Buckeye Dairy News : Volume 7 Issue 4

  1. A Look at the Pricing Opportunity on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME)

    Dr. Cameron Thraen, Milk Marketing Specialist, Ohio State University, Additional milk marketing information by Dr. Thraen

    In the last issue of my article for the Buckeye Dairy News, I discussed my "Premiums and Discounts" chart which can be viewed on my Ohio Dairy Website (http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/) under the heading 'Mideast Price Watch @ a Click.' In this article, I will introduce another chart posted on the website and accessible under the heading "A Look at the Pricing Opportunity on the CME". On this chart, I show the current Class III futures price for the next 12 months, along with Median Class III prices and the upper and lower 25 percentile price lines. What is the point of posting this chart daily? What information do I wish to convey to you - the dairy farmer or milk processor?

    The information on the Website chart shows you the relative position of the CME futures prices and the Median Class III price by month, calculated from the time period 1996 through the latest information in 2005. Why use the Median Class III price rather than the average Class III price for comparison? The reason is that the average price gives you a distorted impression from historical data. Because dairy prices are limited on the downside and not limited on the high side, reported prices are bunched-up on the lower side and spread-out on the upper side. The average price will suggest that the high side prices occur too often over time. The average price will suggest a 'typical' price that is too high. Without getting into the statistics of this, the median price shows you the Class III price for each month at which 50% of the Class III prices were either above or below this median price. For example, in the chart reproduced in this article, you can see that the median price for the month of July is $13.59/cwt. This tells you that over the 1996 to 2004 period, 50% of the Class III prices were announced below $13.59/cwt and 50% were above this price. Also shown on the chart are the current Class III futures prices. For our example, you can see that the July CME Class III futures price is trading in the neighborhood of $14.88/cwt. How 'good' a price is this futures price? Viewing the chart, we can see that it is substantially above the median price and therefore looks like a 'good' price. But, how good is the next question to address.

    On this chart, you can see two additional price lines shown as an upper line and a lower line. These lines show you the boundary for 75 and 25% of the announced Class III prices. Again, working with the July month you can see that the upper or 75% price line is $14.77/cwt and the lower or 25% price line is $10.86/cwt. This is quite a spread for July prices. That is the first piece of information. This 'spread' between the upper and lower price lines gives you a visual clue as to the possible variation you can expect for any selected month. Between the upper and lower price lines, 50% of all reported July Class III prices have occurred during the 1996 to 2004 time frame. Now to answer the question, the current CME futures price of $14.88/cwt appears to be a very good price for the July month. Only 1 out of four years has the July month price been above the $14.77/cwt level. Does this mean that when announced, the July 2005 Class III price will be at $14.77/cwt or better? No, but using the past as a guide, there is only a 1 in 4 chance that will happen.

    Taking an overview of the entire chart, you can see that the CME futures prices for the next 12 months (July 2005 through June 2006) are looking very good. This tells us two things. First, those buying and selling Class III futures contracts, factoring in their own forecasts for milk supply and consumer demand, are anticipating a good year price-wise. With only a couple of exceptions, the CME Class III futures price is above the historical median price and near or above the upper 75% line. Using the CME futures prices as a guide, this puts the average CME price over the next 12 months at $13.58/cwt and this is $1.16/cwt higher than the average of the median prices. In Federal Order 33, the mailbox price adds another $1.25/cwt to the Class III price.

    Second, the futures market prices suggest that over the next 12 months that the market will give up about a $1.00/cwt on the Class III milk price. This is consistent with the month-to-month Class III price changes over the last 6 months. Coming off of the high price in May 2004, the Class III price has drifted down to the $14.00/cwt level, and the market is telling you that it expects this to continue down to the $12.80 - $13.00/cwt level before leveling out by June 2006.

    If you like to stay up-to-date as to the opportunities for getting better than average prices for your milk, be sure to bookmark my Ohio Dairy Website (http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/) and visit daily. My current milk price outlook can be viewed on the web. I update this outlook each month. Check it out at http://aede.osu.edu/programs/ohiodairy/ProActivePricing/priceforecast.htm.

    For a complete update on current market conditions, futures, and options markets, and policy issues of importance to Ohio and Federal Order 33 producers go to my web site, Ohio Dairy Web 2004, and click on Cam's Price Outlook.

