Achieving Sustainable Production of Milk Volume 2: Safety, Quality and Sustainability 1786760487, 9781786760487

Table of contents :
Contents
Series list
Acknowledgements
Introduction
Part 1 Ensuring the safety and quality of milk on the farm
Part 2 Sustainability
Part 3 Improving quality, safety and sustainability in developing countries
Summary
Part 1 Ensuring the safety and quality of milk on the farm
Chapter 1 Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows
1 Introduction
2 Pathogenic microorganisms in raw milk 
3 Sources of microbiological contamination of raw milk
4 The growth of bacteria in raw milk 
5 Heat treatment and other techniques to prevent bacterial contamination of milk
6 Occurrence of pathogenic microorganisms in raw milk and cheese made from raw milk
7 Outbreaks related to the consumption of raw milk and of cheese made from raw milk
8 Summary
9 Future trends 
10 Where to look for further information 
11 References
Chapter 2 Detecting pathogens in milk on dairy farms: key issues for developing countries
1 Introduction
2 Why test for pathogens on dairy farms?
3 Indirect and direct tests for detecting pathogens
4 Case study 1: controlling disease in dairy cattle and zoonotic risks in Tanzania
5 Case study 2: improving milk quality in India
6 Conclusions and future trends
7 Where to look for further information
8 References
Chapter 3 Mastitis, milk quality and yield
1 Introduction
2 Indicators of mastitis
3 Impact of mastitis on milk composition
4 Impact of mastitis on dairy product quality
5 Impact of mastitis on milk production yield
6 Conclusion and future trends
7 References
Chapter 4 Chemical contaminants in milk
2 Cows’ diet as a source of iodine contamination
3 Case study: iodine concentrations in milk
4 Case study: veterinary medicines in milk
5 Case study: cleaning and disinfecting products containing chlorine
6 Future trends and conclusion
7 References
Chapter 5 Detecting and preventing contamination of dairy cattle feed
1 Introduction
2 Health and economic impacts of contaminants in dairy feed
3 Diagnosing contaminants and ensuring feed safety
4 Key hazards in dairy feeds: aflatoxins and other mycotoxins
5 Key hazards in dairy feeds: Salmonella and other biological hazards
6 Key hazards in dairy feeds: chemical hazards, veterinary drug residues and heavy metals
7 Conclusions
8 Where to look for further information
9 References
Chapter 6 Minimizing the development of antimicrobial resistance on dairy farms: appropriate use of antibiotics for the treatment of mastitis
1 Introduction
2 Use of antimicrobials on dairy farms
3 Clinical relevance of antimicrobial resistance data
4 Trends in the antimicrobial resistance of mastitis pathogens
5 Ensuring effective use of antibiotics in the treatment of mastitis: diagnosis, antibiotic choice and duration of treatment
6 Ensuring effective use of antibiotics in the treatment of mastitis: targeting treatment
7 Conclusions
8 Where to look for further information
9 References
Chapter 7 Managing sustainable food safety on dairy farms
2 The basis for food safety on Canadian dairy farms
3 On-farm sustainability programmes in Canada
4 On-farm sustainability programmes in the United States of America
5 The on-farm sustainability programme in France
6 Australia’s food safety system
7 Conclusion
8 Where to look for further information
Part 2 Sustainability
Chapter 8 ‘Towards’ sustainability of dairy farming: an overview
1 Introduction
2 Defining sustainable dairy production
3 Current status of global dairy sustainability
4 The challenge of dairy sustainability
5 Future sustainable dairy farming
6 Future dairy farming beyond 2050
7 Conclusion
8 Where to look for further information
9 References
Chapter 9 Setting environmental targets for dairy farming
1 Introduction
2 A global typology of dairy production systems for use in environmental assessments
3 Life cycle assessment (LCA): an overview 
4 LCA: product carbon footprint
5 LCA: product water footprint
6 Assessing impacts on biodiversity
7 Setting environmental targets: challenges and limits
8 Conclusion
9 Where to look for further information
10 References
Chapter 10 Grassland management to minimize the environmental impact of dairy farming
1 Introduction: overview of the management of forage systems for dairy farming
2 Minimizing environmental impacts in perennial forage systems management: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change
3 Minimizing environmental impacts in perennial forage systems management: soil quality, biodiversity and land use optimization
4 Case studies in management-intensive grazing (MIG) for dairy farming
5 Summary
6 Future trends in research
7 Where to look for further information
8 References
Chapter 11 Improved energy and water management to minimize the environmental impact of dairy farming
1 Introduction
2 Understanding current energy use in dairy farming
3 Strategies to reduce energy use in dairy farming
4 Results, analysis and recommendations
5 Sustainable water use in dairy production
6 Conclusions: the relevance of energy reduction and water management strategies to dairy farm sustainability
7 Where to look for further information
8 References
Chapter 12 Ensuring biodiversity in dairy farming
1 Introduction
2 Impacts of dairy farming on biodiversity
3 Biodiversity enhancement
4 Strategies for engaging farmers in biodiversity enhancement
5 Case study 1: the effects of grazing on the bog turtle (USA)
6 Case study 2: impacts of organic dairy farming on biodiversity (Ireland and New Zealand)
7 Case study 3: riparian enhancement (New Zealand)
8 Case study 4: mixed methods for biodiversity enhancement (New Zealand)
9 Case study 5: three catchment case studies (South Island, New Zealand)
10 Conclusion
11 Where to look for further information
12 References
Chapter 13 Organic dairy farming and sustainability
1 Introduction
2 Local and global feed efficiency and ecological sustainability
3 Towards solutions 1: longevity and integrated dairy and beef production
4 Towards solutions 2: developing roughage-based feeding strategies
5 Towards solutions 3: organic dairy breeding
6 Towards solutions 4: approaching animal health and welfare
7 Research into sustainable organic dairy production
8 Future trends and conclusion
9 Where to look for further information
10 References
Chapter 14 Trends in dairy farming and milk production: the cases of the United Kingdom and New Zealand
1 Introduction
2 Global dairy production
3 EU dairy production
4 The dairy sector in the United Kingdom
5 The dairy sector in New Zealand
6 Summary and future trends
7 Where to look for further information
8 References 
Chapter 15 Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector
1 Introduction
2 Socio-economic impact of the dairy sector
3 Ecological impact of the dairy sector
4 Dairy within sustainable diets
5 Global frameworks for sustainable food and dairy production
6 Where to look for further information
7 Future trends and conclusion
8 Acknowledgements
9 References
Part 3 Improving quality, safety and sustainability in developing countries
Chapter 16 Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia
1 Introduction
2 Dairy farming in Asia
3 Supporting smallholder dairy farmers
4 Key constraints facing smallholder dairy farmers in tropical Asia
5 Benchmarking performance
6 Case study: cow colonies
7 Summary and future trends
8 Where to look for further information
9 References and further reading
Chapter 17 Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa
1 Introduction
2 Sub-Saharan Africa
3 Management practices in smallholder dairy systems
4 Improving dairy production via breeding under smallholder systems
5 Improving productivity in smallholder dairy systems
6 Key organizations supporting smallholders
7 Future trends
8 Where to look for further information
9 Acknowledgements
10 References
Chapter 18 Organic dairy farming in developing countries
1 Introduction
2 Characteristics of milk from different species
3 Organic dairy production
4 Dairy production systems in Africa
5 Conclusion and future trends
6 Where to look for further information
7 References
Index

Citation preview

http://dx.doi.org/10.0000/00000.0000 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2016. All rights reserved.

Achieving sustainable production of milk Volume 2: Safety, quality and sustainability

It is widely recognised that agriculture is a significant contributor to global warming and climate change. Agriculture needs to reduce its environmental impact and adapt to current climate change whilst still feeding a growing population, i.e. become more ‘climate-smart’. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing is playing its part in achieving this by bringing together key research on making the production of the world’s most important crops and livestock products more sustainable. Based on extensive research, our publications specifically target the challenge of climate-smart agriculture. In this way we are using ‘smart publishing’ to help achieve climate-smart agriculture. Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing is an independent and innovative publisher delivering high quality customer-focused agricultural science content in both print and online formats for the academic and research communities. Our aim is to build a foundation of knowledge on which researchers can build to meet the challenge of climate-smart agriculture. For more information about Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing simply call us on +44 (0) 1223 839365, email [email protected] or alternatively please visit our website at www.bdspublishing.com.

Related titles: Achieving sustainable production of milk Volume 1: Milk composition, genetics and breeding Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-044-9); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-046-3, 978-1-78676-047-0) Achieving sustainable production of milk Volume 3: Dairy herd management and welfare Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-052-4); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-054-8, 978-1-78676-055-5) Ensuring safety and quality in the production of beef Volume 1: Safety Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-056-2); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-058-6, 978-1-78676-059-3) Ensuring safety and quality in the production of beef Volume 2: Quality Print (ISBN 978-1-78676-060-9); Online (ISBN 978-1-78676-062-3, 978-1-78676-063-0) Chapters are available individually from our online bookshop: https://shop.bdspublishing.com

BURLEIGH DODDS SERIES IN AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE NUMBER 09

Achieving sustainable production of milk Volume 2: Safety, quality and sustainability Edited by Dr Nico van Belzen, Director General of the International Dairy Federation (IDF), Belgium

Published by Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited 82 High Street, Sawston, Cambridge CB22 3HJ, UK www.bdspublishing.com Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 1518 Walnut Street, Suite 900, Philadelphia, PA 19102-3406, USA First published 2017 by Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing, 2017. All rights reserved. This book contains information obtained from authentic and highly regarded sources. Reprinted material is quoted with permission and sources are indicated. Reasonable efforts have been made to publish reliable data and information but the authors and the publisher cannot assume responsibility for the validity of all materials. Neither the authors not the publisher, nor anyone else associated with this publication shall be liable for any loss, damage or liability directly or indirectly caused or alleged to be caused by this book. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior written permission of the publisher. The consent of Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited does not extend to copying for general distribution, for promotion, for creating new works, or for resale. Specific permission must be obtained in writing from Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited for such copying. Permissions may be sought directly from Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing at the above address. Alternatively, please email: [email protected] or telephone (+44) (0) 1223 839365. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks and are used only for identification and explanation, without intent to infringe. Notice No responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of product liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions or ideas contained in the material herein. Library of Congress Control Number: 2016962692 British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library ISBN 978-1-78676-048-7 (print) ISBN 978-1-78676-050-0 (online) ISBN 978-1-78676-051-7 (online) ISSN 2059-6936 (print) ISSN 2059-6944 (online) Typeset by Deanta Global Publishing Services, Chennai, India Printed by Lightning Source

Contents Series list

xi

Acknowledgements xv Introduction xvi Part 1  Ensuring the safety and quality of milk on the farm 1 Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows 3 Claire Verraes, Sabine Cardoen and Wendie Claeys, Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain, Belgium; and Lieve Herman, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Belgium 1 Introduction 3 2 Pathogenic microorganisms in raw milk 4 3 Sources of microbiological contamination of raw milk 6 4 The growth of bacteria in raw milk 8 5 Heat treatment and other techniques to prevent bacterial contamination of milk 11 6 Occurrence of pathogenic microorganisms in raw milk and cheese made from raw milk 13 7 Outbreaks related to the consumption of raw milk and of cheese made from raw milk 15 8 Summary 18 9 Future trends 20 10 Where to look for further information 20 11 References 21 2 Detecting pathogens in milk on dairy farms: key issues for developing countries 27 Delia Grace, Silvia Alonso, Johanna Lindahl, Sara Ahlberg and Ram Pratim Deka, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya 1 Introduction 27 2 Why test for pathogens on dairy farms? 27 3 Indirect and direct tests for detecting pathogens 30 4 Case study 1: controlling disease in dairy cattle and zoonotic risks in Tanzania 34 5 Case study 2: improving milk quality in India 35 6 Conclusions and future trends 37 7 Where to look for further information 39 8 References 39 3 Mastitis, milk quality and yield 43 P. Moroni, Cornell University, USA and University of Milano, Italy; F. Welcome, Cornell University, USA; and M. F. Addis, Porto Conte Ricerche, Italy 1 Introduction 43 2 Indicators of mastitis 44 3 Impact of mastitis on milk composition 46 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

vi

Contents

4 Impact of mastitis on dairy product quality 49 5 Impact of mastitis on milk production yield 50 6 Conclusion and future trends 54 7 References 54 4 Chemical contaminants in milk 63 Bernadette O’Brien and Kieran Jordan, Teagasc, Ireland 1 Introduction 63 2 Cows’ diet as a source of iodine contamination 64 3 Case study: iodine concentrations in milk 65 4 Case study: veterinary medicines in milk 69 5 Case study: cleaning and disinfecting products containing chlorine 74 6 Future trends and conclusion 86 7 References 86 5 Detecting and preventing contamination of dairy cattle feed 95 Delia Grace, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya; Johanna Lindahl, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya and Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Sweden; Erastus Kang’ethe, University of Nairobi, Kenya; and Jagger Harvey, Biosciences Eastern and Central Africa Hub, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya; Feed the Future Innovation Lab for the Reduction of Post-Harvest Loss, Kansas State University, USA 1 Introduction 95 2 Health and economic impacts of contaminants in dairy feed 98 3 Diagnosing contaminants and ensuring feed safety 100 4 Key hazards in dairy feeds: aflatoxins and other mycotoxins 101 5 Key hazards in dairy feeds: Salmonella and other biological hazards 106 6 Key hazards in dairy feeds: chemical hazards, veterinary drug residues and heavy metals 108 7 Conclusions 111 8 Where to look for further information 111 9 References 112 6 Minimizing the development of antimicrobial resistance on dairy farms: appropriate use of antibiotics for the treatment of mastitis 117 Pamela L. Ruegg, University of Wisconsin-Madison, USA 1 Introduction 117 2 Use of antimicrobials on dairy farms 118 3 Clinical relevance of antimicrobial resistance data 121 4 Trends in the antimicrobial resistance of mastitis pathogens 122 5 Ensuring effective use of antibiotics in the treatment of mastitis: diagnosis, antibiotic choice and duration of treatment 124 6 Ensuring effective use of antibiotics in the treatment of mastitis: targeting treatment 126 7 Conclusions 129 8 Where to look for further information 129 9 References 130

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Contentsvii

7 Managing sustainable food safety on dairy farms 135 Réjean Bouchard, VIDO-InterVac/University of Saskatchewan, Canada; Helen Dornom, Dairy Australia, Australia; Anne-Charlotte Dockès, Institut de l’Élevage, France; Nicole Sillett, Dairy Farmers of Canada, Canada; and Jamie Jonker, National Milk Producers Federation, USA 1 Introduction 136 2 The basis for food safety on Canadian dairy farms 136 3 On-farm sustainability programmes in Canada 138 4 On-farm sustainability programmes in the United States of America 142 5 The on-farm sustainability programme in France 145 6 Australia’s food safety system 149 7 Conclusion 153 8 Where to look for further information 153 Part 2 Sustainability 8 ‘Towards’ sustainability of dairy farming: an overview 157 Norman R. Scott and Curt Gooch, Cornell University, USA 1 Introduction 158 2 Defining sustainable dairy production 158 3 Current status of global dairy sustainability 161 4 The challenge of dairy sustainability 164 5 Future sustainable dairy farming 165 6 Future dairy farming beyond 2050 169 7 Conclusion 170 8 Where to look for further information 170 9 References 171 9 Setting environmental targets for dairy farming 173 Sophie Bertrand, French Dairy Inter-branch Organization, France 1 Introduction 173 2 A global typology of dairy production systems for use in environmental assessments 174 3 Life cycle assessment (LCA): an overview 174 4 LCA: product carbon footprint 176 5 LCA: product water footprint 178 6 Assessing impacts on biodiversity 179 7 Setting environmental targets: challenges and limits 180 8 Conclusion 181 9 Where to look for further information 181 10 References 181 10 Grassland management to minimize the environmental impact of dairy farming 183 Margaret E. Graves, Dalhousie University, Canada; and Ralph C. Martin, University of Guelph, Canada 1 Introduction: overview of the management of forage systems for dairy farming 183 2 Minimizing environmental impacts in perennial forage systems management: greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change 185 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

viii

Contents

3 Minimizing environmental impacts in perennial forage systems management: soil quality, biodiversity and land use optimization 188 4 Case studies in management-intensive grazing (MIG) for dairy farming 194 5 Summary 196 6 Future trends in research 196 7 Where to look for further information 197 8 References 199 11 Improved energy and water management to minimize the environmental impact of dairy farming 211 J. Upton, E. Murphy and L. Shalloo, Teagasc, Ireland; M. Murphy, Cork Institute of Technology, Ireland; and I.J.M. De Boer and P.W.G. Groot Koerkamp, Wageningen University, The Netherlands 1 Introduction 211 2 Understanding current energy use in dairy farming 212 3 Strategies to reduce energy use in dairy farming 214 4 Results, analysis and recommendations 218 5 Sustainable water use in dairy production 220 6 Conclusions: the relevance of energy reduction and water management strategies to dairy farm sustainability 221 7 Where to look for further information 223 8 References 223 12 Ensuring biodiversity in dairy farming 227 Ben Tyson, Central Connecticut State University, USA; Liza Storey and Nick Edgar, New Zealand Landcare Trust, New Zealand; Jonathan Draper, Central Connecticut State University, USA; and Christine Unson, Southern Connecticut State University, USA 1 Introduction 227 2 Impacts of dairy farming on biodiversity 228 3 Biodiversity enhancement 229 4 Strategies for engaging farmers in biodiversity enhancement 231 5 Case study 1: the effects of grazing on the bog turtle (USA) 232 6 Case study 2: impacts of organic dairy farming on biodiversity (Ireland and New Zealand) 234 7 Case study 3: riparian enhancement (New Zealand) 236 8 Case study 4: mixed methods for biodiversity enhancement (New Zealand) 236 9 Case study 5: three catchment case studies (South Island, New Zealand) 237 10 Conclusion 241 11 Where to look for further information 242 12 References 244 13 Organic dairy farming and sustainability 247 Florian Leiber, Adrian Muller, Veronika Maurer, Christian Schader and Anna Bieber, Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Switzerland 1 Introduction 247 2 Local and global feed efficiency and ecological sustainability 248

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Contentsix

3 Towards solutions 1: longevity and integrated dairy and beef production 250 4 Towards solutions 2: developing roughage-based feeding strategies 251 5 Towards solutions 3: organic dairy breeding 252 6 Towards solutions 4: approaching animal health and welfare 255 7 Research into sustainable organic dairy production 256 8 Future trends and conclusion 258 9 Where to look for further information 259 10 References 259 14 Trends in dairy farming and milk production: the cases of the United Kingdom and New Zealand 267 Alison Bailey, Lincoln University, New Zealand 1 Introduction 267 2 Global dairy production 267 3 EU dairy production 274 4 The dairy sector in the United Kingdom 278 5 The dairy sector in New Zealand 284 6 Summary and future trends 287 7 Where to look for further information 288 8 References 289 15 Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 291 J. P. Hill, Fonterra Cooperative Group, New Zealand 1 Introduction 291 2 Socio-economic impact of the dairy sector 294 3 Ecological impact of the dairy sector 300 4 Dairy within sustainable diets 304 5 Global frameworks for sustainable food and dairy production 305 6 Where to look for further information 309 7 Future trends and conclusion 309 8 Acknowledgements 310 9 References 310 Part 3  Improving quality, safety and sustainability in developing countries 16 Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia 317 John Moran, Profitable Dairy Systems, Australia 1 Introduction 317 2 Dairy farming in Asia 318 3 Supporting smallholder dairy farmers 320 4 Key constraints facing smallholder dairy farmers in tropical Asia 323 5 Benchmarking performance 325 6 Case study: cow colonies 331 7 Summary and future trends 333 8 Where to look for further information 334 9 References and further reading 335

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

x

Contents

17 Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 337 J. M. K. Ojango, R. Mrode, A. M. Okeyo, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya; J. E. O. Rege, Emerge-Africa, Kenya; M. G. G. Chagunda, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), UK; and D. R. Kugonza, Makerere University, Uganda 1 Introduction 337 2 Sub-Saharan Africa 339 3 Management practices in smallholder dairy systems 341 4 Improving dairy production via breeding under smallholder systems 345 5 Improving productivity in smallholder dairy systems 348 6 Key organizations supporting smallholders 354 7 Future trends 355 8 Where to look for further information 356 9 Acknowledgements 357 10 References 357 18 Organic dairy farming in developing countries 363 Gidi Smolders, Wageningen University, The Netherlands; Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark 1 Introduction 363 2 Characteristics of milk from different species 365 3 Organic dairy production 368 4 Dairy production systems in Africa 370 5 Conclusion and future trends 378 6 Where to look for further information 380 7 References 380 Index387

