VOLUME XVIII, NO. 7

JULY 2009

Are dairymen their own worst enemy?

July Ice Cream: next best thing to refrigerated air

Cook-off promises “best cheeseburgers anywhere”

TAHC warns ranchers and vets to “call before you haul”

Senate committee rejects House plan to block GHG reporting for CAFOs

Dairies must reduce carbon footprint to remain sustainable

New school immunization requirements effective Aug. 1

Are dairymen their own worst enemy?

If dairymen have one thing in common nowadays, it is anger---triggered by a quivering future that has boiled down to little more than “survival of the fittest.”

Experts say too much milk on the market is the culprit in today’s dairy fiasco. So, it seems rather ironic the dairies that produce this massive amount of milk are literally going broke in the process.

A contradiction in terms of today’s modern dairy characterization is apparent. As dairies have progressed over the years, the ideal is to become better producers with better producing cows using the best rations and maintenance at the lowest possible cost. But, in a market with no boundaries, this perfection of high producing cows in unlimited quantities may eventually result in producers self-indulging themselves right out of the business, leading to their own demise.

“We are our own worst enemy,” said one dairy producer. But, like others, he has no pat answers or solutions.

In an effort to eliminate a portion of the oversupply of milk, the CWT recently held its 6th round in a buyout program that slaughtered nearly 103,000 cows. Dairy cooperatives and other industry organizations are brainstorming additional solutions. Dairy Farmers of America’s (DFAs) Southwest Council board recently proved a proposal to present to the Greater Southwest Agency that would decrease the member-producer milk supply by 5%.

“But, we have no idea if this will even work,” said G.H. Cain of DFA. ”Texas and New Mexico cannot do this alone and it would be necessary for other states to agree to the proposal.”

The buzz word “quota” is circulating among producers who are divided in their opinions. To some, a quota system is welcomed as a feasible option. Others, however, express a negative view of “quota,” based on its history.

“It didn’t work then, and it won’t work now,” said one source who is vehemently opposed to the system.

Dairy producers have “taken it on the chin” for far too long and are beaten down by a floundering existence in an intensified struggle.

July Ice Cream: next best thing to refrigerated air

While record temperatures escalate and heat indexes soar, the soothing and creamy goodness of ice cream may provide the next best thing to refrigerated air. Ice cream affords a cool and delicious way to beat the hot summertime blues and satisfy a wicked sweet tooth, all at the same time.

It is especially significant this month to fill your freezer with the many ice cream varieties, flavors and novelties in honor of July National Ice Cream Month and July 19, designated as National Ice Cream Day. Former Pres. Ronald Regan recognized ice cream as a “fun and nutritious food enjoyed by a full 90% of the nation's population,” and called for all people of the U. S. to observe these events with "appropriate ceremonies and activities."

Although only 9% of all the milk produced by U.S. dairy farmers is used to produce ice cream, the U.S. ice cream industry generates more than $21 billion in annual sales and employs thousands of citizens in the industry.

Total U.S. production of ice cream and related frozen desserts in 2007 amounted to approximately 1.55 billion gallons. Vanilla is the flavor of choice followed by chocolate, butter pecan, strawberry, and chocolate chip mint.

Ice cream and related frozen desserts are consumed by more than 90% of U.S. households. Based on 2007 statistics, California produced the largest volume of ice cream and related frozen desserts at over 153 million gallons of the U.S. total followed by Indiana, Texas, Pennsylvania, Missouri and New York.

The U.S. leads the world in annual production of ice cream and related frozen desserts at approximately 1.6 billion gallons in 2007. Total exports reached more than 57 million pounds, worth about $58 million. In 2007, Mexico was the single largest market for U.S. frozen dessert exports with an estimated value of almost $28 million. Canada was the number two destination for U.S. frozen dessert exports valued at $8.2 million followed respectively by Canada at $4.8 million, the Russian Federation at $1.1 million and Jamaica at $1.5 million.