  2. Cost of Nutrients in Feedstuffs

    Dr. Normand St-Pierre, Dairy Management Specialist, The Ohio State University

    It is this time of the year where rumors of a possible drought in the Midwest can send corn and soybean prices through the roof. So, Mother Nature sends the requested rain and rumors emerge about a bumper crop. Prices collapse. One can quickly loose his/her sanity over these price gyrations. Fortunately, you are feeding dairy cows. They don't NEED corn or soybeans to produce milk. They need NUTRIENTS, such as energy (measured as Net Energy for Lactation - NEL), rumen degradable protein (RDP), digestible rumen undegradable protein (d-RUP), effective neutral detergent fiber (e-NDF), and non-effective NDF (ne-NDF). Although corn and soybean meal can be important suppliers of nutrients, other combinations of feedstuffs can achieve the same results. Corn and soybean meal are also important market drivers of feed commodities, but other commodities, especially high fiber by-products, have markets and seasonal patterns of their own. Thus, if soybean meal goes up by 10%, you should NOT think that the price of protein has gone up by 10%. If you are feeding a lot of soybean meal and its price goes up by 10%, then it is time to look at your nutrition program and consider other combinations of feed ingredients. You should also consider known seasonal trends. We know that people drink more beer in summer time. Thus, more beer is brewed. Therefore, the supply of brewers grains increases. The good old law of supply and demand works, and the price of brewers grains falls. Likewise, winter wheat is harvested in early summer. And guess what, some people are milling this wheat! Thus, the supply of wheat middlings (often shortened to wheat midds) increases, while the demand by the feed industry to manufacture pelleted feeds drops. The same law of supply and demand works again; the price of wheat midds falls. I received a call last week from an old feed broker friend. He had about 200 tons of wheat midds that could be picked up for $10/ton FOB Buffalo, NY. If I tell you that wheat midds has about the energy and fiber content (although non-effective) of corn silage, but contains 18 to 20% crude protein (mostly degradable), would you think that $10/ton for wheat midds could fit nicely in many feeding programs?

    SesameTM (available at www.sesamesoft.com) is a software developed at Ohio State to extract the cost of nutrients from all commodities traded in a given market and to estimate break-even prices of these commodities. In each issue of the Buckeye Dairy News, we use Sesame to help dairy producers and their advisors in their selection of nutrient sources (feeds) for their herds. As usual, we calculated the prices of nutrients for central Ohio in early July. Results are presented in Table 1. Not much has changed between May and July of this year. Notice, however, that many nutrients are priced substantially lower than at the same time last year. Commodities are grouped into three broad categories in Table 2. Tactically, you should try to maximize the use of commodities in the "bargains" column, while minimizing the use of those in the "overpriced" one. This is not to say that excellent nutrition programs can be developed without any of the ingredients in the "overpriced" column, but from an economic basis, their use should be reduced to a strict minimum. A more detailed analysis of break-even prices is presented in Table 3.

    Using these nutrient prices and milk component prices for Federal Order 33 released by the Market Administrator on July 1, we calculated our standard benchmarks of nutrient feeding costs and income over nutrient costs (Table 4). The cost of putting the required nutrients through a cow to produce our standard 75 lb/day of milk at 3.6% fat and 3.0% protein has not changed from May 2005, essentially at $3.60/cow/day. The declining milk prices, however, resulted in a $0.58/cow/day reduction in income over nutrient costs. At $7.17/cow/day, however, income over nutrient costs is still substantially higher than the historical average of about $6.00/cow/day. Above-average profits should still be the norm for Ohio dairy producers.

    Table 1. Prices of nutrients, central Ohio.

    Nutrient name
    July 2005
    May 2005
    July 2004
    Net energy lactation ($/Mcal)
    0.094
    0.095
    0.087
    Rumen degradable protein ($/lb)
    -0.090
    -0.113
    0.023
    Digestible-rumen undegradable protein ($/lb)
    0.269
    0.252
    0.342
    Non-effective NDF ($/lb)
    -0.085
    -0.077
    0.058
    Effective-NDF ($/lb)
    0.040
    0.043
    0.054


    Table 2. Groupings of commodities, Central Ohio, July 2005.

