The below information is gathered from Agri-View’s January 28, 2010 issue.
Late last week, the U.S. Department of Justice filed an antitrust violation suit against Dean Foods, alleging Dean Foods has been trying to stifle competition and force lower milk prices.
The focus of the lawsuit is Dean Foods’ purchase of the consumer products division of Foremost Foods. The suit aims to force the Dallas, Texas-based Dean Foods divest itself of that acquisition. It also aims to force Dean Foods to give at least 30 days notice before acquiring additional dairy plants.
Dean Foods says it will contest the lawsuit, stating the acquisition of the De Pere and Waukesha fluid milk processing plants from Foremost Farms is “fully compliant with antitrust laws.”
In addition, Dean Foods said the acquisition has “benefitted Wisconsin dairy farmers by providing a stable and growing outlet for their milk.”
Attorneys general in Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois have joined the lawsuit, stating they are working to ensure a competitive landscape for dairy farm families as well as consumers.
According to the lawsuit, Dean Foods has acquired more than 100 smaller companies in the past 14 years. The recent acquisition, the lawsuit says, leaves some school districts with just one milk supplier, and gives Dean Foods a 57 percent market share in parts of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois.
Click here to read the full article.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Proposed USDA Budget Hits Ag Hard
Dairy Herd Management reported President Barack Obama’s suggested federal budget proposal this week, stating agriculture, though carrying a trillion dollar price tag, took a huge hit. The total suggested budget is estimated to save $10 billion over 10 years.
In the proposed budget for 2011, Obama suggested a drastic reduction in income that qualifies for crop supports, implemented over a three-year period. The move would save $2.26 billion over 10 years.
An estimated $8 billion would be saved over 10 years by ending “huge windfall profits” of crop subsidies by reforming the administration of the federally subsidized crop insurance system. The Agriculture Department is negotiating a new agreement with insurers that would reduce overhead payments.
Crop subsidies would disappear for people earning more than $250,000 adjusted gross income from off-farm source or more than $500,000 on-farm AGI. Those caps are currently set at $500,000 off-farm AGI and $750,000 on-farm AGI.
The budget also included a request for a 25 percent cut to $1.2 billion, of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
“Despite the administration’s rhetorical desire to support conservation and agriculture, and address such issues as climate change and renewable energy, “reductions of over one-half a billion dollars in mandatory conservation program spending will make it much more difficult for farmers and ranchers to make changes necessary to protect our air, land and water,” said Jon Scholl, America Farmland Trust president.
To read the full article, click here.
In the proposed budget for 2011, Obama suggested a drastic reduction in income that qualifies for crop supports, implemented over a three-year period. The move would save $2.26 billion over 10 years.
An estimated $8 billion would be saved over 10 years by ending “huge windfall profits” of crop subsidies by reforming the administration of the federally subsidized crop insurance system. The Agriculture Department is negotiating a new agreement with insurers that would reduce overhead payments.
Crop subsidies would disappear for people earning more than $250,000 adjusted gross income from off-farm source or more than $500,000 on-farm AGI. Those caps are currently set at $500,000 off-farm AGI and $750,000 on-farm AGI.
The budget also included a request for a 25 percent cut to $1.2 billion, of the Environmental Quality Incentives Program.
“Despite the administration’s rhetorical desire to support conservation and agriculture, and address such issues as climate change and renewable energy, “reductions of over one-half a billion dollars in mandatory conservation program spending will make it much more difficult for farmers and ranchers to make changes necessary to protect our air, land and water,” said Jon Scholl, America Farmland Trust president.
To read the full article, click here.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Invest in your dairy through training programs
An article in the Jan. 20 issue of Progressive Dairyman written by Lisa Holden highlighted the importance of re-investing in your dairy by providing adequate training to employees.
Ask a group of 50 people to fold a sheet of paper and make an airplane and you will likely get a variety of shapes and styles – from this very simple task, Holden said. Show them a model, explain the folding steps and demonstrate – you’ll likely get a room full of the same paper airplanes. Training can make all the difference.
The American Society for Training and Development estimated that $135 billion was spent on training in 2007. From employee orientation, to re-training, to professional development, training hours can only serve to increase productivity and profitability on your dairy. So, how do you get started? Holden outlines some important first steps below.