Cook-off promises “best cheeseburgers anywhere”

If grilled-to-perfection authentic Texas cheeseburgers tickle your fancy, make plans to attend Friona’s Cheeseburger Cook-off on Sat. July 18, at Friona City Park, 12 noon. Designated as the Cheeseburger Capital of Texas in 2007 and earning their official seal in 2008, the popular and fast-growing festival promises the “best cheeseburgers anywhere” made from 100% home grown beef and cheese from the Friona area.

Sponsored by the Friona Chamber of Commerce, the cook-off has rallied cheeseburger enthusiasts from far and wide who are anxious to either cook or merely sample the goods while enjoying the event that has tripled in size since its 2006 inception.

The Cheeseburger Cook-off was initiated in 2006 as a way to promote the local dairy and farming community. Located in the Texas Panhandle, Parmer County is home to 12 dairies that produce nearly 69 million pounds of milk and rank #2 in the Texas Top Ten Milk Producing Counties. Two major cheese plants, Southwest and Hilmar, are located within 100 miles.

Chris Alexander, executive director for the Friona Economic Development Corporation (FEDC), said in addition to the dairies, the area farms approximately 195,000 acres of wheat and has over 40 cattle feeding operations within a 50 mile radius. The local Cargill Meat Solutions processes more than 2,000,000 head of cattle annually.

The cook-off is open to both professional and amateur chefs with an entry fee of $100. A short course in food safety is required and each cooking team is responsible for preparing 75-100 burgers to sell to the public at noon. For more information, contact the Friona Chamber of Commerce, 806-250-3491.

TAHC warns ranchers and vets to “call before you haul”

After confirmed findings of cattle TB present in a herd near San Angelo, officials from the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) warn ranchers or accredited veterinarians to call the state of destination prior to shipping bison, beef or dairy cattle out of Texas.

Dr. Bob Hillman, state veterinarian and the head of TAHC, said states may impose enhanced TB entry requirements on Texas cattle and bison. “Keep in mind, too, that many states, like Texas, have implemented cattle trichomoniasis testing requirements---so, call before you haul.”

The TB-infected Ike Tapia herd at Veribest remains quarantined while the final disposition of the herd is determined—either slaughtering the herd, or repeatedly testing and removing infected animals until the herd is free of cattle TB.

“Dairy, calf-raising and dairy animal replacement operations with epidemiological links to the infected herd are being tested to determine both the origin and potential spread of the disease,” Hillman said.

Tapia’s herd has been quarantined since April of this year. A few of Tapia’s cattle responded positive to a TB test conducted prior to a sale at Erath County Dairy Sales in Dublin. The TB diagnosis was confirmed at the National Veterinary Services Laboratory in Ames, Iowa, where cattle TB bacteria are grown from tissues collected during the necropsy of the test-positive cattle.

The TAHC said milk from the dairy is harmless to humans since milk is pasteurized; a process where heat kills pathogens that are dangerous to humans.

Texas’ cattle TB-free status with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) could be in jeopardy if the infected dairy cannot be depopulated or if a second infected herd is detected within 48 months. When TB-free status is lost, breeding cattle and bison moved out of a state need a negative TB test within 60 days prior to shipment, or animals must originate from a herd that has accredited TB-free status, achieved through a formal testing and retesting program.

Texas initially gained TB-free status in November 2000, when all counties except El Paso and portions of Hudspeth Counties were declared free of the disease. The El Paso Milk Shed had a history of recurring infection and eventually the dairies were depopulated. Dairies no longer operate in this area along the U.S.-Mexican border near El Paso.

In June 2002, Texas lost TB-free status after infection was detected in a beef herd and in an operation with both beef and dairy cattle. To regain TB-free status, 2,014 Texas purebred beef herds and the state’s 818 dairies were tested for the disease from October 2003 through August 2006. One TB-infected dairy was detected and depopulated. In September 2006, the USDA issued the coveted TB-free status for all of Texas’ 254 counties.