    Bargains
    At Breakeven
    Overpriced

    Bakery byproducts
    Corn grain
    Corn silage
    Cottonseed meal
    Distillers dried grains
    Feather meal
    Gluten feed
    Hominy
    Wheat middlings
    Wheat bran

    Whole cottonseed
    Gluten meal
    Expeller soybean meal
    Roasted soybeans
    Tallow
    Blood meal
    Brewers grains, wet

    Alfalfa hay - 44% NDF, 20% CP
    Beet pulp
    Canola meal
    Citrus pulp
    Molasses
    Soybean hulls
    44% Soybean meal
    48% Soybean meal
    Fish meal
    Meat meal

    Table 3. Commodity assessment, Central Ohio, May 2005.

    Name
    Actual ($/ton)
    Predicted ($/ton)
    Lower limit ($/ton)
    Upper limit ($/ton)
    Alfalfa Hay, 44% NDF, 20% CP
    125
    102.19
    77.66
    126.72
    Bakery Byproduct Meal
    107
    137.23
    125.23
    149.22
    Beet Sugar Pulp, dried
    145
    100.50
    81.62
    119.38
    Blood Meal, ring dried
    455
    431.74
    400.44
    463.04
    Brewers Grains, wet
    21
    21.79
    17.75
    25.83
    Canola Meal, mech. extracted
    169
    114.40
    99.26
    129.55
    Citrus Pulp, dried
    155
    110.66
    100.45
    120.88
    Corn Grain, ground dry
    95
    147.90
    136.45
    159.36
    Corn Silage, 32 to 38% DM
    35
    44.89
    36.34
    52.45
    Cotton Seed Meal, 41% CP
    133
    167.76
    154.97
    180.56
    Cottonseed, whole w lint
    156
    176.11
    144.51
    207.71
    Distillers Dried Grains, w solubles
    100
    130.50
    114.85
    146.15
    Feathers Hydrolyzed Meal
    262
    313.69
    292.64
    334.73
    Gluten Feed, dry
    62
    108.86
    97.26
    120.46
    Gluten Meal, dry
    357
    349.55
    326.44
    372.67
    Hominy
    90
    117.03
    106.70
    127.36
    Meat Meal, rendered
    265
    235.55
    214.63
    256.46
    Molasses, sugarcane
    145
    105.57
    95.89
    115.26
    Soybean Hulls
    77
    30.98
    4.10
    57.86
    Soybean Meal, expeller
    264
    279.77
    263.41
    296.13
    Soybean Meal, solvent 44% CP
    221
    171.50
    150.85
    192.14
    Soybean Meal, solvent 48% CP
    229
    211.23
    193.05
    229.41
    Soybean Seeds, whole roasted
    245
    254.65
    236.35
    272.96
    Tallow
    400
    385.46
    346.93
    423.98
    Wheat Bran
    30
    50.54
    32.51
    68.57
    Wheat Middlings
    30
    69.56
    53.85
    85.32
    Name
    Actual ($/ton)
    Predicted ($/ton)
    Corrected ($/ton)
    Alfalfa Hay, 38% NDF, 22% CP
    --
    103.45
    125.36
    Alfalfa Hay, 48% NDF, 17% CP
    --
    102.19
    87.45
    Menhaden Fish Meal, mech.
    660
    341.46
    --


    Table 4. Nutrient costs and income over nutrient costs, Central Ohio.1

    Nutrient
    July 2005
    May 2005
     
    ------------------------------ $/cow/day --------------------------------
    Nutrient costs2
     
     

    NEL

    3.26
    3.30

    RDP

    (0.48)
    (0.60)

    Digestible-RUP

    0.61
    0.57

    ne-NDF

    (0.40)
    (0.36)

    e-NDF

    0.43
    0.47

    Vitamins and minerals

    0.20
    0.20

    TOTAL

    3.62
    3.58
    Milk gross income
     
     

    Fat

    4.30
    4.58

    Protein

    5.98
    6.29

    Other solids

    0.50
    0.45

    TOTAL

    10.79
    11.32
     
     
     
    Income over nutrient costs
    7.17
    7.75

    1Costs and income for a 1400 lb cow producing 75 lb/day of milk, with 3.6% fat, 3.1% protein, and 5.9% other solids. Component prices are for Federal Order 33, April 2005.
    2NEL = Net energy for lactation, RDP = rumen degradable protein, RUP = rumen undegradable protein, ne-NDF = noneffective neutral detergent fiber, and e-NDF = effective neutral effective fiber.

