ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO
DAIRY NEWSLETTER
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION
The University of Arizona
New Mexico State University
FEBRUARY 2007
THIS MONTH’S ARTICLE:
Is Organic Beef and Dairy Production a
Responsible Use of Our Resources?
Dr. Thomas E. Elam
President, FarmEcon.com
Adjunct Faculty, Department of Economics, IUPUI
Adjunct Fellow, Center for Global Food Issues, A Project of the Hudson Institute
(Reprinted from the 22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Proceedings
February 22-23, 2007, Tempe, Arizona)
~~~~
Dairy Day is coming!
The 2007 Arizona Dairy Day will be held on Thursday, April 5
at the Paloma Dairy, 55310 S. Citrus Valley Road, in Gila Bend, Arizona.
See the flyer and golf information inside this newsletter!
~~~
Make plans
to be at
Paloma Dairy
55310 S Citrus Valley Road
Gila Bend, Arizona 85337
Thursday, April 5, 2007
10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.
Paloma Dairy Social
to follow at 2:00 p.m.
Map to Paloma Dairy
Bring your family
and enjoy the day
with food and fun!
Lunch provided by
Exit 111 - Citrus Valley Road
For more information contact Laura Rittenbach at (520) 626-9382
or via email at ljr22@ag.arizona.edu.
®
D
ai
ay
Dairy Day Golf Tournament
Registration
ry D
Golf
Friday, April 6, 2007
Club West Golf Course
16400 South 14th Avenue
Phoenix, AZ
Entry Fee:
Shotgun Start:
Contact Person:
®
$85.00 per person
1:00 p.m.
Laura Rittenbach
PO Box 210038 - Dept of Animal Sciences
Tucson, AZ 85721
(520) 626-9382
ljr22@ag.arizona.edu
----------------------------------Registration form. Please detach and return to address above.
Individual
Team
Name(s)______________________________________________________
Organization________________________________________________
Address____________________________________________________
City/State/ZIP_______________________________________________
Phone______________________________________________________
Team Members:
Number of players
_________
___________________________ x $85.00
___________________________
Total amount due
$__________
___________________________
Please make check payable to UA Foundation
Individuals will be assigned to a team.
Mulligans will be available the day of the tournament. Neither the tournament fee nor mulligans are considered a tax-deductible donation.
Is Organic Beef and Dairy Production a
Responsible Use of Our Resources?
Dr. Thomas E. Elam
President, FarmEcon.com
Adjunct Faculty, Department of Economics, IUPUI
Adjunct Fellow, Center for Global Food Issues, A Project of the Hudson Institute
Corresponding Author: strategic-directions@earthlink.net
Introduction
Land is by far the most significant natural resource used in agriculture. In the
U.S., 937 million of our 2.96 billion acres (excluding Alaska) are utilized in one way or
another to produce our own food supply and the food we export around the world.i
Almost one-third of our total U.S. land base is currently needed to feed ourselves, and
much of the remainder is in deserts, mountains, swamps, cities, roads or otherwise
unavailable.
On a global scale agriculture is by far the largest use of land. About 1.5 billion
hectares are currently harvested every year to provide the world’s food and fiber supply.ii
That area, large as it is, does not include pasture lands used by ruminants to produce meat
and milk.
Land used for agriculture represents both a monetary cost and a major alteration
of our natural environment. There are significant trade-offs involved in the production
practices we decide to use. Extensive agriculture uses land to substitute for technology,
and results in lower yields. Intensive agriculture disturbs less land, but uses more inputs
that have the potential to cause environmental issues. We have tended to opt for
intensive systems because they are more cost-effective, but the fact is that intensive
agriculture also conserves land for uses other than food and fiber production.
In order to see what intensive agriculture has done for land conservation in the
U.S., data needs to be looked in a slightly different way. When we look at the use of land
we normally think about how productive the land is at producing crops. For feed crops
the productivity of land is not the end of the story. We also need to look at how
productive land is at producing the meat, dairy and poultry products that we actually
consume. We also need to look at land in terms of not only how much feed it produces,
by also how many people it can feed.
In 1961 the U.S. population was about 184 million people. In 2006 we now
number about 300 million, a 63% increase.iii If agriculture today was no more productive
than it was in 1961 we would either need to expand land in farms by 63%, or our food
supply per person would be 63% smaller.
In 1961 it took 111.6 million acres of feed grains and soybeans to grow the
major crops used for the U.S. feed supply. If, in 2005, that land was no more productive
than it was in 1961, we produced as much per person, and our farm animals took as much
feed per pound of production, we would need a least 63% increase, 70 million acres, in
feed crop land use, an area the size of the entire state of Missouri.
22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 22-23, 2007 Ô Tempe, AZ - 66
Meat and poultry productivity increases reduce land use
The long term trend in land resources used by U.S. meat and poultry producers
is more complicated than such a simple calculation, and also shows an incredible record
of land conservation. In fact, despite increasing population and meat production, the crop
acres needed to raise our supply of livestock products have actually declined over time.
It is fairly simple to calculate the acreage used for the feed grains and soybeans
that are the major contributors to the U.S. livestock and poultry feed supply. Simply take
the total tons of feed grains and soybean meal used for U.S. food animal feed and, using
average yields, convert those tons back to acreage needed to produce the crops. The feed
use estimates and yields are readily available from USDAiv. Figure 1 shows the results.