1) Use different training methods and materials to accommodate the different learning styles and preferences that will be present among your employees. For instance, some employees will do well with hands-on training, others are visual or auditory listeners, preferring a video or CD, while still others need to read to better understand the process.
2) Develop training goals and use a structured process to help employees, and thus your dairy, achieve those goals. For instance, at the end of training, what should the employee know how to do? What knowledge should they have that they may not have had walking in? Holden recommends a “Plan, Show, Do and Review” process:
a. Plan – plan for the training by outlining materials and information necessary
b. Show – show workers each step necessary to completing the training
c. Do – have the workers complete the training steps
d. Review – review each step as the employee completes it in order to correct any missteps and to encourage the positive behaviors
3) Evaluate your training program – Ask your employees if the training helped. Evaluate the process to see if changes need to be made for the following year’s training program.
What training do you already have in place on your dairy?
Ask a group of 50 people to fold a sheet of paper and make an airplane and you will likely get a variety of shapes and styles – from this very simple task, Holden said. Show them a model, explain the folding steps and demonstrate – you’ll likely get a room full of the same paper airplanes. Training can make all the difference.
The American Society for Training and Development estimated that $135 billion was spent on training in 2007. From employee orientation, to re-training, to professional development, training hours can only serve to increase productivity and profitability on your dairy. So, how do you get started? Holden outlines some important first steps below.
1) Use different training methods and materials to accommodate the different learning styles and preferences that will be present among your employees. For instance, some employees will do well with hands-on training, others are visual or auditory listeners, preferring a video or CD, while still others need to read to better understand the process.
2) Develop training goals and use a structured process to help employees, and thus your dairy, achieve those goals. For instance, at the end of training, what should the employee know how to do? What knowledge should they have that they may not have had walking in? Holden recommends a “Plan, Show, Do and Review” process:
a. Plan – plan for the training by outlining materials and information necessary
b. Show – show workers each step necessary to completing the training
c. Do – have the workers complete the training steps
d. Review – review each step as the employee completes it in order to correct any missteps and to encourage the positive behaviors
3) Evaluate your training program – Ask your employees if the training helped. Evaluate the process to see if changes need to be made for the following year’s training program.
What training do you already have in place on your dairy?
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
ABC News’ Nightline Airs Segment Titled Disturbing Reality of Dairy Land
As many of you know, Nightline aired a segment last night titled Disturbing Reality of Dairy Land, while an article titled Got Milk? Got Ethics? Animal Rights v. U.S. Dairy Industry was placed on the website in advance of the airing.
Please take a few minutes to watch the video and read the article, as it’s important to know about any information being shared on our industry, especially when, as in this report, it’s lacking a lot of factual information. Consumers need to hear your story about how you care for your animals so they in turn, produce healthy, wholesome dairy products.
The dairy checkoff has provided some talking points to help you share the true story of the U.S. dairy industry, and producers’ commitment to animal care. Remember these points when having a conversation about your dairy both in person or online.
Also, please remember you have media support available. If media shows up at your door, contact your local dairy checkoff staff. Click here for tips on conducting media interviews.
Please take a few minutes to watch the video and read the article, as it’s important to know about any information being shared on our industry, especially when, as in this report, it’s lacking a lot of factual information. Consumers need to hear your story about how you care for your animals so they in turn, produce healthy, wholesome dairy products.
The dairy checkoff has provided some talking points to help you share the true story of the U.S. dairy industry, and producers’ commitment to animal care. Remember these points when having a conversation about your dairy both in person or online.
Also, please remember you have media support available. If media shows up at your door, contact your local dairy checkoff staff. Click here for tips on conducting media interviews.
General Animal Care
· Dairy cows must be healthy and well cared-for in order to produce pure, wholesome milk.
· Dairy cows receive regular medical care, including periodic check-ups, vaccinations and prompt treatment of illness.
· Dairy farmers depend on healthy cows for their livelihoods. They care for their herds by providing a nutritious diet, good medical care and healthy living conditions.
Tail Docking
· Some dairy farmers crop the tails of their animals to promote cleanliness, similar to what people do to some breeds of dogs.
· Switch trimming, which is the removal of the hair at the end of the tail, is the preferred alternative to docking for hygiene purposes.
· Because the procedure has limited impact on the animal’s comfort, and no negative impact on the safety or quality of milk, we regard this as one of the many individual management decisions dairy farmers make in their operations.
