to breed up to 3/4 and 7/8. Some I'll eat and sell for beef. Thats my plan - to be able to produce a dozen beef calves a year in about 5 yrs time. 

I need to do some consideration about buying newborns for fostering and feeding out for sale. That I hadnt considered. Higher production definitely favors that model. I need to think that one through- and do a lot more research. But is a good idea I need to look into further. Looks doable and may give me another potential income stream (small but still, every little bit helps!) I hadnt considered.

Well, I do have more thoughts and questions, but Im nodding over the keyboard. Brain fried. I'll try again tomorrow.


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

LMonty,

Two of my neighbors collaborated on a Lowline project last year. One bought 7 embryos @ $500 each. The other provided 9 Angus and Charolais heifers. The vet did the prep work to bring the heifers ready, picked the 7 best prospects and then an AI technician implanted the fetuses. Three took. That's about the claimed success rate of 40%. One of the fetuses aborted and two heifers were born without complications.

The vet bill was $600 and the AI guy was $300. Total cost was $4400, plus feed.

Now they have two fullblood heifers which are just reaching breeding age. They are considering flushing the heifers, doing "in-vitro" fertilization, and implanting a number of cows with these embryos, to get more fullblood Lowlines. I've suggested that they try some Dexter mothers this time, since Dexters have such easy births and will provide more milk than an Angus or Charolais.

The calves will fare better in a herd of small cattle, too. The first pair had a hard time as calves. Their size always made them the last to get something to eat and they grazed on the outer edges of the herd.

Once they get a bull calf, they intend to start selling semen.

It's an ambitious program. There's a lot of start-up expense. Lets hope that the Lowline market holds up long enough for them to get their money back and maybe make a few bucks.

Genebo
Paradise Farm


----------



## LMonty (Jul 31, 2006)

Thanks gene. Yea, I considered the embryo thing- but what a risk! 40% effective at $500 a pop is a bit scary for me. Maybe later. I'm not sure. I need to figure out how well I can do with them in the area first, I think. And get some experience under my belt. They still ended up with two heifers at less than the going rate for fullblood lowlines, so I think they did well. BY the time i am ready to invest in something like that, evaluating the market would definitley be a must. 

I'm waiting to hear back from the person who first turned me on to Dexters years back. I would dearly love to get some of her stock, she has good bloodlines, and I'd feel comfortable buying from her. But she is way up in NY so thats a consideration- if I can afford them, first off- and then transporting them. I was really hoping there would be a PM from her (nother board) when I got home from work- but not yet  

I have a feeling my DH is going to go into sticker shock when I tell him the amount I need to get a herd started, and I may have to completely change my initial plans. Am seriously considering an ag loan for stock purchase if needed. We do have a few thousand to play with, but I might do better with a low interest rate loan that i pay off early for a variety of reasons. Still considering it. 

I think I'd like to get a small jersey or jerseyX to play with, and see if that works for us. Putting a pencil to paper is one thing and very valuable- but actually doing a real comparison in real life with the same conditions for both might be more valuable for me. I dont htink theres much risk to it- small family milkers seem to sell very well just on this board- seems like supply doesnt meet demand yet. If I cant find one, but get the Dexters, it might be interesting to try mini jersey semen on one to see what we get. 

In fact, there may be a good market for small docile milkers that are just freshened and are easy to milk. That I'd like to explore. Would be neat to find and fill that niche. Selling them bred back to a dexter or lowline so that the buyer would have a good beef calf to look forward to would be "added value". Again, just an idea, and I'd need t explre if the market I think is there can support a few of them a year, and if so, if its profitable to do so. 

Does anyone know of any commercial dairies in the NW AR area? (say, within and hour or two of Harrison?) might be a good thing for me to know, I can check into it when I get a phone book, but if anyone has any expereince with them, I'd appreciate the input.

BTW_ I do feel kinda guilty for almost hijacking the thread with so many of my own questions and ideas. But it has been hugely valuable to me. Not just the opnions- but youve all really given me great ideas on not just what might work for us- but how to keep records, and how to think through the profit/loss/risks. Thats worth much more to me than you know. Its an education I couldnt get elsewhere, and will probably save me more money and aggrevation than I can foresee. Being allowed to contribute here, and all your sharing of info is very,very much appreciated.


----------



## Carol K (May 10, 2002)

LMonty,
if I can be of any help with Dexters in NY let me know.You can also check out the new region 11 site http://www.freewebs.com/region11dexters/ there is a For sale page, small but I only just got it started.

carol


----------



## LMonty (Jul 31, 2006)

Thanks, Carol. Long ride for me from AR! LOL But I'm a native NY'er, BTW! (Long Island) good place to be from  Always liked "upstate" better.

I do appreciate getting info on animals for sale from you, or anyone. I just wish more people would post prices. Sure would help me figure my budget out. Even when I get email replies, the breeders that have bothered to contact me back (about half of thoes Ive emailed) most havent included prices. Funny way to do business, IMHO.


----------



## genebo (Sep 12, 2004)

LMonty,

Olga Penka is down toward Russelville, about a hour and a half from you. She has some nice Dexters. Maybe she'll be able to help you. I think she milks hers.

By the way, I was born in Arkansas. That's where I was first exposed to raising cattle, so that I was able to go back to my roots after a long career in a technical field.

Have you read Carol K's piece about milking on the ADCA site member's page? It's worth reading.

Genebo
Paradise Farm
Church Road, VA


----------

