California cow kill aims to reduce milk

Press, 18 April 1986, Page 20

California cow kill aims to reduce milk

After years of unsuccessful tussling with the problem of too much milk, the United States is undertaking a new scheme — killing off entire herds of cows, heifers and calves.

In California, nearly 200,000 dairy cattle will be sent to slaughter. The farmer will be paid the going price for the meat, which, to protect the domestic market, is to be exported or made available to charity. The Government will also reimburse the dairy operator for the equivalent of one year’s milk production, and the dairy must go out of business for five years.

The herds were chosen for destruction from applications made by fanners offering to settle the year’s computed production expectation for less than $U522.50 per 100 pounds (about 45 litres) of milk. Across America, the

Department of Agriculture accepted about 14,000 proposals, which will send more than 1.5 million animals to the block in stages planned to avoid overloading the beef market

The plan will cost $l.B billion, part of it paid by an assessment on continuing dairies and part by the Government Sponsors hope the legislation will reduce milk surpluses by more than 5.6 million kilos and save the government up to $1 billion annually in support and storage costs. The department estimates that the herd reduction will drop U.S. milk production by almost 9 per cent but there are pessimists who express doubt. The slaughter scheme appears to be more attractive to owners of small herds, which tend to be less efficient and profitable than large dairies. The large operators, with a record of increasing their production while lowering the relative cost turn out more milk per cow than those of any other state. If the production trend of the large dairies continues, it will threaten to offset the herd reduction. California is the source of

10 per cent of the nation’s milk and in 1985 it produced twice as much fluid milk as its population could consume. The state’s milk production increased in 1985 by 5 per cent over 1984, in disregard for the federal Government’s attempts to win voluntary herd reduction. There is some opinion here that the slaughter programme is as much an incentive for large operators to increase the flow as it is for small dairies to sell up. The destruction of herds is a poignant act for farmers whose holdings are small enough for them to know their cows by name and who, by careful breeding and culling, have developed cows of outstanding performance. Dairying is a way of life to many owners, who had intended to build a heritage for sons and daughters. Now a cruel note is disturbing some cattle owners and animal lovers. The Government is insisting that condemned cattle be branded on the face to prevent their fraudulent diversion from slaughter. There are protests that the branding is brutal and unnecessary. John Hutchison in San Francisco