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Series list Title

Series number

Achieving sustainable cultivation of maize - Vol 1 001 From improved varieties to local applications  Edited by: Dr Dave Watson, CGIAR Maize Research Program Manager, CIMMYT, Mexico Achieving sustainable cultivation of maize - Vol 2 002 Cultivation techniques, pest and disease control  Edited by: Dr Dave Watson, CGIAR Maize Research Program Manager, CIMMYT, Mexico Achieving sustainable cultivation of rice - Vol 1 003 Breeding for higher yield and quality Edited by: Prof. Takuji Sasaki, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan Achieving sustainable cultivation of rice - Vol 2 004 Cultivation, pest and disease management Edited by: Prof. Takuji Sasaki, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan Achieving sustainable cultivation of wheat - Vol 1 005 Breeding, quality traits, pests and diseases Edited by: Prof. Peter Langridge, The University of Adelaide, Australia Achieving sustainable cultivation of wheat - Vol 2 006 Cultivation techniques Edited by: Prof. Peter Langridge, The University of Adelaide, Australia Achieving sustainable cultivation of tomatoes 007 Edited by: Dr Autar Mattoo, USDA-ARS, USA & Prof. Avtar Handa, Purdue University, USA Achieving sustainable production of milk - Vol 1 008 Milk composition, genetics and breeding Edited by: Dr Nico van Belzen, International Dairy Federation (IDF), Belgium Achieving sustainable production of milk - Vol 2 009 Safety, quality and sustainability Edited by: Dr Nico van Belzen, International Dairy Federation (IDF), Belgium Achieving sustainable production of milk - Vol 3 010 Dairy herd management and welfare Edited by: Prof. John Webster, University of Bristol, UK Ensuring safety and quality in the production of beef - Vol 1 011 Safety Edited by: Prof. Gary Acuff, Texas A&M University, USA & Prof.James Dickson, Iowa State University, USA Ensuring safety and quality in the production of beef - Vol 2 012 Quality Edited by: Prof. Michael Dikeman, Kansas State University, USA Achieving sustainable production of poultry meat - Vol 1 013 Safety, quality and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Steven C. Ricke, University of Arkansas, USA Achieving sustainable production of poultry meat - Vol 2 014 Breeding and nutrition Edited by: Prof. Todd Applegate, University of Georgia, USA Achieving sustainable production of poultry meat - Vol 3 015 Health and welfare Edited by: Prof. Todd Applegate, University of Georgia, USA

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

xii

Series list

Achieving sustainable production of eggs - Vol 1 016 Safety and quality Edited by: Prof. Julie Roberts, University of New England, Australia Achieving sustainable production of eggs - Vol 2 017 Animal welfare and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Julie Roberts, University of New England, Australia Achieving sustainable cultivation of apples 018 Edited by: Dr Kate Evans, Washington State University, USA Integrated disease management of wheat and barley 019 Edited by: Prof. Richard Oliver, Curtin University, Australia Achieving sustainable cultivation of cassava - Vol 1 020 Cultivation techniques Edited by: Dr Clair Hershey, formerly International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Colombia Achieving sustainable cultivation of cassava - Vol 2 021 Genetics, breeding, pests and diseases Edited by: Dr Clair Hershey, formerly International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT), Colombia Achieving sustainable production of sheep 022 Edited by: Prof. Johan Greyling, University of the Free State, South Africa Achieving sustainable production of pig meat - Vol 1 023 Safety, quality and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Alan Mathew, Purdue University, USA Achieving sustainable production of pig meat - Vol 2 024 Animal breeding and nutrition Edited by: Prof. Julian Wiseman, University of Nottingham, UK Achieving sustainable production of pig meat - Vol 3 025 Animal health and welfare Edited by: Prof. Julian Wiseman, University of Nottingham, UK Achieving sustainable cultivation of potatoes - Vol 1 026 Breeding, nutritional and sensory quality Edited by: Prof. Gefu Wang-Pruski, Dalhousie University, Canada Achieving sustainable cultivation of oil palm - Vol 1 027 Introduction, breeding and cultivation techniques Edited by: Prof. Alain Rival, Center for International Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD), France Achieving sustainable cultivation of oil palm - Vol 2 028 Diseases, pests, quality and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Alain Rival, Center for International Cooperation in Agricultural Research for Development (CIRAD), France Achieving sustainable cultivation of soybeans - Vol 1 029 Breeding and cultivation techniques Edited by: Prof. Henry Nguyen, University of Missouri, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of soybeans - Vol 2 030 Diseases, pests, food and non-food uses Edited by: Prof. Henry Nguyen, University of Missouri, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of sorghum - Vol 1 031 Genetics, breeding and production techniques Edited by: Prof. Bill Rooney, Texas A&M University, USA

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Series listxiii Achieving sustainable cultivation of sorghum - Vol 2 032 Sorghum utilisation around the world Edited by: Prof. Bill Rooney, Texas A&M University, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of potatoes - Vol 2 033 Production and storage, crop protection and sustainability Edited by: Dr Stuart Wale, Potato Dynamics Ltd, UK Achieving sustainable cultivation of mangoes 034 Edited by: Prof. Víctor Galán Saúco, Instituto Canario de Investigaciones Agrarias (ICIA), Spain & Dr Ping Lu, Charles Darwin University, Australia Achieving sustainable cultivation of grain legumes - Vol 1 035 Advances in breeding and cultivation techniques Edited by: Dr Shoba Sivasankar et al., CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes, ICRISAT, India Achieving sustainable cultivation of grain legumes - Vol 2 036 Improving cultivation of particular grain legumes Edited by: Dr Shoba Sivasankar et al., CGIAR Research Program on Grain Legumes, ICRISAT, India Achieving sustainable cultivation of sugarcane - Vol 1 037 Cultivation techniques, quality and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Philippe Rott, University of Florida, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of sugarcane - Vol 2 038 Breeding, pests and diseases Edited by: Prof. Philippe Rott, University of Florida, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of coffee 039 Breeding and quality traits Edited by: Dr Philippe Lashermes, Institut de Recherche pour le Développement (IRD), France Achieving sustainable cultivation of bananas - Vol 1 040 Cultivation techniques Edited by: Prof. Gert Kema, Wageningen University, The Netherlands & Prof. André Drenth, University of Queensland, Australia Global Tea Science 041 Current status and future needs Edited by: Dr V. S. Sharma, Formerly UPASI Tea Research Institute, India & Dr M. T. Kumudini Gunasekare, Coordinating Secretariat for Science Technology and Innovation (COSTI), Sri Lanka Integrated weed management 042 Edited by: Emeritus Prof. Rob Zimdahl, Colorado State University, USA Achieving sustainable cultivation of cocoa - Vol 1 043 Genetics, breeding, cultivation and quality Edited by: Prof. Pathmanathan Umaharan, Cocoa Research Centre – The University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago Achieving sustainable cultivation of cocoa - Vol 2 044 Diseases, pests and sustainability Edited by: Prof. Pathmanathan Umaharan, Cocoa Research Centre – The University of the West Indies, Trinidad and Tobago Water management for sustainable agriculture 045 Edited by: Prof. Theib Oweis, Formerly ICARDA, Lebanon Improving organic animal farming 046 Edited by: Dr Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark & Dr Stephen Roderick, Duchy College, Cornwall, UK Improving organic crop cultivation 047 Edited by: Prof. Ulrich Köpke, University of Bonn, Germany

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

xiv

Series list

Managing soil health for sustainable agriculture - Vol 1 048 Fundamentals Edited by: Dr Don Reicosky, USDA-ARS, USA Managing soil health for sustainable agriculture - Vol 2 049 Monitoring and management Edited by: Dr Don Reicosky, USDA-ARS, USA Rice insect pests and their management 050 E. A. Heinrichs, Francis E. Nwilene, Michael J. Stout, Buyung A. R. Hadi & Thais Freitas Improving grassland and pasture management in temperate agriculture 051 Edited by: Prof. Athole Marshall & Dr Rosemary Collins, University of Aberystwyth, UK Precision agriculture for sustainability 052 Edited by: Dr John Stafford, Silsoe Solutions, UK

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Acknowledgements We wish to acknowledge the following for their help in reviewing particular chapters: –– Chapter 11: Dr Mike Scarsbrook, DairyNZ, New Zealand

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Introduction Milk and associated dairy products constitute the world’s most important agricultural commodity by value, particularly if dairy ingredients in other food products are taken into account. The dairy sector provides livelihoods for 1 billion people and is key to enriching diets for over six billion people, although global consumption of dairy still falls short of national dietary guidelines. At the same time, dairy production is also a significant user of land and other resources, and is responsible for 2.7% of total anthropogenic greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. There is therefore an urgent need to improve the efficiency of dairy production so that it can meet the nutritional needs of a growing population in a more environmentally sustainable way. These challenges are explored in more detail in Chapter 15 in this volume which provides an authoritative review of the global importance of the dairy sector and some of the key issues it faces. The two volumes of Achieving sustainable production of milk summarize a huge array of research addressing the challenges dairy farming faces. This volume (Volume 2) reviews ways of ensuring the safety and quality of milk on the dairy farm. It also assesses ways of improving the sustainability of dairy farming, as well as ways of improving milk production in the developing world. The companion Volume 1 complements Volume 2 by summarizing current research on the composition of milk as well as the role of genetics and breeding in improving milk production.

Part 1 Ensuring the safety and quality of milk on the farm The first group of chapters review safety issues. Chapter 1 provides a detailed review of what we know about pathogens affecting raw milk and dairy products made from raw milk, including Escherichia coli, Yersinia, Staphylococcus aureus, Clostridium botulinum, Bacillus cereus, Listeria and Campylobacter as well as other hazards such as tick-borne encephalitis virus. The chapter summarizes sources of contamination, whether direct contamination of the milk from blood or the udder, or indirect contamination from sources such as faecal shedding or the broader farm environment. As an example, the chapter describes the way some pathogens such as Listeria monocytogenes can circulate in the blood of the animals, localize in the mammary gland or associated lymph nodes, and then pass into milk. The chapter also summarizes current research on the growth of bacteria in raw milk, highlighting the ways psychrotrophic organisms such as Pseudomonas spp., Listeria spp. or Yersinia spp. are able to proliferate at low temperatures. It discusses antimicrobial systems in raw milk, including the use of lactoperoxidase to enhance antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal activity, as well as heat treatment and other techniques such as centrifugation and microfiltration to prevent bacterial contamination. As it points out, pasteurization may not always inactivate thermo-resistant spores of Clostridium botulinum and Bacillus cereus. Finally, given the increasing popularity of such products, the authors review current evidence on the occurrence of pathogenic microorganisms in raw milk and cheese made from raw milk, as well as outbreaks related to these products from pathogens such as Salmonella, Campylobacter spp. and pathogenic E. coli

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Introductionxvii

As the chapter points out, complete control of microbiological hazards is challenging, if not impossible in the dairy farm environment, because many of these organisms have multiple reservoirs and may not produce clinical disease in cattle. Dairy product safety, however, can be enhanced by implementing appropriate hygienic standards and practices for housing and milking centres as well as cow cleanliness. This theme is picked up in Chapter 5 and particularly in Chapter 7. An essential first step in pathogen control is effective detection. Chapter 2 discusses testing for pathogens in milk on dairy farms. The limited use of on-farm pathogen detection can be attributed in part to the challenges of operating in farm environments as well as the lack of sufficiently specific, sensitive, practicable and affordable microbiological tests (an issue that is also picked up in Chapter 3). The chapter reviews the available tests, starting with direct detection techniques such as on-farm culture techniques and milk ring tests. It then considers indirect test methods that can proxy for pathogens by measuring other parameters which change due to the presence of pathogens. These tests include organoleptic characteristics (such as taste, smell and appearance), measuring acidity, somatic cell count (SCC) tests and conductance tests. The chapter includes two case studies addressing the challenges of testing on dairy farms in developing countries. The first from Tanzania highlights the challenges presented by widespread consumption of raw milk, lack of quality testing and high levels of pathogens in on-farm milk which cause serious disease in both people and animals. The second case study from India shows how these challenges can be addressed through effective training and the use of simple indirect on-farm tests of milk quality, including observation of smell, colour, visible foreign bodies and assessment of added water (a potential source of contamination) using a lactometer. This study shows that simple interventions along the value chain, including indirect on-farm pathogen tests, have long-term benefits in terms of increased food safety and productivity. Challenges in the effective detection of biological and other types of contaminant are also discussed in Chapter 5. Chapter 3 builds on Chapter 2 by looking in more detail at SCC and other tests as indicators of mastitis and in measuring milk quality more generally. As it points out, the most widely recognized method for mastitis monitoring is by measuring the cells present in milk, that is, determining its SCC. The SCC can be measured in bulk tank milk (BMSCC), at cow level with composite samples of all four quarters (CSSCC) and at quarter level (QMSCC). Whilst BMSCC can provide reliable indications at the herd level, measuring CSSCC or QMSCC is essential in monitoring the incidence of mastitis precisely and keeping subclinical mastitis under control. Somatic cells can be assessed with cowside methods such as the California Mastitis Test (CMT). The CMT is cost-effective and practical in allowing dairy farmers to take appropriate action, including sampling for subsequent culture analysis, veterinary treatment, segregation of milk, dry-off periods or culling infected animals. However, due to its qualitative nature, the CMT is significantly dependent on user ability and experience and has a low sensitivity. Other tests include milk colour determination or electrical conductivity but these are not sufficiently reliable or sensitive for a conclusive diagnosis. To improve the quality of detection, biosensors and immuno-biosensors have been developed for detecting protein markers of mastitis as well as other, non-protein, mastitisassociated molecules. The ability to monitor more reliable mastitis markers on line with a biosensor during milking has great potential for the earlier detection of mastitis. Researchers are developing point-of-care techniques or rapid diagnostic tests, mostly

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

xviii

Introduction

based on antibody-based techniques such as agglutination, enzyme immunoassays and lateral flow immunochromatography, to make this improvement in detection possible. Chapter 3 also looks at the broader impact of mastitis on milk production and quality. Mastitis is one of the most economically important diseases in dairy production. The economic impact of mastitis includes costs of treatment and culling as well as decreased milk production and quality. The chapter reviews current research on the impact of the disease on the properties of milk. These include an increase in total proteins and a decrease in caseins, modifications in the amount and composition of fats, a decrease in lactose and changes in many milk ions. These changes impact on milk yield and result in quality issues such as off-flavours and reduced shelf life in milk as well as quality problems in dairy products such as yoghurt and cheese. Chapter 4 addresses another potential safety issue in milk production, the risk of chemical rather than microbiological contamination. Chemical contamination of milk can occur from a number of sources, including application of agrochemicals to fields, inappropriate use of veterinary products, contaminants or natural toxins present in feed or forage, or from cleaning and disinfection products used during milk production, processing and packaging. There have been increasing reports of residues being detected in milk, attributed in part to improvements in analytical instrumentation which allow more sensitive detection of a wider range of residues, some of which were not previously detectable. These techniques include high-resolution mass spectrometry (MS), high-performance liquid chromatography (LC) and electrochemical detection techniques. Improvements in detection create new challenges to identify current levels of residues in milk, sources and potential health effects, safe limits and recommendations to reduce contamination. The problem can be exacerbated by processing, which can lead to higher concentrations of residues in products such as milk powder, and by the development of products such as infant formula targeted at groups with greater potential vulnerability to the presence of even small traces of residues. Chapter 4 explores these challenges through case studies which focus on three key sources of contamination: animal diet, veterinary medicines and disinfection products. The first case study looks at iodine residues in milk. These are caused by iodine supplementation of feed to lactating cows to improve fertility and udder health, as well as by disinfection of cow teats with iodine-containing products, particularly for mastitis control. The case study summarizes research to assess current iodine levels and sources as well as appropriate limits in milk. The second case study focuses on the use of flukicides to combat liver fluke parasites that can lead to loss of productivity, fertility problems and reduced weight gain in dairy cows. The development of analytical methods such as high-performance LC coupled to electrochemical detection (HPLC-ECD) have allowed detection of flukicide residues in milk at very low concentrations. The case study reviews research on the ways residues can survive processing as well as improving best practice in treatment, including the use of withdrawal periods. The use of antibiotics in dairy farming is also discussed in Chapter 6 in the context of antimicrobial resistance. The final case study looks at chlorine residues in milk. While chlorine is an effective disinfectant, inappropriate use in disinfection processes in dairy production and processing can cause contamination. Reactions between chlorine and organic matter produce a wide range of potentially harmful halogenated and non-halogenated compounds, collectively known as disinfection by-products. These include trichloromethane (TCM) and chlorate residues. The chapter reviews research on mechanisms of formation of these compounds, © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Introductionxix

levels detected, toxicity and safe limits as well as recommendations for good disinfection practice, including the importance of rinsing. As the chapter suggests, future research in the area of chemical contaminants in milk and dairy products should focus, firstly, on the development, accuracy, precision and efficiency of analytical capabilities; secondly, on efficient and comprehensive strategies to detect the source of such residues; and thirdly, on addressing ways to eliminate or reduce the problem to acceptable levels. The challenges of dealing with contaminants are also discussed in Chapter 5. As Chapter 5 indicates, contamination of dairy feed compromises the safety of milk and can affect animal health. Animal feeds include roughage, fresh and dried forages such as grass, silage or hay. Feeds also include concentrates, feeds with a high density of nutrients and typically low fibre. They may be fed as individual feeds or blended and formulated into balanced rations (compound feed). Concentrates include products such as maize, sorghum or soybean, and by-products such as brans or fishmeal. Concentrates may be grown or produced on the dairy farm or purchased in the form of products, by-products, or compounded feed from feed manufacturers. Evidence suggests that the main types of contaminant in dairy feed are microbiological hazards (such as Salmonella and Brucella), persistent organic pollutants (such as dioxins and organochlorines), veterinary drug residues and heavy metals (such as lead, cadmium and arsenic). Dairy feeds have been associated with major food and feed safety incidents involving hazards such as aflatoxins and dioxins. Global governance of the livestock sector is provided by the World Animal Health Organisation (OIE), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). The OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Code covers hazards of human and animal health importance that can be present in animal feed. It provides guidance on regulatory standards, risk analysis, good agricultural and manufacturing practices, traceability and quality assurance. The OIE-FAO Guide to Good Farming Practices contains a section on animal feeding. The FAO/WHO Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) has also approved a Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding and, based on this, the FAO has developed a manual on good practices for the feed industry. These and similar guidelines (e.g. the FAO-International Dairy Federation (IDF) Guide to good dairy farming practice) are useful for the feed industry in high-income countries. However, they are less appropriate for low-income countries where most dairy feed is produced on-farm or obtained from small, informal sector mills, and where relatively high levels of miscellaneous feed such as food waste are used. The rest of the chapter reviews issues in identification, diagnosis and prevention of a range of hazards such as aflatoxins, Salmonella, dioxins, veterinary drug residues and heavy metals. The chapter includes an assessment of the health and economic impact of each hazard as well as sources of contamination. The chapter highlights the continuing challenges in managing these hazards. There are, for example, a number of established diagnostic technologies for detecting aflatoxins such as enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and LC-MS techniques. However, current methods have disadvantages ranging from cost, low throughput, low sensitivity and specificity in some cases, to lack of portability for use in the field. There is ongoing research to develop techniques such as electrochemical biosensors, electronic noses to detect fungal volatiles and immunoassay-based dipstick techniques to address these problems. There are also challenges in areas such as effective sampling of hazards such as aflatoxins or Salmonella which may be present in low concentrations and unevenly distributed in feed.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

xx

Introduction

Many good agricultural practices have also been developed to minimize aflatoxins in feed ingredients. These include the use of resilient/resistant crop varieties, appropriate cultivation practices to prevent fungal growth, use of fungicides, biological control using atoxigenic fungus, proper harvesting, drying and storage. There are also established procedures for the treatment, destruction or safe alternative use of contaminated feed. Treatments include physical sorting and blending, extrusion and heating, binding and other chemical treatments. However, as noted earlier, these procedures can be difficult to implement in developing countries where sources and production of feed are much more fragmented and where appropriate training and resources are limited. Dioxins are a group of 210 polychlorinated aromatic chemical compounds. They arise mainly from industrial processes or other sources such as the incineration of municipal waste. For cattle, roughages are the most important single route of dioxin exposure, with fishmeal as the most heavily contaminated feed material. Contaminated soil may also drastically increase the exposure of grazing cattle to dioxins. Dioxins are usually detected using gas chromatography/high-resolution mass spectroscopy or ion trap mass spectroscopy. However, analysis costs are high and biological (cell- or antibody-based) screening methods are being developed and validated. As suggested in Chapter 4, therapeutic use of antimicrobials in dairy cows has the potential to affect human health by increasing the risk of exposure to antimicrobial residues in foodstuffs or by influencing selection of resistant pathogens. Chapter 6 focuses on antibiotic use on dairy farms which is mainly for the treatment of mastitis. As the chapter points out, the evolution and maintenance of resistant mastitis pathogens in dairy cows or dairy farm environments has not been well described. The chapter provides an authoritative review of the current evidence. Studies show that greater exposure to some commonly used antimicrobials has been linked to a greater proportion of resistant organisms, but these studies have reported little evidence of a systematic increase in resistance associated with drugs used for treatment and prevention of mastitis. However, while there is no compelling evidence that use of antimicrobials for treatment of mastitis has resulted in increased prevalence of resistant pathogens, ensuring continued efficacy of antimicrobials is a public health priority. The chapter therefore describes a wide range of studies identifying best practice in targeted use of antibiotics for prevention and appropriate treatment of mastitis. Principles for appropriate use include accurate, rapid and consistent detection and diagnostic protocols, good recording systems, initial assessment of a cow’s medical history to determine likely benefit before treatment, an assessment of whether a bacterial infection can be effectively treated with available antibiotics, selection of an antibiotic appropriate for the aetiology of the disease with narrow-spectrum drugs preferred as the first choice and treatment for as short a period as possible. As the chapter shows, there is sufficient research evidence to help develop mastitis treatment protocols that vary depending on animal characteristics and the history of subclinical disease. Determination of aetiology is one of the most important steps in justifying antibiotic treatment. Chapter 7 builds on themes identified in Chapters 2, 4 and 5 about the importance of appropriate safety management systems on dairy farms. It is written by experts from Canada, the United States and France which have market-leading safety management programmes in the dairy industry. The chapter looks first at international guidelines such as the CAC Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products and the FAO and IDF Guide to Good Dairy Farming Practice which provide a framework of best practice. These guidelines cover animal health, milking hygiene, nutrition, animal welfare, environment © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Introductionxxi