  3. Observations from Tour of Matlink Dairy in New York

    Mr. Tom Noyes, OSU Extension Educator, Wayne County, The Ohio State University 

    A bus-load of dairy producers, OSU research and Extension faculty, students, and agri-business people took a one day tour to Matlink Dairy. Located in Clymer, NY (the very southwest corner of New York) just outside the village of Clymer, the 600+ cow dairy farm needed to make improvements in the dairy manure management and handling area. The manure generated at Matlink Dairy was stored in a lagoon and spray-irrigated on the ground in March, April, and November. With the farm just upwind from the village, it quite often caused an odor problem. There was also a possibility that leaching of manure into the ground water was causing an increase in the nitrate-nitrogen concentration.

    With support from the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority
    (NYTSERDA), Ted Mathews, owner of Matlink Dairy, began construction of an anaerobic digester in 2000 and completed it in 2001. In addition to the manure from the cows, other feedstock to the digester included food wastes. Currently, liquid wastes from cheese plants and fruit juices are mixed with the manure. This increases the biogas production with higher methane content.

    Heat and Electricity Generation

    Biogas flow from the digester is used by the engine generator at a rate of approximately 76,400 ft3/day or about 113 ft3/cow/day. This biogas consists of methane (about 65%), carbon dioxide (about 35%), a small amount of sulfide compounds, and other trace gases. The biogas is collected and fed into a Waukesha engine attached to a Marathon generator (130 KW) that uses 22-25 ft3/KWH. The engine will operate 90-95% of the available hours per year.

    This engine-generator set produces about 884,000 KWH/year, which meets the electricity needs for the dairy farm and provides some excess electrical power for sale to the local utility, Niagara Mohawk. The heat generated also provides hot water to heat the digester and other on-farm needs which saves the farm over $500 per month.

    Profit Centers

    Accepting food wastes is profitable. The tipping fees make the manure treatment system a profit center for the farm. The food wastes are high in energy, having three times the gas production per unit of mass than manure; yet, the nutrient content is comparable to manure so imported nutrients are kept low. The increased gas production leads to increased electric generation. After digestion, the treated slurry is pumped to a screw press slurry separator. The separated solids are composted. Up to 65% of the composted solids are used on the farm, and the remaining solids sold at $5/yard can generate revenue of $500/month. The anaerobic digester - electric generating system is a win-win situation for Matlink Dairy.

  4. Dairy Quality Assurance: Past, Present, and "Oh!", What A Future!

    Mr. Tim Demland, OSU Extension Associate and Executive Director Ohio Dairy Producers 

    Quality assurance has been around for many generations. At least at one level or another, producers and handlers have always taken precautions to ensure that a desired standard of quality has been met. In order to help assure dairy's reputation as one of nature's most perfect foods, the dairy industry has wisely placed a priority on providing a high quality, safe, and nutritious product through both market incentives and industry regulation.

    Competition for a place in consumers diets from other protein sources demands that the dairy industry continues to work toward these ends. In today's marketplace, retailers were some of the first to recognize the trend of escalating consumer expectations and have adjusted their marketing practices to keep pace. Therefore, in keeping with the dairy industry's tradition of providing a top notch product, it will be prudent for dairy stakeholders to anticipate consumer demands, and then fine tune production philosophies to better meet these new market opportunities.

    It does not take much time for one to come to the realization that the customers of tomorrow will continue to require more. Not only will there be a call for high quality and safe products, there also will be greater expectations that foodstuffs be produced in a manner that is both environmentally friendly and humanely sound. There also will, most likely, be a requirement for a practical means to verify that these production conditions are met.

    At first, these prerequisites might appear to be unrealistic, but when one considers all the events that have been taking place throughout the world, it actually becomes quite logical. Increasing consumer expectations in reality are about the only way that an informed society can practically respond to the "News" of our day, such as the latest health "study", continual threats of terrorism, and the increased activities and notoriety of anti-livestock groups.