Figure 1: Feed Grain (corn, sorghum, barley and oats) and Soybean Acres Used for Feed
Production, 1960/61 to 2005/2006 Crop Years
140,000
120,000
000 Acres
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
2004/2005
2002/2003
2000/2001
1998/1999
1996/1997
1992/1993
1994/1995
1990/1991
1988/1989
1986/1987
1984/1985
1980/1981
1982/1983
1978/1979
1974/1975
1976/1977
1972/1973
1970/1971
1968/1969
1966/1967
1964/1965
1962/1963
1960/1961
-
C ro p Y e a r
Feed Grains
So ybeans
To tal Feed Grains & So ybeans
The trends show a declining acreage of feed grains, increasing acreage of
soybeans, and a decline in total acreage needed for feed crop production. Since 1960/61
the total acreage of these five key crops needed to produce our livestock, dairy and
poultry feed has declined by 32.7 million acres.
Soybean acreage increased in part because soybean yields have increased at a
lower rate than those of feed grains. Also, we have raised the protein content of feed
over time, increasing animal efficiency in the process, and reducing the acreage needed
for feed grains.
With the decline in total acreage of feed crops needed for our animal feeds, we
have also seen a major decline in the percentage of plantings of those key crops that are
used for U.S. feed production. In the 1960s it took about 80% of our harvested acres of
these crops for our domestic feed production, in the last few years that percentage has
been slightly over 50%, or a nearly 30 point decline (Figure 2).
22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 22-23, 2007 Ô Tempe, AZ - 67
While reducing land used for feed crop production may seem like quite an
achievement, it is very far from the whole story. What is missing in Figures 1 and 2 is
the fact that while we were reducing land used, we also saw the increases in both the U.S.
population that were mentioned above and along with even larger percentage increases in
total meat and poultry product production.
Figure 2: Feed Grain and Soybean Acres Used for Feed Production as a Percent of Total
Feed Grain and Soybean Acreage, 1960/61 to 2005/2006 Crop Years
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
2004/2005
2002/2003
2000/2001
1998/1999
1996/1997
1994/1995
1992/1993
1990/1991
1988/1989
1986/1987
1984/1985
1982/1983
1980/1981
1978/1979
1976/1977
1974/1975
1970/1971
1972/1973
1968/1969
1964/1965
1966/1967
1962/1963
1960/1961
0%
It took an average of almost 0.6 acres per person to produce enough feed for our
meat, dairy, and poultry production in 1961. In 2005 that statistic has dropped to about
0.27 acres. In other words, today it takes less than half as much land on a per person
basis to produce our meat, dairy and poultry supply than was the case in 1960/61 (Figure
3). Again, this is not the total story.
Figure 3: U.S. Feed Grain/Soybean Acres Used Per Person for Meat and Poultry Production
0.70
0.60
A cres
Acres
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
2005
2003
2004/2005
2002/2003
2001
1999
2000/2001
1996/1997
1997
1998/1999
1995
1994/1995
1993
1992/1993
1991
1990/1991
1989
1987
1988/1989
1983
1984/1985
1985
1986/1987
1981
1982/1983
1980/1981
1979
1977
1978/1979
1974/1975
1975
1976/1977
1961
1960/1961
1963
1962/1963
1965
1964/1965
1967
1966/1967
1968/1969
1969
1970/1971
1971
1972/1973
1973
-
Along with increases in population our U.S. production of meat and poultry has
also increased, and even faster than the population. More of that production is exported
now than was the case in 1960, and it is consumed elsewhere, but it is still consumed.
Figure 4 shows an estimate of the average use of crop land to produce one ton of
meat and poultry. In 2005 each ton of production took about one-third the land that was
needed in the early 1960s. The decrease is a result of both increasing crop yields and
22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 22-23, 2007 Ô Tempe, AZ - 68
decreases in the average amount of feed needed to produce a given amount of meat and
poultry.
Figure 4: U.S. Feed Grain/Soybean Acres Used Per Ton of Meat and Poultry Production
7.00
6.00
Acres
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
2005
2003
2001
1999
1997
1995
1993
1991
1989
1987
1985
1983
1981
1979
1977
1975
1973
1971
1969
1967
1965
1963
1961
0.00
Corrected for both population and meat production growth the land needed for
our meat and poultry supply has shrunk dramatically over the past 45 years. Where did
that land go? Much of it is used today for producing crops for export or ethanol. Some
of it has gone back to nature. From 1990 to 2005 FAO reports that the total land in
forests in the U.S. increased from 738 million to 749 million acresv. We also now have
36 million acres currently enrolled in a Conservation Reserve Program that did not exist
in 1960. Increases in agricultural productivity are what make this possible.
Resource use consequences of organic and natural production systems
If we examine the organic food industry from the point of view of cost the
higher overall resource use of organic production is abundantly obvious. In competitive
markets, and agriculture is about as price competitive as it gets, prices reflect costs, and
costs directly reflect total resource use. As the Organic Trade Association admits “While
the retail price of organic meat is generally greater than conventional, to many
consumers, the greater peace of mind is priceless.vi” How much is the value of the
additional resources needed for this “priceless” system’s products worth in the niche
organic market?
The added cost, price and thus resource use numbers can be quite revealing.
Genesee Valley Organic Beef, of Taylorsville CA, on December 29, 2006 was
advertising organic beef tenderloin at $41.50 per pound, plus shipping and handlingvii.
On the other end of their price scale, Genesee’s 90%-lean organic hamburger was priced
at $7.00 per pound. Local grocery store prices for these same beef cuts were $9.99 and
$3.44 (93% lean) on the same day. In this one instance the cost, and thus total resource
use, of an organic beef production system is 4.2 to 2.0 times that of beef produced with
the benefits of modern technology. Laura’s Lean beef tenderloin was $17.99 per pound
at a local store on 12/29/06 and the store brand was $9.99. Other comparisons from a
local grocery store, made on 12/29/06, show the same general price, and thus resource
use, advantage for modern technology farming for a wide variety of meat, dairy, egg and
vegetable products (Table 1).
