CDI Letter February 2007
CWT announces herd buyout
On February 6th, Cooperatives Working Together (CWT) • Producers who submit bids must be members of CWT
announced that it is accepting bids for its fourth herd retire- as of January 1, 2007
ment program from now until March 3, 2007. Any producer • Producers who were selected in a previous CWT herd
who wishes to be considered for the buyout must submit a retirement programs are not eligible.
bid based on the amount of milk marketed from January 1, • Producers who have a ﬁnancial interest in more than
2006 to December 31, 2006. A calculator that can be used to one dairy must include all cows from all operations in
assist in the development of a bid is available at http://www. their bids.
cwt.coop, clicking on the “Round 4 Bidding Open” link and • CWT will not be announcing target numbers for
then opening the “Bid calculator” link. An application for the herd retirements, cow removals or net milk marketing
herd retirement program can be accessed by opening the removals, unlike the three prior herd retirements.
"Bid application" link on the same page. If a producer’s bid is The three herd retirement programs administered by CWT
accepted, the producer receives the specified bid in addition have accounted for the removal of 147,000 cows and the
to the revenue generated by selling the animals for slaughter. equivalent of 2.8 billion pounds of milk. Please contact your
There are some additional considerations for the buyout CDI field representative for more information on the CWT
program. herd retirement program.
Understanding CDI, NMPF and CWT
Some uncertainty and confusion has surfaced as a result discoveries, CDI reviewed its commitment and paid $0.10 per
of recent action by the CDI Board of Directors regard- cwt. for July, August, and September and zero for October,
ing the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and November and December. The Board expressed concern that
Cooperatives Working Together (CWT). In short, CDI has all participants in CWT were not being treated equally.
been and continues to be a participant in the CWT program The Board approved a motion at the December 19, 2006
and is currently paying the $0.10 per hundredweight assess- meeting to reinstate the $0.10 per hundredweight assessment
ment. However, participation in CWT does not require mem- for CWT as of January 1, 2007 as long as 68 percent of the
bership in NMPF, and as of January 1, 2007 CDI is no longer U.S. milk supply was participating in the program.
a member of NMPF. At the same meeting, the Board approved a motion to dis-
Last year, CDI had committed to participating in CWT at continue its membership with NMPF as of January 1, 2007.
the $0.10 per hundredweight assessment rate for the period The principal reason for withdrawing from NMPF is that CDI
July 2006 through December 2006 with the stipulation that has its own lobbyist group, Arent Fox, in Washington, D.C.
70 percent of the U.S. milk supply must participate at the same Because of the diversity in their membership, NMPF would
level for that time period. However, CDI later discovered that be unable to focus exclusively on the issues that CDI consid-
the 70 percent threshold had not been achieved and that there ers essential. This may be particularly important as the 2007
were several participants who were continuing to be assessed Farm Bill is developed over the next several months.
less than the $0.10 per hundredweight level. In light of these
Singles Feb 2007.indd 1 2/16/07 4:40:33 PM
Page 2 • February 2007 CDI Letter CDI Lett
Dairy CARES Report MO
Management beats monitoring for protecting water quality Febr
As we’ve reported for the last several months, CARES coalition ing those “tentative” rules and issuing a more “final” draft, probably Class 1
members remain closely engaged as water quality regulators continue near the end of March or early April. Following a mandatory period Class 2
to develop new rules for Central Valley dairies. The Regional Board that is reserved for the submission of additional public comments, Class 3
has now closed the public comment period for the version of the the Regional Board plans to adopt the final rules this coming May. Class 4a*
rules that were released in November 2006. The next steps are revis- Working with a team of experts that includes engineers, profes- Class 4b
sional agronomists and former Regional Board staff, CARES coalition
News Briefs members have identified and proposed dozens of technical sugges-
tions that allow the Regional Board to continue to meet its goals, but Quota
also should reduce costs for dairy operators. However, these suggest- Overbas
▲ At the World Ag Expo in Tulare, Western DairyBusiness
magazine honored Outstanding Dairy Producer Doug ed changes to improve the cost-efficiency of the rules only go so far.