and management. The main objective is to ensure that, ’Safe, quality milk is produced from healthy animals using management practices that are sustainable from an animal welfare, social, economic and environmental perspective’. The FAO/IDF Guide has been the inspiration for developing numerous national programmes integrating all aspects of dairy production. The chapter then reviews on-farm safety programmes in Canada as an example of a leading national programme. Canadian on-farm food safety programmes are based on hazard analysis and critical control points (HACCP) principles widely used in the food processing sector as a whole. The National Dairy Code is the Canadian technical reference that provides guidance to all food safety aspects of dairy production and processing. This informs the Canadian Quality Milk programme which requires dairy farmers to implement critical control points (CCPs) relating to milking animals treated with veterinary drugs, cooling and storage of milk, and, finally, movement of animals. These CCPs are underpinned by a reference manual describing a series of best management practices (BMP) to help prevent occurrence of on-farm food safety problems. The BMPs are the foundation of any HACCP programme. The eight BMPs deal with (1) dairy facilities, pesticides and nutrient management; (2) feed; (3) animal health; (4) medicines and chemicals used on livestock; (5) milking management; (6) facility and equipment sanitation; (7) use of water for cleaning milk contact surfaces; and (8) staff training and communication. A second key supporting document is a workbook to assist producers in developing standard operating procedures used on the farm in such areas as milking operations and hygiene. Once producers have complied with the programmes for a period of three months, a third-party validator assesses the conformity of the dairy operation with the on-farm food safety programme and provides appropriate certification. Third-party certification is important not just for verification purposes. By demonstrating quality assurance, it allows better market access for farmers. Farmers need to be convinced that the cost of running an on-farm food safety results in added value to their operations. On-farm food safety is also dependent on effective systems in related areas such as biosecurity and traceability. In recognition of the importance of a holistic approach, Canadian dairy producers have recently launched proAction. This initiative consists of a number of on-farm programmes integrating all aspects of dairying. These programmes cover milk quality and safety, animal welfare, animal health and biosecurity, traceability and environmental performance. The chapter then includes summaries from leading national experts reviewing the scope and design of on-farm safety management programmes in the United States, France and Australia. A good example is the Australian Dairy Industry Sustainability Framework which includes 11 key targets with 36 measures. These focus on profitability, community resilience, occupational health and safety, operator training, product safety and quality, nutrition, animal care and environmental impact. The framework emphasizes the importance of regular review and improvement.

Part 2  Sustainability Chapter 8 provides an introduction to and overview of sustainability in dairy farming. It provides a context for the following chapters. As the chapter points out, there is no area of human activity more basic to society than a sustainable agricultural sector. Agriculture

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

xxii

Introduction

faces the daunting challenge of meeting the needs of a growing world population of approximately 9–10 billion people in 2050 with the need to provide about 60–70% more food than is currently being produced. Farming must achieve this within the constraints of climate change whilst reducing its environmental impact in such areas as GHG emissions, water and energy use. As noted earlier, the FAO has estimated that global milk production, processing and transportation contributes 2.7% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions. At about 52% of the total, methane emissions from livestock contributes most to the global warming impact of milk production. The chapter reviews different ways of measuring the environmental impact of milk production together with problems in measurement and interpretation. As an example, the amount of water required to produce milk ranges from as little as 1 L/kg of milk to as much as 1000 L/kg of milk depending on the metric used, volumetric water footprints or water footprints based on life cycle assessment (LCA), the respective production system (grazing, mixed or industrial) and local water scarcity. These issues are addressed in Chapter 9. Sustainability has been defined as ‘meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’. The Sustainable Agriculture Initiative Platform Dairy Working Group has set out principles and practices for sustainable dairy farming based on a collaboration with the IDF, the FAO of the United Nations and with the Global Dairy Agenda for Action which includes the Dairy Sustainable Framework (DSF). The DSF is also discussed in Chapter 15. The DSF is focused on 11 key sustainability criteria relevant to the global dairy sector. These cover GHG emissions, soil health and nutrition, waste and water management, biodiversity, product safety and quality, animal welfare, market development, rural economies and working conditions. Other elements that may be added in the future include pollution, breeding and energy use. This broad concept of sustainability encompasses the need to: •• •• •• ••

Ensure agricultural production continues to meet food and other needs; Enhance environmental quality and the resource base; Sustain the economic viability of agriculture; and Enhance the quality of life for farmers, farm workers and society as a whole.

As the chapter shows, different dairy systems face different challenges: •• Smallholder mixed farming systems face limited access to resources, markets and services; variable resource efficiency and big yield gaps; and have little capacity to adapt to a global economy. •• Pastoral systems must cope with conflicts for land and water, economic and political exclusion, social (including gender) inequity, poor animal health and high risks of zoonotic diseases. •• Commercial grazing systems face degradation of the natural grasslands they depend upon, conflicts with other sectors over land and resource use, poor conditions for workers and, in some cases, technical inefficiencies. •• Intensive livestock systems face environmental challenges resulting from intensification (land and water use, water, soil and air pollution); the potential harm to human and animal health created by antimicrobial resistance, the social consequences of intensification (rural abandonment, poor working conditions, low wages, vulnerability of migrant labour, occupational hazards); and economic risks © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Introductionxxiii

in the form of dependence on external inputs, including feed and energy, market concentration, price volatility and inequitable distribution of value added. Established by the UN World Committee on Food Security, the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition (HLPE) has highlighted a number of priorities in improving the sustainability of dairy production, including the need to: •• Recognize the importance of smallholder mixed farming systems for food security and nutrition •• Recognize and support the unique role of pastoral systems •• Promote the sustainability of commercial grazing systems •• Address the specific challenges of intensive livestock systems The chapter concludes with some practical examples of ways of improving sustainability. These include using anaerobic digestion of dairy manure to produce electricity on farms and for local electric grids, using anaerobic digestion to produce ethanol as a biofuel, recycling manure nutrients to reduce the amount of commercial fertilizer needed for crops, as well as separation of manure into liquid and solid components, with solids used as a bedding material and the liquid for fertigation of field crops. Reducing the environmental impact of dairy farming requires an understanding of where the problem lies and setting targets for improvement. As Chapter 8 suggests, establishing targets for environmental performance can be challenging. This challenge is addressed in Chapter 9. Dairy farming is extremely diverse evolving in a very different geographical context which makes assessing the environmental impact extremely complex. The second challenge is that different methods and tools can be used in the assessment, giving very different results. To address the first challenge, the FAO has developed a global typology of dairy production systems. This is based on two major feed-base system types, mixed- and grass-based, classified into three major agro-ecological zones: temperate regions, arid and semi-arid tropics, and sub-humid and humid tropics. This typology is used by the FAO to evaluate the environmental impact of dairy farming globally using the model it has developed: GLEAM (Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model). In addressing the second challenge, LCA has become the internationally agreed method to address the complexity of interlinked and multiple impacts in food production. LCA helps identify effective approaches to reduce environmental burdens and evaluate the effect that changes within a production process may have on the overall life cycle balance of environmental burdens. This enables the identification and exclusion of measures that simply shift environmental problems from one phase of the life cycle to another. The International Standards Organization (ISO) has set out guidelines for the use of LCA. Chapter 9 summarizes key concepts in LCA methodology such as system boundaries, reference and functional units. LCA still presents significant challenges and limits when applied to agriculture. First, the method is data-intensive which is a problem with biological systems (e.g. soil or climate) where data are difficult to collect. A second difficulty lies in the fact that methodological choices are still possible when following the ISO guidelines, such as defining the system boundary, functional units and method of allocation, which can make a big difference to the results, even with the same initial data. To help resolve these methodological issues, in 2012 the FAO launched the Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

xxiv

Introduction

(LEAP) initiative. LEAP provides a platform for the harmonization of metrics and methods to monitor the environmental performance of the livestock supply chains. The partnership develops broadly recognized sector-specific guidelines and metrics for assessing and monitoring the environmental performance of the livestock sector. LEAP has published a number of LCA guides covering, for example, large ruminant products (milk and beef), feed supply chains and biodiversity assessment. A key measure of environmental impact within LCA methodology is a product’s carbon footprint. This measures the GHG emissions of a product throughout its life cycle in relation to a defined functional unit. The IDF has established a commonly accepted methodology for calculating carbon footprints in dairy farming. Comparing a large number of dairy farms using this harmonized method allowed dairy stakeholders to identify a 20% potential reduction in emissions if dairy farmers adopted practices used on the best-performing farms in such areas as type and quantity of feed and other aspects of herd management. The FAO has also published a comprehensive global assessment of emissions from the ruminant sector, based on a common methodology, which has identified key emission pathways and hot spots. This analysis suggested that a 30% reduction of GHG emission would be possible if producers in a given system, region and climate adopted the practices used by the 10% of producers with the lowest emissions. The work of the FAO and IDF has allowed national dairy sectors to undertake their own initiatives. As an example, the French Livestock Institute has developed a tool, CAP’2ER, based on the harmonized LCA method, that can measure GHG emissions at the dairy farm level and identify areas for improvement. In 2015 the French dairy sector launched an ambitious carbon road map, ‘the low carbon dairy farm’. Farm advisers were trained to use the CAP’2ER tool and went to visit more than 5000 volunteer dairy farmers to help them build an action plan to reduce emissions on their farms. The ambition of the French dairy sector is to reduce the carbon footprint of French milk by 20% in 2025. A similar approach has been developed by the Innovation Center for US Dairy using its ‘Farm Smart’ model. Although impressive progress has been made, there remain many challenges in measuring environmental performance. Unlike carbon footprinting, which is now a straightforward documented procedure based on computing global warming potentials within the LCA, a range of methods for estimating water consumption have been developed which, as shown in Chapter 8, can give widely varying results. In 2016 both the FAO and IDF have launched initiatives to agree and implement a common methodology. Other areas for development include the assessment of biodiversity, carbon storage and, more broadly, ecosystem services in dairy farming. Chapters 8 and 9 highlight the various different types of dairy farming system. Chapter 10 focuses specifically on forage-based dairy farming systems and their environmental impact. Current LCA research indicates that the global warming potential of forage-based farms is often about the same as intensive high concentrate-based dairy farms, because the decrease in carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitrous oxide (N2O) is nullified by an increase in enteric methane (CH4). Feeding a dairy cow a diet high in concentrates increases digestibility, but is associated with higher inputs from growing and storing crops for feed, potential pollution issues from fertilizer runoff and the indirect costs of housing cattle in intensive systems. However, as the chapter shows, improvements in grazing systems using high-quality forage can result in similar enteric emissions as a higher-concentrate/ confinement diet. This means that forage-based systems can represent a way to achieve low CH4, N2O and indirect CO2 emissions with the result of a lower overall carbon © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Introductionxxv

footprint. As well as requiring fewer inputs, perennial forages can also be good for soil health and biodiversity. Extensive pasture systems are often associated with relatively poor forage quality, which reduces milk yield and cow health, increases enteric methane (CH4) emissions and damages soil health. These problems can be addressed by improved pasture systems such as management-intensive [rotational] grazing (MIG). This is a system involving a high density of cows for a short period of time on a given paddock. The recovery period for the paddock is long enough to optimize forage yield and quality before cows are allowed to graze it again. Chapter 10 looks at ways to optimize MIG systems to decrease enteric methane emissions, reduce nitrogen and phosphorus losses from grasslands as well as optimize soil health and biodiversity. As the chapter shows, maintaining high-quality pasture can reduce enteric emissions because of improved digestibility. Maintaining a highly digestible sward depends on factors such as choice of forage species and cultivar, including both grasses and legumes in the mix, timing and frequency of grazing initiation. The chapter looks at different species and mixes, including C4 grasses and warm-season legumes able to adapt to the likely impact of climate change. The chapter also reviews research on issues such as extending the grazing season and improving the evenness of forage production to optimize land use. It concludes by discussing case studies from Canada, Australia and New Zealand which demonstrate how managed pasture systems affect milk yield, profitability, emissions, soil health and biodiversity. These case studies suggest MIG is a lower-input system that can match milk yields while decreasing concentrate intake and maintaining enteric methane emissions to equivalent levels when compared to a typical confinement system. More research is needed in such areas as the best species, cultivars and mixtures to use, and best practices for pasture renovation. These issues are also discussed in Chapter 13 on organic dairy farming. Chapters 8 and 9 highlight the issues of water and energy. Chapter 11 discusses improved energy and water management to minimize the environmental impact of dairy farming. As the chapter notes, direct energy uses are those where the energy is consumed on the farm. Examples are the use of electricity for lighting or milking and oil or diesel for crop cultivation. Indirect energy uses are those where the direct energy use occurs outside the farm boundaries. The energy use, therefore, is then embodied in the products used on the farm. Examples are energy used during the manufacture and transport of fertilizers or feed. The chapter provides a detailed assessment of current studies quantifying direct and indirect energy use (i.e. energy use up to the farm-gate or along the entire life cycle) of production of dairy milk. As well as identifying the relative importance of different types of energy use, studies suggest savings of up to 40% or more by adopting best practices in energy management. The chapter also assesses the strengths and weaknesses of models such as DairyWise, FarmGHG, FarmSim and the Moorepark Dairy Systems Model in analysing energy use. The chapter then discusses a case study assessing two main strategies to reduce electricity consumption in dairy milking facilities. ‘Cost strategies’ focus on measures to save on-farm electricity costs, such as moving to a new electricity tariff or moving energyintensive processes such as water heating to off-peak periods when electricity price is lower. ‘Energy strategies’ aim to reduce electricity consumption, associated costs and GHG emissions. Possible ‘energy strategies’ are the use of pre-cooling of milk and solar thermal technologies to provide hot water for washing of milking equipment. Research © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

xxvi

Introduction

suggests, for example, that milking earlier in the morning and later in the evening could reduce electricity costs by 30% or more. The use of energy-efficient technologies such as a direct expansion or ice bank milk cooling system, together with solar panel technology, could reduce electricity costs by around 40%. Investment in technologies such as precooling coupled with direct expansion milk cooling systems is attractive in both reducing costs and GHG emissions. Given increasing concern about pressures on water resources, the chapter also looks at quantifying the water footprint of dairy farming, whether the consumption of soil moisture due to evapotranspiration (known as green water) or the consumption of groundwater and surface water (known as blue water). The chapter reviews the range of studies of farm water use as well as the role of measures such as the water stress index which measures water consumption impacts in relation to water scarcity. Studies show, for example, that around 25% of livestock drinking water on pasture-based dairy farms is wasted through leakage, as well as the benefits of improving water use monitoring and water recycling technologies. A number of chapters such as Chapters 9 and 10 have highlighted the importance of biodiversity as a key aspect of sustainability. On dairy farms, biodiversity can include soil biodiversity, grass or pasture species, native vegetation, and other flora and fauna in the agricultural landscape matrix. Dairy farming can also affect aquatic, downstream estuarine and coastal biodiversity because of the nutrients, pesticides and sediments transported away from the farm through surface runoff and groundwater. As the chapter points out, the key to enhancing biological diversity within dairying landscapes is to increase heterogeneity at multiple scales – within the farm, between farms, from subcatchment to catchment scales and ultimately across whole landscapes. High-intensity farming is often associated with more homogenous monoculture cropping systems that results in greater ecological disturbance and biodiversity loss. Impacts of dairy farming on biodiversity can include modifying the structure and species composition of ground cover and understorey vegetation; promoting exotic plant species invasions; reducing the regeneration of shade trees and increasing the mortality of remaining trees; reductions in populations of a broad range of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish and invertebrates due to habitat degradation; and the compacting and degrading of soils which increases runoff, erosion, and the transportation of sediments and nutrients, which can ultimately change the morphology of streams. In addition, the runoff of faeces and urine in and near streams can cause contamination by a range of viruses, bacteria and parasitic protozoa and have a significant negative impact on water quality and stream biota. The consequences of these changes include localized degradation of many critical ecosystem services including nitrogen fixation, pollination, soil enrichment, facilitation of nutrient uptake by plants, pest and disease dynamics, and water purification. Improving biodiversity involves balancing a range of economic, ecological and other factors. The chapter discusses the use of models such as the Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs model. It is used to predict changes in ecosystem services, biodiversity conservation and commodity production levels. In improving biodiversity, it is important to restore or introduce elements that increase habitat heterogeneity in the farms in a region. These elements may include semi-natural habitat features such as hedgerows, shelterbelts, ditches, woodlots, restored native forest, agroforestry blocks, wetlands and riparian planting of stream, river and other water body margins with native vegetation to provide ecological corridors. A key element is to connect these elements to allow for © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Introductionxxvii

better migration and dispersal with the wider agricultural matrix. Habitat improvements may also include the addition of flowering field margins suitable for pollinators and butterflies, dikes and reed beds for waterfowl, suitable pasture mowing regimes to attract field birds and cropland for foraging birds such as pheasants. At the level of the individual dairy farm, it is possible to employ the concept of ‘functional agrobiodiversity’ which addresses both above- and below-ground biodiversity in dairy ecosystems by encouraging such services as nutrient cycling, disease control, pollination and water regulation. The measures to enhance functional agrobiodiversity focus on improving soil health and improving the cycles of nutrients, water and energy on the farm. Direct measures to support this may include outdoor grazing, protein-rich crops, herb-rich grassland, the establishment of permanent pasture, reductions in the use of agricultural chemicals and the use of green manure. One of the most significant challenges to improving biodiversity is developing effective methods not just to convince individual farmers of the value of biodiversity but to convince them to work together to solve these landscape-level problems. The chapter looks at the main barriers to achieving commitment and collaboration amongst dairy farmers. The chapter concludes with a series of case studies illustrating both the challenges and the opportunities in improving biodiversity in the United States, Ireland and New Zealand. As an example, they show the impact of organic farming on biodiversity as well as the impact of riparian enhancement and other methods for biodiversity enhancement in New Zealand. These have both enhanced biodiversity and improved the farms themselves by reducing soil erosion, increasing shelter for stock and increasing pasture growth. The final case describes the results of a study identifying factors that affect dairy farmers’ motivations to engage in conservation behaviour in New Zealand. As the chapter indicates, an ongoing challenge in assessing biodiversity initiatives is the limited amount of ecological monitoring data available across species and taxa. Chapter 12 mentions the role of organic dairy farming in enhancing biodiversity. Chapter 13 looks more broadly at the environmental impact of organic dairy farming, picking up themes discussed in Chapter 10 on grassland management. Ruminants play a particularly important role in integrated organic systems, since they can efficiently utilize grassland resources, legume forages from crop rotations and crop residues, and provide valuable manure for the soil. Whilst not excluding the use of concentrates, organic standards prioritize the use of pasture and define minimum proportions of roughage in organic dairy cattle diets. However, as discussed in Chapter 10, the digestion of fibre is the most prominent source of enteric methane production in ruminants. This results in the apparent dilemma that the more a ruminant production system is based on roughages and avoids concentrates, the higher the methane emission is per unit of product. Ruminal methane production is thus the main factor which challenges the environmental sustainability of roughage-based ruminant production. Chapter 13 addresses this problem first by reviewing the range of studies comparing the effects of roughage and concentrate diets on outcomes such as milk yield and emissions. The chapter then discusses the differing types of solution available to organic dairy farming. These solutions are to realize an efficient roughage-based production, which requires significantly less inputs from arable land than conventional systems; to enhance dairy cows’ health and welfare, particularly their longevity; and to develop the right matches between local conditions (in particular available feed sources) and cow genotypes, in order to achieve functioning systems with the lowest possible need for external nutrient sources. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