22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 22-23, 2007 Ô Tempe, AZ - 69
Table 1: Selected Cost Comparisons for Organic vs. Modern Technology Food Items,
December 29, 2006
Item
Organic Cost Modern Technology Cost Cost Ratio
½ Gallon 2% Milk1
$3.39
$1.69
2.0:1
1 lb. Beef Tenderloin2
$41.50
$9.99
4.2:1
1 lb. Beef Tenderloin3
$17.993
$9.99
1.8:1
2
$7.00
$3.44
2.0:1
1 lb. 90% Ground Beef
1 doz. Large Eggs1
$3.29
$1.44
2.3:1
1 Pound Celery Hearts1
$3.49
$1.99
1.8:1
1 Head Iceberg Lettuce1
$2.99
$1.19
2.5:1
1 Bu. Yellow Corn4
$41.44
$3.50
11.8:1
1
Local chain grocery store, Indianapolis area
Sources: http://www.geneseevalleyorganicbeef.com/; Local chain grocery store, Indianapolis area, 12/29/06
3
Laura’s Lean compared to store brand, Local chain grocery store, Indianapolis area, 12/29/06
4
Sources: http://www.sunorganicfarm.com; USDA, AMS, cash price, Northern Illinois elevators, 12/29/06
2
The last line of Table 1 also shows an incredible cost premium for organic
yellow corn. The organic price was obtained from the web site of an organic foods
retailer and the modern technology price from USDA. While the difference may reflect
more than just cost of production and resource use, it does show the kind of extreme
prices that may be needed by organic producers to cover all their costs.
Figure 5 is taken from a recent USDA report on organic poultry, and shows
roughly the same price premiums as in the table above. Again, from an economic
efficiency viewpoint, as revealed by the price premiums needed for profitability, organic
technology is incredibly resource intensive relative to conventional agricultural systems.
Figure 5: First receiver prices and quarterly price premiums for organic whole broilers,
2004-06viii
How Large is the Organic Beef and Dairy Industry?
USDA compiles an annual summary of the number of certified beef and dairy
organic operations and the number of livestock on them. Since 2000 we have seen
significant growth in certified organic beef and dairy cowsix (Table 2). Despite the
growth of the last 6 years, organic production is still a small share of animals, and a
smaller share of total production due to the lower efficiency of organic producers.
22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 22-23, 2007 Ô Tempe, AZ - 70
Table 2: Cows on Certified Organic Beef and Dairy Operations
Year
Organic
Beef Cows
Total Beef
Cows, 1/1
%
Organic
Organic
Dairy Cows
Total Dairy
Cows, 1/1
%
Organic
2000
13,829
33,569,000
0.04%
38,196
9,190,000
0.42%
2001
15,197
33,397,000
0.05%
48,677
9,183,000
0.53%
2002
23,384
33,118,000
0.07%
67,207
9,112,000
0.74%
2003
27,285
32,947,000
0.08%
74,435
9,152,000
0.81%
2004
71,058
32,861,000
0.22%
74,840
8,990,000
0.83%
2005
70,219
32,915,000
0.21%
86,032
9,005,000
0.96%
Efficiency Increases in Beef and Dairy Production Have Conserved Resources
Over the last 50 years, the cattle industry has raised an increasing proportion of
the beef supply in feedlots rather than on pasture and range land. A major impact of
agricultural technology has been on the amount of land needed to produce the feed
required for cattle feedlots. Given the large increases in the fed beef supply since the
1950’s, most would assume that the amount of land needed to produce increased amounts
of feedlot beef has increased, but, in fact, this is not the case.
Through a combination of yield increases for feed crops and more efficient use
of feed by feedlot cattle since 1955 we have actually increased beef produced in feedlots
by almost 200% while slightly reducing the acreage of corn needed to produce that larger
fed beef supply. What is really remarkable is that the corn content of rations also
increased significantly since 1955. Acreage needed to produce roughage also decreased
markedly.
Table 3 contains estimates of the impact on the land used to produce the corn
and roughage used for beef cattle feed. For purposes of this table, it was assumed that all
grain used in feedlots is corn and a 50-50 hay/corn silage mixture is used for roughage.
Milk producers have been down a similar path over the last 50 years.
Technology has enabled producers to become significantly more productive. We are
using fewer cows, fewer farms, fewer farmers, and less land, to produce a growing milk
supply (Figures 6 and 7).
300,000
3,000
250,000
2,500
200,000
2,000
150,000
1,500
100,000
1,000
50,000
500
All
Licensed
'05
'03
99
'01
97
95
93
91
89
87
85
0
83
0
Pounds/farm 000
Farms w/cows
Figure 6: Number of Farms with Dairy Cows and Milk Produced/Farm
Milk/Farm (All)
Note: “Licensed” data series begins in 2002
22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 22-23, 2007 Ô Tempe, AZ - 71
Figure 7: Overall Trends in Cow Numbers and Cow Productivity
Table 3: Estimated Feedlot Beef Production and Land Used for Corn and Roughage,x
1955
8.0
62%
8.9
42
0.211
4.7
2005
6.2
88%
9.7
147
0.066
15.1
%Change
-23%
42%
10%
250%
-69%
218%
% Roughage (50:50 silage/hay) in ration
Pounds roughage needed/100 lb. fed beef
Roughage yield - pounds/acre
Acres roughage needed/100 lb. fed beef
100 lbs. fed beef production/acre roughage
36
288.0
6,581
0.04376
22.9
10
62.0
11,333
0.00547
182.8
-72%
-78%
72%
-87%
700%
Fed cattle marketed, 000
Estimated average pounds gained in feedlot
Feedlot LW pounds of beef produced, mill.