Maddox of RuAnn Dairy and Maddox Dairy. Doug CARES coalition members support good dairy design and best
has been an ardent supporter of the dairy industry and management practices to protect water quality. Unfortunately, the Quota
has served in many state and national organizations, most costly portions of the proposed rules actually do very lit- Overbas
including the Holstein Association USA, the California tle to improve water quality. That’s because a large portion of Comm
Holstein Association, California DHIA and national these costs are associated with sampling, analysis and reporting
DHIA. Congratulations to Doug and the Maddox family on the quality of groundwater, irrigation water (both from wells 1/26
for a well-deserved honor! and tailwater) and lagoon water. While some of these costs are 2/2
▲ On February 1, USDA Secretary Mike Johanns was in 2/9
necessary for proper nutrient management, many of the pro-
Modesto to explain USDA’s proposal for the 2007 Farm 2/16
Bill. While it is Congress that writes the farm bill and
posed sampling requirements are excessive, costly and misdirected.
Monitoring, especially groundwater monitoring, will provide 2/23
not USDA, the proposal was consistent with the general
message and direction laid out by President Bush. The little useful information in most cases. For the most part it tells
emphasis in USDA’s proposal for the 2007 Farm Bill us what we already know – that good nutrient management
steers away from the traditional commodity crop pro- is necessary to prevent over-application of nutrients. CARES 1/26
grams (such as corn, sorghum, oats, wheat, sugar and coalition members believe strongly that a dollar spent on bet- 2/2
dairy) and places much more emphasis on conservation, 2/9
ter management does more for water quality than creating a
renewable energy, research, trade, nutrition, and rural 2/16
costly monitoring “research project” on every dairy in the valley. 2/23
development. CARES coalition members have supported environmental
▲ Another BSE-positive animal (this time a mature bull) has
monitoring in cases where it is needed, and will produce use-
been confirmed in Western Canada, bringing the total to
nine animals since May 2003. ful results. However, it is important that the Regional Board pri- 1/26
▲ Dry whey prices have skyrocketed since July 2006, oritize when asking dairy operators to invest in improving opera- 2/2
which seems to be explained, in part, by exports of dry tions. Given the high cost of environmental monitoring, especially 2/9
whey. In particular, exports of dry whey to Pacific Rim groundwater monitoring (as much as $30,000 in installation costs 2/16
countries have gone off the charts as the economies and up to $10,000 per year in monitoring and reporting costs), 2/23
in those countries continue to boom. These economic the Board should weigh carefully whether blanket monitoring at Nonf
prosperities have allowed for tremendous expansions in all dairies is really money well spent. CARES believes that the
each country’s pork industry, and dry whey has been a 1/26
dairy operator’s limited resources are best invested where they 2/2
favored source of feed because of its high carbohydrate will produce results. Management, not monitoring, is the best
content. Also, the generally weak dollar has not hurt 2/9
way to get water quality “bang” for the dairy operator’s “buck”. 2/16
export demand for dry whey and other dairy exports.
Singles Feb 2007.indd 2 2/16/07 4:40:35 PM
I Letter CDI Letter Page 3 • February 2007
MONEY TALK Quality
What the top milk
ty February (So. California)
quality farms do
Each year, dairy farms from across the country are entered into the National Dairy
oming May. Class 4a* 12.22* 10.58 Quality Awards program. Several CDI herds have been entered over the years. This
ers, profes- Class 4b* 13.16* 11.14
By Larry Collar
program has successfully identified and publicized those farms with a record of con-
ES coalition January sistently excellent milk quality.
cal sugges- 2007* vs. 2006 Annually, the winners are interviewed and their responses are printed in the
s goals, but Quota 13.71 13.91 Hoard’s Dairyman magazine. If you would like to know what the top 33 farms in
se suggest- Overbase 12.01 12.21 this year’s contest do to achieve consistently high quality milk, a summary of their
y go so far. February programs is listed below.