Senate committee rejects House plan to block GHG reporting for CAFOs 

The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected a bid to include language in the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) fiscal year 2010 spending bill that would bar EPA from requiring concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFOs) to report their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. However, the action has set up a clash with the House spending bill that includes the provision.

At a June 25 markup, Sen. Sam Brownback (R-KS) offered an amendment to block EPA from implementing any rule to require GHG reporting from “manure management systems,” as the agency has proposed to do for large operations under its mandatory GHG registry. He argued EPA should not require reporting because the agency does not yet know how to measure the emissions and because livestock operations are already in a dire financial situation. However, the Brownback measure was blocked by a Democratic amendment offered by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), chair of the appropriations panel's environment subcommittee.

In contrast, the House Appropriations Committee June 18 approved their version of EPA's FY10 spending bill that includes an amendment offered by Rep. Tom Latham (R-IA) that prohibits EPA from including emissions from “manure management systems” in its upcoming first-time mandatory GHG registry.

The difference sets up a clash between the two versions of the agency's appropriations bill that may have to be resolved in conference negotiations. Other possible outcomes could be if the Latham language is struck from the House bill during floor debate or if Brownback successfully offers his rider on the Senate floor.

Feinstein said there is a need for reporting GHG emissions from agricultural facilities. She successfully blocked Brownback's amendment by offering a second-degree amendment to revoke Brownback's plan.

Dairies must reduce carbon footprint to remain sustainable

For years, modern dairies have become increasingly aware of the necessity to reduce their carbon footprint if they are to remain a sustainable industry. Although improving productive efficiency was recognized as early as 1927, it was after World War II before it became possible.

In a broad sense, sustainability is the capacity to endure through long-term improvements which applies to both the farm and the overall wellbeing of the animals. Sustainability and productive efficiency go hand-in-hand.

Productive efficiency is the ability to create a product at its lowest average total cost while limiting inputs required for production. Improved productive efficiency basically enables greater milk yields by using fewer cows, as cited in a comparison study from 1944 to 2007 conducted by J.L. Capper. For example, in 1944, the U.S. had 25.6 million cows producing 117 billion pounds of milk. In 2007, however, the U.S. had 9.2 million cows producing 186 billion pounds of milk. U.S. milk production per cow has quadrupled since 1944.

In today’s world, scientists, legislators and industry leaders are focused on reducing the carbon footprint in any capacity, whether it is industry or households. A carbon footprint is the total set of GHG (greenhouse gas) emissions caused directly and indirectly by an individual, organization, event or product.

Regarding dairies, on-farm milk production has the greatest opportunity to affect the carbon footprint of a gallon of milk by 80 to 90 %. “The dairy industry has to focus on communicating to the general public the great job producers have done in improving their efforts toward sustainability over the past 50 years,” said Marty McKinzie, director of industry relations for Dairy Max. “Even though the carbon footprint of the individual cow has doubled since 1944, the carbon footprint of a gallon of milk in the past 50 years has been reduced by about two-thirds.”

McKinzie said dairies should focus on measuring the carbon footprint of the milk rather than what produced the milk, such as the cow. “On-farm is where the bulk of a carbon footprint exists and this is where additional improvements should be made. It starts with the amount of fuel used in a tractor for planting the seed for a crop, harvesting the feed, cows eating the feed, to producing the milk that goes into the tank.”

Scientific efforts have been made to reduce animal and farm emissions through improved metabolic (feed) efficiency; improved nutrition including a balanced ration and feeding management; improved cropping practices and technology; and, improved manure management through better storage, processing and application techniques.

McKinzie said it is important for each dairy to determine their own carbon footprint and work to reduce it through these various improvements instead of lending an opportunity for state and federal agencies to assess additional costs.