11,973
400
4,789
28,620
500
14,310
139%
25%
199%
Bushels corn consumed by fed cattle, mill.
Acres of corn required for all fed cattle, mill
Price of corn per bushel
Value of corn consumed by fed cattle, $mill.
Value of corn used ($1982-84 mill.)
424
10.10
$1.35
$573
$2,137
1,394
9.48
$2.15
$2,997
$1,629
229%
-6%
59%
423%
-24%
Tons of roughage consumed by fed cattle, mill.
Acres of roughage required for all fed cattle, mill.
Price of roughage per ton
Value of roughage consumed by fed cattle $ mill.
Value of roughage used ($1982-84 mill.)
6.90
2.10
$15.82
$109
$407
4.44
0.78
$53.04
$235
$128
-36%
-63%
235%
116%
-69%
Total acres used for corn and roughage
Value of corn and roughage used ($1982-84 mill.)
12.2
$2,544
10.3
$1,833
-16%
-28%
Feed Conversion Ratio
% Corn in ration
Bu. of corn needed/100 lb. fed beef
Corn yield - bu./acre
Acres corn needed/100 lb. fed beef
100 pounds of fed beef production/acre corn
22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 22-23, 2007 Ô Tempe, AZ - 72
Is Organic Milk Production More Profitable than Conventional?
There are so few certified organic milk producers that it is difficult to compare costs
and production efficiency with conventionally produced milk. A very recent study from
the University of Wisconsin compares a small number of organic Wisconsin dairy farms
to statewide averages and organic farms in New England and Quebecxi. The highlights
include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Milk yields per cow on organic farms were about 70% of conventional farms
Organic herds had higher costs per cwt of milk produced
Organic farms enjoyed significant milk price premiums of 25-40%
All of the higher prices were absorbed by higher costs
Wisconsin organic dairies were competitive on total returns to labor, but not
better than, conventional farms
Organic dairy farms in New England were not competitive with either
Wisconsin organic or conventional New England dairy farms
The majority of the organic systems net returns differences were due to a
combination of lower milk yields and differences in feed costs.
Due to very high feed costs New England organic dairy farms need milk prices
that are at least twice the prevailing market.
The price premiums for organic milk reflect both lower yields and higher costs of
grains and roughages. Organic corn, in bulk, costs about twice the price of conventional
corn. This higher feed cost leads organic milk producers to use more pasture and less
purchased feed per cow than conventional milk production systems.
Organic production systems and global agricultural land availability
If organic production systems were to ever become a major part of our meat and
poultry production the increase in resources, including land, needed to produce our food
supply would be staggering. Feed grain and soybean yields for organic grains are
roughly half that of modern technologyxii. In addition, animals that do not have the
benefit of modern production inputs convert feed less efficiently. As a result every acre
needed for an organic meat production system produces at about same level of land
resource use as was the case in 1960. In addition, labor requirements also increase due to
the lack of use of modern weed and pest control on organic operations. It should
therefore come as no surprise that total resource use, costs, and thus prices, are much
higher for organic foods when compared to food produced using modern technology.
If only 10% of our U.S. livestock, dairy and poultry production were to be
converted to organic systems we would need to use about 16 million acres of feed grain
and soybean land for that production rather than the 8 million it takes today (a net
increase of another Ohio’s harvested corn and soybean acreage). In addition, we would
also need more pasture and land for free range housing systems.
What is true for the U.S. is also true globally. In 1961 each person on the planet
had, on average, 1.03 acres of food crops harvested for their food supplyxiii. In 2006 we
each had about 0.55 acres. By 2050 the average will be only about 0.4 acres per person,
and that assumes that we can, in the face of urbanization, actually keep total acreage at
current levels for the next 43 years (Figure 8).
It’s very simple: Unless productivity increases offset fewer acres per person,
food production per person is going to decline. If productivity does not keep pace with
22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 22-23, 2007 Ô Tempe, AZ - 73
(or perhaps due to increased demand even increase faster than) global population, the
pressure will be to increase global food production acreage. The problem is that there no
reserve of highly productive land that is available to be brought into production. Land
that can be brought into agriculture is mostly in environmentally sensitive areas, and
would be costly to farm.
Figure 8: Global Food Production Acreage Available Per Person, 1961-2050
1.20
Harvested Acres Per Capita
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
Harvested area/capita for all grains, oilseeds, fiber
crops, pulses, tubers, fruits, vegetables, and tree
crops.
0.20
19
61
19
65
19
69
19
73
19
77
19
81
19
85
19
89
19
93
19
97
20
01
20
05
20
09
20
13
20
17
20
21
20
25
20
29
20
33
20
37
20
41
20
45
20
49
0.00
On a global basis we also must continue to increase the productivity of the
animals we raise for the food supply. As stated by the FAO Animal Production and
Health Division, “FAO and other institutions suggest that global production of animal
products will rise impressively over the next 20 years. The growth in demand for
livestock products suggests that there will be a consequent rise in demand for animal
feed, not only of cereals but of other feeds and particularly proteins.xiv” “Improving
productivity is the key to increasing livestock production in the developing world. This
requires proper animal husbandry: feeding, housing, health and breeding practicesxv.”
