Photobucket


La Vida Locavore
 Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

Bolivia Diaries: Day 9, Part 1 - A "Model" Dairy in Cochabamba

by: Jill Richardson

Tue Sep 27, 2011 at 20:47:31 PM PDT


Bookmark and Share
This diary is part of a series describing my trip to Bolivia to study food sovereignty, agroecology, and climate change. On our ninth day, we woke up in Cochabamba. We spent our morning at Pairumani, a "model" dairy that strives to be sustainable.
Jill Richardson :: Bolivia Diaries: Day 9, Part 1 - A "Model" Dairy in Cochabamba
Before we get to the Pairumani farm, I should mention a little about dairy and Cochabamba. Cochabamba is known as the breadbasket of Bolivia, and it has been since the time of the Inca and likely even before. Cochabamba is one of Bolivia's valley regions, with a climate that reminded me of Southern California in many ways except for one: Cochabamba gets enough rain.

Dairy is not at all native to Bolivia, and non-European peoples are often lactose intolerant as adults. (In fact, lactose intolerance is the norm, and those of us who tolerate milk beyond childhood are the exception.) Additionally, dairy production in the tropics is difficult. I've heard many times that the most productive dairy breeds do not tolerate the heat very well, and the breeds that are well adapted to the tropics do not produce very much milk. But Cochabamba's pleasant climate is just fine for the highest producing dairy breeds, and we saw Holstein cows almost everywhere we went around the area when we were outside of the city center.

The Pairumani farm has about 500 hectares and belongs to the Simon I. Patiño Foundation. It has a pediatric medicine center, a research center that works on non-GMO legumes and cereals, a seed center, and the model farm, which we visited.

Simon I. Patiño, whose land this is, was one of the ten richest men in the world in the 20s and 30s. I believe he discovered the tin that started the tin boom in Bolivia. He was poor prior to that, and was not part of the Bolivian elite. Once he made his money, he left for Europe. He bought this land in 1920. Patiño died in 1947.

Patiño owned about 5000 hectares in the Cochabamba area. He wanted to make this a recognized agricultural area. He introduced new varieties of plants and paid for students to study agronomy abroad in order to develop Bolivia's human resources in agriculture. In the 1952, the 5000 hectares were redistributed. But 500 hectares remained as property of the foundation.


The Seed Center

Before the presentation, I poked around a bit:


A bull - this guy was all alone and bellowing non-stop. It sounded like he was screaming.


Close-up. Here, they don't remove the cows' horns.


Sheep. I asked what they were for and I was told they were here to have blood taken from them for use in one of the labs.


Horses.


Pigs were here. I asked where the pigs are now and they told me they ate them.

This was one of the first dairy production projects in Bolivia. In 1935, 400 head of Holstein cattle were brought from the best dairy farms in the U.S. and Canada. Until the mid to late 1980s, they were intensively producing dairy. In 1999, they began converting to a "agrobiological" model thanks to an agricultural study that was done, realizing that the soils were being degraded, and a lot of the cattle were sick too.

I was feeling very critical of the fact that the cows are not on pasture (which would not be possible based on the number of cows they have compared to the amount of pasture they have). But when we asked questions, we found that this dairy was already "radical" in Bolivia. The conversion they did from the former, industrial model to this model brought them a lot of criticism and ridicule from the agricultural establishment.

They grow 230 hectares of forage, cereals, and vegetables, using composting and crop rotation. For the animals, they use no hormones and they use homeopathic medicine on the 240 cows they have today. In 2009, they established a department of "research and distribution" in which they bring in students to do their dissertations by studying the farm. They also train their staff in their techniques and do education to the public. (When we asked about their land, they said they also have 130 hectares forested, mostly in Eucalyptus.)

Here, they use no GMOs, but they don't take a political position for or against GMOs. They think that more research is needed before making that call. They are part of a movement of organic products (Association of Organizations of Ecological Producers of Bolivia, AOPEB) and AOPEB has been vocal against GMOs.

They told us they are involved with the Asociacion de Criadores de Ganado Holstein Bolivia ACRHOBOL, which is a Bolivian conventional dairy organization (Association of Holstein Breeders of Bolivia). This gives the farm credibility among the wider agricultural community. They told us that their farm is seen as a somewhat antagonistic force, and at first when they converted, they were told that this model was bringing Bolivia back fifty years.

