Once upon a time there was a Grasshopper. He loved to dance and sing. All day in the summer he danced and sang to his heart’s content. He watched the ants carrying bits of grain and corn into their tunnels. He laughed at their labors.

A big debate rages about the five-year $286 billion Farm Bill being considered by Congress. Its supporters on congressional ag committees are mostly from farm states, which is to be expected. At the same time: • The percent of unionized laborers in the workforce continues its decade-long plunge. • America continues to lose manufacturing industries: steel, automobile, shoes, oil, mining, lumber, tools, electronics and publishing. • The economic well-being for workers stagnates despite increasing minimum wage and a booming Wall Street. • Illegal Mexican immigrants contribute mightily to the U.S. economy, yet they still have enough to send money home to their family in Mexico. • China, India, Philippines and east Asian and South American manufacturing and natural resource economies prosper. All of these tectonic forces are related. The Farm Bill is all about subsidizing farmers to ensure an abundant, cheap food supply for consumers. Over the years, we producers in agriculture have considered banding together, negotiating with a common voice. Dairymen and grain growers, among others, have made visible protests, all to naught. What if 50 years ago farmers had been able to organize and barter for higher prices for their lamb, corn, beef, soybeans, wheat, poultry, avocados, oranges, pork and milk? It would have been the equivalent of “unionizing” farmers. The resulting higher food prices would have required more protectionist legislation for Australian lamb, Canadian wheat, Dominican Republican sugar, Chinese cotton, Argentinean beef, Mexican vegetables and dairy products and Brazilian soybeans. But, in response to consumer demand for cheaper food, I think politicians would have been forced to remove restrictions on imports, just as they have done for industries like energy, steel, clothing, timber, fishing, mining and automobiles. This would have resulted in an increasing dependence on politically shaky Third World countries for our daily bread. Today we would be at their mercy. To put it in perspective, consider our present perilous dependence on the Middle East for oil. According to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), 25,000 people die each day from hunger. So, to those senators and representatives from urban districts who think subsidized farming is extravagant, I say, “It is. . . think of it as famine insurance.” PD

Well, it’s official; I’m an adult. I know this, not because I’m married and have two kids or because my hair is thinning.

Dairy producers from Idaho are invited to attend the 2007 United Dairymen of Idaho Annual Meeting to be held at the Boise Centre on the Grove October 24-26.

Cows cool themselves primarily by evaporating water from their body surface and their respiratory tract during hot weather. The body evaporation process in cattle is in a vapor form emanating from pore-like structures. The cow can sweat only to a limited degree, primarily in the brisket area. As heat stress increases, cows increase their respiration rate to the point of panting to help increase evaporation from the respiratory tract. As the air temperature surrounding the cow approaches body temperature, sensible heat (body warms the air) loss becomes minimal.

Improving milk quality often consists of managing a complex system that includes people, cows, machines and the environment. Surveys of veterinarians and other professionals working with dairy producers indicate that barriers to improvement of milk quality are primarily related to motivation and implementation rather than lack of technical knowledge or skills. In a survey of 165 Wisconsin dairy professionals, the existence of too many other problems (55 percent) and few incentives for production of high-quality milk (48 percent) were the predominant reasons cited for failure of farms to improve milk quality. Only a few responders indicated they felt the need for additional on-farm training programs (24 percent). During the summer of 2006, farmers that had completed the Milk Money program were asked an open-ended question that stated, “What is your greatest challenge in maintaining production of high-quality milk?” The most common responses were related to employee management (mentioned by 26 percent of responders), followed by management of the environment of the cow (mentioned by 14 percent of responders) and maintaining consistency in the milking process (mentioned by 11 percent of responders). It is no mystery why employee management is mentioned so often, because 51 percent of farms responding to a post-Milk Money survey indicated that they employed Spanish-speaking employees, yet only 15 percent indicated they had any ability to speak or understand Spanish and 40 percent had never employed an interpreter. These communication challenges are a fundamental reason why producing high-quality milk continues to be a challenge for many farmers. The ability to implement recommended management practices is an essential aspect of quality milk production. Implementation is dependent on the ability to clearly communicate the value of these practices and to motivate farm personnel to consistently apply them. PD References omitted but are available upon request at editor@progressivedairy.com —From University of Wisconsin Milk Quality Resource website

“Gate to plate” and “farm to fork” are two common phrases that illustrate how during recent years the demands by consumers for greater food safety and animal welfare standards have brought increased attention on all stages of the animal-based food production continuum. The vital link within the food system of feed manufacturers producing safe and wholesome animal feed has not been exempt from this attention.

The proportion of lactating dairy cows on commercial farms that become pregnant at the first insemination has decreased over the last 25 to 30 years.

Crossbreeding can improve the profit for most dairy producers, if economically similar breeds are used. However, it is important to stress that crossbreeding cannot replace pure breeding. Pure breeding is a prerequisite for crossbreeding. The heterosis obtained from crossbreeding is an added bonus on top of the genetic gain created by pure breeding. The size of the bonus depends on the number and types of breeds involved in the breeding program. Most studies report at least a 10 percent increase in total economic gain per cow among F1 crosses between “unrelated” breeds.