Simply put – in the U.S. and globally – without increasing production per acre
AND improved animal efficiency we will need more acres in farms. Where would that
land come from? Forests? Swamplands? Meadows? The Conservation Reserve
Program? Unfarmed hillsides? Deserts? Biofuel production? Our parks and recreation
areas?
Admittedly, if consumers are willing to pay twice as much for organic food, and
use twice the total resources in the process, they have the right to do so. However, we
need to question the advisability of going down this path given increasing population
pressures on our land base and environment.
Conclusion
As long as population and food demand are growing, and they will for at least
the next 50 years, farmers and scientists will have to continue to look for ways to grow
more food on each increasingly precious acre. Included in that efficiency calculation is
the conversion of feed to animal-based products. We need to make sure that our farmers
here in the U.S. and around the world have the tools, the incentives, and the freedoms to
farm as productively as possible.
22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 22-23, 2007 Ô Tempe, AZ - 74
Modern agriculture and its supporting organizations need to think seriously
about the response to those who, in the name of conservation, insist that we need to
abandon the technology that has enabled us to affordably feed the world’s increasing
population. Consumers of organic foods who think they are helping make a choice for
more responsible use of agricultural resources need to be fully informed of the negative
consequences of their purchases for resource use. Arguably, the consumption of organic
food is of questionable benefit, and produced at a fraction of the land’s potential yield, it
is a socially irresponsible decision. Organic production can be likened to driving a “fuel
guzzling SUV” when a more efficient vehicle would do the same job.
Unless agriculture is willing to proactively make its case for the use of high
yield technology to feed the world those who favor resource conservation and efficiency
run the risk of losing the battle for the hearts and minds of a large portion of the
consuming public. To do so would result in less global food production per person,
higher food costs, and a lower standard of living.
Endnotes:
i
USDA. Agricultural Census. 2002.
FAO. FAOSTAT Database. Accessed December 29, 2006
iii
U.S. Department of Commerce. Bureau of the Census
iv
USDA, FAS. PS&D Database. Accessed December 29, 2006
v
FAO Forestry Database. Found at http://www.fao.org/forestry/index.jsp, Accessed
December 29, 2005
vi
Found at http://www.prnewswire.com/cgibin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/01-05-2004/0002083314. Accessed
December 29, 2005.
vii
Found at http://www.geneseevalleyorganicbeef.com/. Accessed December 29, 2006
viii
Lydia Oberholtzer, Catherine Greene, and Enrique Lopez. Organic Poultry and Eggs
Capture High Price Premiums and Growing Share of Specialty Markets. USDA. ERS. LDPM-150-01. December, 2006.
ix
USDA. ERS. http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/organic/index.htm#tables. Accessed January 10,
2007
x
Thomas Elam and Rodney Preston. Fifty Years of Pharmaceutical Technology and Its
Impact on the Beef We Provide to Consumers. July, 2004
xi
Tom Kriegl. Summary of Economic Studies of Organic Dairy Farming in Wisconsin, New
England, and Quebec. University of Wisconsin. March 20, 2006. Found at
http://cdp.wisc.edu/pdf/Organic%20Econ%20in%20N%20E,%20Q,%20&%20W1.pdf
xii
It is no accident that organic corn and soybean prices are roughly double that of high yield
systems. In any given year corn and soybean yields in organic systems can approach those of
modern technology. However, to achieve those yields organic systems use crop rotations in
which corn and soybeans are only grown every second or third year, with the rotation crops
being grown to mainly supply crop nutrients in place of chemical fertilizers. (This system
may sound familiar – it is very similar to those used by farmers prior to the advent of modern
fertilizers and crop protection products.) Thus, over the entire rotation cycle yields per acre of
corn and soybeans are only a fraction of current levels on farms using modern technology.
See: Kuepper, George. “Organic Soybean Production”, Appropriate Technology Transfer for
Rural Areas. Fayetteville, AR. March, 2003.
xiii
FAO Agricultural Database. U.N. Medium Population Projections. 2006
xiv
FAO. http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/AGAAN_en.asp. Accessed December 29, 2006
xv
FAO. http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/production.html. Accessed December 29,
2006
ii
22nd Annual Southwest Nutrition & Management Conference Ô February 22-23, 2007 Ô Tempe, AZ - 75
HIGH COW REPORT
OCTOBER 2006
MILK
Arizona Owner
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Shamrock Farms
* Mike Pylman
* Shamrock Farms
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
Barn#
19811
15914
6097
21466
6240
19831
4464
14452
20427
20555
Age
06-08
06-01
05-01
05-01
05-01
06-08
05-09
07-02
03-05
03-03
Milk
41,790
39,460
37,240
36,960
36,380
36,090
35,870
35,820
35,750
35,570
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
* Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Shamrock Farms
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
19811
4463
4464
20536
20093
17405
5485
8453
16781
17849
06-08
05-09
05-09
03-04
03-10
05-00
05-04
03-02
05-06
04-09
2,074
1,537
1,508
1,436
1,415
1,388
1,380
1,374
1,364
1,360
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Shamrock Farms
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
* Stotz Dairy
15914
20686
19811
18118
18021
6097
20555
18213
4464
20427
06-01
03-03
06-08
04-06
04-07
05-01
03-03
04-04
05-09
03-05
1,137
1,090
1,083
1,069
1,063
1,061
1,060
1,047
1,036
1,026
New Mexico Owner
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Red Roof Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* S.A.S. Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
Barn #
8833
8051
1918
4542
9535
4065
586
784
8157
6599
Age
06-00
--------06-10
05-09
08-10
------------03-04
Milk
40,380
39,210
39,000
38,741
38,500
38,410
38,400
38,040
37,990
37,510
* McCatharn Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Goff Dairy Ii Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* McCatharn Dairy
* Vaz Dairy
* McCatharn Dairy
2416
404
1918
4965
784
586
8789
1763
1775
1925
05-01
05-04
----05-06
--------06-05
08-00
06-02
03-11
1,465
1,452
1,451
1,450
1,426
1,418
1,415
1,392
1,385
1,377
1918
8833
784
586
6599
6670
4065
1356
5913
4542
----06-00
--------03-04
05-01
08-10
07-00
06-01
06-10
1,260
1,242
1,234
1,225
1,206
1,184
1,143
1,141
1,121
1,115
FAT
PROTEIN
*all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
* New Direction Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* S.A.S. Dairy
* S.A.S. Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* S.A.S. Dairy
* Red Roof Dairy
ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
OCTOBER 2006
OWNERS NAME
* Stotz Dairy West
* Stotz Dairy East
* Danzeisen Dairy, Inc.