But now they've been able to earn the community's respect, and other producers are interested in their production methods. They are in fourth place for dairy production in Bolivia according to their statistics. (The others ahead of them are conventional producers.)

They told us that they had always had Holsteins, and it was really difficult in the first place to change their model so radically, and changing the breed of cows would have been even more complex. Holsteins are almost always the industrial cow breed of choice, although you do see them frequently enough on sustainable farms.

They no longer remove the cows' horns, and when they made that change, it caused a bit of a scandal at the local level. They said the first three years of their change were full of lots of debates and discussions at the local level. Within ACRHOBOL, they had debates over whether the Holstein is a living being with animal instincts, or just a milk producing machine. When they made the change, they began talking about the animals as living beings, and not just genetic material. (They mentioned that there was a study recently that showed there were more allergens present in milk from cows who had their horns removed than cows who retained their horns.)

When they made the change, they began focusing on the quality of the milk. Since then, the big dairy company in Bolivia, Pil, has implemented quality standards, and they have rejected many producers' milk. (Pil has a monopoly and monopsony of milk in Bolivia. They buy 150,000 liters (39,625.8 gallons) of milk from 4000 producers per day in Cochabamba.) This farm produces 2,000 liters (528.3 gallons) of milk per day.

One of the health indicators they use here is the level of mastitis. Some intensive systems have up to 25% mastitis, and here they have less than 2%. In ACRHOBOL, some farms have up to 14% miscarriages. In 1998, before the conversion to this model, they had up to 20% miscarriages. They now have 2% miscarriages.


One of the buildings that houses the cows. They told us they are historic buildings that they have restored.

They noted that the ideal would be allowing all of the cows out to pasture, but they do not have the pasture needed to do that. Some of the young animals are allowed out to pasture, but mostly the animals are confined. They only have 30 hectares of pasture.

When they talk about producing a high quality product, they mean three things: healthy soils, healthy plants and forage with no chemicals, and healthy animals. Without very much marketing, their milk is in the highest demand. It's used locally by hospitals and many pediatricians in the area recommend their milk specifically. They are also involved in the maternal subsidies, a program similar to WIC in the U.S.

They noted the irony, that when they started, people thought there was no way they could succeed, but now they cannot produce enough to meet demand. The milk is only available within Cochabamba department, and it can be purchased through the maternal subsidy program or at supermarkets. It's sold as "Pairumani Agrobiological Milk." They told us they are considering helping other producers convert to their model and then purchasing that milk to sell under their brand, but they are proceeding with caution.

There are 58 workers here and many live here on the farm. The farm pays for all of the healthcare of the workers. We passed some of the worker housing on our tour. While we didn't see the indoors, the outside looked very nice.

The heifers - from 6 to 24 months of age - are kept in one area. Then they have a maternal area somewhere else. The cows in production are kept in groups of low, middle, and high production. In the middle, they keep the baby calves, from zero to four months.


Baby calf.


The area the houses the calves.


The milking parlor.

They go to a waiting area before they are milked so they can relax. This is to allow a natural hormone - oxytocin - to be released so the cow can produce milk. Also, adrenaline prevents the milk from descending. They don't allow any yelling or hitting the cows by the workers. In the past, the workers sometimes mistreated the animals. But with the change in management, they told the workers that the animals have feelings, that they suffer and get sick, and must be treated well.

They said that here, the infrastructure is adapted to the animal and not the other way around. They said for feeding, they try to reproduce how animals eat out in the pasture. They are careful to protect the animals from hitting their horns when they are trying to eat. They are raising bulls because they are important to the system. They transmit pheromones, and they are used in reproduction.

This farm milks the cows twice a day using machines. (Industrial farms in the U.S. milk their cows three times a day, which allows them to get more milk from the cows.) In the old industrial system, the cows were only kept for three lactations, but they keep the cows for six or seven lactations. (In the U.S, a cow might be kept just for one or two lactations on an industrial farm, but I've been to small, organic farms that keep cows for 10-11 lactations or more.)


The back end of the cows


The front end of the cows

I took photos of what the cows were being fed:


Wheat


Something from Santa Cruz, probably soy.


Definitely soy. From HiPro Feeds?


Yum - that looks like good cow food.


The cows think so too.

As an intensive system, they produced 450,000 liters of milk per year here. Now, they produce 750,000 liters per year. And that increase happened with the change in systems and without an increase in the size of the farm. They went from 1,500 tons of alfalfa with chemicals to 3000 tons without chemicals. In the old system, 60 cows in production produced 21-22 liters per day. Now they have 100 cows in production.