    An Example Has Already Been Set!

    Fortunately, several livestock industries have already begun to address these issues, and it may be helpful for dairy stakeholders to explore their initiatives to get a better understanding of what quality assurance programs are all about. In response to marketplace demands, both the poultry and pork industries have implemented programs to help producers meet consumer's expectations. One of the most successful means has proven to be the implementation of the on-farm quality assurance programs. These programs help producers identify improvements that can be made in daily activities that not only boost customer confidence but also assist producers in becoming as efficient as possible. Through the programs, producers are instructed in the proper use of practices that have been proven to be the most effective.

    Upon completion of on-farm third party audits and verifying the regular use of Best Management Practices (BMP), producers are eligible to receive certification in their respective quality assurance (QA) program. In many cases, processors have accepted the programs so completely that they require certification in order to gain access to the market. These QA programs have become widespread as an industry standard because of this marketplace support.

    The situation is somewhat different in the dairy industry because the industry has developed a standard of quality performance supported by product testing and regulation to provide access to its markets. This system of inspection and testing has proven reliable in meeting past standards of quality and safety, but today's marketplace expectations are changing! Besides looking just for a wholesome, high quality product, consumers have begun to ask questions, such as: "How was this produced?" "How were the animals treated?" and "Did the production process harm the environment?"

    Many industry experts have spent abundant hours attempting to affirmatively answer these questions, some of which are unmistakably fundamental to a dairy producer's daily routines. Yet, certain doubts continue to arise regardless of the industry's best efforts to appease consumers concerns. Therefore, the question remains, "How does the dairy industry meet the increased needs and demands of the consuming public as well as providing producers the best possible opportunity to remain sustainable?"

    Fortunately again, the dairy industry does not have to reinvent the QA process. A wonderful foundation has already been laid by other livestock industries. All that is needed is a little industry specific expertise to develop and implement a dairy quality assurance (DQA) program and the industry's own set of BMP. Of better news yet is the fact that the dairy industry has already been active in this area and that there are several options that can be utilized.

    California, through the use of government funds, has implemented the California Dairy Quality Assurance Program and adopted a "voluntary program that provides education, resources, and funding for the certification of dairy producers in the following areas":

    1. Environmental stewardship,
    2. Johne's Disease,
    3. Food safety and emergency preparedness, and
    4. Animal welfare.

    Producers who have completed the program consider it a worthwhile investment. One participant provided his impression: "We wanted to do the right thing and getting certified through the third party evaluation was a way of earning recognition for the work we'd done. We also were able to identify a few other minor alterations that needed to be worked on. The solutions were surprisingly practical and straightforward. We saved money by knowing what really needed to be fixed and what was fine. Now we're really confident that our dairy is in compliance. The investment has paid for itself in peace of mind." (taken from the California DQA program brochure)

    There is also a good example on the east coast of DQA programs. The New York State Cattle Health Assurance Program (NYSCHAP) "is an integrated disease prevention program which utilizes a team of advisors in developing a farm specific herd health plan". The NYSCHAP offers a series of educational modules that assist NY dairy producers to:

    1. Define farm goals and areas of concern,
    2. Assess health risks to the herd,
    3. Develop a herd plan,
    4. Review the herd plan with dairy personnel to ensure its proper implementation, and
    5. Review the plan quarterly with the herd veterinarian and annually with the entire herd health team.

    Much of the information that NYSCHAP offers is available through a detailed on-line program, but the success of the program relies on the active participation from the producer, herd veterinarian, nutritionists, key employees, and any other advisor the manager deems to be a vital link in the success of his operation (http://nyschap.vet.cornell.edu).

    Ohio Dairy Producers and Dairy Quality Assurance

    In response to current market trends and taking the example of other livestock industries into consideration, the leadership of the Ohio Dairy Producers has begun to investigate and to establish an Ohio DQA certification program. The merits of a proactive and producer driven program far outweigh any drawbacks that can be foreseen because meeting the needs of a viable and growing market has to be the top priority of any industry in order for it to remain healthy and sustainable. Dairy producers, like most other product suppliers, need to move past the idea of correcting problems as they occur. They need to move towards and accept the concept of identifying critical control points along the production process and then implement the BMP available. The goal is to stop problems/inefficiencies before they occur. When this is done, then records can be used to critique and adapt these BMP to increase efficiencies even more.

