Milk is Milk Blog by Alex Avery

Happy or contented cows produce more milk, which is a good thing. Happy cows managed to produce more milk using fewer inputs and less impact on local environments is a great thing. But what really makes a happy cow and what are the most environmentally responsible ways to produce milk? A new study and existing animal science pokes holes in marketing claims and related public beliefs for some in the dairy industry.

Some unscrupulous marketing interests have incorrectly linked cow bliss and environmental stewardship to open pasture grazing; and now these claims may come back to haunt them. According to the New York Times, a study reported in the journal Biology Letters finds that animal grazing might harm local bird populations by reducing the availability of food for the native avian population resulting in fewer and smaller eggs. Grazing animals, such as dairy cows, thus can have a negative impact on the local environment.

These unprincipled dairy marketing interests shilling their milk based on pasture-related claims ignore the need for any science or evidence to make a range of “happy cow” and environmental claims linked to such production practices. Thus the public has come to mistakenly believe in a bucolic image of “happy cows” engaged in solitary grazing in grassy green pastures; conversely suggesting other cows to be unhappy and their producers to be environmental villains. Research suggests that these types of claims further lead consumers to believe that some dairy products are of better quality, more nutritious or safer than others which don’t make these claims and pay more for products with the claims or consume less milk.

I actually heard of one organic producer in New England proudly promoting that his cows were soooo happy, that after milking they ran into his fields to graze. Well, animal science tells us that claim is simply not likely to be true - ask any bovine animal scientist, who will tell you the only way to get a cow to run out into a pasture is if the cow is starving, i.e., unhappy. Cows, being herd animals, are actually most contented packed together chewing their cuds or eating grains in the safe confines and shade of a feeding shed or barn. Apparently cows’ instincts keep them on alert for predators while out in the open fields causing understandable stress.

Most traditional (non-organic) dairy producers use a balanced combination of pasturing, feed lots and barns to manage their herds. Producers will spend a great deal of time adjusting these combinations along with other practices to get the most milk production from their animals. High milk production is just about the best indicator of a happy and healthy cow: Unhappy and unhealthy cows produce less milk. Organic production methods yield an average 20 to 30 percent less milk per cow than conventionally raised cows. Virtually all published academic studies on organic dairy yields characterized them as “significantly lower” than conventional production. And who has the happy cows again?

Similarly, some of these same niche dairy marketing interests suggest grass grazing cows are more environmentally friendly than grain and feed-lot fed animals (which they often characterize as “factory farms”) and thus more deserving of certain marketing-claims, such as carrying an organic seal. For example, the $160 million a year Organic Valley suggests their cows are happier and their practices are “more organic” than their biggest competitor the $250 million a year Horizon Organic because their cows graze in open pastures eating grass while Horizon’s cows are principally fed grains in dry feed lots. Apparently to prove their point Organic Valley is funding an activist group called the Cornucopia Institute which is lobbying federal regulators and suing to force Horizon Organic and those who do not have grass pasture grazing from using the organic seal. Oh and in case you missed our previous blog on this issue, Cornucopia is also conveniently run by a former Organic Valley spokesman and public relations consultant. So we have one big business suing another bigger business just to see who can be allowed to make the more misleading claims to consumers - nice.

With the constant barrage of false and misleading marketing claims, advertisements and product labels making these claims, the majority of the public will probably never sway from their mistaken belief that cows in an open green pasture are somehow happier than those huddled close together under a barn roof or that organic production philosophies are better for the environment and our health. Correspondingly, activist groups who are well-funded by these marketing interests, join in the fray with even bolder health, nutrition and safety claims and environmental benefits which are in turn reported as unchallenged facts by the mainstream media without reference to this and the other scientific studies which debunk the health claims and raise real questions about environmental benefits. And as for the old fall-back claim that it helps small farmers - remember that the vast majority of organic milk sold in America today is grown on mega-farms by multi-billion dollar corporations like Horizon. A 2002 University of California study showed that average net farm income for organic producers was less than that of conventional dairy farmers. And, the renowned Scottish Crop Research Institute has found that organic production methods may in fact be worse for the environment, with a mixed record at best. Things just aren’t always as they appear.

Next time you see a higher-priced dairy product promoting green pastures and happy cows in your local grocery store, think twice. Save your money, ignore the puffed-up marketing claims and don’t be afraid of safe, affordable dairy products - oh, and tell your local grocer to send the black marketing fear profiteers a message by removing misleading products from the dairy case. False and misleading marketing and puffed up claims are for the birds, or in this case - not. Consumers, and the media which serve them, need to know one thing - milk is milk.