xxviii

Introduction

One way of improving the efficiency of organic dairy farming is to extend the productive life of cows. The productive lifespan of dairy cows in conventional dairy farming has considerably decreased over the past decades and has currently reached levels as low as 2.5 lactations in many industrialized countries. This reduced lifespan results in lower overall feed efficiency and higher relative emissions if calculated for the whole lifespan of the cow. In addition to increasing overall feed efficiency, a further advantage of a prolonged productive lifespan is that it provides the opportunity to produce more calves for fattening systems out of the dairy production. It has been shown that combined dairy and beef production systems have clear advantages when it comes to GHG emissions per unit of product, mainly because the GHG emission for beef can be reduced if calves originate from dairy systems. Improving longevity requires developing more robust breeds and improvements in herd management. Increased longevity is related to better overall animal health and welfare. Studies have shown that a holistic herd management approach, which integrates husbandry, breeding and nutrition, can improve overall animal health in organic farming. A second area of research is in increasing roughage-sourced nutrient efficiency through better management of different forage qualities. This includes offering forages with nutrient compositions and at volumes better adjusted to the changing intake needs and digestive processes of ruminants at different times of the day. Studies have shown, for example, that sequential feeding of forages improved feed efficiency. Another approach is the targeted use of herbal feedstuffs which contain high amounts of plant secondary compounds able to influence ruminal fermentation processes. The chapter summarizes research on several individual tannin-rich plant species and their effects on ruminant protein metabolism. It also includes a case study from the Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) in Switzerland, the ‘Feed-no-Food’ project, which demonstrated the feasibility of a primarily roughage-based feeding regime for some organic production systems. A third way of improving the environmental impact of dairy farming is in breeding. Organic breeding emphasizes the importance of a particular combination of functional traits, aiming at healthy, fertile, long-lived cows, able to cope with local conditions while maintaining consistent milk production with little change in body condition throughout lactation. Another objective is dual-purpose breeds that combine good levels of milk yield with beef quality. On this basis, some countries have developed specific organic selection indices for breeding. The development of genomic breeding tools offers new opportunities to investigate functional traits relevant to the organic sector. The chapter includes a case study summarizing the EU ‘LowInputBreeds’ which aimed at developing integrated livestock breeding and management strategies to improve animal health, product quality and performance in European organic milk production systems. The project results showed that there is considerable potential in the exploitation of innovative breeding tools for the organic dairy sector. Building on the broader concept of sustainability discussed in Chapter 8, the final two chapters in Part 2 look more widely at the impact of dairy farming. As noted earlier, dairy production provides livelihoods for approximately 1 billion people and serves over 6 billion consumers. As Chapter 14 points out, global bovine milk production is 600 million tonnes with the top ten producing countries accounting for just over 56% of world production. The chapter looks at various indicators of production, consumption, price fluctuations and global trade in dairy products. As with overall production and consumption, a general expansion in trade of dairy products is expected with increased exports from the countries/regions such as the United States, EU, Australia and New Zealand which is the © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Introductionxxix

world’s largest exporter of dairy commodities, representing approximately one-third of international dairy trade each year. The chapter then looks in more detail at trends in milk production in the EU, the United Kingdom and New Zealand. The chapter concludes that it is evident that dairy farming is now a globally integrated industry. It is influenced by climate which can reduce feed availability and thus increase feed prices but can also lead to global oversupply affecting the prices that farmers can realize for their dairy products. This level of global integration is one reason why the viability of dairy farming has dropped and led to the number of dairy farms falling in many countries, whilst others have seen some increase primarily to meet increasing domestic demand for liquid milk as well as for the increasing trade in valueadded products such as cheese and milk powders. The number of cows for the highest producing countries has tended to rise, more so recently, with those entering the market also demonstrating some increase. In other areas cow numbers have fallen. Average herd size is also increasing as farmers build on the need for some economies of scale in order to survive. Fluctuations in production levels have occurred, but are generally increasing. For the future, dairy production will remain profitable for many, there may be fewer producers better equipped to compete in a global market. Three key areas for these more successful producers will be closer working relationships within the industry, continued technical improvement, and product innovation. Building on Chapter 14 and the opening paragraph of the Introduction, Chapter 15 seeks to assess the overall impact of the dairy sector in such areas as its economic impact, its role in nutrition and its effects on the environment. Given its scope, it covers many topics which are addressed in both Parts 2 and 3. As it points out, the Introduction to the 2016 Global Food Policy Report by the International Food Policy Research Institute notes that a food system that promotes the well-being of both people and the planet should be: •• •• •• •• •• ••

Efficient Inclusive Climate-smart Sustainable Nutrition- and health-driven Business-friendly

The chapter explores the degree to which the dairy sector meets these criteria. As it points out, analysis undertaken by the International Farm Comparisons Network and published by the FAO has determined that 750–900 million people live on approximately 150 million dairy farms. Many of these are smallholder farmers living in developing nations where dairy is indispensable to their livelihoods. As noted earlier, latest estimates are that 240 million people are either employed directly or indirectly in the dairy sector, whilst up to 1 billion people derive a significant proportion of their livelihoods from dairy if employment throughout the whole of the dairy chain is included. In addition to providing a livelihood for approximately one-seventh of the world’s population, dairy production provides an important source of nutrition for over six billion people. Milk makes a significant contribution to meeting the body’s needs for a variety of macro and micro nutrients including protein, calcium, magnesium, selenium, riboflavin, and vitamins B5 and B12. In addition to providing a wide range of micronutrients, global milk production contributes on an average per capita/per day basis: 134 kcal of energy, © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

xxx

Introduction

8.3 g of protein, and 7.6 g fat; or 5%, 10% and 9% of global food energy, protein and fat, respectively. Dairy consumption can also deliver substantial positive health outcomes through improved metabolic health, lower insulin resistance and improved muscular skeletal health, by reducing dental caries and by reducing the incidence of cardiovascular disease, hypertension and type 2 diabetes. The possible association of dairy consumption with certain cancers, with type 1 diabetes and (for whole fat dairy products) with heart disease all look unlikely given the findings from recent meta-analysis and the balance of scientific evidence. The nutritional value of milk means that dairy consumption could translate into substantial reductions in national health care costs. As an example, a study in the United States concluded that consumption of 3–4 servings of dairy per day could translate into cumulative five-year savings of over US$200 billion. In less developed countries, milk and dairy products can reduce micronutrient deficiency, malnutrition and stunting or low height-for-age.  As these figures make clear, the dairy sector has a huge impact on livelihoods and nutrition around the world. This can also be seen in the current scale of production and likely future demand. In 2015 global milk production reached approximately 800 billion litres. Dairy (including cow and buffalo milk) is the world’s number one traded agricultural food by value. The FAO predicts that demand for milk could grow to approximately 1.1 trillion litres by 2050. If demand for milk matched current dietary recommendations by 2050 then 9.6 billion people will require over 1.7 trillion litres of milk/year or more than double the current production. A key issue is the environmental impact and sustainability of increasing milk production. As Chapter 15 points out, dairy farming utilizes 1 billion hectares (ha) or 7% of the world’s land to feed the major milking species (cows, buffaloes, goats and sheep). Of the 1 billion ha, 85% or 850 million ha is either pastures or rangeland, with 150 million ha of arable land also used to produce feed for dairy animals. Dairy cows consume 2.5 billion tons of dry matter or approximately 40% of the global livestock feed intake. As noted, dairy also generates 2.7% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions or on average 2.4 kg CO2 equivalent per kg of milk produced. Dairy farming has made some impressive improvements in productivity through advances in breeding and feeding of dairy cows together with improved management of dairy farms. As an example, in the United States over the past sixty years, milk yield has increased more than fourfold while using 90% less land, 65% less water, producing 75% less manure and at 63% less GHG per unit of milk. Based on such advances, it has been estimated that it is possible to produce over one trillion litres of milk with fewer cows and at average GHG emissions that are 40% lower than today, though this may involve reducing the number of smallholders involved in dairy production. As the chapter indicates, globally 85% of the land used for dairying is pasture or rangeland and 77% of the feed consumed by dairy animals is from pasture and straws. This creates a solid platform from which to make improvements to dairy farming systems to reduce GHG emission per unit of milk production. Recognizing the complexity of the challenge and the need for common global frameworks to be locally relevant and applicable, the dairy sector has developed a comprehensive DSF, previously discussed in Chapter 8. The DSF is composed of eleven sustainability criteria covering socio-economic and ecological aspects of the dairy chain. The DSF provides a common way for the dairy sector to make and measure progress towards more sustainable food systems. So far the DSF is being used to assist hundreds of dairy organizations to © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Introductionxxxi

implement around two hundred sustainability-related initiatives. Participation in the DSF is growing rapidly with 27% of global milk production already operating under the DSF covering over 30 million cows, 658,000 farms and 3,700 processing plants worldwide. As Chapter 15 concludes, calls by some to limit dairy production and consumption on environmental or nutritional grounds do not look valid given the balance of current knowledge. The way forward is in initiatives such as the DSF as well as the kind of research on ways of improving milk production summarized in the other chapters in Part 2.

Part 3 Improving quality, safety and sustainability in developing countries As Chapter 16 makes clear, much dairy production is still undertaken by smallholders in developing countries. The chapter looks at ways of helping smallholder dairy (SHD) farmers in Asia. The Asia-Pacific region has seen the world’s highest growth in demand for milk and dairy products. The consumption of milk and dairy products in Asia has doubled over the last 30 years, now contributing to more than 60% of the total increases in global consumption. Even though Asia has increased its milk output (as a percentage of global production) from 15% in 1981 to 37% in 2011, it still accounts for over 40% of the world’s total dairy imports. Most Asian countries still rely heavily on imported dairy products. In Asia, as in the rest of the developing world, 80% of milk is produced by SHD farmers. Smallholder farms generally yield low outputs of milk per animal. Typical milk yields per cow per day still range between 8 and 10 kg as compared to average yields of 20 to 30 kg in developed countries. General factors limiting smallholder production include: •• Institutional factors, such as dairy cooperatives, suppliers of credit, training and extension services •• Government policies, such as development programmes, milk promotion and dairy boards •• Socio-economic factors, such as farmer education, off-farm jobs and traditional beliefs •• Technical factors, which can be further categorized into feeding, breeding and health •• Post-farm-gate factors, such as milk processing, marketing and consumption Specific on-farm issues and areas for improvement include: •• Low cow productivity: improve management of feeding, reproductive management and milk harvesting •• Low milk prices: reduce costs of production, improve milk quality, mediate on milk pricing and find alternative markets •• Poor milk quality: improve milking hygiene at both farm and post-farm-gate, improve milk composition through better feeding management •• Poor feed quality and availability: identify better forage species (e.g. legumes), better quality control of concentrate supplies and utilize marginal land for forages

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

xxxii

Introduction

•• Cooperative management: reduce management structure and merge small cooperatives, improve post-harvest technology and improve calf and heifer rearing practices The chapter concludes by reviewing various ways to help smallholders improve their performance as well as key performance indicators to measure success. The chapter concludes with a case study of investment in ‘cow colonies’, large dairy sheds holding 50 or more cows that are owned by a number of smallholder farmers. As the chapter shows, this attempt to help smallholders pool resources more efficiently has had mixed results. The problems associated with cow colonies show the need to take a holistic view which accounts for each step in the dairy value chain. Mirroring the situation in Asia, an estimated 80% of the milk produced in Africa is from smallholder farming systems where producers rear less than ten head of cattle on land sizes that vary from 0.2 to 4 hectares. Issues such as breeding management, cattle feed resources, water, animal health and animal limit the potential productivity achievable. Low nutrient availability and environmental factors such as diseases, high ambient temperatures and the housing environment for high-yielding cows significantly impact their milk production and reproductive performance. However, advances in agricultural technologies, better production practices, suitably adapted cattle breeding programmes, innovation platforms and organized farmer support groups present new opportunities for realizing significant productivity gains in SHD farming systems. A key area for improvement is breeding. Smallholder farmers rear a mosaic of genotypes comprising combinations of exotic and indigenous breeds. Most countries lack national programmes for selective breeding, livestock performance monitoring or systematic crossbreeding of their populations. One of the greatest technical challenges in optimizing utilization of breed resources in smallholder production systems is how to match livestock genotypes to local production conditions. There is an increasing amount of information available at country level on the diversity, characteristics and use of different cattle breeds in Africa through web-based electronic resources. These include the Domestic Animal Genetic Resources Information Systems available through the International Livestock Research Institute (and the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System available through the FAO). The potential of these resources can be seen, for example, in a recent study of indigenous breeds crossbred with exotic Bos taurus breeds of dairy cattle. The resulting crossbreeds demonstrated higher milk yields, increased lactation lengths, shorter calving intervals and a lower age at first calving compared with the local breeds. Advances in high-density single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) technology, which enables genotyping of an individual at low cost, present an opportunity for revolutionary changes in the genetic analysis of populations and genetic improvement programmes. SNP technology offers an opportunity to reconstruct pedigrees of crossbred animals, increase the accuracies of breeding value estimations, lower rates of inbreeding, and reduce generation intervals in dairy cattle breeding. Other improved breeding techniques also include assortative and non-assortative mating, oestrus synchronization in combination with artificial insemination (AI) using sexed semen as well as embryo transfer. Communitybased breeding programmes also offer opportunities for making better use of available genetic resources using crossbreeding as a first stepping stone, and AI to disseminate improved genetic material amongst farmers. Availability and quality of animal feed has been identified as one of the greatest constraints to improving dairy productivity within smallholder farming systems of © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Introductionxxxiii

sub-Saharan Africa. Development of fodder banks, improved pasture species, planted legumes and feed supplementation with crop by-products would result in better-quality diets for dairy cattle (a theme echoed in Chapters 10 and 13). Novel livestock feeds based on crop species more suited to conditions in sub-Saharan Africa are being used as an alternative sources of carbohydrates and proteins for animals. These include cassava roots and by-products, dual-purpose sorghum varieties (for grain and fodder) and use of sweet potato vines and roots. Several manuals have been developed with country- and regionspecific information on good feeding and management practices for dairy cattle. Vector-borne diseases, notably East coast fever spread by ticks, trypanosomiasis spread by tsetse flies and anaemia caused by worm infestations, limit dairy productivity in many areas of sub-Saharan Africa. Parasitic diseases in particular cause serious losses in dairy productivity through both mortality and morbidity of animals in smallholder farming systems. Diseases related to production and management of animals such as mastitis, footand-leg problems, and reproduction and feed associated-disorders are also a challenge in many smallholder farms. The development of community-led animal health strategies such as vaccination programmes led by farmer groups, and implemented by veterinarians and community animal health workers, together with community-based disease and vector control (e.g. community dip tanks and community-coordinated rotational grazing) could greatly benefit SHD farmers in Africa. Building on the theme of cooperation, the chapter looks at the role of groups such as dairy cooperatives and dairy hubs as well as ways of strengthening SHD value chains. The final chapter in the book, Chapter 18, combines issues of sustainability and development, picking up and developing themes identified in both Chapters 13 and 17. In African countries, organic farming is practised on almost 1.3 million ha or about 0.1% of the total agricultural area of the continent. The chapter reviews the challenges and opportunities for developing organic dairy farming in Africa in areas such as breeds and breeding techniques such as AI; fertility and reproduction; housing, grazing and feed; disease prevention and management; and milking techniques, milk collection and storage.

Summary The chapters in this book highlight the ongoing challenges dairy farming faces from pathogens and other hazards such as chemical contaminants. They show the need for better on-farm detection techniques as well as adaption of best practices in dairy farm safety management to the conditions faced by smallholder farmers in the developing world. They also show the huge challenge of improving the sustainability of milk production as production increases to match demand, for example, in optimizing pasture-based systems to reduce methane emissions. The volume shows the progress the sector is making in setting appropriate environmental standards and implementing improvements as well as developing particular ways of dealing with emissions, energy and water use.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Part 1

Ensuring the safety and quality of milk on the farm

Chapter 1 Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows Claire Verraes, Sabine Cardoen and Wendie Claeys, Federal Agency for the Safety of the Food Chain, Belgium; and Lieve Herman, Institute for Agricultural and Fisheries Research, Belgium 1 Introduction 2 Pathogenic microorganisms in raw milk 3 Sources of microbiological contamination of raw milk 4 The growth of bacteria in raw milk 5 Heat treatment and other techniques to prevent bacterial contamination of milk 6 Occurrence of pathogenic microorganisms in raw milk and cheese made from raw milk 7 Outbreaks related to the consumption of raw milk and of cheese made from raw milk 8 Summary 9 Future trends 10 Where to look for further information 11 References

1 Introduction Regulation (EC) No 853/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 laying down specific hygiene rules for food of animal origin defines ‘raw milk’ as milk produced by the secretion of the mammary gland of farmed animals that has not been heated to more than 40 ºC or undergone any treatment that has an equivalent effect. ‘Dairy products’ are defined as products resulting from the processing of raw milk or from the further processing of such products. According to this regulation, raw milk must come from animals that do not show any symptoms of infectious diseases communicable to humans through milk. These animals should show a good general state of health, present no sign of disease that might result in the contamination of milk and, in particular, should not suffer from any genital tract infection with discharge, enteritis with diarrhoea and fever or a recognizable inflammation of the udder. They must not have any udder wound that is likely to affect the milk. Raw milk must come from cows belonging to a herd that, within the meaning of Directive 64/432/EEC, is free or http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2016.0005.17 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

4

Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows

officially free of brucellosis and of tuberculosis. The isolation of milk from the infected, or suspected of being infected, animals must be effective to avoid any adverse effect on other healthy animals’ milk. The requirements concerning hygiene on milk production holdings (premises and equipment, hygiene during milking, collection and transport and staff hygiene) are also described in Regulation (EC) N° 853/2004. The criteria for raw milk collected for industrial processing are as follows: A representative number of raw milk samples taken by random sampling must be checked, and the food business operators must initiate procedures to ensure that the samples meet the following criteria (for raw milk from cows): a plate count at 30 °C (per mL) ≤ 100 000 (rolling geometric average over a two-month period, with at least two samples per month); a somatic cell count (per mL) ≤ 400 000 (rolling geometric average over a three-month period, with at least one sample per month). When raw milk or dairy products undergo heat treatment, food business operators must ensure that this satisfies the requirements of Regulation (EC) N° 852/2004. Raw milk meant for consumption falls under the general food regulation, specifying that food must be free of pathogens. The microbiological risks arising out of consumption of raw milk from cows and from other animal species and of dairy products based on raw milk were reviewed by EFSA (2015), Claeys et al. (2013), Verraes et al. (2014) and Verraes et al. (2015b). This chapter reviews how pathogens affect raw milk from cows and dairy products made from raw milk. Milk-borne zoonotic pathogenic microorganisms that can contaminate raw milk or dairy products are described, including sources of contamination. The growth of these pathogens during refrigerated storage of milk is discussed with inclusion of antimicrobial systems. Subsequently, human outbreaks due to consumption of contaminated raw milk and raw milk cheese, and the frequencies of occurrence of relevant pathogens in them are reviewed. In this chapter, only zoonotic microorganisms and microorganisms originating from the food production environment are described. Microorganisms originating from humans (e.g. Salmonella typhi, Shigella spp., noroviruses) are beyond the scope of this chapter. The effect of heat treatments – pasteurization and ultra-high-temperature sterilization (UHT) being the most commonly applied – on pathogens possibly present in raw milk will be focused on. As discussed in sections 6 and 7 of this chapter, milk from other animal species (goats, sheep, horses, donkeys, etc.) will also be considered. A risk evaluation of raw milk and raw milk cheese is elaborated. Dairy products based on raw milk other than cheese are out of the scope of this chapter, as growth possibilities of pathogens in other matrices than cheese, such as Listeria monocytogenes in raw milk butter, are limited (De Reu et al., 2008) and that information on other raw milk-based dairy products such as cream and buttermilk is scarce. Finally, management options are described to control risks linked to the consumption of raw milk and related dairy products.

2  Pathogenic microorganisms in raw milk Raw milk can be contaminated by several commensal non-pathogenic microorganisms as well as by human pathogenic microorganisms. A list of human pathogenic microorganisms potentially encountered in raw milk from cows is presented in Table 1. Human pathogenic Escherichia coli are strains that are able to produce Shigaor Vero(cyto)toxins in combination with other virulence factors resulting in human

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows5 Table 1 Human pathogenic microorganisms in raw milk from cows and sources of contamination Faecal contamination (external contamination of the milk during or after milking)/ contamination from skin

Environmental sources

Thermophilic Campylobacter spp.

X

X

Human pathogenic Escherichia coli

X

X

Direct passage in the milk from the blood (systemic)

Mastitis (udder infection)

Pathogenic bacteria

Salmonella spp. Listeria monocytogenes

(X) (S. dublin)

(X)

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Enterotoxin-producing Staphylococcus aureus* Mycobacterium bovis

X

Brucella abortus

X

(X)

X

Bacillus cereus 

X

Streptococcus equi ssp. zooepidemicus

X

Human pathogenic Yersinia

X**

X

X

Coxiella burnetii

X

X

X

Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis***

X

X

X

Corynebacterium spp.