    In other words, if dairy producers in Ohio are to continue to compete with producers in other states and around the world, they will need to identify and implement systems that enable them to improve productive performance and assist them in maintaining compliance with an ever increasing level of governmental regulation and environmental responsibility.

    The Five-Star Dairy Quality Assurance Certification Program

    Before a program can be adopted, certain perimeters must be established. First, the program must be practical and effective in identifying the industry's generally accepted BMP. Secondly, the program must have a reliable means of evaluation and a high level of credibility. Thirdly, the program must guarantee confidentiality! Fourth, it must be able to adapt new technologies and regulations as well as be able to give sound evidence as to the viability of its standards. Fifth, it must be broad in scope, encompassing great diversity, yet firmly promoting fundamental practices. Finally, a successful DQA program will need to be widely accepted by the entire industry.

    In considering all these factors, the Ohio Dairy Producers has identified the FIVE-STAR Dairy Quality Assurance Program as just such a program. Its authors and administrators are the same as those that have developed the Milk and Dairy Beef Quality Assurance Program - a program that dairy producers across the entire Nation have come to know because of its use as an educational enforcement tool to address milk adulteration and antibiotic violations.

    The FIVE-STAR Dairy Quality Assurance Program is a national voluntary quality assurance program for the dairy industry. Its developers state� "It's not enough to just do business as usual and assume everything is OK! Each dairy needs to prove its case, to be able to 'show the evidence'." Consumers want proof that the owner, the management team, and/or the employees:

    • Provide approved animal care,
    • Manage nutrients to protect the soil, water, and animals,
    • Utilize family and hired labor correctly,
    • Provide safe and high quality milk,
    • Implement pathogen management to protect the public, and
    • Market safe and wholesome beef.

    "The FIVE-STAR Dairy Quality Assurance Program goes beyond the law! It is not a 'meet the minimum' program."

    FIVE-STAR also comes with a host of industry endorsements. Organizations such as the Food Marketing Institute, National Council of Chain Restaurants, Holstein Association, National Mastitis Council, Milking Machine Manufactures Council, Professional Dairy Heifer Growers Association, and American Association of Bovine Practitioners are just some of those who have given their support to its use.

    One of the great advantages to the Program is that the individual producer is allowed to determine the extent to which he/she would like to become involved. The first step in earning recognition in the Program is to complete a Producer Self-Audit using DQA Consultation Guides or other appropriate materials. When this has been completed, producers then can request a "Walk-Through" verification. This is the second step of the program and is done by a DQA Certified Professional Consultant. Upon the completion of a successful "Walk-Through", the farm will be awarded either THREE STARS for above average dairy farms or FOUR-STARS for dairy farms that are committed to meeting the DQA standards. However, only the best dairy farms earn the FIVE-STAR Rating. A producer can also request additional "Walk-Through" in order to obtain a higher rating.

    "When completed, each individual certification will serve as positive proof that the dairy industry is committed to providing consumers with products that are consistently safe, high quality, and produced in a responsible manner that is cost effective for producers."

    "Quality is not a destination-it is a continuous journey."
    (http://www.dqacenter.org/fivestar.htm)

  5. Health Benefits, Risks, and Regulations of Raw and Pasteurized Milks

    Dr. Valente B. Alvarez and Francisco Parada-Rabell, Department of Food Science and Technology, The Ohio State University 