They also showed us their homeopathic and herbal medicine lab. They said that the proper management of the farm should solve 95% of the cows' problems - but the medicine is here for the other 5%. The herbal medicines include juices, infusions, vapors, and tinctures. For example, they use a tincture of garlic and onion inside the udder for mastitis. They use calendula oil for inflammation. They also put flower buds from ceibo in the animals' food to promote fertility. They said any kind of flower would work for this.

More than 46% of their milk is sold as yogurt, which has a high added value compared to fluid milk. With yogurt, they double or triple the economic value of the milk. Consumers prefer yogurt here in Bolivia, often because they do not have refrigerators and they can keep yogurt at room temperature.


Yogurt.

Previous diaries can be seen here:

You can also find diaries from my 2010 trip to Bolivia here.

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email

embed error? (4.00 / 2)
One of the buildings that houses the cows.

There's a question mark in that space right now. Clicking it takes me to the photo in Photobucket, but it isn't displaying in the diary.


oops (4.00 / 2)
I scrolled up and there it is.

Lactations (4.00 / 2)
In the U.S., the average age of industrial dairy Holsteins at slaughter was 44 months, last time I looked, which means maximum two lactations per producer cow. The reason is said to be that, after four years of living in industrial conditions and two years of being milked three times a day, the cows are so worn out and broken down that selling them for pet food and shoe leather makes more sense than trying to keep them on their feet for another milking season.

...the average age of industrial dairy Holsteins at slaughter was 44 months, last time I looked...

That one fact bespeaks a dysfunctional system as much as anything I can think of. It's an insanely wasteful use of resources. It would make sense if two-year-old heifers were free, but they aren't free. How efficient would people think Toyota was if it built a factory, ran it for two model years, and then destroyed it and built another factory and destroyed it after two model years, and so on? Vehicle factories are expensive so they're maintained for extensive lifetimes. Cows are so cheap that it seems reasonable to replace dairy herds after two years? Something is radically wrong with that model. Of course, if heifer lifetimes were extended to eight years, think of the crimp that would put in the bank accounts of people who raise heifers, and think of the sales that would be lost to farmers who feed the replacement heifers. Egad, think of the people food that could be grown instead on that land.


Those numbers are really interesting (4.00 / 3)
if you take into consideration the fact that in the wild a cow would be pregnant most of her life and lactating most of her life and she'd live longer than a cow in a large commercial dairy.

As to the practice of milking 3 times a day that Jill mentions, cows, when allowed access to a completely automated milking facility, will self select for 3 or 4 times a day milking. I think that it more closely resembles  a calf nursing. I know that my goats, when I was milking them, got milked once or twice a day. But when their kids were nursing, they were milked 6 times/day or more.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
automatic milking (4.00 / 2)
Automatic milking

Milking frequency may increase to three times per day, however typically 2.5 times per day is achieved.



[ Parent ]
3 milks (0.00 / 0)
From the wiki,

Holstein cattle

In a study performed in Florida between 1984 and 1992 using 4293 Holstein lactation records from 8 herds, 48% of cows were milked 3 times a day. The practice was responsible for an extra 17.3% milk, 12.3% fat and 8.8% protein.

I infer that the comparison is with 2x per day milking, although the website has changed and I didn't retrieve the cited pdf. Production weight (and volume) increased, but production was more watery. I assume this would not be desirable for a dairy that emphasizes quality, such as Pairumani.


[ Parent ]
not exactly (4.00 / 2)
I think the dairy farms almost always raise their own heifers. The cows give birth to start each lactation so there is no shortage of calves around. The females are kept, bull calves sold for meat. If they kept each cow for more lactations, then I assume that means that they would need fewer replacements, which therefore would mean some female calves would become veal.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
Yup (4.00 / 3)
a big part of owning a dairy herd is breeding. In the US, a lot of farms do AI (artificial insemination). AI in cattle is down to an exact science. There are a lot of semen and AI service suppliers out there. All West Select Sires is the one Harold and I belonged to back when we had our old cow. For quite some time now, there's been a lot of effort to be able to select the gender of the calf by sorting the sperm. I think there are some companies out there now that can garuantee that a certain percentage of calves produced from their semen will be female. otherwise, roughly 50% (on average) will be male. Male calves mostly go to veal production.