(X)

Arcanobacter (previously Streptococcus) pyogenes

(X) X

Pathogenic viruses Tick-borne encephalitis virus

X

Rift Valley Fever virus

X

Pathogenic parasites Cryptosporidium parvum Toxoplasma gondii

X

X

X

X

X

X (toxins)

X (spores)

X (spores)

Toxins Toxins of Clostridium botulinum

( ) rarely. * classified under ‘pathogenic bacteria’ rather than ‘toxins’ because after excretion from the infected udder, multiplication in milk at ambient temperature has to occur first before producing toxins during conservation, in contrast to toxins of C. botulinum, for example, which could be present in milk directly from the udder. ** only Yersinia pseudotuberculosis. *** no substantial causal link between Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis and human disease. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

6

Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows

pathogenicity. Human infections are associated with a variety of O/H serogroups, among which the O157:H7 or the O157:H-serogroup is the best known. Yersinia comprises two species that are known to cause foodborne infections: Y. enterocolitica and Y. pseudotuberculosis. Only certain biotypes of Y. enterocolitica (1b, 2, 3, 4 and 5) are able to cause disease in humans. In cattle, Y. pseudotuberculosis is rarely isolated, but it can be encountered in raw milk due to mastitis. Some Staphylococcus aureus strains are capable of producing highly heat-stable enterotoxins in food, which may cause human illness. Staphylococcal food poisoning is an intoxication caused by the consumption of foods containing preformed enterotoxins. The bovine mammary gland can be a significant reservoir of enterotoxigenic strains of S. aureus. The frequency of enterotoxigenicity amongst staphylococcal strains is highly variable. Studies on S. aureus isolated from cows show enterotoxigenicity ranging from 0 to 56.5%. Toxic shock syndrome toxin-producing S. aureus, considered as the major cause of toxic syndrome, were isolated in raw milk from cows with clinical and subclinical mastitis and in farm bulk tank milk (Oliver et al., 2005). Regarding Clostridium botulinum, only strains of type B are considered because they are the only relevant pathogenic type transferable from cattle to humans. Botulism in humans is mainly due to intoxication (ingestion of botulic toxins preformed in the food). It is to be noted that persons with a modified intestinal flora (after a prolonged antimicrobial treatment, for example) or an insufficiently developed flora (babies) can be sensitive to infection by C. botulinum (FDA, 2012). Spores of Bacillus cereus may be present in raw milk in low numbers (Christiansson, 1995). B. cereus can cause two types of food poisoning: emetic and diarrhoeal types. For the emetic type (intoxication), a heat-stable emetic toxin named ‘cereulide’, preformed in the food, is responsible for the symptoms similar to those of S. aureus intoxication. This type is probably the most dangerous because it has also been associated with life-threatening acute conditions of fulminating liver failure and rhabdomyolysis (Mahler et al., 1997). However, the emetic toxin has never been found in milk. For the diarrhoeal type, heat-unstable enterotoxins (toxico-infection) produced in the gut by vegetative cells cause a diarrhoeal syndrome. The number of organisms most often associated with human illness is 105 to 108 CFU g-1 (FDA, 2012). Regarding milk-borne infections, the Central European encephalitis virus, the Russian spring summer encephalitis virus, the louping-ill virus and the Powassan virus, all of which being members of the tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV) complex, may be transmitted to humans via milk and milk products (Blaskovic et al., 1967; Woodall and Roz, 1977). Following infection of an animal by tick bite, the viruses are excreted into the milk during the viraemic phase. Tick-borne encephalitis is endemic in all countries of Eastern Europe, former USSR and Scandinavia, as well as in France, Austria, Switzerland and Germany.

3  Sources of microbiological contamination of raw milk The sources of contamination for each human pathogenic microorganism potentially encountered in raw milk from cows are listed in Table 1 and are hereafter described. The main routes are as follows:

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows7

•• •• •• ••

Direct contamination of the milk from blood Direct contamination of the milk from the udder Indirect contamination from faecal shedding Indirect contamination from the environment

The first direct route is passage into the milk from the blood via the udder (systemic disease). Some pathogenic or hypothetical pathogenic microorganisms may circulate in the blood of the animals, localize in the mammary gland or associated lymph nodes and pass into the milk (LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz, 2009). These pathogenic microorganisms are S. dublin (rarely), Brucella abortus, Mycobacterium bovis, Coxiella burnetii, M. avium ssp. paratuberculosis, L. monocytogenes, Corynebacterium pseudotuberculosis (rarely), Leptospira (OIE, 2011), the Rift Valley Fever virus and the TBEV. Some of these microorganisms, such as L. monocytogenes, B. abortus, C. burnetii and M. avium ssp. paratuberculosis, are intracellular and pass into the milk via the somatic cells (e.g. macrophages) normally present in the milk. The possibility that the toxins of C. botulinum present in the blood pass into the milk exists (Cobb et al., 2002, Böhnel et al., 2005), especially in case of mastitis (FSA, 2005; Böhnel et al., 2005). The second direct route is excretion from the udder. In healthy cows free from systemic infection, milk can become contaminated, during excretion, by bacteria that live as commensal microflora on the teat skin or on the epithelial lining of the teat canal. In cattle, bacteria of the genera Staphylococcus, Streptococcus, Bacillus, Micrococcus and Corynebacterium, and occasionally coliforms, colonize this location (LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz, 2009). However, mastitis-causing organisms, of which Staphylococcus and Streptococcus species are predominant (LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz, 2009), and of which some could be pathogenic for humans, can also be excreted into the milk. These are Salmonella spp., B. abortus, L. monocytogenes, C. pseudotuberculosis, Y. pseudotuberculosis (Bleul et al., 2002; Shwimmer et al., 2007), enterotoxin-producing S. aureus, Arcanobacter (previously Streptococcus) pyogenes (Bendixen and Minett, 1938) and Streptococcus equi subsp. zooepidemicus (Francis et al., 1993; Edwards et al., 1988; Barrett, 1986). The milk produced by animals with subclinical mastitis is not macroscopically different from the milk produced by uninfected animals and is frequently added to the milk collection or storage tank on a farm. Milk from cows with clinical mastitis, however, has typically changed appearance (i.e. it may contain flakes, clots or blood or may have changed colour) and has to be withheld from human consumption (LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz, 2009). Indirect routes include contamination of the milk after faecal shedding. Several human pathogens are present in the intestinal tract of (asymptomatic) cows, which excrete the bacteria in the faeces: Salmonella spp., M. bovis, Coxiella burnetii, M. avium subsp. paratuberculosis, L. monocytogenes, human pathogenic E. coli, Campylobacter spp., human pathogenic Yersinia, Cryptosporidium parvum and spores of C. botulinum. Cattle can be infected via ingestion of silage containing C. botulinum toxins of type B (Notermans et al., 1981; Chiers et al., 1998), and the milk can be contaminated via faecal or environmental contamination of the udder with C. botulinum spores (Notermans et al., 1981). These bacteria contaminate the milk during the milking process. The other indirect route is external contamination of the milk from the environment. Some microorganisms, such as Pseudomonas spp., Enterobacteriaceae, Bacillus spp., E. coli, C. parvum, Salmonella spp. and numerous other types of bacteria, contaminate water reservoirs. Some microorganisms can also survive in inadequately sanitized milking

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

8

Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows

or storage equipment or surfaces, in bedding materials, urine, soils, silages and so on. Some bacteria, such as C. burnetii and B. abortus, are excreted via aborted tissues. A diversity of bacterial types such as Pseudomonas, Enterobacteriaceae, L. monocytogenes, S. aureus, Y. enterocolitica and Salmonella spp. can proliferate in milk residues present in joints and in dead ends of badly cleaned milking plants and contaminate the stored milk.

4  The growth of bacteria in raw milk The milk produced at the farm can be transported to the industry for further processing and/or directly transformed at the farm for direct or local consumption, without transport. According to the Regulation (EC) N° 853/2004, immediately after milking, both types of milk must be held in a clean place designed and equipped to avoid bacterial contamination. They must be cooled immediately in the milk tank to not more than 8 °C in the case of daily collection, or not more than 6 °C if collection is not daily. During the transport of the milk meant for the industry, the cold chain must be maintained and, on arrival at the establishment of destination, the temperature of the milk must not exceed 10 ºC. Raw milk meant for distributors must be kept at refrigeration temperature. The rich nutrient composition and neutral pH make milk a good vehicle for the survival and growth of some commensal bacteria responsible for the spoilage of the milk (e.g. Pseudomonas spp.) and of some pathogenic bacteria during the storage of raw milk at refrigeration temperature. If the chillness of the milk is properly maintained, bacterial proliferation can be suppressed. Nevertheless, psychrotrophic organisms such as Pseudomonas spp., Listeria spp. or Yersinia spp. may further proliferate at low temperature; in case of temperature misuse, some commensal and pathogenic bacteria can grow and/or produce toxins. Moreover, prevention of proliferation is not sufficient to ensure milk safety, because even low numbers of some contaminating pathogens, such as Campylobacter spp. or human pathogenic E. coli, can result in human illness. Thus, the simple survival of pathogens in milk is also of concern (LeJeune and Rajala-Schultz, 2009). Raw milk contains commensal bacteria, including lactic acid producers, able to grow and to produce lactic acid at temperatures above the refrigeration temperature, leading to rapid spoilage of raw milk. This rapid spoilage explains why human clinical cases due to raw milk consumption are described less frequently for pathogens needing a relatively high infection dose to induce human disease (e.g. L. monocytogenes, S. aureus and B. cereus). Raw milk contains several systems with antimicrobial properties, which are detailed in Table 2. The main goal of the milk components exerting antimicrobial activity is to protect the mucosal surfaces of the digestive tract of the neonate against infections until its own immune system has developed (EFSA, 2015). As such, the level of these components is mainly high in colostrum and significantly lower in mature milk (e.g. lactoferrin and immunoglobulins). The activity of the antimicrobial systems to suppress the growth of pathogens in raw milk is limited (EFSA, 2015). Some of these systems are enzymes (lactoperoxidase, lysozyme and xanthine oxidase). As the activity of enzymes is influenced by temperature, the activity of most of these systems is limited to the refrigeration temperatures used to store raw milk (Griffiths, 2010). Lactoperoxidase is an enzyme in milk that, when combined with hydrogen peroxide and © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Contributes to the bacteriostatic properties of milk, in conjunction with other enzymes

Active primarily against Grampositive bacteria; has bactericidal effects in conjunction with lactoferrin

Lysozyme (EC 3.1.2.17)

Fe-binding protein; deprives microorganisms of Fe, Mg and Ca needed for microbial growth and survival, thereby providing bacteriostatic effects

Lactoferrin

Lactoperoxidase (lactenin) (EC 1.11.1.7)

Antimicrobial properties

Milk component

Table 2 Main antimicrobial properties in milk

The amount present in bovine milk is very small (0.4 mg/L).

The antimicrobial activity requires two chemicals: hydrogen peroxide (produced by some bacteria) and thiocyanate (indigenous). Although both occur normally in milk, addition is required in order to achieve the antibacterial benefits of lactoperoxidase.

Lactoferrin level is moderately elevated in colostrum (1 to 5 mg/ mL), but decreases during lactation (0.01 to 0.1 mg/ mL). The bacteriostatic effect is abrogated by the citrate concentration in mature milk, and is temporary because some Gram-negative bacteria can adapt to low Fe and synthesize Fe chelators. Pepsin digestion of the N-terminus releases bactericidal peptides that are 100 to 1000 times more potent than intact lactoferrin.

Remark

>75% activity retained after heating at 80 °C for 15 s

Retains 70% of activity when heated to 72 °C for 15 s, the minimum hightemperature short-time (HTST) pasteurization process (other studies have shown that lactoperoxidase retains almost all its activity at HTST conditions, but loses 90% of activity after 4 minutes at 75 °C)

Unheated and pasteurized bovine lactoferrin have similar properties

Effect of pasteurization

Inactivated

c

b

a

Ref.

(Continued )

Completely inactivated

Completely denatured by UHT; loss of inhibitory capacity

Effect of UHT treatment

Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows9

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Contributes to the activation of the lactoperoxidase by supplying it with hydrogen peroxide; claimed to have antimicrobial properties

Transfers immunity against bovine pathogens to calves; may provide some lactogenic immunity in the gut

Antimicrobial peptides that are produced by lactic acid bacteria that may be present in milk (Lactococcus, Lactobacillus and Enterococcus); antimicrobial activity against Gram-positive bacteria

Competitively bind to pathogens to prevent adhesion of pathogens to the intestinal epithelium

Particularly against Gram-positive bacteria

Xanthine oxidase (Xanthine oxidoreductase) (EC 1.13.22; 1.1.1.204)

Bovine immunoglobulin

Bacteriocins (e.g. nisin)

Oligosaccharides

Lipid fragments*, phosphatidylethanolamine, phosphatidylcholine and sphingomyeline

Hydrolysis may be significant for individual fatty acids to exert an antimicrobial effect.

Levels of oligosaccharides in bovine milk are very low compared with human milk. The highest concentration is found in colostrum and drops post-parturition to trace levels.

Many lactic acid bacteria are capable of producing bacteriocins, but it is unlikely that they would reach levels necessary for the production of bacteriocins in refrigerated milk, as they would not grow.

Most immunoglobulins are carried in the colostrum, which is generally not marketed for human consumption.

Remark

Most likely no effect

Heat-stable

Heat-stable and retain activity after pasteurization

No loss of activity during batch pasteurization for 30 minutes at 62.7 °C; retains 59–76% of activity after HTST pasteurization

Retains enzymatic activity after heating at 73 °C for 7 minutes or at 80 °C for 50 s

Effect of pasteurization

Most likely no effect

Most likely no effect

Different heat stabilities; many can withstand temperatures ranging between 60 and 100 °C for more than 30 minutes, and some have been shown to resist heat up to 121 °C/10 minutes in culture supernatant

Almost completely denaturated at UHT conditions

Inactivated

Effect of UHT treatment

h

g

f

e

d

Ref.

* Fatty acids with chain lengths varying from 8 to 12 carbons appear to be more antiviral and antibacterial than long-chain monoglycerides. (a) Touch and Deeth, 2009; Steijns and van Hooijdonk, 2000; Schanbacher et al., 1997; Paulsson et al., 1993; (b) Claeys et al., 2002; Marks et al., 2001; Griffiths, 1986; (c) Fox and Kelly, 2006; (d) Fox and Kelly, 2006; Stevens et al., 2000; Farkye and Imafidon, 1995; Demott and Praepanitchai, 1978; (e) Lewis and Deeth, 2009; Korhonen et al., 2000; Li-Chan et al., 1995; (f) Tambekhar and Bhutada, 2010; Touch and Deeth, 2009; Özkalp et al., 2007; Badr et al., 2005; FDA, 2005; Li et al., 2005; Marinez et al., 2005; Villani et al., 2001; (g) Martín et al., 2002; Gopal and Gill, 2000; (h) Dewettinck et al., 2008; German and Dillard, 2006; van Hooijdonk et al., 2000.

Antimicrobial properties

Milk component

Table 2 Continued

10 Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows

Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows11

thiocyanogen, forms the lactoperoxidase system, which exerts antibacterial, antiviral and antifungal activity. Addition of these components to form the lactoperoxidase system in raw milk has been shown to increase the activity for controlling bacterial growth and increase the shelf life of milk (EFSA, 2015).

5 Heat treatment and other techniques to prevent bacterial contamination of milk One of the principal industrial unit operations in milk processing is heating. The main objectives of heating milk are guaranteeing the microbial safety. An additional objective of heating milk is the establishment of specific product properties (e.g. evaporation of water, increasing the coagulation stability and inactivation of bacterial inhibitors to enhance the growth of starter bacteria). Several types of heat treatment can be applied to raw milk: thermization, pasteurization and sterilization, including UHT. Table 3 provides an overview of the different types of milk heat treatment, with the commonly used temperature/time combinations and the consequences on the shelf life of the milk. Thermization reduces by 3- to 4-log the viable vegetative psychrotrophic commensal microbial flora responsible for the degradation of milk constituents by means of extracellular and intracellular enzyme activity (lipase, proteinase, phospholipase, etc.). The thermization is thus effective in inhibiting the spoilage of milk and is usually performed for technological reasons and for increasing the shelf life of refrigerated milk. Thermization does not give sufficient heat stress to guarantee the inactivation of all vegetative bacterial pathogens such as L. monocytogenes, human pathogenic E. coli and Salmonella. Properly applied pasteurization kills all common vegetative pathogens in milk and also eliminates the psychrotrophic microorganisms causing the spoilage of raw milk (Muir, 1996). The toxins of C. botulinum and the cereulides of B. cereus are not destroyed by pasteurization. Pasteurization is also inadequate to inactivate bacterial spores. Moreover, pasteurization may induce the germination of bacterial spores, which can further grow in pasteurized milk (products) during storage. For example, endospores of Bacillus and Clostridium spp. may survive pasteurization, germinate and, consequent to the destruction of the competitive saprophyte flora by the pasteurization, grow and produce toxins in the pasteurized milk. In general, sterilization and UHT treatment may destroy vegetative microorganisms, spores (e.g. Clostridium and Bacillus) and their relevant toxins, produce a commercially sterile product and ensure extended shelf life without the need for refrigeration. Spores of some Bacillus spp. (e.g. B. sporothermodurans) are able to survive the UHT process. After germination, they grow in the UHT milk. However, they are non-pathogenic for humans and preventive measures to avoid this contamination are in place in dairy plants. The toxins of Stapylococcus aureus and the diarrhoeic toxins of B. cereus (enterotoxins) are destroyed by the sterilization conditions. The enterotoxins of B. cereus are destroyed in 5 minutes at 56 °C. The toxins of C. botulinum are inactivated at the sterilization and UHT conditions. They are inactivated by 80 °C/10 minutes or 86 °C/1 minute (Dodds and Austin, 1997), 79 °C/20 minutes or 85 °C/5 minutes (Gélinas, 1995). However, the

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

12

Pathogens affecting raw milk from cows

Table 3 Overview of different types of heat treatment of raw milk Heat treatment

Temperature/time combination

Thermization

57–68 °C / 15–20 s

Pasteurization

Target Reduction of vegetative commensal and pathogenic microorganisms, but to a lesser extent than pasteurization. No guarantee of microbial safety of the milk. Elimination of vegetative commensal and pathogenic microorganisms. Level considered as safe for public health. No elimination of thermoresistant spores; potential survival of thermoresistant vegetative microorganisms. Germination of bacterial spores (Clostridium and Bacillus) possible, with outgrowth of the germinated cells during further shelf life. No destruction of preformed toxins of Staphylococcus aureus, Bacillus cereus (cereulide) and Clostridium botulinum.

LTH: Low temperature holding LTLT: Low temperature, long time (batch)

62–65 °C / 30 minutes, then cooled

HTST: High temperature, short time (flash)

71–74 °C / 15–40 s, then cooled

Ultra-pasteurization

125–138 °C / 2–4 s, then cooled

Extended shelf life (ESL)

Complete system approach along the entire processing chain, including microfiltration or bactofugation, combined with heat treatment (e.g. pasteurization or ISI)

Depends on heat treatment applied.

Innovative steam injection (ISI)

150–200 °C /  0.90) can be estimated. Furthermore, selection strategies for young bulls relying on genomic breeding values instead of those based on pedigree information showed lower inbreeding coefficients. In conclusion, project results showed that there is considerable potential in the exploitation of innovative breeding tools for the organic dairy sector. The practical implementation of these findings will depend on decisions of breeding organizations, and can be encouraged through continued dialogue between organic breeders, researchers, breeding organizations and breeding companies.

8  Future trends and conclusion The main cornerstones for enhancing the credibility of the organic dairy sector are: a) to realize an efficient roughage-based production, which requires significantly less inputs from arable land than conventional systems without producing more GHG emissions per unit of products as a whole; b) to enhance dairy cows’ health and welfare, indicated by a clearly improved longevity; and c) to develop the right matches between local conditions (in particular available feed sources) and cow genotypes, in order to achieve functioning systems with the lowest possible need for external nutrient sources. To accomplish these tasks, the desired contributions from research and development are primarily the development of organic breeding schemes and forage-based, diversified © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

259

Organic dairy farming and sustainability

feeding strategies. For these purposes, both a clear potential and a need are essential, as is apparent from a lack of implemented concepts and solutions. With regard to breeding, the challenge will be to identify genotypes suitable for different environmental and feeding conditions in terms of robustness and efficiency. Large global breeds may not be adequate in many cases, thus requiring genetic developments within smaller populations. The combination of advanced genomic characterization and selection with site-related herd development will be the main challenges for future organic dairy breeding activities. As long as the productive lifespan of organic cattle is as short as in conventional systems, huge efforts in breeding are required. This may also include a significant shift of paradigms regarding breeding goals, size and diversity of populations. With regard to roughage-based feeding systems, a significant issue will be developing strategies of diversification in forage production, in order to enable optimal dietary balance of carbohydrates and proteins even in the absence of concentrates. This should ensure efficient utilization of roughage-based nutrients while at the same time guaranteeing the metabolic health of the animals. Sound knowledge about botanical occurrence and ruminal impacts of PSC should play a role in these developments. Moreover, feeding behaviour, including feed selection, should be addressed by future research, thus integrating the requirements of the animals themselves as important indicators of physiological needs. In summary, interdisciplinary research which integrates a diverse range of good approaches is needed from research communities in order to achieve significant progress towards sustainable organic dairy production with healthy and robust animals.

