A32—Lancaster Farming, Saturday, June 4,1983
RVTRISHWIII JAMS Faculty members ol Fenn
IINTWHsSf PAWC - The State's Dairy Science Department
UNIVERSITY M »e commended for their
Pennsylvania Dairy Sanitarians „ bruiainK together 40
other issues pertinent to the dairy promised. w eek we are
inHncirv presenting in greater detail ex
inuusiry. cerpts from the key speakers.
UHT hits the East coast
Jack HaU of Dairymen Inc. gave
a slide presentation detailing the
processing, packaging, shipment
and promotion of UHT milk. Hall
said the Dairymen have just
launched a comprehensive media
advertising campaign for UHT
milk.
UHT milk, ultra high tem
perature milk, requires no
refrigeration and so presents
almost limitless possibilities for
the consumer as well as the
marketers, said Hall.
The amencan consumer has
changed dramatically over the last
twenty years, Hall stated.
Dairymen Inc, is trying to keep up
Protein pricing trial discussed
Don Race of Dairylea milk
marketing cooperative in
Syracuse, New York gave a brief
presentation of his cooperative’s
pilot program for protein pricing.
The new pilot program began
April 1, and is studymg the benefits
of protein pricing of milk. The
program provides the opportunity
for 100 dairy farmers whose milk is
regularly shipped to Dairlea’s
Adams plant to earn addition in
come. Cheddar cheese is
manufactured at the Adams plant
in Watertown, NY.
A premium of 13 cents per
hundredweight is paid for each
tenth of a percent increase m
protein over a minimum standard
of 3.3 percent protein. The milk
must meet other quality standards as
well, including, low somatic cell
count (less than 400,000 per
milliliter), a cryoscope reading
above .535, and of course be free of
antibiotics.
Race said, that the program will
pay producers monthly during
those months that they meet the
requirements. As an incentive to
increase the protein content of
their milk, producers whose
protein content is below 3.3 percent
can also earn a protein payment if
they improve their protein content
based ~ the le- <>l that -.ted
Pa. Dairy conference highlights
with the changing habits of con
sumers by making UHT milk
available to them at the times and
places they want a beverage.
Hall said Dairymen Inc. is trying
to emphasize to the consumer that
the only thing that is different
about UHT milk from regular milk
is its convenience. It can go
anywhere.
UHT milk products are
especially convemt for older
people or singles who don’t like to
buy a perhishable product. Hall
emphasized that UHT has real
possibilities for expanding sales to
persons who normally may not
purchase milk.
base for the following year until
they reach the 3.3 percent level.
Producers working to bring their
protein level up to 3.3 will be paid
the protein premium annually,
based upon their performance in
maintaining the improved level.
"There are presently 80 protein
premium programs in the United
States,” noted Rase. “They all
seem to be doing well. With our
program we want to weigh the
benefits for the manufacturing
plant and the producer. After one
year we will evaluate the program
and decide where to go from there.
We may at that time decide to
expand the program to include
milk used to make cottage cheese.
Unless the SNF standards are
raised for fluid milk there isn’t
much incentive for including fluid
milk”
"Any protein premium program
requires a good educational
program for the producers,” said
Race. "We have sent out a leaflet
to producers in the pilot program.
The leaflet explains the basis for
increasing protein, through
breeding, feeding and genetics. We
are also calling in animal scientist
to meet with producers, so that
they can share their expertise on
the subject.”
Roof sees consolidation of NE Co-ops
Further consolidation of the of
dairy cooperatives in the coming
years was predicted by James
Roof, of The Agricultural
Cooperative Service, a USDA
agency. Roof has been both a
cooperative employee and with
ACS for 25 years.
Roof addressed the session on
the important and more probable
changes that will take place in the
dairy cooperatives of the Nor-
theast.
“There will inevitably soon be a
big change in the way farmers . ,
market their milk in the Nor- Midwest IS hungering
theast,’’ said Roof. “In fact this
change is taking place right now.” for Eastern market
Referring to some of the events
that are forming the trends of Qtmg other changes Roof said)
change, Roof first noted the ..-p be 72000 milk producers of 1965
decrease in the numbers and in- are nQW onl There are
crease in size of dairy processing fewer but much larger buyers of
plants. In 1964 there were 3 500 f passing. There is a
firms across he country d fo / large efficient corn
processing fluid milk in 1982 teat tUlve mi i k manu f a cturing
number was domi to only 800. £ lants Yet we the
fhese companies had 4 100 ptents of cooperatlves in
in 1964 now they have only 1,000. the Northeast today as 2 0 years
Roof said that during this same over 100 o£ And. only
period the number of retail chain about 65 cent of p roducer s of
stores with vertically integrated de A m]k t 0
processing operations increased cooperative, compared to about 85
by 52 percent Almost all of these nt natlonaUy .
integrated plants are new and *~., We (ACS) be lleve th e corn
large, processing 10 to 40 million p e tmve survival of dairying in this
pounds of milk a month. region will soon dictate a com
“ These firms are displacing the bmatlon of all of these httle
independent fuU-hne processors coope rative and many non
and also many of the plants for- cooperatlve prod ucers into a few
merly operated by conglomerates str( £ much larger> producer
such as Sealtest and Eorden, _ Roof contr “ Ued organizations. Indeed
reported. These integrated large- tbls cbange 1S starting to take
scale milk buyers have acquired j „
an ever larger degree of market p \ ast ar ten of larger and
power They purchase large some of the smaller cooperatives
quantities of milk for fluid and soft the Northeast asked use in ACS
product uses and they generaUy wlth a management con
want to deal only with su ]tmg firm to project what a new
organizations that can deliver conso f ldated cooperative would
large qualities of guaranteed high [QQk and what sort of operating
quality milk coupled with all the cost members could ex
other procurement services » sa ld Roof. “We projected a
Another trend that will directly cost sav mgs, conservatively, of
affect the dairy cooperatives of the more than ?25 million a year, along
Northeast is the increase in milk with numerous other benefits,
used for manufacturing purposes. far there not any
Accorduig to Roof, the percent of -mergers’, but dairy farmer
grade A milk in the region used for leaders continue to study and
Mix reviews dairy situation
Dr. Lew Mix, chief economist for
Agway, gave a very informative
talk on the present dairy situation.