Under a selected semen system, all of the male calves going to veal production will be replaced with female calves. However, it will give the dairy the ability to select good looking prospects from a much larger group each year, than under an unselected system.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
Pairumani female calves (4.00 / 2)
What happens to the excess Pairumani female calves?

Arithmetic is a wonderful thing. I need to retire to a dark corner and think about your comment, but the first implication is that, if a cow births one calf a year and half are female, then in two years enough females have been born to replace the production herd. If Joanne's comment is taken to the limit such that all calves are female, then enough female calves would be born to replace the herd every year. The lifetime of the heifers would be 3 years, with one productive milking season.

OK, THAT'S JUST CREEPY.


[ Parent ]
No, the heifer's life span wouldn't be 3 years (4.00 / 4)
as not all heifers would be suitable. One of the nice things about being able to select for only female calves to be produced is that you have a much larger pool to select your replacements from (obviously you wouldn't be selecting from the 50% or so bull calves).

Were I to run a herd like that, I'd keep the premium heifers for my own replacements. Then the next best I'd sell to anyone who wanted milkers. Finally, the rest would go to veal production or who ever else wanted them.

Remember the motto in animals (and plants too) involved in food production - Keep the best, eat the rest.

That's why it's so important to the survival of the heritage breeds of both animals and food producing plants that we eat them, and that there are good strong markets.

You never get a high percentage of animals who are actually good enough for breeding pure stock, or production animals. That's why the beef and dairy industries here in the US have been looking into cloning. You get the same physical characteristics every time. You don't have to spin the roulette wheel and wait 9 months to see what you're getting. That's also why animal breeders use inbreeding and line breeding. That's the best way to reproduce, with reasonable consistency, the type of animal you're looking for. A male who 'puts his stamp' on his get is said to be 'prepotent'. I forget what a female who does the same thing is said to do. Back when I was a horse show photographer, there were always classes at the breed shows for Get of Sire and Produce of Dam. In these classes, they'd bring in the stallion and then some of his foal crop for a given year. The foals would be judged as to how well they resembled pops. Same for the produce of dam.

But now I'm getting off into the weeds....

Anyway, back to breeding replacement animals.
You've got your premium animals, then the good or very good animals, and finally the regular culls. If we don't eat them, then where are the less than premium and the culls going to go?

Also, given that not all of your heifer calves will be up to snuff, if you turn over your herd that rapidly using your own heifers, the quality of your herd is going to go down hill because you won't be culling as heavily as you should.

I'll use my goat herd as an example. My herd produced 14 kids this year. I'm retaining 3 doelings. Only those 3 hit my benchmarks as to hardiness and growth in the spring/summer season. Next year, I'll breed them and then I'll see what the offspring look like. If those offspring don't hit my benchmarks, they'll go to slaughter as young kids (probably 6 months old). I won't get much for them, but I won't have to feed them over the winter just to get them to a decent slaughter size. If I'd started out with stock that was more suited to what I want to produce, I'd not have as many culls, but I'm still on that learning curve.

As an interesting aside to the prepotency issue, we've all probably seen a family who's members all look pretty much alike? Which ever parent they resemble strongly, is prepotent. In Harold's case, his dad was prepotent, and so was Harold. That whole family looke almost like clones of each other. I used to tell Harold that his line would be a valuable one if they were livestock. Even the women had male pattern baldness and looked like the men. A 4 or 5 generation photo at one of their family reunions was astounding.


Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
speaking of weeds (4.00 / 2)
Do you know if it's possible to make a general statement about which lactation season produces the most milk, for Holsteins or cows in general? Are the first and second seasons about equal, is the first more productive than the second, etc.?

[ Parent ]
Couldn't tell ya (4.00 / 3)
but I wouldn't be surprised if the first lactation isn't the biggest. Just like first birthing probably isn't going to be the easiest. That's another point at which you'd do your culling. A cow that doesn't birth well, or doesn't produce milk to your dairy's standards (volume or quality) should be culled. A cow that absolutely doesn't want to be milked by machine, etc. All of those gotta go.