9  Where to look for further information http://www.organic-research.net This homepage provides a detailed overview of research institutions working on organic agriculture, events, projects (mainly funded by the EU and CoreOrganic) and networks of the organic sector.

10  References Ahlman, T., B. Berlund, L. Rydhmer and E. Strandberg (2011): Culling reasons in organic and conventional dairy herds and genotype by environment interaction for longevity. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 1568–75. Amelchanka, S. L., M. Kreuzer and F. Leiber (2010): Utility of buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench) as feed: effects of forage and grain on in vitro ruminal fermentation and performance of dairy cows. Animal Feed Science and Technology 155: 111–21. Ayrle, H., M. Mevissen, M. Kaske, H. Nathues, N. Gruetzner, M. Melzig and M. Walkenhorst (2016): Medicinal plants – prophylactic and therapeutic options for gastrointestinal and respiratory diseases in calves and piglets? A systematic review. BMC Veterinary Research 12: 89. Bapst, B., and C. Stricker (2007): Schätzung der Genotyp × Umwelt- Interaktionen zwischen ökologisch und konventionell wirtschaftenden Betrieben anhand Schweizer Populationsdaten; Ökuh-Projekt, Abschlussworkshop, June 2007, Kassel. Bapst, B. (2001): Swiss experience on practical cattle breeding strategies for organic dairy. In Proceedings of the Fourth NAHOWA Workshop: Breeding and feeding for animal health and welfare in organic livestock systems, Wageningen, The Netherlands, pp. 44–50.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

260

Organic dairy farming and sustainability

Beauchemin, K., M. Kreuzer, F. O’Mara and T. McAllister (2008): Nutritional management for enteric methane abatement: a review. Animal Production Science 48 (2): 21–7. Bennedsgaard, T. W., I. C. Klaas and M. Vaarst (2010): Reducing use of antimicrobials – Experiences from an intervention study in organic dairy herds in Denmark. Livestock Science 131: 183–92. Bieber, A. (2004): Bulleneinsatz bei Herdbuchkühen des Schweizer Braunviehs in biologisch und konventionell wirtschaftenden Betrieben (Bachelor thesis). Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften. Humboldt Universität zu Berlin, Germany. Bioland (2016): Bioland Standards. Bioland- Verband für organisch-biologischen Landbau e.V., Mainz, Germany. Available online at: http://www.bioland.de/fileadmin/dateien/HP_Dokumente/ Richtlinien/Bioland_Standards_2016-03-14.pdf (accessed 28 October 2016). Bio Suisse (2016): Richtlinien für die Erzeugung, Verarbeitung und den Handel von Knospe-Produkten, Bio Suisse, Basel, Switzerland, available online at: http://www.bio-suisse.ch/media/VundH/ Regelwerk/2016/DE/rl_2016_1.6_d_auszug_ii_14.07.2016.pdf (accessed 28 October 2016). Bodas, R., N. Prieto, R. Garcia-Gonzalez, S. Andres, F. J. Giraldez and S. Lopez (2012): Manipulation of rumen fermentation and methane production with plant secondary metabolites. Animal Feed Science and Technology 176: 78–93. Boelling, D., A. F. Groen, P. Sørensen, P. Madsen and J. Jensen (2003): Genetic improvement of livestock for organic farming systems. Livestock Production Science 80: 79–88. Boissy, A., and C. Lee (2014): How assessing relationships between emotions and cognition can improve farm animal welfare. Revue scientifique et technique – international office of Epizootics 33: 103–10. Brinkmann J., S. March and C. Winckler (2012): Stable schools to promote animal health in organic dairy farming: first results of a pilot study in Germany. Agriculture and Forestry Research. Special Issue No. 362. Braunschweig. Cassidy, E. S., P. C. West, J. S. Gerber and J. A. Foley (2013): Redefining agricultural yields: from tonnes to people nourished per hectare. Environmental Research Letters 8: 034015. Clauss, M., I. D. Hume and J. Hummel (2010): Evolutionary adaptations of ruminants and their potential relevance for modern production systems. Animal 4: 979–92. Dorn, K., F. Leiber, A. Sundrum, M. Holinger, P. Mayer and M. Walkenhorst (2016): A field trial on the effects of pure sodium propionate and a combination with herbal extracts on short term development of subclinical ketosis. Livestock Science 187: 87–95. EC (2008): Commission Regulation (EC) No 404/2008 of 6 May 2008 amending COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2092/91 of 24 June 1991 on organic production of agricultural products and indications referring thereto on agricultural products and foodstuffs, 1991R209 (14.05.2008), 102 pages. Eriksson, T., L. Norell and N. Nilsdotter‐Linde (2012): Nitrogen metabolism and milk production in dairy cows fed semi‐restricted amounts of ryegrass–legume silage with birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus L.) or white clover (Trifolium repens L.). Grass and Forage Science 67: 546–58. Finkbeiner, M., E. Schau, A. Lehmann and M. Traverso (2010): Towards life cycle sustainability assessment. Sustainability 2 (10): 3309–22. Früh, B., Schlatter, B., Isensee, A., Maurer, V. and Willer, H. (2015): Report on organic protein availability and demand in Europe. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, Switzerland. Gerber, P. J., H. Steinfeld, B. Henderson, A. Mottet, C. Opio, J. Dijkman, A. Falcucci and G. Tempio (2013): Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock – A Global Assessment of Emissions and Mitigation Opportunities. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO. Grandin, T. (2013): Making slaughterhouses more humane for cattle, pigs, and sheep. Annual Review of Animal Biosciences 1: 491–512. Grandl., F., S. L. Amelchanka, M. Furger, M. Clauss, J. O. Zeitz, M. Kreuzer and A. Schwarm (2016): Biological implications of longevity in dairy cows: 2. Changes in methane emissions and efficiency with age. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 3472–85. Haas, E., and B. Bapst (2004): Swiss organic dairy milk farmer survey: which path for the organic cow in the future? In: Organic Livestock Farming: Potential and Limitations of Husbandry Practice to

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming and sustainability

261

Secure Animal Health and Welfare and Food Quality. Proceedings of the 2nd SAFO Workshop, Witzenhausen, Germany. pp. 35–41. Hamilton, C., U. Emanuelson, K. Forslund, I. Hansson and T. Ekman (2006): Mastitis and related management factors in certified organic dairy herds in Sweden. Acta Veterinaria Scandinavica 48: 11. Hart, K. J., J. A. Huntington, R. G. Wilkinson, C. G. Bartram and L. A. Sinclair (2015): The influence of grass silage-to-maize silage ratio and concentrate composition on methane emissions, performance and milk composition of dairy cows. Animal 9(6): 983–91. Heckendorn, F., D A. Häring, V. Maurer, J. Zinsstag, J., W. Langhans and H. Hertzberg (2006): Effect of sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) silage and hay on established populations of Haemonchus contortus and Cooperia curticei in lambs. Veterinary Parasitology 142: 293–300. Hörning, B., E. Aubel and C. Simantke (2004): Ökologische Milch- und Rindfleischproduktion: Struktur, Entwicklung, Probleme, politischer Handlungsbedarf. Organic Dairy and Beef Production: Structure, Development, Problems, political Need for Action. Bonn, p. 217. Hörtenhuber, S., T. Lindenthal, B. Amon, T. Markut, L. Kirner and W. Zollitsch (2010): Greenhouse gas emissions from selected Austrian dairy production systems – model calculations considering the effects of land use change. Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems 25 (4): 316–29. IFOAM (2014): The IFOAM NORMS for Organic Production and Processing. International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements. Bonn, Germany. ISO (2006a): Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Principles and Framework. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization for Standardization (ISO). ISO (2006b). Environmental Management – Life Cycle Assessment – Requirements and Guidelines. Geneva, Switzerland, International Organization for Standardization (ISO). Ivemeyer, S., N. J. Bell, J. Brinkmann, C. Kornel, E. Gratzer, C. Leeb, S. March, C. Mejdell, S. Roderick, G. Smolders, M. Walkenhorst, C. Winckler and M. Vaarst (2015): Farmers taking responsibility for herd health development – stable schools in research and advisory activities as a tool for dairy health and welfare planning in Europe. Organic Agriculture 5 (2): 135–41. Ivemeyer, S., M. Walkenhorst, M. Holinger, A. Maeschli, P. Klocke, A. Spengler Neff, P. Staehli, M. Krieger and C. Notz (2014): Changes in herd health, fertility and production under roughage based feeding conditions with reduced concentrate input in Swiss organic dairy herds. Livestock Science 168: 159–67. Ivemeyer, S., G. Smolders, J. Brinkmann, E. Gratzer, B. Hansen, B. I. F. Henriksen, J. Huber, C. Leeb, S. March, C. Mejdell, P. Nicholas, S. Roderick, E. Stöger, M. Vaarst, I. K. Whistance, C. Winckler and M. Walkenhorst (2012): Impact of animal health and welfare planning on medicine use, heard health and production in European organic dairy farms. Livestock Science 145: 63–72. Ivemeyer, S., U. Knierim and S. Waiblinger (2011): Effect of human-animal relationship and management on uder health in Swiss dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 94 (12): 5890–5902. Ivemeyer, S., M. Walkenhorst, F. Heil, C. Notz, A. Maeschli, G. Butler and P. Klocke (2009): Management factors affecting udder health and effects of a one year extension program in organic dairy herds. Animal 3: 1596–1604. Jayanegara, A., E. Wina, M. Kreuzer and F. Leiber (2011): Significance of phenolic compounds in tropical forages for the ruminal bypass of polyunsaturated fatty acids and the appearance of biohydrogenation intermediates as determined in vitro. Animal Production Science. 51: 1127–36. Johnson, K. A., and D. E. Johnson (1995): Methane emissions from cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73: 2483–92. Kälber T., M. Kreuzer and F. Leiber (2012): Silages containing buckwheat and chicory: quality, digestibility and nitrogen utilisation by lactating cows. Archives of Animal Nutrition 66: 50–65. Kälber, T., J. S. Meier, M. Kreuzer and F. Leiber (2011): Flowering catch crops used as forage plants for dairy cows: Influence on fatty acids and tocopherols in milk. Journal of Dairy Science 94: 1477–89.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

262

Organic dairy farming and sustainability

Kalm, E., W. Junge and B. Harder (2003): Ökologische Tierzucht: Status Quo, Möglichkeiten und Erfordernisse in der Rinder- und Schweinezucht. BLE, p. 69. Khiaosa-ard, R., M. Kreuzer and F. Leiber (2015): Apparent recovery of C18 polyunsaturated fatty acids from feed in cows’ milk: a meta-analysis of the importance of dietary fatty acids and feeding regimes in diets without fat supplementation. Journal of Dairy Science 98: 6399–6414. Kirchgessner, M., W. Windisch, H. Müller, W. V. Engelhardt, S. Leonhard-Marek, G. Breves and D. Giesecke (1995): Nutritional factors for the quantification of methane production. Ruminant physiology: digestion, metabolism, growth and reproduction. Proceedings 8th International Symposium on Ruminant Physiology, Delmar Publishers, pp. 333–48. Klevenhusen, F., M. Kreuzer and C. R. Soliva (2011): Enteric and manure-derived methane and nitrogen emissions as well as metabolic energy losses in cows fed balanced diets based on maize, barley or grass hay. Animal 5: 450–61. Knaus, W. (2009): Dairy cows trapped between performance demands and adaptability. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 89: 1107–14. Köpke, U. (1995): Nutrient management in organic farming systems: the case of nitrogen. Biological Agriculture & Horticulture 11 (1–4): 15–29. Kramer, M., M. Erbe, F. R. Seefried, B. Gredler, B. Bapst, A. Bieber and H. Simianer (2014): Accuracy of direct genomic values for functional traits in Brown Swiss cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 97 (3): 1774–81. Kramer, M., M. Erbe, B. Bapst, A. Bieber and H. Simianer (2013a): Estimation of genetic parameters for individual udder quarter milk content traits in Brown Swiss cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 96 (9): 5965–76. Kramer, M., M. Erbe, B. Bapst, A. Bieber and H. Simianer (2013b): Estimation of genetic parameters for novel functional traits in Brown Swiss cattle. Journal of Dairy Science 96 (9): 5954–64. Krogmeier, D. (2003): Der Ökologische Gesamtzuchtwert für Fleckvieh, Braunvieh und Gelbvieh [Biological total merit index for Simmental, Brown Swiss and Gelbvieh cattle]. In: Forschung für den ökologischen Landbau in Bayern, Ökolandbautag der LfL. Schriftenreihe der Bayerischen Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft 3/03. Bayerische Landesanstalt für Landwirtschaft (LfL), Freising, Triesdorf, pp. 77–86. Leiber, F. (2016): Eiweiss für CH-Biotiere: klare Optionen beim Rind, offene Fragen bei Huhn und Schwein. ETH-Schriftenreihe zur Tierernährung, 39: 21–8. Leiber, F., K. Dorn, J. K. Probst, A. Isensee, N. Ackermann, A. Kuhn and A. Spengler Neff (2015a): Concentrate reduction and sequential roughage offer to dairy cows: effects on milk protein yield, protein efficiency and milk quality. Journal of Dairy Research 82: 272–8. Leiber, F., J. K. Probst, N. Zehner and A. Spengler Neff (2015b): Fress- und Wiederkäuverhalten von Milchkühen bei verschiedenen Fütterungsregimes. Agrarforschung Schweiz 6: 462–9. Leiber, F. (2014): Resigning protein concentrates in dairy cattle nutrition: a problem or a chance? Organic Agriculture 4: 269–73. Leiber, F. (2001): Diploma Thesis. Analyse der Dauerleistungskühe in der deutschen Holstein Population. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der ‘100.000-Liter-Kühe’. Humboldt Universität Berlin, Landwirtschaftlich-Gärtnerische Fakultät, Institut für Nutztierwissenschaften, Fachgebiet Züchtungsmethodik. 14.05.2001. DOI: dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.1.2629.5841 Levison, L. J., E. K. Miller-Cushon, A. L. Tucker, R. Bergeron, K. E. Leslie, H. W. Barkema and T. J. DeVries (2016): Incidence rate of pathogen-specific clinical mastitis on conventional and organic Canadian dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 99: 1341–50. Lund, V., and B. Algers (2003). Research on animal health and welfare in organic farming: a literature review. Livestock Production Science 80: 55–68. Monteny, G.-J., A. Bannink and D. Chadwick (2006): Greenhouse gas abatement strategies for animal husbandry. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112 (2): 163–70. Mullen, K. A. E., K. L. Anderson and S. P. Washburn (2014): Effect of 2 herbal intramammary products on milk quantity and quality compared with conventional and no dry cow therapy. Journal of Dairy Science 97: 3509–22.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming and sustainability

263

Nauta, W., A. Spengler Neff, J. Conington, T. Ahlman, P. Løvendahl and L. Rhydmer (2012): Organic Animal Breeding 2012- a Position Paper from the European Consortium for Organic Animal Breeding, Eco AB. In G. Rahmann and D. Godinho (Eds), Trackling the Future Challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry. Proceedings of the 2nd IFOAM/ISOFAR International Conference on Organic Husbandry, Hamburg/Trenthorst, Germany, 12–14 September 2012. Nauta, W. J. (2009): Selective Breeding in Organic Dairy Production. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 160pp. Nauta, W. J., R. F. Veerkamp, E. W. Brascamp and H. Bovenhuis (2006): Genotype by environment interaction for milk production traits between organic and conventional dairy cattle production in The Netherlands. Journal of Dairy Science 89 (7): 2729–37. Nauta, W. J., T. Baars and C. H. Cazemier (2005): Kinship-breeding as a foundation for organic dairy production. 15th Organic World Congress of the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) ‘Unites the Organic World’, 20–24 September, Adelaide, Australia, p. 6. Nauta, W. J., T. Baars, A. F. Groen, R. F. Veerkamp and D. Roep (2001): Animal breeding in organic farming. Discussion Paper. Louis Bolk Institute, Driebergen. Niderkorn, V., and D. Macheboeuf (2014): Identification of bioactive grassland plants for reducing enteric methane production and rumen proteolysis using an in vitro screening assay. Animal Production Science 54: 1805–9. Notz, C., A. Maeschli, M. Walkenhorst, P. Staehli and S. Ivemeyer (2013): ‘Feed no Food’ – Auswirkungen einer kraftfutterreduzierten Fütterung auf Tiergesundheit, Leistung und Fruchtbarkeit von Milchkühen. Tierärztliche Umschau 68: 307–10. OECD (2011): Multifunctionality. towards an analytical framework. Paris, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), p. 26. Olesen, J. E., K. Schelde, A. Weiske, M. R. Weisbjerg, W. A. H. Asman and J. Djurhuus (2006): Modelling greenhouse gas emissions from European conventional and organic dairy farms. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 112 (2–3): 207–20. O’Mara, F. P. (2012): The role of grasslands in food security and climate change. Annals of Botany 110 (6): 1263–70. Pelletier, N., and P. Tyedmers (2010): Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000–2050. PNAS 107: 18371–4. Petersen, M. B., K. Søegaard and S. K. Jensen (2011): Herb feeding increases n-3 and n-6 fatty acids in cow milk. Livestock Science 141: 90–4. Pfeiffer, C., C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher and B. Fuerst-Waltl (2016): Genotype by environment interaction in organic and conventional production systems and their consequences for breeding objectives in Austrian Fleckvieh cattle. Livestock Production Science 185: 50–5. Pol, M., and P. L. Ruegg (2007): Treatment practices and quantification of antimicrobial drug usage in conventional and organic dairy farms in Wisconsin. Journal of Dairy Science 90: 249–61. Pritchard, T., Coffey, M., Mrode, R. and E. Wall (2013): Genetic parameters for production, health, fertility and longevity traits in dairy cows. Animal 7: 34–46. Probst, J. K., A. Spengler Neff, E. Hillmann, M. Kreuzer, M. Koch-Mathis and F. Leiber (2014): Relationship between stress-related exsanguination blood variables, vocalisation, and stressors imposed on cattle between lairage and stunning box under conventional abattoir conditions. Livestock Science 164: 154–8. Probst, J. K., E. Hillmann, F. Leiber, M. Kreuzer and A. Spengler Neff (2013): Influence of gentle touching applied few weeks before slaughter on avoidance distance and slaughter stress in finishing cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 144: 14–21. Probst, J. K., A. Spengler Neff, F. Leiber, M. Kreuzer and E. Hillmann (2012): Gentle touching in early life reduces avoidance distance and slaughter stress in beef cattle. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 139: 42–9. Provenza, F., Villalba, J. J., Haskell, J., MacAdam, J. W., Griggs, T. C. and R. D. Wiedmeier (2007): The value to herbivores of plant physical and chemical diversity in time and space. Crop Science 47: 382–98.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