    Milk from healthy cows contains relatively few bacteria (102-103 /mL), and the health risk from drinking raw milk would be minimal. However, milk is a natural food that has no protection from external contamination and can be contaminated easily when it is separated from the cow (Rosenthal, 1991). Raw milk normally has a varied microflora arising from several sources, such as the exterior surfaces of the animal and the surfaces of milk handling equipment such as milking machines, pipeline, and containers (Burton, 1986). Therefore, milk is susceptible to contamination by many pathogenic microorganisms, which result in infection and threat to consumer's health. Additionally, there is the potential that disease of cows such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, typhoid, and listeriosis can be transmitted (Spreer, 1998). The average standard plate counts (SPC) for can and bulk milk are ~700,000 bacteria/mL and ~100,000 bacteria/mL respectively, depending on temperature and handling conditions. The microbial standards for grade "A" raw milk are 100,000 bacteria/mL; for individual producer milk, 300,000 bacteria/mL; and as commingled milk, 750,000 cells/mL as somatic cell count (SCC) (PMO, 2001). These standards are the maximum allowed and most dairy producers provide milk with concentrations considerably below the maximum allowable limits. Another indicator of milk quality is the preliminary incubation count (PI) with a maximum allowable count of 100,000 bacteria/mL on load, storage tank, or individual producer samples, although results of 25,000 bacteria/mL or less are desirable (DPC, 1997). Milk can be classified as a potentially hazardous food if it is not properly processed, handled, or stored.

    Raw milk has been, and continues to be, a staple in the epidemiological literature; it has been linked to campylobacteriosis, salmonellosis, tuberculosis, brucellosis, hemorrhagic colitis, Brainerd diarrhea, Q fever, listeriosis, yersiniosis, and toxoplasmosis to name a few (Plotter, 2002). Outbreaks associated with the consumption of raw milk routinely occur every year. In 1995, the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration published guidelines that established a list of pathogen organisms transmitted through raw milk and milk products, such as Salmonella spp., Staphyloccocus aureus, Campylobacter jejuni, Yersina enterocolitica, Listeria monocytogenes, Escherichia coli (both enterotoxic and enteropathic), E. coli 0157:H7, Shigella spp., Streptococcus spp., and Hepatitis A virus. Among the 50 states and Puerto Rico, 24 states, including Ohio, do not permit the sale of raw milk directly to the consumer. Twenty-seven states permit the sale of raw milk for human consumption either at the farm where produced, in retail outlets, or through cow-share agreements. Twenty-nine states have recorded foodborne outbreaks traceable to raw milk consumption (NASDA, 2004).

    Pasteurization is a thermal process widely used in the food and dairy industry with the objective of minimizing health hazards from pathogenic microorganisms and to prolong product shelf life. There are several temperature-time combinations to pasteurize milk that range from 63oC (145oF)/30 minutes or 72oC (161oF)/15 seconds to 100oC (212oF)/0.01 seconds. The bacteria standards for Grade "A" pasteurized milk are 20,000 bacteria/mL and <10 coliform/mL (PMO, 2001). Heat may denature milk proteins. This effect is not considered a disadvantage from the nutritional point of view because it only involves changes in the specific arrangement of the casein protein. There is no breakdown of peptide linkages; therefore, casein can be considered a thermal-resistant compound. Although -lactoalbumin is relatively heat stable, other whey proteins can be denatured as a result of heating. These denatured proteins are more digestible than their naturally occurring form because the protein's structure is loosened and enzymes can act easier (Renner, 1986). Pasteurization does not impair the nutritional quality of milk fat, calcium, and phosphorus (Beddows and Blake, 1982). Pasteurization temperature does not affect fat-soluble vitamins (A, D and E), as well as the B-complex vitamins riboflavin, pantothenic acid, biotin, and niacin. The losses of vitamins, such as thiamin (<3%), pyridoxine (0-8%), cobalamin (<10%), and folic acid (<10%) are considered lower than those that take place during the normal handling and preparation of foodstuffs at home (Lund, 1982). Most of the vitamin C is lost during handling, pasteurization, packaging, and oxidation of milk; about 70% of the remaining vitamin C and 90% of riboflavin can be destroyed by sunlight exposure during storage (Renner, 1986).

    Scientific research has shown that the detrimental effects of pasteurization on the nutritional and physiological values of milk are negligible considering the safety benefits in regards to consumers' health.