Capper’s 1944 study reveals more land was required to support pasture-based herds for grazing, hay production and cereal crops. Herds were comprised of 54% small breeds (Jersey,Guernsey, Ayshire) and 46% large breeds (Holstein and Brown Swiss). Use of AI was rare and dairy production was characterized by pasture-based systems reliant on home grown forages and few purchased concentrate feeds. Draft horses powered operations with only 1.2 tractors per farm. Animal manure was used to fulfill crop nutrient requirements.

Today’s typical modern dairy production systems are characterized by use of TMR formulations, herd health and management programs, and facilities designed to minimize stress and maximize production. Feedstuffs are harvested from high intensity row-crop farming practices.

This improved productive efficiency facilitates dilution of maintenance by which the total resource cost per unit of milk is reduced. The daily nutrient requirement of lactating cows comprises a specific quantity needed to maintain the vital functions called maintenance requirement of the animal plus extra nutrients to support lactation. The production maintenance energy requirement does not change but the daily energy requirement increases as milk yield increases, thereby, reducing the proportion of total energy used for maintenance.

Genetic improvement has been a major contributor to the increase in productivity through AI breeding (widely adopted since the 1970s) and improved genetic evaluation procedures that have enhanced identification and selection of animals superior for milk production.

Improved productive efficiency reduces the GHG emissions and overall environmental impact of dairy production. The ultimate goal of the dairy system is to supply sufficient milk to satisfy both the requirement of the US population and export demand and the environmental impact should be quantified per unit of milk produced; however, estimates of environmental impact are often quoted per animal or per unit of land.

Today’s 2008 EPA Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks states dairy production contributes less than 1% to the Total US Carbon Footprint.

New school immunization requirements effective Aug. 1

Even though it seems summer has just gotten underway, it is not too soon to be aware of changes to school immunization requirements for five vaccines to take effect Aug. 1, said Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) officials.

“The changes were made to update the Texas elementary and secondary school immunization requirements to more closely match recommendations by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices,” said Jack Sims, DSHS immunization branch manager.

Changes affect mainly students entering kindergarten and seventh grade. All immunizations must be completed by the first day of attendance at public and private schools. The vaccines and new requirements are: Hepatitis A vaccine: Students entering kindergarten statewide must have had two doses of the hepatitis A vaccine. Measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine: Students entering kindergarten must have had two doses of the MMR vaccine. Students in grades 1 through 12 must continue to meet the current requirement, which is two doses of a measles-containing vaccine and one dose each of mumps and rubella vaccine. Varicella vaccine: Students entering kindergarten and seventh grade must have had two doses. Students in grades 1 though 6 and 8 through 12 must continue to meet the current requirement, which is one dose of varicella vaccine. Tetanus, diphtheria, acellular pertussis-containing vaccine (Tdap): Students entering seventh grade must have had one dose of Tdap vaccine. Students in seventh grade must have had a booster dose of Tdap, but only if it has been five years since their last dose of a tetanus-containing vaccine. Students in grades 8 through 12 must have had a booster dose of Tdap if it has been 10 years since their last dose of a tetanus-containing vaccine. Meningococcal vaccine: Students entering seventh grade must have had one dose.

“A student may be enrolled provisionally if the student has received at least one dose of each required vaccine,” Sims said. “To remain enrolled, the student must complete the required doses in each vaccine series on schedule and as quickly as is medically feasible.”

The full list of immunization requirements effective Aug. 1 for the 2009-2010 school year is available at www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/docs/school/6-14eng.pdf. Immunizations also are required for children in pre-kindergarten and child-care facilities. Those requirements are available at www.dshs.state.tx.us/immunize/docs/school/childcare_reqsENG.pdf.

1521 C Lingleville Road, Stephenville, Texas 76401
800-344-4901 — 254-965-2255 — Fax 254-965-6202 — Cell 254-967-2190
Sherry Webb, Publisher

All internet content of this site are Copyright © 2005-2009 TDR Publishing Co. All Rights Reserved.
Any duplication, in any form, without the written consent of the copyright holder is prohibited.