My best milker last year, Taffy, was actually a cull from a commercial goat dairy in southern Oregon. Her teats were too small for the cups. But for hand milking, she was fantastic! So she was a cull for production reasons having to do with that specific farm. But, she was suited really well to someone who wanted to hand milk. And, after a few lactations, she had nice big teats and she probably would have worked well with a mechanical milker. But for hand milking, she was the easiest and the heaviest producer. By the time I got her, she was 6 or 7 years old, and she was producing like gangbusters.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
thanks Joanne (4.00 / 2)
I'd just add that this dairy has bulls that I believe are used in reproduction. So they would have 50% bull calves born. But by keeping their animals for so many years, they greatly reduce the number of replacements needed so it probably wouldn't be so bad for them in that case. And I would assume that the best bull calves are retained for breeding and they'll have quite a selection if 50% of calves are male.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
One thing to keep in mind about using your own males (4.00 / 1)
is that you ought to have 3 unrelated males to breed to. That's what I do with my goat herd. I have 3 bucks. One is unrelated to either of my other two, and the other two are father and son. The 3 doelings I'm keeping are the daughters of the senior buck. They'll be bred to one of the other two bucks and starting next year I'm going to have to keep a stud book on my goat herd so I don't do any inbreeding. Inbreeding and line breeding are OK to do as long as you know your genetics are clean. But it'll take me probably 10 years to know for certain if my genetics are clean. I'm probably going to use Scooter, Snow Man's son as trading material for a large dairy buck next year. I'm thinking either nubian or toggenberg or a dairy/boer cross.

If you have a lot of animals to breed and the space to keep the males, and you don't mind working with intact males, it really makes sense to do live cover with your own stock.

Back when Harold and I had Big Fancy, it didn't make any sense to do anything other than AI. No sense in bringing in a bull for 6 weeks to breed one cow. And the inseminator we worked with was really good. She missed the first time and took the second. And that was with a maiden cow and no hormone shot to bring her in. And two people working with the cow one of which dad experience with cattle but not for a long time, and the other (me) who had no experience except in how to cook them. ;-)

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
I saw a response below (4.00 / 2)
so I'm just gonna keep this short and say that sometimes cows can have twins, so a cow can have two calves in a year. However, I have heard that a female born as a twin of a male isn't desirable as a dairy cow.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

[ Parent ]
I've heard that about twins in dairy cattle too nt (4.00 / 1)


Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.

[ Parent ]
own raising (0.00 / 0)
I accept that most of the dairy farms you have visited, both in the U.S. and Bolivia, raise their own heifers. This makes sense for herds with low cull rates. It is not necessarily reasonable for herds with high cull rates, such as U.S. industrial dairy.

I don't know the validity of the following quote, but:

Characteristics of the Holstein Cow

Holstein calves are allowed to nurse from their mothers only briefly and then sold when 2 to 5 days old.

Heifers are culled because of calving problems, mastitis, other diseases, and injury as well as low production. Here's a startling (to me) study from 2002-2003.

Productive Life Of Dairy Cows In Florida

These results were calculated from DHI records that were collected from 41,369 cows that calved on 100 Florida herds in 1995 and 1996 and 52,622 cows that were culled from 344 herds in Georgia and Florida in 2000 and 2001. Productive life in these herds was calculated as the time between first calving and culling.
...

About 25% of all culls happen the first 75 days after calving.
...

About 29% of the heifers calving in October through May are culled in their first lactation. But up to 40% of heifers calving in June and July do not make it to their second lactation.

To maintain a herd size, culled heifers need to be replaced and own-raised cows might not be available. Given the way industrial systems work, I would think (this is an assumption) that some farms would specialize in raising heifers and other farms would specialize in producing milk.


[ Parent ]
profit and efficiency (0.00 / 0)
Here's the essence of what seems inefficient: put most simply, and whether a dairy raises its own heifers or buys replacement heifers, feeding a cow for eight years to get 6 years of production seems a better use of resources than feeding a cow for 4 years to get 2 years of production. How can that arithmetic be incorrect? I can imagine that a cow culled during the first or second lactation might not have (probably would not have) paid for itself, and the penalty for high cull rates would seem to be more severe as feed prices increase.

You all know I'm not a dairy farmer and maybe I'm being too simple minded about this, but unless I have completely misunderstood or misremembered everything I have read here in the last couple of years, industrial dairy farmers have difficulty selling milk at a profit. I say, no wonder. Inefficiency and unprofitability seem inherent in the industrial system as it is practiced in this country. If a cow hasn't paid for itself until the third lactation, don't American farmers need to look to operations like "radical", "ridiculed", retrograde, can't-succeed Pairumani to improve productive lifetimes?