* Del Rio Dairy, Inc.
* Zimmerman Dairy
* Red River Dairy
* Withrow Dairy
* Mike Pylman
Parker Dairy
* Arizona Dairy Company
* Shamrock Farm
* Goldman Dairy
* Bulter Dairy
* Yettem
* RG Dairy, LLC
Lunts Dairy
Number of Cows
2,275
1,025
1,486
1,386
1,219
8,417
5,362
7,700
4,185
5,443
8,688
2,184
598
3,641
1,236
584
MILK
26,761
24,996
23,784
24,294
23,569
25,138
23,906
23,634
22,728
23,416
23,868
22,819
22,416
19,083
22,017
21,262
FAT
970
920
861
833
839
788
815
817
837
804
776
799
778
859
778
785
3.5 FCM
27,295
25,721
24,241
24,008
23,791
23,643
23,548
23,463
23,395
23,158
22,899
22,819
22,304
22,176
22,132
21,919
CI
15.1
15.0
14.6
13.0
14.6
13.8
13.2
14.5
14.6
14.5
13.6
14.1
14.8
13.1
14.0
12.9
3.5 FCM
27,288
26,751
26,626
26,154
25,908
25,530
25,181
24,927
24,550
24,171
24,111
23,571
22,543
CI
13.7
13.9
13.4
13.0
13.6
14.0
14.0
14.2
14.0
13.5
13.5
14.1
13.6
NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
OCTOBER 2006
OWNERS NAME
* Do-Rene
* New Direction 2
* Providence
* Hide Away
* Pareo
* Butterfield
* Vaz
* Milagro
* Goff
* Cross County
* Flecha
* Stark Everett
* Goff 2
Number of Cows
2,379
2,147
2,880
2,469
1,563
2,024
1,924
3,439
4,291
3,495
2,196
2,845
1,124
MILK
26,994
25,864
26,363
26,620
25,676
25,777
24,558
24,046
23,999
23,685
23,359
22,784
19,319
FAT
963
960
939
903
913
887
898
896
874
859
864
846
875
* all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
b
average milk and fat figure may be different from monthly herd summary; figures used are last day/month
ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO HERD IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY
FOR OFFICIAL HERDS TESTED OCTOBER 2006
ARIZONA
1. Number of Herds
NEW MEXICO
31
29
2. Total Cows in Herd
74,913
61,090
3. Average Herd Size
2,417
2,107
86
87
5. Average Days in Milk
212
202
6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day
52.5
60.4
3.6
3.6
63,993
50,370
61.5
69.2
82
72
11. Average Days Open
170
141
12. Average Calving Interval
14.4
13.7
85
75
14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium
9
15
15. Percent Somatic Cell – High
6
11
16. Average Previous Days Dry
61
63
17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd
29
30
4. Percent in Milk
7. Average Percent Fat – All Cows
8. Total Cows in Milk
9. Average Daily Milk for Milking Cows
10. Average Days in Milk 1st Breeding
13. Percent Somatic Cell – Low
STATE AVERAGES
Milk
22,196
23,349
Percent butterfat
3.60
3.57
Percent protein
2.90
3.11
Pounds butterfat
791
837
Pounds protein
658
712
HIGH COW REPORT
NOVEMBER 2006
MILK
Arizona Owner
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
* Withrow Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* DC Dairy, Llc
* Zimmerman Dairy
* Zimmerman Dairy
* Rio Blanco Dairy
* Goldman Dairy
Barn#
20593
14949
4464
1288
21080
3988
575
5274
7176
3505
Age
03-04
06-11
05-09
06-07
03-00
05-01
05-02
08-03
03-01
07-11
Milk
36,920
35,940
35,870
35,750
35,210
34,710
34,660
34,290
34,210
34,060
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
* D & I Holstein
* Saddle Mountain Dairy
* Shamrock Farms
* Rio Blanco Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
20522
18422
4463
21080
4464
7953
1756
4979
6381
20593
03-05
04-03
05-09
03-00
05-09
06-04
05-05
05-07
04-00
03-04
1,756
1,550
1,546
1,539
1,516
1,481
1,413
1,357
1,356
1,348
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, Llc.
* Stotz Dairy
* D & I Holstein
* Danzeisen Dairy, Llc.