264

Organic dairy farming and sustainability

Qanbari, S.; D. Gianola; B. Hayes, F. Schenkel, S. Miller; S. Moore; G. Thaller and H. Simianer (2011): Application of site and haplotype-frequency based approaches for detecting selection signatures in cattle. BMC Genomics 12 (1): 318. Rotz, C. A., F. Montes and D. S. Chianese (2010): The carbon footprint of dairy production systems through partial life cycle assessment. Journal of Dairy Science 93 (3): 1266–82. Rozzi, P., F. Miglior and K. J. Hand (2007): A total merit selection index for Ontario organic dairy farmers. Journal of Dairy Science 90 (3): 1584–93. Rutter, S. M. (2010): Review: Grazing preferences in sheep and cattle: Implications for production, the environment and animal welfare. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 90: 285–93. Sato, K., P. C. Bartlett, R. J. Erskine and J. B. Kaneene (2005): A comparison of production and management between Wisconsin organic and conventional dairy herds. Livestock Production Science 93: 105–15. Schader, C., A. Müller, N. El-Hage Scialabba, J. Hecht, A. Isensee, K.-H. Erb, P. Smith, H. P. Makkar, P. Klocke, F. Leiber, P. Schwegler, M. Stolze and U. Niggli (2015): Impacts of feeding less foodcompeting feedstuffs to livestock on global food system sustainability. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 12: 0891, pp. 1–12. Schader, C., K. Jud, M. S. Meier, T. Kuhn, B. Oehen and A. Gattinger (2014a): Quantification of the effectiveness of greenhouse gas mitigation measures in Swiss organic milk production using a life cycle assessment approach. Journal of Cleaner Production 73: 227–35. Schader, C., A. Muller, N. El-Hage Scialabba, J. Hecht and M. Stolze (2014b): Comparing global and product-based LCA perspectives on environmental impacts of low-concentrate ruminant production. LCAFood, 8–11 October 2014, San Francisco, USA, pp. 1203–9. Scharenberg, A., Y. Arrigo, A. Gutzwiller, U. Wyss, H. D. Hess, M. Kreuzer and F. Dohme (2007): Effect of feeding dehydrated and ensiled tanniferous sainfoin (Onobrychis viciifolia) on nitrogen and mineral digestion and metabolism of lambs. Archives of Animal Nutrition 61: 390–405. Schmidtko, J. (2007): Zuchtplanerische Bewertung verschiedener Strategien für die nachhaltige Zucht ökologischer Milchrinder. PhD thesis, Georg August Universität, Göttingen. Sehested, J., T. Kristensen and K. Soegaard (2003): Effect of concentrate supplementation level on production, health and efficiency in an organic dairy herd. Livestock Production Science 80: 153–65. Semino, S., H. Paul, J. Tomei, L. Joensen, M. Monti and E. Jelsoe (2009): Soybean biomass produced in Argentina: Myths and realities. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth and Environmental Science 8: 12006. Simianer, H., F. Augsten, B. Bapst, E. Franke, R. Maschke, F. Reinhardt, J. Schmidtko and C. Stricker (2007): Ökologische Milchviehzucht: Entwicklung und Bewertung züchterischer Ansätze unter Berücksichtigung der Genotyp-Umwelt- Interaktionen und Schaffung eines Informationssystems für nachhaltige Zuchtstrategien. BLE, ed. Geschäftsstelle des Bundesprogrammes Ökologische Landwirtschaft des Bundesamtes für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung, p. 125. Spengler Neff, A., and S. Ivemeyer (2016): Differences between dairy cows descending from artificial insemination bulls vs. dairy cows descending from natural service bulls on organic farms in Switzerland. Livestock Science 185: 30–3. Spengler Neff, A., M. Haugstätter and C. Metz (2015): Kuhfamilienzucht. Eine Methode für die biologische Milchviehzucht, 20pp. Spengler Neff A., R. Pedotti and A. Schmid (2012): Assessment of site-related breeding of dairy cattle on organic farms in a Swiss mountain region. In G. Rahmann and D. Godinho (Eds), Trackling the Future Challenges of Organic Animal Husbandry. Proceedings of the 2nd IFOAM/ ISOFAR International Conference on Organic Husbandry, Hamburg/Trenthorst, Germany, 12–14 September 2012. Spengler Neff, A., P. Klocke, S. Ivemeyer and B. Bapst (2007): Einführung eines Hilfsmittels zur Einschätzung der Standortgerechtheit der Milchviehzucht und -haltung auf ökologischen Betrieben. [Introduction of an estimating tool for site related husbandry and breeding of dairy cows.] Presentation at: Zwischen Tradition und Globalisierung – 9. Wissenschaftstagung Ökologischer Landbau, Stuttgart, 20.-23.03.2007.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming and sustainability

265

Średnicka-Tober, D., M. Baranski, C. J. Seal, R. Sanderson, C. Benbrook, H. Steinshamn, J. GromadzkaOstrowska, E. Rembialkowska, K. Skwarlo-Sonta, M. Eyre, G. Cozzi, M. K. Larsen, T. Jordon, U. Niggli, T. Sakowski, P. C. Calder, G. C. Burdge, S. Sotiraki, A. Stefanakis, S. Stergiadis, H. Yolcu, E. Chatzidimitriou, G. Butler, G. Stewart and C. Leifert (2016): Higher PUFA and n-3 PUFA, conjugated linoleic acid, α-tocopherol and iron, but lower iodine and selenium concentrations in organic milk: a systematic literature review and meta- and redundancy analyses. British Journal of Nutrition 115: 1043–60. Stärk, K. D., C. Frei-Stäheli, P. P. Frei, D. U. Pfeiffer, J. Danuser, L. Audigé, J. Nicolet, M. Strasser, B. Gottstein and U. Kihm (1997): Häufigkeit und Kosten von Gesundheitsproblemen bei Schweizer Milchkühen und deren Kälbern (1993–4). Schweizer Archiv fuer Tierheilkunde 139: 343–53. Steininger, F., B. Fuerst-Waltl, C. Pfeiffer, C. Fuerst, H. Schwarzenbacher and C. Egger- Danner (2012): Participatory development of breeding goals in Austrian dairy cattle. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica 01/2012 (3): 143–7. Stiglbauer, K. E., K. M. Cicconi-Hogan, R. Richert, Y. H. Schukken, P. L. Ruegg and M. Gamroth (2013): Assessment of herd management on organic and conventional dairy farms in the United States. Journal of Dairy Science 96: 1290–1300. Sundberg, T., L. Rydhmer, W. F. Fiske, B. Berglund and E. Strandberg (2010): Gentoype by environment interaction of Swedish dairy cows in organic and conventional production systems. Acta Agriculturae Scand Section A. 60: 65–73. Sundrum, A. (2001). Organic livestock farming. A critical review. Livestock Production Science 67 (3): 207–15. Vaarst, M., T. W. Bennedsgaard, I. Klaas, T. B. Nissen, S. M. Thamsborg and S. Ostergaard (2006): Development and daily management of an explicit strategy of nonuse of antimicrobial drugs in twelve Danish organic dairy herds. Journal of Dairy Science 89: 1842–53. Villalba, J. J., F. D. Provenza. and X. Manteca (2010): Links between ruminants’ food preference and their welfare. Animal 4: 1240–7. Wilkinson, J. M. (2011): Re-defining efficiency of feed use by livestock. Animal 5: 1014–22. Yin, T., M. Wensch-Dorendorf, H. Simianer, H. H. Swalve and S. König (2014): Assessing the impact of natural service bulls and genotype by environment interactions on genetic gain and inbreeding in organic dairy cattle genomic breeding programs. Animal 8(6): 877–86. Yin, T., B. Bapst, U. von Borstel, H. Simianer and S. König (2012): Genetic parameters for Gaussian and categorical traits in organic and low input dairy herds based on random regression methodology. Livestock Science 147: 159–69. Zehetmeier, M., J. Baudracco, H. Hoffmann and A. Heissenhuber (2012): Does increasing milk yield per cow reduce greenhouse gas emissions? A system approach. Animal 6: 154–66. Zwald, A. G., P. L. Ruegg, J. B. Kaneene, L. D. Warnick, S. J. Wells, C. Fossler and L. W. Halbert (2004): Management practices and reported antimicrobial usage on conventional and organic dairy farms. Journal of Dairy Science 87: 191–201.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Chapter 14 Trends in dairy farming and milk production: the cases of the United Kingdom and New Zealand Alison Bailey, Lincoln University, New Zealand 1 Introduction 2 Global dairy production 3 EU dairy production 4 The dairy sector in the United Kingdom 5 The dairy sector in New Zealand 6 Summary and future trends 7 Where to look for further information 8 References

1 Introduction Today dairy production is serving over 7 billion consumers and providing livelihoods for approximately 1 billion people living on dairy farms (IFCN, 2015). Dairying is an important enterprise within the agriculture sector (FAO, 2013). The production of cow’s milk and buffalo milk in the world is estimated at 721 million tonnes, of which around 62% is processed (IFCN, 2015). In many countries it provides the daily food at household level, contributing to improved nutrition. It can also provide regular income. Dairy animals are also used for traction and the provision of manure as both fertilizer and a fuel source. The current average herd size is three cows, with less than 0.3% greater than 100 cows (IFCN, 2015). The key challenges lie in the complexity of the industry and the high rate of change in the ever more globalized world (IFCN, 2015). Strategic improvements can increase farm income and create employment within the wider community and further along the food supply chain.

2  Global dairy production It is important to recognize that currently there is continued strong demand on the world market for dairy products (Gerosa and Skoet, 2012; Kearney, 2010). Western diets are http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2016.0005.35 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

268

Trends in dairy farming and milk production

already characterized by a high intake of animal products. The demand for dairy products reflects an overall expansion in demand as a result of expanding populations, income growth and globalization of diets (OECD/FAO, 2014) with changing consumer demand and dietary habits offering new opportunities. Per capita consumption of both milk and dairy products in developing countries has also increased over time and this is expected to continue as long as there is a continued strong growth in incomes in those countries. Much of the growth in demand will be and needs to be satisfied domestically by increasing dairy herds and rising yields due to the nature of the product. The consumption of fresh dairy products is highest in India, although this is matched by its production, with a high share provided by buffalo milk. Consumption of fresh dairy products is also high in Australia, the European Union (EU), New Zealand, Canada, the United States and China. China as a consumer of milk is of particular importance to the international dairy market. Total consumption of dairy products in milk equivalent is higher in developed than in developing counties, primarily because of the per capita consumption of cheese. In terms of cow numbers, the FAO suggests that there were around 270 million dairy cows in the world in 2013, with approximately 54% in just 10 countries (see Table 1). India has the highest number of cows at over 45 million. The EU as a whole has the next highest at 23.56 million, although the major producing countries within Europe fall only within the top 15–30 individually. The largest number of cows is in Germany (4.3 million), France (3.7 million) and the United Kingdom (1.8 million, and thirtieth in terms of cow numbers). The production of cow’s milk in the world was 636 million tonnes in 2013, with the top ten producing countries accounting for just over 56% of the world’s production (see Table 2). The United States produced the most milk, accounting for over 14% of production at 91 million tonnes, followed by India, accounting for 9.5% at 61 million tonnes. If buffalo milk Table 1 Countries by cow number (cows, milk, whole, fresh) Rank

Country

2011

2012

2013

1 2

India

43,717,000

43,954,023

44,900,000

Brazil

23,229,193

22,803,519

22,954,537

3

Sudan

14,706,000

14,733,000

14,800,000

4

China

12,297,297

12,207,197

12,159,146

5

Pakistan

10,493,000

10,888,000

11,299,000

6

Ethiopia

10,577,781

10,711,484

10,900,000

7

United States of America

9,198,000

9,233,000

9,217,900

8

Russian Federation

8,136,896

8,049,849

7,766,275

9

United Republic of Tanzania

6,900,000

6,900,000

6,950,000

10

Kenya

5,545,000

5,720,000

5,740,000

13

New Zealand

4,528,736

4,634,226

4,784,250

30

United Kingdom World

1,815,000

1,806,000

268,002,672

268,727,507

Source: FAOStat, 2016a.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

1,797,000 270,848,210

Trends in dairy farming and milk production269 Table 2 Production of cow’s milk in the world (tonnes) Rank

Country

2011

2012

2013

1

United States of America

89,015,235

90,865,000

91,271,058

2

India

57,770,000

59,805,250

60,600,000

3

China

36,928,896

37,784,491

35,670,002

4

Brazil

32,096,214

32,304,421

34,255,236

5

Germany

30,323,465

30,506,929

31,122,000

6

Russian Federation

31,385,732

31,500,978

30,285,969

7

France

24,361,095

23,998,422

23,714,357

8

New Zealand

17,339,000

19,129,000

18,883,000

9

Turkey

13,802,428

15,977,837

16,655,009

10

United Kingdom

13,849,000

13,843,000

13,941,000

616,956,092

630,183,853

635,575,895

World Source: FAOStat, 2016b.

is included, then India becomes the top milk producer, and Pakistan would also feature in the list (FAO, 2015). India also consumes most of the milk that it produces. China is a lesser producer and self-sufficiency declined substantially following slow growth in domestic production as a result of food safety problems in 2008. This trend has not continued in the long term as a 100 000 cow unit was built in 2015 to meet the growing demand in Russia. Prior to that the largest dairy herd in the world stood at 40 000 cows, also in China. In comparison, the largest herd size in the United States at the same time was around 30 000 cows. Of the top ten largest milk-producing countries, Brazil showed the largest percentage growth from 2012 to 2013 at 6%. New Zealand and the United Kingdom are the eighth and tenth largest producers in the world, producing nearly 19 and 14 million tonnes in 2013 and accounting for just 3% and 2.2% of production of cow’s milk in the world. Despite some falls in production in a number of counties in recent years, the overall production is expected to increase (OECD/FAO, 2014), with the majority coming from developing countries. The growth in production in these countries is likely to be based upon an increase in the dairy herd rather than yield growth, in part due to the lack of modern production systems. Herd growth, however, will be limited by the availability of land and water. Table 3 illustrates the production of the different dairy products by the top ten producing countries in 2013. All dairy products increased globally, except for butter and ghee. Cheese remains the most abundant processed dairy product, with the United States being the major producer, accounting for over a quarter of the world’s cheese production, although the EU, when considered as a whole, produces more than the United States. There are also significant contributions from Germany, France and Italy. Cheese also saw the largest increase from 2012. Skimmed milk powder (SMP), buttermilk, whey, and evaporated and condensed milk production all increased slightly and whole milk powder (WMP) also saw a marginal increase. India remains the largest producer of butter and ghee, contributing over 40% towards the total global production. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

270

Trends in dairy farming and milk production

Table 3 Production of dairy products in the world in 2013 (‘000 tonnes) Butter and ghee United States India China Brazil

Cheese

SMP and buttermilk

WMP

Evaporated and condensed milk

Whey

849

5,398

846

32

1,085

465

3,798

2

200

7

1

1

97

262

N/A

N/A

133

N/A

95

47

N/A

549

58

N/A

Germany

440

2,220

312

86

470

372

Russian Federation

222

658

67

50

200

N/A

France

398

1,901

280

231

120

619

New Zealand

509

275

391

930

2

21

Turkey

201

192

N/A

N/A

1

15

United Kingdom

145

380

67

45

111

80

9,315

21,331

3,559

3,399

5,106

2,436

Total Source: FAOStat, 2016c.

In terms of global trade, the most influential countries are likely to continue to be the United States, the EU, New Zealand and Australia. Their productive activity has a major influence on world markets, and the expansion of trade in dairy products will be satisfied by these and potentially some Latin American countries, such as Argentina and Brazil (OECD/FAO, 2014). It should be noted, however, that less than 10% of global milk production is traded across borders (excluding intra-EU trade), so the globally traded market represents only a small proportion of total global production and consumption of dairy. In this respect the implications of the British exit from the EU may have only a small impact on global trade. In the United States, there continues to be a small increase in overall production despite some decline in the dairy herd. It is the large agri-business enterprises that produce most of the milk in an industry that is becoming increasingly polarized between these and the less commercial small family farms. The 2014 Farm Act redesigned support to the dairy sector in the United States with payments to farmers now triggered by differences between milk price and feed costs. Known as the Margin Protection Program this could result in increased US output and exports. However, at present strong domestic demand has led to internal US market prices for butter and cheese being higher than globally traded prices, making the country uncompetitive as an exporter of these commodities. Exports of cheese- and fat-based products to the United States from the EU in particular have grown significantly over the last year. The country remains competitive as an exporter of SMP. It remains to be seen whether US domestic prices for fat and cheese will harmonize with global prices and whether the country will be able to resume the trend of high export growth that has been seen over the last decade. EU milk production had grown strongly in 2014 and 2015 in the lead up to and after the abolition of the milk quota system on 1 April 2015. In the medium-term, environmental constrains could limit growth in some areas, as could the relatively high cost of production © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Trends in dairy farming and milk production271

in some parts of the EU. Even with the low milk price environment at the time of writing, EU milk production is still growing, although many farmers appear to have reached their economic limit and growth is expected to be moderate going forward, with EU supply exceeding domestic demand and EU exports sharply up. The European Commission is also an active market participant – it is the most attractive purchaser of SMP for EU producers, thanks to the intervention scheme. Outside the EU, one European country that has seen a dramatic increase in milk production is Turkey, which saw growth in production of 4% between 2012 and 2013. As stated above, New Zealand produces only around 3% of the global production of cows’ milk. However, New Zealand is the largest milk exporter to the thinly traded global market, but production expansion in New Zealand, following a recent history of significant expansion, is now slow, with both increasing production costs and environmental factors constraining milk growth output, alongside recent falls in global commodity prices discouraging further investment. Most growth in the sector is as a result of an increase in the dairy herd primarily on pasture-based extensive systems, meaning the relatively low yields per cow are maintained. Indeed, in the low milk price environment, many New Zealand farmers have focused on reducing costs through lower stocking rates and a decrease in the use of supplementary (non-grass) feed. In Australia, despite a small decline in the number of dairy herds, overall production may also see a slow growth. Growth in productive activity is influenced by profit and thus milk price. The world milk price in 2010 as estimated by IFCN was 41.3 United States cents per kg, more than double that of the previous year. Prices continued to rise before dropping back as a result of oversupply and slow growth in global demand, driven by a number of factors (see Table 4). The average cost of production was estimated at 40 United States cents per kg ranging from 28 cents in Africa to 53 cents in Western Europe. Weather also exercises a major influence on production levels through its impact on pasture conditions and feed grains, influencing feed availability and cost, and hence milk supply levels. Climate change models predict an increase in incidence and severity of weather extremes and with New Zealand, which is the largest supplier of dairy exports, being weather dependent with its predominately pasture-based systems, weather could have a major impact on the world’s dairy market supply and price levels. Price is not only influenced by weather. Economic and policy conditions also have a role to play. After the health scare in 2008, the future development of Chinese self-sufficiency in milk and dairy products could be a major determinant of future price development on world dairy markets (OECD/FAO, 2014). In addition, the import embargo on the EU, the United States and other country agri-food exports to Russia introduced in August 2014 also has implications for global prices, although the EU has managed to compensate for the losses in export sales to Russia by increasing agri-food exports to other alternative markets (EC, 2015). The impact of low oil prices is a further factor, with the potential to reduce on-farm costs in feed and fuel, whilst at the same time reducing demand for dairy products from oil exporters. Furthermore, and previously mentioned are the 2014 Farm Act in the United States and the removal of milk quotas in 2015 in the EU. There may also be consequences as a result of a major disease outbreak or health scare, as yet unforeseen. The impact of environmental legislation or policy, particularly with respect to greenhouse gas emissions, may also be a key influence. Water access and manure management are additional areas where policy change may impact the dairy industry (OECD/FAO, 2014). © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

272

Trends in dairy farming and milk production Table 4 World farmgate milk prices of selected countries in 2014 (US dollars/tonne) Country

Price

Zambia

1485

Norway

802

Switzerland

723

Canada

703

Israel

600

Italy

589

New Zealand

579

China (2013)

550

United States

531

Russian Federation

521

France

503

United Kingdom

502

Germany

494

Turkey

474

Brazil

467

Ukraine

313

Source: FAOStat, 2016d.

The impact of trade negotiations with the ongoing discussions linked to free trade and the move away from supported markets and trade barriers may also be influential. Currently, as with production, a general expansion in trade of dairy products is expected with increased exports from the countries previously mentioned – the United States, the EU, New Zealand and Australia. These countries are likely to jointly account for 86% of skimmed milk powder exports, 81% of butter exports and 74% of the world’s cheese and whole milk powder exports (OECD/FAO, 2014). The OECD/FAO Outlook also predicts that the EU will remain the main cheese exporter, but its growth in this market will be below that of other countries that will be moving towards exporting considerable amounts of cheese. These include Saudi Arabia, Belarus, Ukraine, Egypt, Turkey and Argentina, although exports will be predominantly to their neighbouring markets. The Outlook also suggests that New Zealand will remain the primary source for butter with 47% of the market share, and will increase its market share in its export trade of WMP to greater than 50%. In this context, the EU, Argentina and Australia will also be important exporters. The United States will remain the largest source of SMP exports with one-third of the market share, and will expand more than the EUs, New Zealand and Australia. Considerable increases are also expected for SMP from India. In recent years there has also been considerable growth in the fresh dairy trade of liquid milk, yoghurts and cream. One important trade flow has been from the EU to China, albeit in small amounts, and with the potential for China to now start increasing its own production again, this could be a temporary phenomenon. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Trends in dairy farming and milk production273

Important destinations for imports are the developing countries, particularly in Asia and Africa. For cheese the more important import markets are in the developed world, but growth is more likely to occur in developing countries. The Russian Federation has been a primary importer of cheese, followed by Japan, with China expected to overtake Mexico, the United States, Saudi Arabia and Korea. For butter, the Russian Federation was also the main destination, but domestic production of butter has increased faster than consumption. Going forward, the Russian import embargo will continue to play a role in the global market. Considering the value-added within the milk supply chain, it is evident that, from a global perspective, the dairy industry is highly fragmented. The top 10 dairy companies (see Table 5) represent around 25% of the total market share. Growth and profitability within this sector has been achieved through mergers, acquisitions and joint ventures. There has been particular emphasis on positioning by the United States and European Table 5 Top 20 global dairy companies Rank

Dairy turnover, 2013 (USD billion)

Dairy turnover, 2013 (EUR billion)

Company

Country of headquarters

1

Nestlé

Switzerland

28.3

21.3

2

Danone

France

20.2

15.2

3

3

Lactalis

France

19.4

14.6

4

4

Fonterra

New Zealand

15.3

11.5

5

5

Friesland Campina

Netherlands

14.9

11.2

6

6

Dairy Farmers of America

United States

14.8

11.2

7

7

Arla Foods

Denmark/Sweden

12.5

9.4

8

9

Saputo

Canada

8.8

6.6

2014

2013

1 2

9

8

Dean Foods

United States

8.6

6.5

10

12

Yili

China

7.6

5.7

11

11

Unilever*

Netherlands/ United Kingdom

7.5

5.6

12

10

Meiji

Japan

7.4

5.6

13

17

DMK

Germany

7.1

5.3

14

15

Mengniu

China

7.0

5.3

15

14

Sodiaal

France

6.6

5.0

16

18

Bongrain

France

5.9

4.4

17

16

Kraft Foods

United States

5.8

4.4

18

20

Müller*

Germany

5.0

3.8

19

19

Schreiber Foods*

United States

5.0

3.8

20

13

Morinaga Milk Industry

Japan

4.8

3.6

Source: Rabobank, 2014, *estimate.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

274

Trends in dairy farming and milk production

companies within an expanding Chinese market, facilitating trade relationships through joint ventures with Chinese dairy companies (Rabobank, 2014).