Of course, in the way of the world, I'm sure there are profitable dairy farms in the U.S., no real need to look to Pairumani, but we seem to disrespect our own.


[ Parent ]
With respect to inefficiency and high cull rates, I think you may be making the mistake of thinking of live animals (4.00 / 1)
in the same way one could think about machinery. Go with me on this one.

When you build a machine, every one will come out the same as the first one you built assuming you build each subsequent machine to the same specs that you built the first one to.

But when you breed animals, even with very good genetics, each one will come out different, because they're all built to different specs (the combination of genes that determine the animal's ability to produce). Add to that all the things that an animal goes through as it's growing up, getting pregnant, delivering, and then nursing for the first time and your specs have changed even more.

So, really, everytime you breed two animals, you're spinning the roulette wheel. You can say, I'm breeding two holsteins so I know I'll get a holstein calf. You can even hedge your bet by buying really good genetics, either when you found your herd, or by buying semen from a very high quality bull, or if you want to go further, by purchasing embryos from proven cows bred to proven bulls and implanting those embryos into brood cows.

But in the end, you still won't know what you're gonna get until that animal's 3 years old or so.

Like I say, that's why a lot of the big genetics and breeding companies are doing so much work in cloning. Then you're reproducing the same genetic blueprint over and over. Which comes with its own set of problems, but that's a discussion for another day.

But getting back to Pairumani, I think that they being financially successful doesn't have so much to do with how they manage the animals on the farm. Perhaps it has more to do with how they market the milk?

Let's take a look at the dairy farms that have been having so much trouble up here in the states. Their financial troubles don't have anything to do with their breeding programs, or genetics. They have everything to do with the price of bulk milk being tied to the price on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, which is based on world milk prices. So that dairyman who's selling to Dannon, is in effect, as far as price goes, competing with every other dairyman on the face of the planet, many of whom don't have his costs of doing business. It's like someone in a high wage location in this country trying to compete with someone doing the same job in SE Asia, or Korea. If you had to tie your wages to someone from far away who lives on say $5 or even $10 per day, you'd loose money too.

Pairumani looks like they're running their business more like the independant dairies around here run, and those dairies were making very good money while the larger commercial dairies were going bankrupt.

So I think it's not so much the cattle management model that was the cause, it was the marketing model that was taking down those dairies here that were hurting.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
mistakes (0.00 / 0)
I might have made a mistake, but certainly not that one. Perhaps my previous comment about Toyota factories threw you off.

feeding a cow for eight years to get 6 years of production seems a better use of resources than feeding a cow for 4 years to get 2 years of production.

Do you contend that statement is false?

Again, I'm not an expert and I don't have real numbers. I might be babbling like a brook, but let's do some really basic thinking. Let's assume that, from the day of first production, a heifer's milk can be sold for a price that covers variable costs - feed, labor, energy, you name it. The assumption might be true, maybe it is not, but let's assume it. We know that many heifers don't make it all the way through the first milking season, but consider a heifer that does. Does her production cover variable costs plus the cost of raising or buying her? Probably not, so even if she makes it all the way, that specific cow is in the loss column. If a heifer is culled at the end of two complete seasons, maybe she counts as a small net plus or a small net loss, depending on the year, and I suspect that cows in the plus column after two lactation seasons do not earn enough to pay for the heifers that don't survive that long. Seems to me that farmers whose herds average less than three years of production must be constantly on very thin ice, regardless of how the milk is marketed, and a system with high cull rates forces them to go in the hole more often than a system that can boast productive lives of 6 or 7 lactations. How can the situation be otherwise? At the very worst, a farm like Pairumani must have significantly more buffering against the vagaries of market forces than our industrial farmers.

So I think it's not so much the cattle management model that was the cause, it was the marketing model that was taking down those dairies here that were hurting.

I think that must be diametrically opposed to reality but, again, my conclusion is based on the basic reasoning above and not detailed facts. You are not a person who habitually makes unjustified statements, so if you give this serious consideration and still disagree with me, I'd like to know more.