* D & I Holstein
* Stotz Dairy
* Rio Blanco Dairy
* Goldman Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
18245
4464
19918
7953
395
3930
18041
6381
7402
18599
04-05
05-09
04-04
06-04
04-03
02-10
04-08
04-00
05-02
04-03
1,064
1,036
1,023
1,020
1,011
1,005
998
998
993
992
New Mexico Owner
Barn #
* S.A.S. Dairy
2937
* Providence Dairy
6026
* Pareo Dairy
7761
* Wayne Palla Dairy
2559
* Pareo Dairy
3366
* Pareo Dairy
9692
* Tres Hermanos Dairy LLC
1383
* McCatharn Dairy
1884
* S.A.S. Dairy
7027
* S.A.S. Dairy
6425
Age
05-06
04-00
07-02
05-00
05-11
07-02
05-02
04-02
04-09
05-06
Milk
39,428
38,170
37,660
37,130
36,735
36,691
36,686
36,360
36,172
36,144
4333
5010
6026
2341
Y-1655
9307
3256
1040
9692
3366
05-01
05-10
04-00
04-03
06-04
04-03
04-00
06-06
07-02
05-11
1,514
1,433
1,401
1,389
1,383
1,379
1,377
1,375
1,356
1,343
2937
7027
6425
2559
2341
6026
1884
840
1954
9692
05-06
04-09
05-06
05-00
04-03
04-00
04-02
07-06
03-10
07-02
1,136
1,125
1,125
1,115
1,101
1,089
1,074
1,069
1,061
1,054
FAT
* Pareo Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Desperado Dairy
* Vaz Dairy
* Do-Rene Dairy
* Vaz Dairy
* Do-Rene Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
PROTEIN
*all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
* S.A.S. Dairy
* S.A.S. Dairy
* S.A.S. Dairy
* Wayne Palla Dairy
* Desperado Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* McCatharn Dairy
* Butterfield Dairy
* McCatharn Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
NOVEMBER 2006
OWNERS NAME
* Stotz Dairy West
* Stotz Dairy East
* Danzeisen Dairy, Inc.
* Del Rio Dairy, Inc.
* Zimmerman Dairy
* Red River Dairy
* Withrow Dairy
* Mike Pylman
Parker Dairy
* Arizona Dairy Company
* Shamrock Farm
* Goldman Dairy
* Bulter Dairy
* RG Dairy, LLC
* Yettem
Lunts Dairy
* DC Dairy, LLC
Number of Cows
2,318
1,024
1,468
1,386
1,222
8,417
5,282
7,700
4,239
5,328
8,526
2,178
606
1,236
3,679
584
1,155
MILK
26,633
24,840
23,784
24,294
23,594
25,138
23,764
23,634
22,666
23,278
23,818
22,746
22,508
22,017
18,938
21,262
21,552
FAT
973
915
870
833
838
788
818
817
836
803
779
794
789
778
852
785
769
3.5 FCM
27,288
25,573
24,387
24,008
23,786
23,643
23,535
23,463
23,352
23,082
22,926
22,706
22,522
22,132
22,000
21,919
21,785
DO
222
175
169
133
167
146
155
198
179
187
156
168
194
172
118
135
158
3.5 FCM
27,328
26,751
26,735
26,519
26,195
25,908
25,603
25,184
25,064
25,020
24,906
24,303
DO
145
175
120
114
147
142
133
--152
--139
121
NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
NOVEMBER 2006
OWNERS NAME
* Do-Rene
* New Direction 2
* Providence
* Hide Away
* Rocky Mountain Dairy
* Pareo
* Butterfield
* SAS
* Vaz
* MCatharn
* Milagro
* Cross Country
Number of Cows
2,352
2,147
2,898
2,765
513
1,563
2,063
1,937
1,947
975
3,418
3,670
MILK
26,974
25,864
26,577
26,790
25,329
25,676
25,796
25,316
24,513
25,123
24,034
23,766
FAT
966
960
940
921
940
913
891
878
892
873
895
865
* all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
b
average milk and fat figure may be different from monthly herd summary; figures used are last day/month
ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO HERD IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY
FOR OFFICIAL HERDS TESTED NOVEMBER 2006
ARIZONA
1. Number of Herds
NEW MEXICO
34
30
2. Total Cows in Herd
65,757
60,931
3. Average Herd Size
1,934
2,031
86
87
5. Average Days in Milk
205
192
6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day
55.3
62.1
3.7
3.6
56,260
52,137
64.8
71.7
82
72
11. Average Days Open
167
137
12. Average Calving Interval
14.4
13.7
85
80
14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium
9
14
15. Percent Somatic Cell – High
6
6
16. Average Previous Days Dry
61
64
17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd
30
32
4. Percent in Milk
7. Average Percent Fat – All Cows
8. Total Cows in Milk
9. Average Daily Milk for Milking Cows
10. Average Days in Milk 1st Breeding
13. Percent Somatic Cell – Low
STATE AVERAGES
Milk
22,104
23,184
Percent butterfat
3.59
3.55
Percent protein
2.88
3.06
Pounds butterfat
787
869
Pounds protein
647
707
HIGH COW REPORT
DECEMBER 2006
MILK
Arizona Owner
* Mike Pylman
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Shamrock Farms
* Withrow Dairy
* Mike Pylman
* Mike Pylman
* Mike Pylman
* Stotz Dairy
Barn#
276
16943
18323
18027
6552
5065
2996
299
2335
20877
Age
06-03
05-06
04-05
04-09
05-04
06-02
05-07
05-03
05-05
03-03
Milk
49,430
37,270
35,370
35,150
35,120
34,830
34,590
34,580
34,480
34,360
* Stotz Dairy
* Stotz Dairy
* Mike Pylman
* D & I Holstein
* Stotz Dairy
* Shamrock Farms
* Shamrock Farms
* Rio Blanco Dairy
* Shamrock Farms
* Stotz Dairy
17335
20124
276
862
16943
M265
9677
6279
5006
18323
05-03
03-11
06-03
03-03
05-06
09-08
04-03
04-05
05-08
04-05
1,513
1,474
1,462
1,327
1,324
1,322
1,315
1,314
1,313
1,305
* Mike Pylman
* D & I Holstein
* Stotz Dairy
* Rio Blanco Dairy
* Shamrock Farms
* Mike Pylman
* Mike Pylman
* Stotz Dairy
* Danzeisen Dairy, LLC.