Fly-reducing pesticides used by most dairies are good for consumers, cows and the environment

Milk is Milk blog by Alex Avery

Summer is in full swing and that means the return of fly season for backyard gardeners and many dairy producers. Actually, flies and other naturally occurring pests are found in and around farm animals, including dairy cows, throughout the year; however, when spring and summer warm weather hits fly control issues tend to go up for dairy farmers. The June edition of Hoard’s Dairyman (a great publication for anyone interested in dairy topics, but unfortunately not archived online) simply notes, “Every farm that has production animals has a fly problem.” That means organic dairy farmers and conventional alike.

Flies can be a real problem for dairy farmers, their neighbors and consumers of milk. Why? Flies have the ability to transmit infection and diseases, including anthrax, Staph, Strep and brucellosis. Their bites cause blood loss, tissue damage and allergic reactions. All this and more can mean less healthy cows which produce less milk and present disease and other risks to the public and our environment.

Just from the annoying distraction caused by flies, dairy cows feeding efficiency can drop by as much as 15% according to one study by the University of Nebraska-Lincoln. Other reports show that some groups of bloodsucking flies (e.g. horn and stable flies) will commonly draw a half-pound of blood or more from an animal in one day. Yuck! Sick and low-producing cows also means less milk produced, while consuming more limited natural resources - which is bad for consumers and the environment.

So most producers use a range of control strategies (such as sanitation, manure management, integrated pest management and moisture controls) in their facilities to limit this problem, then use various government-approved chemical controls - which are researched for safe use and strictly regulated around any lactating (milking) cows to protect the quality of the milk. Just a reminder - despite false and misleading labels and marketing suggesting otherwise - no dairy producer adds pesticides of any kind to their milk.

So how do these organic dairies, which promote “pesticide-free” claims, deal with fly problems? Well, just like conventional producers they use sanitation and related practices to limit this process. Organic producers (like many conventional producers) may also introduce “biological controls” such as fly larvae eating mites, wasps and beetles. Mind you, introducing other pests (sometimes non-native to a locality) can present other health and environmental problems. However, according to organic experts, such as the University of Maine Extension service biological controls are “only one piece of a complete fly management program and, like many other components, will not eradicate flies entirely.”

So, in come the “organic” pesticides. Yes, despite all the marketing hoopla and mistaken consumer beliefs, chemical pesticides are used by organic farmers. You see, for fly control and dozens of other reasons organic producers do use pesticides. What is the distinction between these “organic” pesticides and the pesticides used by conventional farmers? The conventional pesticides are required to go through years of safety testing and are products regulated by independent government scientists. Organic pesticides are not put through the same rigorous safety testing and are self-regulated by certifying agents paid by the multi-billion dollar organic industry.

Let’s look at the chemical pesticide used by organic dairy farmers for fly control. Organic producers spray chemical pyrethrins - which are “natural” chemical nerve agents that poison and kill insects like flies - multiple times in their barns, on and around their cows. These pyrethrins are also highly toxic to other beneficial pests, such as honeybees, and pyrethrins kill fish and tadpoles. The Pesticide Action Network (PANNA) claims pyrethrins are a possible carcinogen - although I believe their claims should be considered suspect. However, the organic industry frequently supports and points to PANNA to validate their claims that conventional pesticides are linked to cancer - so if it’s good enough for them to use to attack conventional producers… what is it about people who live in glass houses?

Other chemical pesticides used - often in combination with pyrethrins - by organic farmers include ryania and rotenone. Ryania, highly toxic to fish, can also kill birds and other wildlife, but is only considered moderately toxic to humans - but don’t feed it to your dog! Rotenone on the other hand is an organic pesticide also used as rat poison, is highly toxic to fish, animals and people, and has been linked to Parkinson’s disease in humans. This all makes for a nice toxic chemical cocktail used by people like Horizon Organic and Organic Valley who irresponsibly attack the safe use of conventional pesticides by the non-organic dairies with whom they compete.

So by the organic industry’s own admission and the standards they use for making human health and environmental safety marketing claims they are using cancer and wild-life killing pesticides, some linked to Parkinson’s disease and cancer in humans, to produce organic milk. At the same time they market their products as “pesticide-free.”

It is important to remember, according to Clemson University, that “just because a product is thought to be organic, or natural, does not mean that it is not toxic. Some organic pesticides are as toxic, or even more toxic, than many synthetic chemical pesticides.” But let’s not stoop to their level. Conventional dairy producers use pyrethrins too, or their government-approved, safety-tested, synthetically-derived pyrethroid version, for insect control. The alternative would be sick cows, less milk, risks to people and related environment problems.

Next time you see a “pesticide-free” claim on milk in your local market remind your grocer that he’s complicit in selling products with false and misleading labels to his customers - which is a crime. The only measurable difference between organic and non-organic is the price. Chemically and nutritionally it is the same - milk is milk.