I agree that basing milk prices on CMX prices is a problem, but not because CMX reflects world milk prices. Fonterra, the New Zealand monopoly dairy company uses the world price argument to justify high prices to consumers and low prices to farmers, and Pil probably does the same thing in Bolivia and Brazil, although I don't know what relationship Pil and Fonterra have to any particular commodity exchange or commodity futures facility. Call me curmudgeonly, but I think monopoly/oligopoly buyers use exchange prices to bludgeon farmers and rip them off. Coffee, corn, milk, wheat, on and on - simple fact, real trade in these commodities is not transacted through exchanges. The entire world uses the New York C market as an index for coffee pricing, but next to no coffee actually trades ownership on that exchange and next to no coffee trades at those prices.

Some professionals who live and die by commodity prices are not as jaundiced about exchanges as I am. They say that, flawed as they are, they at least provide an index against which contracts can be adjusted and, flawed as they are, ups and downs do reflect variations in supply and demand. Maybe so, but "flawed as they are" is very flawed indeed. Everyone will agree that I'm the last person to suggest an alternative, but I think that the exchanges as presently constituted and used (abused?) are heavily tilted to the side of a few buyers against the side of many thousands of farmers.

Babble. Like a brook.


[ Parent ]
I was using the CMX pricing (4.00 / 1)
as the reason why the dairies selling to companies like Dannon were having a hard time breaking even because those dairies and other people were saying that that was the reason why the bulk milk prices were so low (below the cost of production) to them.

The artisinal dairies and dairies that had their own creameries and were selling retail direct to the public were, it was my understanding, pricing their milk and other dairy products on a cost+ basis. That's why I was paying $6/gallon for whole jersey milk purchased from an artisinal dairy when I could buy commercially produced whole milk from a large dairy company at the store for $2/gallon.

As to the machine analogy and animal breeding, I was thrown off by your Toyota analogy. I missunderstood.

And you're right on retaining a cow who is a good producer for longer than 2 lactations. Of course, if you have a cow (once she's calved she's not a heifer anymore), who's producing well, it doesn't make sense to replace her unless it's with another, younger cow, who'd producing at least as well as she is or better, has higher milk fat (which would be reflected not in the gallons of milk produced but the CWT - hundred weight - of milk she was producing. I don't know what the breakdown is between skim milk and cream, but I'm thinking that cream brings more money. In the commercial dairies, the volume of milk that is produced (by weight, not necessarily volume) is tracked on a cow by cow basis. Therefore, if I understand it properly, if you have a cow who's production is down and another, younger cow, who's production is higher, and you need to reduce your herd anyway, it would make sense to cull the less productive animal and replace her with the more productive animal, even if the cull cow was in her second lactation. Unless the cull cow dropped way down in production, you'd cull her when you'd normally dry her off anyway.

I think that if you've always got a new group of up and coming milkers, you'll need to cull every year anyway. And remember, you're not just throwing away that cull cow. She's probably going to slaughter, so you're going to make some money on her. Not as much as a beef cow, but she's probably going to come pretty close to the break even point on how much it cost to get her to her first lactation I think?

I kind of figured the value of my milk goats in a similar way. On first blush, it would seem counterintuitive to keep and maintain a herd of milking goats and the bucks in order to feed goat milk to lambs. But when I figured out how much milk replacer cost vs how much it cost to feed the goats through the winter, and offset that feed expense with what the kids should bring in sales, the kid sales should pay for the goat's feed (not make a proffit mind you, but break even) and then the goat milk is superior to milk replacer for raising lambs. So all in all, even though I have to feed them through the winter, etc., the goat option was less expensive than it was to go out and buy pails of milk replacer. Especially if I have my meat reseller's license because then I'll be able to sell goat meat and lamb retail by the pound.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
cull cow vs. heifer (4.00 / 1)
The Florida study I cited refers to a (2002-2003) price of $1,500 for a replacement heifer vs. $350 for a culled cow.

Thanks for the vocabulary lesson, by the way. I'm 70 years old and I didn't know that.


[ Parent ]
CWT (0.00 / 0)
I do understand that milk production is recorded by weight in the U.S. although it is recorded by volume in some other countries. The density of milk is close to 1 in metric units, though - the specific gravity of Holstein and Jersey milk is about 1.03 +/- a little bit - so a weight change pretty much means a volume change in the same direction.

[ Parent ]
Harold explained the reason for CWT to me thusly (4.00 / 2)
Cream weighs more than the milk. A cow that produces more cream in the same volume of milk (say a pint of cream in a gallon of whole milk vs 2/3 of a pint in a gallon of whole milk) will have a higher CWT if her entire volume is the same as the cow who produces less cream.