Dehorning
· Dehorning has been used for decades to help reduce the risk of injury to cows and animal handlers.
· Dairy farmers and veterinarians ensure the comfort and safety of an animal during the dehorning process through sedation or anesthesia.
What animal care stories can you share?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Lely installs Ohio's first robotic milking machine
AgWeek recently reported Lely’s installation of the first robotic milking machine in Ohio. The Gruenbaum family farm installed two Lely milking robots in mid-November, 2009, and after a few short weeks, they’re seeing the results they wanted. Below is an excerpt from the article.
“It’s just amazing what it’ll do,” says Kenneth Gruenbaum, 66, as he watched cow after cow meander into a stall at their farm and give milk through a machine. Kenneth grew up milking cows by hand. It’s a sea change for Gruenbaum, who grew up milking cows by hand on the 144-year-old farm he now shares with 40-year-old son David.
Besides eliminating the back-breaking work of attaching milking cups to cow teats by hand, the robotic machines make for a healthier herd, David Gruenbaum says. Because the cows are being milked more often than the usual twice a day, they have had no cases of serious mastitis ― inflammation of the udder. They used to average one a week, the younger Gruenbaum says.
What we thought most important about this story from Lely’s perspective was that initially, the Gruenbam’s had considered selling their herd. Then, David saw a self-milking machine on the internet, investigated it, and decided to move forward with purchasing a Lely machine. We’re thrilled that this option allowed the Gruenbaum’s to remain dairy farmers.
Click here to read the article in AgWeek.
Please let us know in the comment field below if you have any questions about robotic milking or our products.
“It’s just amazing what it’ll do,” says Kenneth Gruenbaum, 66, as he watched cow after cow meander into a stall at their farm and give milk through a machine. Kenneth grew up milking cows by hand. It’s a sea change for Gruenbaum, who grew up milking cows by hand on the 144-year-old farm he now shares with 40-year-old son David.
Besides eliminating the back-breaking work of attaching milking cups to cow teats by hand, the robotic machines make for a healthier herd, David Gruenbaum says. Because the cows are being milked more often than the usual twice a day, they have had no cases of serious mastitis ― inflammation of the udder. They used to average one a week, the younger Gruenbaum says.
What we thought most important about this story from Lely’s perspective was that initially, the Gruenbam’s had considered selling their herd. Then, David saw a self-milking machine on the internet, investigated it, and decided to move forward with purchasing a Lely machine. We’re thrilled that this option allowed the Gruenbaum’s to remain dairy farmers.
Click here to read the article in AgWeek.
Please let us know in the comment field below if you have any questions about robotic milking or our products.
Friday, January 22, 2010
The debate about chocolate milk in schools heats up
With help from TIME Magazine’s recent article, the debate surrounding chocolate milk in schools is heating up. I appreciate how important it is to take steps to help our children be healthy, to encourage them to maintain a balanced weight and to participate in physical activity every day. What I’m failing to see is how removing a nutritious drink from schools is going to help us reach that goal.
I know, I know. Chocolate milk has 60 more calories per serving than white milk. It’s the little changes that count, etc. But chocolate milk in schools, to me, is a positive little change, something that encourages students to pick an option other than soda with its lack of nutritional benefit and added sugar. Click here to view the National Dairy Council’s video on chocolate milk in schools.
We can remove chocolate milk from schools because it will encourage students to choose white milk. But we could remove chocolate milk from schools and have kids drinking no milk, missing out on pediatricians' recommended calcium requirements. Many kids choose chocolate milk because of the flavor, and without it as an option, they could very well turn to less healthy choices.
Before we remove every item with sugar from the shelves in our children’s schools, I think we should pick a longer-term solution. Let’s continue to educate our children both in school and at home about what food choices are healthy; that when they choose a product with more sugar or more fat, that’s okay, but it needs to be balanced with more physical activity.
All I’m asking is that we take a minute to think about what the results of this debate could do in the long term if we decide to remove chocolate milk from schools. And while we’re taking a moment to think about milk in schools, let’s think of all the things America’s dairy producers do beyond creating wholesome, nutritious products to encourage healthier children. The National Dairy Council and the NFL’s partnership in Fuel Up to Play 60 for instance, which encourages kids to participate in 60 minutes of physical activity a day. Click here to learn the multiple ways the National Dairy Council is helping encourage nutrition among today’s youth.
