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

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

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...........4.6 5....................305
Rock Raisin...........12.............6898...........4.6 5....................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...........4.3 8....................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.....................yie ld.................1000 lb
.......................lbs......................lb s/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

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. :rolleyes: 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. :)

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).

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

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...

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.

My promised reply to Slev
 

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.

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).

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 don’t believe that grants me membership in the National Cattleman’s Association. And, while I am very proud of her, I don’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, I’m afraid I don’t HAVE to point them out or do anything. Many of your statements are based on false or misleading information. “ASSUMING” as part of your basis for an “argument” 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 I’d like to point out; I’m not looking for an “argument”. 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. I’m not trying to persuade the newbie’s out there looking for a good homestead dual purpose breed of cow, into only looking at the Dexter as the breed of choice, I’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 don’t believe that grants me membership in the National Cattleman’s Association. And, while I am very proud of her, I don’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 pro’s vs. cons offered from several other “Dexterphiles” 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. (Let’s try not to forget the original post topic…)

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 –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 don’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."

Let’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 “number crunching” figures. You pipe up real quick to say but you must offer real numbers, then you fill in 10 times the word ”assume” when others on here have taken the time to answer with what must have taken hours of research and time to post. Well, that’s proof enough for me pal, I don’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 “assumptions” 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.

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.

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.

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 don’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.

Slev,

You also wrote:

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

Let’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.

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 –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.

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. :)

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.

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

Mark,

I haven’t read every word here. Is Bonnie your Holstein? You say she’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, it’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 – snow doesn’t wear them much. It’s hard enough on a small cow, can’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 don’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. I’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 don’t know if I’d always believe when sellers say they’re getting rid of a cow only because of poor genetics. Could be other issues like chronic mastitis reducing production.

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.

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

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.