Aug 21, 2014
Home| Tools| Events| Blogs| Discussions| Sign UpLogin


Dairy Talk

RSS By: Jim Dickrell, Dairy Today

Jim Dickrell is the editor of Dairy Today and is based in Monticello, Minn.

The Fiasco in Baltimore

May 07, 2011

Shame on the 26 nameless, spineless bureaucrats who voted last week against lowering U.S. somatic cell count limits to 400,000 – for acting more in fear for their jobs than in doing the right thing.

 
To say there was disappointment last week when delegates to the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS), held in Baltimore, failed to lower U.S. somatic cell count (SCC) limits to 400,000 is an understatement.
 
It was a stunning rebuke to many, myself included, who thought the 33rd NCIMS would finally bring U.S. dairy standards into the 21st century. After all, Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack supported it. USDA’s National Dairy Industry Advisory Committee supported it. The National Milk Producers Federation delegates voted last fall to support it, and submitted its own proposal to do so. The National Mastitis Council has been on record supporting the 400,000 limit since at least 1999, and again submitted a proposal to do so.
 
But NCIMS delegates, on an anonymous vote of 25 for, 26 against, knew better. Publicly, the opposing delegates hid behind the argument that the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance is a milk safety document, and not a milk marketing document nor a milk quality document. Privately, many of the opposing regulators feared political backlash from non-compliant producers and the politicians they then complained to.
 
The “PMO as milk safety document only” argument is vacuous on its face. NCIMS had its inception  following World War II, and it came about precisely because of marketing issues. At the time, individual states were using dairy regulations to impede interstate milk movements, using state regulations to prevent milk or dairy products produced in one state from being marketed in another. In other words, the very inception of NCIMS was to facilitate marketing and it did so through uniform.
 
What’s different today, of course, is that dairy markets are no longer simply interstate, but global. Standards set in Europe or New Zealand or China can impede markets here, just as standards used 65 years ago impeded trade between states. 
 
The milk safety argument also has holes as big as a screen door after the cat’s jumped through it. The Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) states: “[Milk house] screen doors shall open outward.” If there is scientific evidence that the directional swing of screen door improves milk safety, I’d like to see it. No, it’s just common sense: A screen door opening outward will result in fewer flies entering the milk room. It’s one of those “duh” moments, right?
 
The PMO also requires 10-foot candles of light (110 lux) in conventional stall barns. To meet the standard, a 100-watt bulb for every three stanchions is required. Again, is there research to prove that 10-foot candles provide enough light to ensure a black teat-end is properly cleaned? I doubt it. But it’s common sense.
 
The directional swing of screen doors and the amount of light required in stall barns mitigate the risk to milk safety from more flies and dirty teat ends. That’s exactly what lowering SCC limits do.
 
We know—based on actual research—that at 750,000 cells/ml,  approximately 25% of mammary quarters are sub-clinically infected with mastitis organisms. At 400,000 cells/ml, 12.5% of quarters in the herd are sub-clinical.
 
Subclinical mastitis infections can cascade into clinical cases of mastitis, increased treatment with antibiotics and increased risk of antibiotic residues. Lowering the SCC limit reduces that risk, I would argue, even more so than using 100-watt light bulbs or out-swinging screen doors.
 
Lowering the SCC limit to 400,000 is one of those “duh,” common sense, no-brainer issues. It’s unfortunate only 25 NCIMS delegates understood what the PMO is really all about, and had the courage to vote that way last week in Baltimore. Shame on the other 26 nameless, spineless bureaucrats--more in fear for their jobs than in doing the right thing.
Log In or Sign Up to comment

COMMENTS (7 Comments)

JerseyGirl - VT
Does anyone know what the percentage of milk sold above 400,000 SCC is in the U.S. anyway? If its a moot point why not just do it, then that is one more thing we can tout over competitors...not just global competitors but maybe win back some fluid milk drinkers here at home, too.

Glad they dropped the "small" farm issue. We milk 25 (today) and at 86,000 have absolutely no problem with the limit.​
1:13 PM May 17th
 
JRthe original
There is only one reason to support the 400,000 limit. Defacto supply management. This is a supply mgt. scheme I could support! SO what the boneheads on Boston did was give us one more reason to have FFTF! But I am sure glad that they didn't vote we had to have those stooopid cfl light bulbs in the barn!
6:30 PM May 10th
 

Hot Links & Cool Tools

    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  
    •  

facebook twitter youtube View More>>
 
 
 
 
The Home Page of Agriculture
© 2014 Farm Journal, Inc. All Rights Reserved|Web site design and development by AmericanEagle.com|Site Map|Privacy Policy|Terms & Conditions