    References

    Beddows, C.G., and C. Blake, J. 1982. The status of fluoride in bovine milk. II. The effect of various heat treatment processes. J. Food Technol.17:63-70
    Burton H. 1986. Microbiological aspects of pasteurized milk. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation No. 200 Chapter III pp. 9-14.
    DPC.1997. Guidelines for troubleshooting on -farm bacteria counts in raw milk. The Dairy Practices Council. Keyport, NY.
    Lund, D.B.J.1982. Growth of thermoresistant streptococci and deposition of milk constituents on plates of heat exchangers during long operating times. J. Food Protection. 45(9): 806-812, 815.
    NASDA. 2004. Raw milk survey. Dairy Division of the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture. September Annual Meeting. St. Paul, MN.
    Plotter, H.M. 2002. Raw milk and milk products for human consumption. Dairy Division, Indiana State Board of Animal Health, Indianapolis, IN.
    PMO. 2001 Revision. US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Services. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Washington, DC.
    Reener, E. 1986. Nutritional aspects -Part I- Biochemical composition of pasteurized milk. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation No. 200 Chapter VII pp. 27-29.
    Rosenthal, I. 1991. Milk and Dairy Products Properties and Processing. Ed. Balaban Publishers VCH, New York, NY pp. 70-71.
    Spreer, E. 1998. Milk and Dairy Product Technology. Ed. Marcel Dekker, Inc. New York, NY pp. 39-41.

  6. Forage Harvesting Information

    Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University

    The rainfall has been quite limited in many areas of Ohio this growing season, but reasonable rainfall has occurred in some localized areas. The average precipitation in Ohio since January 1 of this year is 79% of that for last year and 57% since June 1 compared to last year (Table 1). Forage yields for this cropping year are going to be somewhat dependant on the precipitation that is occurs during the next month and a half. Yet, harvest time for corn silage and other forages will be he here soon. For helpful information on harvesting forages, check out the articles on Ohio Dairy Industry Online Resources Center:

    Table 1. Precipitation (inches) in Ohio (National Weather Service, as of July 14, 2005; number in parentheses is the average for 2004).

    City
    Since January 1
    Since June 1
    Cincinnati
    22.8 (25.7)
    4.5 (5.6)
    Cleveland
    18.4 (21.7)
    1.7 (3.8)
    Columbus
    24.9 (26.4)
    3.4 (6.2)
    Dayton
    23.1 (26.4)
    3.7 (5.9)
    Mansfield
    21.3 (27.5)
    3.9 (8.5)
    Toledo
    14.2 (14.0)
    1.3 (4.2)
    Youngstown
    22.6 (23.8)
    3.8 (5.1)

     

  7. Results of 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl

    Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University 

    The 2005 Ohio 4-H Dairy Quiz Bowl contest was held on May 14 on the OSU campus in Columbus. There were seven junior teams that competed, with teams coming from Champaign, Mahoning, and Wayne Counties. Champaign County was the champion junior team, and one of the Wayne County teams was the reserve champion junior team (see pictures below).There were not enough seniors this year to conduct a senior division contest, thus Ohio will not have a team at the national contest held in November at the North American International Livestock Exposition held in Louisville, KY. However, Ohio will have a senior team consisting of youth from Wayne and Fairfield Counties at the Quiz Bowl Contest held in October at the World Dairy Expo in Madison, WI. The Quiz Bowl program is an excellent opportunity for youth to focus on learning about the broad scope of the dairy industry in a fun, competitive environment. The Ohio Quiz Bowl Contest is sponsored by American Dairy Association & Dairy Council Mideast, Farm Credit Services, Ohio Purebred Dairy Cattle Association, and Vreba-Hoff Dairy Development. You are encouraged to consider becoming a leader in your area to foster youth to participate in this excellent program.

    Champaign County (First Place) - Back row: Ann Randall, Rachel Townsley,
    and Tad Nelson. Front row: Garrett King, Hillary Jackson, and Ethan Starkey.

    Wayne County (Second Place) - Paige Moore, Jordan Moore, Diane Gress,
    and Eileen Gress.

  8. Manure Science Review

    Dr. Maurice Eastridge, Extension Dairy Specialist, The Ohio State University 

    The 2005 Manure Science Review will focus on "Liquid-Solid Separation" and will be held on August 31 at the Ohio Department of Agriculture, 8995 East Main Street, Reynoldsburg. Topics will include crop rotation; water management; economics; mechanical, gravity, and belt systems; phosphorus; and separating swine manure. The program will be held from 9:00 am - 3:00 pm and the pre-registration fee of $35 is due by August 24 ($60 for walk-ins). For more information, contact Mary Wicks at (330) 202-3533 or wicks.14@osu.edu.