I know, I know. Chocolate milk has 60 more calories per serving than white milk. It’s the little changes that count, etc. But chocolate milk in schools, to me, is a positive little change, something that encourages students to pick an option other than soda with its lack of nutritional benefit and added sugar. Click here to view the National Dairy Council’s video on chocolate milk in schools.
We can remove chocolate milk from schools because it will encourage students to choose white milk. But we could remove chocolate milk from schools and have kids drinking no milk, missing out on pediatricians' recommended calcium requirements. Many kids choose chocolate milk because of the flavor, and without it as an option, they could very well turn to less healthy choices.
Before we remove every item with sugar from the shelves in our children’s schools, I think we should pick a longer-term solution. Let’s continue to educate our children both in school and at home about what food choices are healthy; that when they choose a product with more sugar or more fat, that’s okay, but it needs to be balanced with more physical activity.
All I’m asking is that we take a minute to think about what the results of this debate could do in the long term if we decide to remove chocolate milk from schools. And while we’re taking a moment to think about milk in schools, let’s think of all the things America’s dairy producers do beyond creating wholesome, nutritious products to encourage healthier children. The National Dairy Council and the NFL’s partnership in Fuel Up to Play 60 for instance, which encourages kids to participate in 60 minutes of physical activity a day. Click here to learn the multiple ways the National Dairy Council is helping encourage nutrition among today’s youth.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Reflecting on Issue 2
Many of us in the dairy industry are welcoming 2010 with open arms, but we thought we’d take a moment to reflect on something that took place in 2009 that could serve as a source of inspiration for challenges that may arise in 2010.
Ohio dairy producers faced a challenge beyond horrible milk prices in 2009. HSUS turned its head to Ohio agriculture, looking to pass legislation that had already passed in several states, including California – legislation which is expected to drive some in the agriculture industry in those areas out of business.
This story could have ended in many different ways, but producers in Ohio decided they would make their own ending. They joined together, voicing concern to legislators. Legislators then created Issue 2, which stated “we support properly researched, veterinary approved and industry-tested poultry and livestock practices that provide consumers with a wholesome food supply” and “we oppose legislation that, unless clear abuse is evident, restricts private ownership or use of animals.”
And then producers really went to work, taking speaking with a unified voice to an entirely new level. They gathered support from consumers across the state. They knocked on doors. Hammered in yard signs. They gave speeches. They tweeted. They blogged. They picked up the phone. And in December, hundreds of producers from all 88 counties voted on Issue 2, and helped approve the measure by nearly a 2 to 1 vote.
Here’s the thing we’re most proud of ― these farmers didn’t just help Ohio. They boosted morale in a time when agriculture needed it most, and they reminded us that if we join together and we speak up for ourselves, we can face any challenge that comes our way.
Read the article posted by the Ohio Farm Bureau. A big thanks to Ryan Curtis for featuring the article on Proud to Dairy.
Ohio dairy producers faced a challenge beyond horrible milk prices in 2009. HSUS turned its head to Ohio agriculture, looking to pass legislation that had already passed in several states, including California – legislation which is expected to drive some in the agriculture industry in those areas out of business.
This story could have ended in many different ways, but producers in Ohio decided they would make their own ending. They joined together, voicing concern to legislators. Legislators then created Issue 2, which stated “we support properly researched, veterinary approved and industry-tested poultry and livestock practices that provide consumers with a wholesome food supply” and “we oppose legislation that, unless clear abuse is evident, restricts private ownership or use of animals.”
And then producers really went to work, taking speaking with a unified voice to an entirely new level. They gathered support from consumers across the state. They knocked on doors. Hammered in yard signs. They gave speeches. They tweeted. They blogged. They picked up the phone. And in December, hundreds of producers from all 88 counties voted on Issue 2, and helped approve the measure by nearly a 2 to 1 vote.
Here’s the thing we’re most proud of ― these farmers didn’t just help Ohio. They boosted morale in a time when agriculture needed it most, and they reminded us that if we join together and we speak up for ourselves, we can face any challenge that comes our way.
Read the article posted by the Ohio Farm Bureau. A big thanks to Ryan Curtis for featuring the article on Proud to Dairy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