* Mike Pylman
276
1159
18027
6279
6552
633
309
21078
4568
667
06-03
06-01
04-09
04-05
05-04
03-10
06-03
03-01
05-09
03-09
1,297
1,098
1,042
1,038
1,027
1,026
1,016
1,004
990
989
New Mexico Owner
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Wayne Palla Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
Barn #
905
858
5388
695 Hos
4827
16989
980 Hos
947 Hos
6980
6985
Age
04-11
04-10
05-02
----06-02
05-10
--------03-01
03-01
Milk
37,820
37,760
37,420
37,350
37,000
36,890
36,640
36,640
36,480
36,430
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Pareo Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Breedyk Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Do-Rene Dairy
858
9548
4615
695 Hos
308
1344
980 Hos
947 Hos
131 Hos
1197
04-10
05-11
05-00
----05-06
04-03
------------06-06
1,555
1,477
1,419
1,386
1,378
1,369
1,363
1,362
1,356
1,347
947 Hos
695 Hos
97 Miss
809 Tx
980 Hos
131 Hos
16989
6980
9775
635 Hos
------------------------05-10
03-01
05-10
-----
1,178
1,160
1,156
1,145
1,143
1,137
1,104
1,102
1,101
1,099
FAT
PROTEIN
*all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
* Wayne Palla Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* Providence Dairy
* New Direction Dairy
ARIZONA - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
DECEMBER 2006
OWNERS NAME
* Stotz Dairy West
* Stotz Dairy East
* Danzeisen Dairy, Inc.
* Del Rio Dairy, Inc.
* Zimmerman Dairy
* Red River Dairy
* Withrow Dairy
Parker Dairy
* Mike Pylman
* Arizona Dairy Company
* Goldman Dairy
* Shamrock Farm
* Butler Dairy
Number of Cows
2,172
1,108
1,508
1,386
1,200
8,417
5,247
4,268
7,484
5,328
2,142
8,660
609
MILK
26,484
24,728
23,948
24,294
23,637
25,138
23,639
22,625
23,372
23,278
23,145
23,719
22,576
FAT
970
909
880
833
841
788
821
839
810
803
804
788
796
3.5 FCM
27,175
25,427
24,620
24,008
23,853
23,643
23,530
23,383
23,236
23,082
23,041
23,030
22,665
DIM
251
228
220
182
223
180
206
216
231
227
219
213
216
3.5 FCM
27,341
26,587
26,519
26,464
26,162
26,089
25,603
25,184
25,064
25,020
24,841
24,354
DIM
193
196
179
236
206
188
192
198
198
184
197
178
NEW MEXICO - TOP 50% FOR F.C.M.b
DECEMBER 2006
OWNERS NAME
* Do-Rene
* Providence
* Hide Away
* New Direction 2
* Rocky Mountain Dairy
* Pareo
* Butterfield
* SAS
* Vaz
* MCatharn
* Milagro
* Cross Country
Number of Cows
2,397
2,920
2,493
2,133
512
1,572
2,044
1,937
1,947
975
3,443
3,580
MILK
26,965
26,422
26,790
25,576
25,326
25,721
25,796
25,316
24,513
25,123
23,996
23,733
FAT
967
935
921
950
938
923
891
878
892
873
892
869
* all or part of lactation is 3X or 4X milking
b
average milk and fat figure may be different from monthly herd summary; figures used are last day/month
ARIZONA AND NEW MEXICO HERD IMPROVEMENT SUMMARY
FOR OFFICIAL HERDS TESTED DECEMBER 2006
ARIZONA
1. Number of Herds
NEW MEXICO
25
23
22,740
44,483
910
1,934
86
87
5. Average Days in Milk
211
192
6. Average Milk – All Cows Per Day
57.7
61.7
3.7
3.6
49,620
39,938
67.2
71.2
83
70
11. Average Days Open
177
139
12. Average Calving Interval
14.9
13.9
80
78
9
14
15. Percent Somatic Cell – High
10
5
16. Average Previous Days Dry
60
62
17. Percent Cows Leaving Herd
33
31
2. Total Cows in Herd
3. Average Herd Size
4. Percent in Milk
7. Average Percent Fat – All Cows
8. Total Cows in Milk
9. Average Daily Milk for Milking Cows
10. Average Days in Milk 1st Breeding
13. Percent Somatic Cell – Low
14. Percent Somatic Cell – Medium
STATE AVERAGES
Milk
22,658
23,379
Percent butterfat
3.50
3.57
Percent protein
2.95
3.07
Pounds butterfat
797
890
Pounds protein
665
727
UPCOMING EVENTS:
ARIZONA DAIRY DAY
APRIL 5, 2007
PALOMA DAIRY - GILA BEND, AZ
DAIRY DAY GOLF TOURNAMENT
APRIL 6, 2007
CLUB WEST GOLF COURSE - PHOENIX, AZ
Department of Animal Sciences
PO Box 210038
Tucson, AZ 85721-0038
Phone: 520-626-9382
Fax: 520-621-9435
Email: ljr22@ag.arizona.edu