In giving background for the
surplus problem, Mix made use of
pertinent data he had compiled to
illustrate how the problem has
evolved. After elaborating on
current trends, Mix made
predictions of some of the affects
of pending dairy legislation, and
economic factors will have on the
dairy industry and the individual
farmer.
Throughout most of Mix’s
presentation, he focused on the
dairy industry in the Northeast in
comparison to the rest of the
United States.
One trend pointed to by Mix that potentials for increased
deserves careful watching, relates
to cow numbers with respect to surplus is in the NE J
region of the country. From 1958 to . . .. ~ ,
1982 there was a trend ot decreasing by f- 000 “ Ne " rk ’
cow numbers. During up by 15,000 inVermont, up 3.000 in
that period cow numbers up 2 ’°®° ln Massachusetts,
decreased by an average of 344,000 “ p 2 -®“ m Connecticut, and down
cows per year. Over the last five by 9,999 m P enr| syl vanla - Put these
years that rate of decrease numbers together and the Nor
dropped off. lirfact the number of as a region is up 50,000
cows has actually increased over heifers.
the last few years. Po figures Mix replied,
Mix reported, -There seems to have ed alot , about . tbe
be a shifting of where these in- Midwest and far West being the
creases are Ukmg place, from the ““J* ° f the '" cre f se °JT expansion
Midwest and far West to the East dairy industry. But I would
Coast and deep South, specifically submit to you that one of the
Texas ” ' greatest potentials for mcrease is
right here in the Northeast m the
Class 1 has slipped from 60 percent
in 1965 to 45 percent in 1982. This
makes manufacturing plants a
vital outlet for producer milk.
"Unlike fluid plants, these
manufacturing plants compete
head-to-head in a national market
for their products with the output
from larger and m many cases far
more efficient Midwestern plants.
The cooperative and proprietary
owners of those plants are
hungering for your Eastern
market,” warned Roof.
Cow numbers m the USA in
creased from 1981-82 by 191,000,
and in 1982-83 up another 51,000
cows. More specifically cow
numbers last year were up by 8000
in Pennsylvania, and up by 19,000
in New York. Meanwhile cow
numbers in the Minnesota and
Wisconsin decreased.
According to USDA data
released in January 1983, there is
the same number of heifers
throughout the USA, but there is a
big difference regionally. The
Northeast shows an increase of
five percent in number of
replacement heifers, with heifer
‘One of the greatest
debate the possibilities. In fact, as
one cooperative leader put it, the
cooperative may be slowly and
carefully backing into im
plememting our recom
mendations. Examples of this are
the joint operations of Dairylea
and API in Schuykill Haven-
Scranton, the Upstate-Dairylea-
Hood soft product venture in
Vernon, N.Y., and others.”
Roof justified his recom
mendation by stating, “You need
to look no further than to Milk
Marketing, Inc. for an example of
what the new large regional
cooperatives do in the area of raw
milk laboratory analyses.
Cooperatives like MMI can easily
justify and finance the very ec
pensive and sophisticated lab
equipment needed to upgrade the
quality of milk from the farm.
MMl’s new lab in Strongsville,
Ohio can run daily tests on every
one of their 9,000 members’ milk.
Tests for fat, bacteria, protein,
somatic cells, added water and
anti-biotics are all automated,
accurate, and recorded on com
puterized records to allow the
cooperative to reward or penalize
producers.
“1 believe this capability
presents an exciting challenge for
people in the sanitation laboratory
field and also provides a long
needed back up to the work of field
personnel,” said Roof.
Roof reassured the field per
sonnel attending the conference
that, in similar mergers of
cooperatives, the new large
cooperatives retamed the same
number of field personnel, relative
to members, as their predecessor
organizations. -
In his closing remarks Roof told
those present they should en
courage their cooperative em
ployers to continue working
toward a more rational milk
marketing system in the Nor
theast, and to do so knowing that
this new system could and should
improve their own professional
work and, of course, ultimately,
unprove the quality of raw milk
and dairy products in the Nor
theast.
next couple of years, with all of the
extra heifers, about 50,000 head.”
Coupled with increases in cow
numbers is an increase in
production per cow. Over the last
25 years, the average production
per cow has increased 238 pounds
per cow per year. In the last five
years that increase has been 283
pounds per cow per year.
Therefore, total milk production
over the last five years has in
creased at a very steep rate of
increase.
Mix said that CCC purchases last
year amounted to 13.8 billion
pounds, the largest in history. This
year’s purchases are estimated at
16.3 billion pounds, up 2.5 billion
pounds or 18 percent from last year
to date. Purchases are forecast to
be up 20 percent for the year as a
whole. This will mean that the
government is buying 12 percent of
the country’s total milk produc
tion, at the rate of 500 million
pounds of milk equivalent per
week.
At the end of the marketing year,
on September 30, we will have 20
billion pounds of milk equivalent in
storage, said Mix. That is equal to
the production of a little over three
million dairy cows. Essentially
there are three million cows in
storage.
(Turn to Page A3B)