n and best 2007* vs. 2006
unately, the Quota 14.40 12.75 Practices Number of Herds out of 33
o very lit- Overbase 12.70 11.05 Have freestalls 23
portion of Commodity Prices • Butter Use sand bedding in freestalls 14
d reporting 2007 vs. 2006 Have drylot corrals 1
from wells 1/26 1.2475 1.3115 Have written milking procedures for workers 12
e costs are 2/2 1.2380 1.2510 Milkers wear plastic gloves 26
f the pro- 2/9 1.2265 1.2145 Routinely forestrip/prime before attaching machine 30
misdirected. 2/16 1.2135 1.1770
Use paper towels 17
ill provide 2/23 1.2100* 1.1575
Use cloth towels 16
part it tells Cheese (Block) Predip 30
anagement 2007 vs. 2006 Postdip 33
s. CARES 1/26 1.3040 1.2865
nt on bet- 2/2 1.3330 1.2395
Dry treat 33
2/9 1.3495 1.2385
creating a Vaccinate 10
2/16 1.3285 1.2025
the valley. 2/23 1.3175* 1.1506 Use barrier dip 9
ironmental Cheese (Barrel) Use internal teat sealant 15
oduce use- 2007 vs. 2006 Use herd mastitis vaccination 14
Board pri- 1/26 1.3245 1.2515 Culture milk samples 22
ing opera- 2/2 1.3520 1.2100 Troublesome mastitis pathogens are
especially 2/9 1.3730 1.2100 Environmentals 12
ation costs 2/16 1.2965 1.1800 Strep species 7
ting costs), 2/23 1.2875* 1.1300
E coli 7
nitoring at Nonfat Dry Milk • CWAP Staph aureus 2
es that the 2007 vs. 2006
1/26 1.0525 0.8883
where they 2/2 1.0433 0.9123 Milkers wearing plastic gloves, routinely priming before attaching milk machines,
s the best 2/9 1.0581 0.8339 predipping, postdipping and dry treating all cows at dry-off are all good management
r’s “buck”. 2/16 1.0600* 0.8673 practices that every dairy should adopt.
2/23 1.0625* 0.8363
Singles Feb 2007.indd 3 2/16/07 4:40:36 PM
Page 4 • February 2007 CDI Letter
Congratulations! CDI Board approves policies
CDI TOP QUALITY
PRODUCER FOR JANUARY
JOHN BOS on rBST and cloned cows
SPC-813; LPC-8; COLI-8; After considerable discussion and treated with rBST. The handling charge
SOMATIC CELL COUNT - 50,000 debate, the Board of Directors passed will depend on several factors, includ-
motions on rBST and milk from cloned ing the location of dairies, the location
TOP FIVE PRODUCERS cows at the Board meeting held on of processing plants and volume of
BY DISTRICT January 23, 2007. These actions will milk to be transported. At this time, an
allow the cooperative to continue to estimate for the handling charge has
service the marketplace efficiently and not been developed.
Koot Dairy #2, Frank Konyn Dairy, profitably.
Raymond Bachoc Dairy #3, JDS Dairy, The Board also approved a motion
George Borba & Son Dairy As of August 1, 2007 CDI will not to not accept milk from cloned cows.
District 2 accept milk from cows treated with This action is effective immediately.
Lou-Mar Dairy, Twin River Ranch, rBST. Furthermore, all cooperative Again, this board action took into
Louie de Groot Dairy, Jake Koetsier Dairy, members will be asked to sign docu- account the many requests from CDI’s
Van Ryn Dairy ments indicating that they are not using customers who are trying to provide
District 3 rBST on their cows. Those members milk and dairy products consistent with
A.P. Mattos & Sons, Inc., Richard Simas Jr., A.P. who do not wish to sign the agree- the prevailing consumer opinion.
Mattos & Sons, Inc. #2, Shein Ranch, De Groot ment may continue to use rBST under If you have any questions about
Dairy the condition that they will pay CDI the two actions taken by the Board,
District 4 a handling charge to move milk into please contact Richard Cotta at (209)
Ed & Lorie Machado #2, 6 D/Dores Dairy, a market that accepts milk from cows 826-4901.
Nelson Dairy, Antone L. Gomes & Sons,
Joe & Renee Barroso
Visalia, CA 93291
2000 N. Plaza Drive
PERMIT NO. 33
MAILED FROM ZIP CODE 93635
Singles Feb 2007.indd 4 2/16/07 4:40:38 PM