I know I was astounded at the amount of cream in the Jersey milk I was buying last winter. I'd bought whole milk from another jersey dairy the year before and that milk didn't have as much cream in it as the stuff from Foundation Farm. Why I don't know. Perhaps the other dairy was skimming the cream off their milk and then adding it back after pasturization. Foundation was selling raw milk and I think that what they did was to strain the milk and load it directly into bottles.

But if what Harold told me is true, then a gallon of whole milk from Foundation would have weighed more than a gallon from the other farm simply because Foundation's milk was so heavy in cream.

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
cream (0.00 / 0)
If cream were more dense than milk, it wouldn't rise to the top of the milk.

[ Parent ]
Not sure how that works (4.00 / 1)
I'm just going on what Harold told me and he knew more about dairy than I did. I think I'll buy some cream and some milk and do a weigh in. Then I'll have an excuse to make some cheese.

;-)

Normal people scare me.... But not as much as I scare them.


[ Parent ]
cost of production (0.00 / 0)
I wonder what people understand "cost of production" to mean in the common parlance of the industry. It doesn't really tell us much if it only means variable costs, and doesn't include the cost of maintaining herd size. I guess I could look it up, but gosh, it's 3 a.m.

[ Parent ]
Statistics (4.00 / 3)
60 cows in production produced 21-22 liters per day. Now they have 100 cows in production.

Putting that together with other statements in the diary, the average production of a heifer is the same in the new system as in the old system, but the heifers produce for at least twice as long. That has got to be good medicine for the bottom line.


Political Activism Blogs - BlogCatalog Blog Directory
Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Notable Diaries
- The 2007 Ag Census
- Cuba Diaries
- Mexico Diaries
- Bolivia Diaries
- Philippines Diaries
- My Visit to Growing Power
- My Trip to a Hog Confinement
- Why We Grow So Much Corn and Soy
- How the Chicken Gets to Your Plate

Search




Advanced Search


Blog Roll
Blogs
- Beginning Farmers
- Chews Wise
- City Farmer News
- Civil Eats
- Cooking Up a Story
- Cook For Good
- DailyKos
- Eating Liberally
- Epicurean Ideal
- The Ethicurean
- F is For French Fry
- Farm Aid Blog
- Food Politics
- Food Sleuth Blog
- Foodgirl.ca
- Foodperson.com
- Ghost Town Farm
- Goods from the Woods
- The Green Fork
- Gristmill
- GroundTruth
- Irresistable Fleet of Bicycles
- John Bunting's Dairy Journal
- Liberal Oasis
- Livable Future Blog
- Marler Blog
- My Left Wing
- Not In My Food
- Obama Foodorama
- Organic on the Green
- Rural Enterprise Center
- Take a Bite Out of Climate Change
- Treehugger
- U.S. Food Policy
- Yale Sustainable Food Project

Reference
- Recipe For America
- Eat Well Guide
- Local Harvest
- Sustainable Table
- Farm Bill Primer
- California School Garden Network

Organizations
- The Center for Food Safety
- Center for Science in the Public Interest
- Community Food Security Coalition
- The Cornucopia Institute
- Farm Aid
- Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance
- Food and Water Watch
-
National Family Farm Coalition
- Organic Consumers Association
- Rodale Institute
- Slow Food USA
- Sustainable Agriculture Coalition
- Union of Concerned Scientists

Magazines
- Acres USA
- Edible Communities
- Farmers' Markets Today
- Mother Earth News
- Organic Gardening

Book Recommendations
- Animal, Vegetable, Miracle
- Appetite for Profit
- Closing the Food Gap
- Diet for a Dead Planet
- Diet for a Small Planet
- Food Politics
- Grub
- Holistic Management
- Hope's Edge
- In Defense of Food
- Mad Cow USA
- Mad Sheep
- The Omnivore's Dilemma
- Organic, Inc.
- Recipe for America
- Safe Food
- Seeds of Deception
- Teaming With Microbes
- What To Eat

User Blogs
- Beyond Green
- Bifurcated Carrot
- Born-A-Green
- Cats and Cows
- The Food Groove
- H2Ome: Smart Water Savings
- The Locavore
- Loving Spoonful
- Nourish the Spirit
- Open Air Market Network
- Orange County Progressive
- Peak Soil
- Pink Slip Nation
- Progressive Electorate
- Trees and Flowers and Birds
- Urbana's Market at the Square


Active Users
Currently 0 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox