One Third of Cows
Produce Almost Five Times the Milk
By
John Lindt
Those of us that long for the good old days when a couple of cows were in the pasture and life seemed simpler ought to take a look at a new Cornell study that compares the diary industry's environmental impact in 1944 to 2007.
Critics of modern dairying point at the environmental consequences of dairy farms on a per cow basis, decrying “factory farming” tied into corporate agriculture – the theme of the new hit movie “Food Inc.”
But the Cornell study published earlier this year notes such a perspective ignores the fact that today's dairy industry ought to be compared on a production basis.
“Efficiency is the key,” says UC dairy advisor Jennifer Heguy who has circulated a summary of the study in the California Dairy Newsletter in July.
The study notes that a “common perception is that historical methods of food production were inherently more environmentally friendly than modern agricultural practices.”
The message in “Food Inc.” and other broadsides at modern ag practices appear aimed at confusing the public and making them “afraid to eat,” note several reviewers.
Often, piles of manure are the image the critics throw out there to suggest there is something wrong today.
But the Cornell study has compelling logic that a more efficient dairy industry is a cleaner dairy industry.
Here are the numbers. In 1944, the U.S. dairy population was some 25.6 million cows producing 116 billion lbs of milk with an average per cow yield of 4,563 lbs/year.
By contrast, in 2007 the nation had just over a third of the herd size – 9.2 million cows producing 185 billion pounds of milk with an average yield per cow of over 20,000 lbs/year.
One Quarter the Manure
The Cornell study says when it comes to producing 1 billion pounds of milk, today's dairy industry requires: 21 percent of the animals; 35 percent of the feedstuff; 35 percent of the water; and 10 percent of the land.
On the waste issue, this industry today produces just: 24 percent of the manure; 43 percent of the methane; and 56 percent of the nitrous oxide.
On greenhouse gases, the carbon footprint on a milk production equivalent is just 37 percent in 2007 of what it was in 1944, says the study.
“Low input systems will yield low outputs, both milk production and waste,” argues Heguy. “A high yield animal will undoubtedly require higher inputs and subsequently create more waste.”
“In 2007, there were 16.4 million less dairy animals producing 68.6 million more pounds of milk than 1944. Clearly, genetics and the way we feed and treat our animals are reflected in more than a four-fold increase in yield per cow,” notes Heguy.
The study continues: “Dairy production in1944 was characterized by pasture-based systems with reliance on home-grown forages with few produced concentrate feeds.” The most common dairy breeds have shifted from high milk solids types like Jersey and Guernsey to the greater volume production of Holstein cows, says the study.
The report states that the issue of global warming emissions coming from animals is complicated by the fact that many of the world livestock populations that produce meat and milk operate at very low efficiencies, inflating greenhouse gas numbers worldwide. As the efficiencies improve on the world's farms – these emissions should go down as they have here. Helping to cut global warming requires a more efficient world food system.
Not part of the study but examination of feed practices and rations that will further reduce methane production – cow burps – promises more per-cow reduction as well, said California dairy researchers recently.
The study concludes that using modern techniques to increase output helps keep up with demand for food while reducing the per unit impact.
Dairy Farmers are Family Farmers
For those out there that worry that your milk is tied into corporate ag, consider that our California dairy industry is 100 percent family farmers as are the corn growers of the Midwest who are also blamed for so much in “Food Inc.”
Not that producing food can't be done better with higher quality and fewer concerns over food safety and our environment. The U.S. food industry has worked through scores of recalls and learned from it all through better science, detection, regulation and common practices that have led the way to a safer food supply. As for the ties to corporate ag, consider that the dairy industry has largely rejected Monsanto's rBST growth hormone that pumps up milk production due to consumer demand. Bills to ban tail cutting (docking) in cows – a dying practice in the industry anyway – will have no impact on production and help assure the public that cows are being well cared for. If there something the dairy farmer has learned – it's that a comfortable “happy cow” is a good producer. Dairy farmers are producing better milk these days with a lower somatic cell count with less use of antibiotics.
The byword in the dairy industry is adoption of more sustainable practices even if the herds are more concentrated than 50 years ago. These practices include utilization of waste product for beneficial use – making biogas or power from methane, reducing manure's impact on the environment. Once this innovation becomes standard practice – as it will – they won't have manure to throw at the industry anymore.
One innovation in the food industry is traceability across the food chain so everyone knows where food comes from and adoption of “best practices” of how that food is produced. Questions of tainted meat have led to the banning of “downer cows” from our food supply. The industry itself looks to improve its herd quality through self-regulated organizations. Government regulation of the food industry and college-based research ties are each strong and should ease consumer “fears of eating” that are fed by the likes of “Food Inc.”
The above story is the property
of The Valley Voice Newspaper and may not be reprinted without explicit
permission in writing from the publisher.