3  EU dairy production Dairy production in the EU is governed by the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) which uses 40% of the EU budget. The CAP was established as part of the Treaty of Rome to increase agricultural productivity, give a fairer standard of living to rural communities and stabilize markets and ensure that consumers access food at a reasonable cost. Since its inception there has been a whole series of reforms, with those in the last 20 years being the most significant – the MacSharry Reforms of 1992, the mid-term review of Agenda 2000 and most recently the greening of the CAP. Essentially there have been three phases of the policy, encouraging and then restricting production, followed by efforts to introduce environment and rural development into the policy. For the milk sector perhaps the most dramatic reform was the introduction of Milk Quotas in April 1984 which seriously constrained milk production in many member state countries, most notably in Germany, the Netherlands, Denmark and Ireland, but not in France and the United Kingdom. A second potentially significant change was the move away from price support towards direct income payments as part of the Agenda 2000 review with the introduction of the Single Payment Scheme in many member states in 2005, with precursor changes being implemented in some countries prior to that in 2003. This also meant the abolition of the target price for milk, a reduction in intervention prices for butter and SMP and the scaling down of consumption aids. As a result of these changes it is surmised that domestic supply became less determined by quota ceilings and more responsive to milk prices, with quota no longer always being filled for most member states (EC, 2011). The removal of quotas also coincided with an economic slowdown and wider global impacts across a range of sectors, including agriculture, and a corresponding downward pressure on milk prices. This was alongside a reduction in demand for imports of European agricultural products from China, and at the same time, EU sanctions on Russia prompted a response, the banning of imports of European agricultural produce, a move that hit demand for cheese and meat and caused prices to fall across Europe. Volatility in dairy product prices also increased. Yet, through this period of volatile and reduced prices, EU production has grown due to the abolition of the quota system. The relaxation of quota ceilings has led to the gradual convergence of EU milk prices towards world market prices and as a result the sector now has an improved market orientation, but perhaps not cost competitiveness. This is despite the structural changes resulting in a reduction in the number of dairy cows and herds, a reduction in herd size distribution and increasing specialisation of farms in milk production. For example, in the EU-15, between 2008/9 and 2013/14 approximately 44 farmers per day left the industry meaning that the population of dairy farmers fell by 19% (81 000 farmers) (AHDB Dairy, 2015). In 2013/14 there were under one million dairy farmers in the EU-28 (see Table 6) and the number continues to fall. More recently, however, dairy cow numbers have stabilized (see Table 7). The trend towards fewer, larger farms is almost universal, just over 5% per year on average. Although the European average herd size is above the global average, the current herd size in the EU-27 is just 29, in the EU-15 it is 54 (EC, 2014) and it is still

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Trends in dairy farming and milk production275 Table 6 European Union dairy producer numbers (000s) Major milk producing countries

2008/9

2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

Austria

55.3

48.8

46.5

44.5

Belgium

11.9

10.3

9.8

9.4

Denmark

4.5

4.0

3.8

3.6

Finland

13.1

10.9

10.2

9.6

France

92.8

80.3

77.2

74.4

Germany

95.2

83.9

80.8

77.3

Greece

51

3.9

3.7

3.6

Ireland

20.6

19.2

18.5

19.1

Italy

43.9

38.8

37.4

36.0

Luxembourg

0.9

0.8

0.8

0.7

Netherlands

20.4

18.9

18.5

18.2

Portugal

10.0

7.5

7.0

6.5

Spain

24.0

20.7

19.6

18.8

Sweden

6.9

5.8

5.4

5.1

16.9

15.0

14.5

14.1

Total EU-15

421.4

368.6

353.8

340.9

Poland

207.6

162.1

153.0

144.8

Total EU-25

728.8

604.3

576.1

551.4

Bulgaria

107.2

13.8

10.8

9.1

Romania

503.6

368.0

335.0

304.7

1,339.5

986.2

922.0

865.2

United Kingdom

Total EU-27 Croatia

N/A

N/A

N/A

13.0

Total EU-28

N/A

N/A

N/A

878.2

Source: AHDB Dairy, 2016a.

Table 7 European Union dairy cow numbers 2004

2013

2014

Total EU-15

18,732

18,043

18,192

Total EU-25

23,302

21,831

21,925

Total EU-27

25,196

23,313

23,415

Total EU-28

N/A

23,481

23,574

Source: AHDB Dairy, 2016b.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

276

Trends in dairy farming and milk production

below that of other major producing and exporting countries. It will continue to grow, however, leading to fewer farms with more cows. It is suggested that the average herd size amongst the leading EU producers will be 116 by 2020 (Giles, 2015). The EU currently and as a whole is the world’s largest milk producer, with production in 2015 totalling more than 140 billion litres. The world’s milk production according to the FAO is estimated to be 780 billion litres, with the EU accounting for 18%. The major milkproducing countries in Europe are Germany (30 000 thousand tonnes), France (24 000 thousand tonnes) and the United Kingdom (14 000 thousand tonnes), with production in the Netherlands, Poland and Italy not far behind that of the United Kingdom (see Table 8). With the abolition of EU milk quotas in 2015, it is thought that EU milk supply will continue to grow. Without quotas to limit production and with, potentially, increased supply and price competition, farmers will have to increase the size of their operation, to improve economies of scale and bargaining power, in order to survive. Much of the growth in milk supply will thus be as a result of increasing herd sizes and specialization in some countries, and potentially some productivity increases, but overall producer and cow numbers within the EU are likely to continue to fall.

Table 8 European Union wholesale milk deliveries (million litres) Major milk-producing countries

2004/5

2013/14

2014/15

Germany

26,399

29,762

30,338

France

22,477

23,727

24,408

United Kingdom

13,766

13,679

14,422

Netherlands

10,232

11,992

12,041

Poland

N/A

9,801

10,271

Italy

9,773

9,979

10,085

Spain

5,703

5,803

5,732

Ireland

5,056

5,400

5,616

Denmark

4,323

4,927

4,946

Belgium

2,760

3,442

3,555

Austria

2,518

2,887

2,928

Sweden

3,113

2,809

2,846

Czech Republic

2,484

2,311

2,365

Finland

2,284

2,242

2,999

Portugal

1,829

1,740

1,834

Hungary

1,528

1,333

1,457

Lithuania

1,124

1,319

1,401

Total EU-15

111,128

119,294

121,940

Total EU-27

N/A

138,294

141,895

Total EU-28

N/A

138,294

142,397

Source: AHDB Dairy, 2016c.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Trends in dairy farming and milk production277

For those above quota – Ireland, Germany and the Netherlands – there will be opportunity to grow and there is likely to be growth in the future within all of the top producing countries in the EU. In some member states the growth in supply will happen significantly faster than any growth in domestic demand, and thus to maintain price, there must be a continued increase in export demand. Growth will thus be influenced by global dairy prices, the potential environmental constraints imposed and the capture of emerging markets for the export of dairy products including to Africa, the Middle East and Asia. There are a number of what could be termed significant dairy companies within Europe (see Table 5) with the potential to capture the export market, but they represent very little of the global market share. A major pan-European player is Arla (see Table 9), but it is still only the seventh largest milk company in the world (Rabobank, 2014). European domestic consumption of milk and dairy products is focused on liquid milk, butter and cheese (see Table 10). The liquid milk market has fallen gradually in recent times, with Ireland the greatest per capita consumer of milk and also with the only increase Table 9 Arla’s European farmer owners Country

Number of co-op members (owners)

Belgium

501

Denmark

3,354

Germany

2,991

Luxembourg

245

Sweden

3,661

United Kingdom

2,850

Total

13,602

Table 10 European Union liquid milk and dairy product consumption (capita/annum) Liquid milk (litres)

Butter (kg)

Cheese (kg)

2009

2012

2013

2009

2012

2013

2009

2012

2013

Denmark

87.3

86.8

85.6

1.8

1.8

1.8

Germany

52.4

53.0

52.1

5.8

6.2

6.2

22.3

24.2

24.3 25.9

France

55.6

52.5

52.3

7.7

7.4

7.9

26.5

26.2

Ireland

136.4

137.9

137.9

2.4

2.4

2.4

6.2

6.9

6.9

Italy

54.7

54.0

52.1

2.5

2.3

2.4

21.0

21.4

20.7

Netherlands

49.4

47.5

47.5

3.7

3.0

3.0

19.0

18.6

18.6

Poland

42.4

40.9

40.9

4.4

4.1

4.1

10.8

11.4

11.4

Spain

87.7

80.6

81.0

0.5

0.6

0.5

8.4

9.3

9.5

101.2

103.0

102.1

3.0

3.4

3.3

10.9

11.4

11.6

63.1

62.2

61.6

3.6

3.7

3.7

16.7

17.3

17.2

United Kingdom EU-28

Source: AHDB Dairy, 2015.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

278

Trends in dairy farming and milk production

in milk consumption. The United Kingdom is the second largest consumer of milk. Butter and cheese consumption has been relatively stable over the five-year period for which data is most recently available, rising slightly between 2009 and 2012. Trade in terms of exports of dairy products is dependent on the availability of milk supplies and the focus is on the higher added value products for the domestic market rather than the export of milk powders. Nevertheless, both cheese and SMP have a reasonable export market to a wide range of countries (AHDB, 2015). There is also an export market for whey, WMP, condensed milk and then butter. In terms of imports, the two major products are cheese, primarily from Switzerland, and butter, primarily from New Zealand (AHDB, 2015).

4  The dairy sector in the United Kingdom The United Kingdom is the tenth largest producer of milk in the world and currently the third largest producer in Europe but is significantly behind Germany and France. It is almost 100% self-sufficient in liquid milk; however, overall, the United Kingdom is a net importer of dairy, unlike Germany and France. The size and productivity of the dairy sector and the distribution of United Kingdom dairy farms have evolved in relation to a number of environmental, economic and market factors (Hopkins, 2008). These include the suitability of large areas of lowland farmland for low-cost grass production over a long growing season; the availability of inputs such as cattle feed by-products and fertilizers all associated with other industrial and food processing industries; market demand from a large, predominantly urban population for fresh milk and milk products; the development of a railway network that enabled produce from livestock farming areas to be brought rapidly from the countryside to the cities; and a number of institutional and marketing arrangements that were relatively advantageous to dairy producers. Historically, and since the early 1930s and up to 1994, the market for milk was managed by five statutory Milk Marketing Boards (MMBs). The MMB of England and Wales was by far the largest. In 1994 deregulation occurred and farmers were able to sell milk either to a new farmer co-operative, Milk Marque, or directly to dairy processing companies. In the early days of deregulation farmers enjoyed a relatively prosperous time as milk prices increased. However, the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU’s Exchange Rate Mechanism led to a devaluation of the pound against the major EU currencies at that time and a fall in price. In 1999 the Dairy Trades Federation petitioned the United Kingdom’s Office of Fair Trading stating that Milk Marque had been operating a complex monopoly and abusing its dominant position. Milk Marque voluntarily disbanded and additional co-operatives, including First Milk, were created. Of the dairy companies currently operating in the United Kingdom including the co-operatives, six out of the top 10 and 18 of the top 50 are foreign owned. Only four companies reported margins of more than 10%. Two of these were French importers, with a further two United Kingdom companies having substantial operations outside the country. Major companies such as Nestle, Unilever, Kraft and Kerry no longer feature, as dairy is now of less interest for all these companies in the United Kingdom. Currently, two major players, Arla and First Milk, remain in the co-operative sector alongside Muller, the largest of the dairy processing companies. Arla UK and Muller are now the biggest dairy companies in the United Kingdom with a 25% share of the UK

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Trends in dairy farming and milk production279

milk market each and a turnover of circa £2 billion, respectively. First Milk, the only post MMB co-op to survive and 100% United Kingdom owned, has a 12% market share with a turnover of £1 billion. Ever since deregulation took place, milk prices have been set by commercial negotiations between individuals or groups of farmers and milk buyers in a free and competitive market (Table 11). However, around 10% of farmers are within dairy producer groups linked directly to and supplying liquid milk to the major supermarkets, albeit through dairy processing companies. In this integrated supply chain relationship, pricing is structured slightly differently (Table 12). Table 11 United Kingdom, Great Britain and Northern Ireland farmgate milk prices (price per litre – ppl) United Kingdom

Great Britain

Northern Ireland

ppl

2013

2014

2015

2013

2014

2015

2013

2014

2015

January

30.05

33.87

26.38

30.29

33.86

27.10

28.73

33.91

22.38

February

30.09

33.95

27.15

30.46

33.98

27.98

28.11

33.78

22.67

March

30.09

33.71

25.00

30.45

33.70

25.46

28.19

33.73

22.58

April

30.12

33.29

24.62

30.08

33.35

25.14

30.30

32.96

21.94

May

29.99

32.25

24.08

29.88

32.50

24.71

30.59

30.94

20.88

June

30.73

31.66

23.75

30.66

32.04

24.48

31.07

29.75

20.03

July

31.39

31.52

23.54

31.46

32.06

24.42

31.02

28.71

18.92

August

32.09

31.04

23.34

31.90

31.69

24.13

33.22

27.32

18.81

September

32.99

30.68

23.71

32.86

31.37

24.45

33.84

26.44

19.19

October

33.62

29.66

24.41

33.56

30.39

25.02

34.01

25.29

20.40

November

34.55

28.75

24.22

34.53

29.56

24.67

34.72

23.91

21.47

December

34.25

27.59

23.78

34.24

28.45

24.47

34.35

22.78

19.83

Average

31.64

31.52

24.46

31.69

31.92

25.13

31.34

29.31

20.75

Source: AHDB Dairy, 2016d.

Table 12 Retailer milk pricing Retailer

Pricing system

ASDA

Premium over processor standard price

Co-op

Formula-taking account of costs and market returns

Marks and Spencer

Formula-taking account of costs and market returns

Morrisons

Premium over processor standard prices

Sainsbury’s

Premium price based on cost of production

Tesco

Formula-taking account of costs and market returns

Waitrose

Price based on cost of production and investment requirements

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

280

Trends in dairy farming and milk production

Despite various contractual arrangements, the inherent volatility of milk supply means that commodity prices are cyclical. These short-term price cycles can mask the long-term price trends. Commodity products such as butter, powder and mild cheddar generally set the underlying trend in the farmgate price of raw milk as most raw milk can be switched between these different end uses. It is these long-term trends upon which the industry needs to base its investment decisions. In terms of production, there are currently around 14 000 milk producers (see Table 13), with a continuing annual decline, and a loss of around 25% of dairy farmers leaving the industry over the past 10 years (McHoul et al., 2015). The industry is based around a mix of owner occupation, tenant and contract farming. Social drivers behind this include the presence or absence of a successor, with the latter driving the exit from the industry, whereas a younger age and higher education level encourages expansion (The Andersons Centre and DairyCo, 2013). The same report found that economic drivers including factors such as profit influenced by milk price, costs levels and herd size were generally no more or less likely to lead to expansion or exit. With more family labour, it is likely that a business would be looking to expand, but larger business with only a small proportion of family labour would also expand. Dairy cow numbers in the United Kingdom have also declined over the past 10 years (Defra, 2015a), although in the last two years cow numbers have increased from a low of 1 780 000 to almost 1 900 000 cows for the United Kingdom (see Table 14). This has Table 13 United Kingdom dairy producer numbers

England and Wales Scotland

2004

2013

2014

15,846

10,581

10,274

1,569

894

886

17,415

11,475

11,160

Northern Ireland

4,201

2,684

2,655

United Kingdom

21,616

14,159

13,815

Great Britain

Source: AHDB Dairy, 2016e.

Table 14 United Kingdom dairy cow numbers (000s) 2004

2013

2014

1,374

1,113

1,143

Wales

245

223

234

Scotland

195

166

170

1,814

1,502

1,547

England

Great Britain Northern Ireland

288

279

294

United Kingdom

2,102

1,782

1,841

Source: AHDB Dairy, 2016f.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Trends in dairy farming and milk production281

meant that average herd size has steadily increased over time and currently stands at 133 dairy cows per holding (see Table 15). The United Kingdom’s largest herd size is around 2000 cows. The trend towards fewer but larger farms is almost universal across the EU, but the rate of exit of farmers in the United Kingdom (3.1%) is low compared with the EU-27 average (6.2%) (AHDB Dairy, 2016a), while the average United Kingdom herd is significantly larger than the EU average. Annual milk production over the past 10 years was in decline for a six-year period before increasing to levels similar to 10 years previously at 14 639 million litres in the United Kingdom in 2014/15 (see Table 16). This is despite a recent temporary drop in production in one year as a response to poor environmental conditions. Similarly, average milk yield per cow, after a number of years of relative stability, has also increased, again with a temporary drop in the one year due to poor environmental conditions (AHDB Dairy, 2016h). Average yields are currently 7900 litres per cow (Defra, 2015b). The increase in yield is, in part, due to the continued increase in milk prices over the past five years, providing encouragement to milk producers to increase production (Defra, 2015c). In terms of key input costs, feed cost has also increased, but at levels lower than milk prices; veterinary services and medicine costs have increased only slightly as have energy costs, whilst fertilizer costs have declined (Defra, 2014; McHoul et al., 2015).

Table 15 United Kingdom average dairy herd size 2004

2013

2014

105

128

136

Wales

88

118

127

Scotland

124

185

192

Great Britain

104

131

139

Northern Ireland

69

104

111

United Kingdom

97

126

133

England

Source: AHDB Dairy, 2016g.

Table 16 United Kingdom milk deliveries (million litres) 2011/12

2012/13

2013/14

England

8,640

8,234

8,606

Wales

1,595

1,540

1,674

Scotland

1,279

1,280

1,322

11,514

11,054

11,602

Great Britain Northern Ireland

2,004

1,990

2,062

United Kingdom

13,518

13,044

13,663

Source: AHDB Dairy, 2016h.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

282

Trends in dairy farming and milk production

With the increase in milk price, average farm business income for dairy farms has performed above the agricultural average for all farm types and has been relatively stable, albeit with a significant drop when average yield fell due to the poor environmental conditions and taking two years to recover to previous levels (Defra, 2015d). In the last year, however, prices have started on a downward trend, and this is reflected in a small decline in income in the dairy sector (Defra, 2015d). This decline has continued in recent times. Income support is also an important consideration in the agricultural sector with a significant proportion of farm income coming from the EU’s Single, now Basic, Payment Scheme (Table 17). Although the dairy sector is less dependent on these payments than other sectors of the industry, there will be significant implications going forward for the dairy industry in the United Kingdom regarding the loss of CAP support. At the time of writing it is thought that some support for the agricultural industry as a whole will continue post EU exit. Dairy farming is still widely distributed in the United Kingdom but with a greater concentration in the areas where it has had traditional advantages associated with good grass-growing conditions (Hopkins, 2008) – the south-west of England, the lowland areas of south Wales, the north Midlands and north-west of England and the lowland areas of Northern Ireland and of south-west Scotland. Upland dairy farms are now very few and there have been significant reductions in areas of eastern and south-east England. Apart from a few, mainly small-scale, specialist producers of dairy goat or dairy sheep products, United Kingdom dairying is based almost entirely on cattle. The predominant breeds are ‘black and white’ Holstein or Friesian, or crosses of these, but there is also a substantial number of other more traditional dairy breeds, including Jersey and Ayrshire cattle. These breeds are noted for their high butterfat content and suitability for producing high-value dairy products. Grass and forage crops form the basis of the diet of dairy cows and the spring-summer months of March–July is the peak period for milk yield. However, the increased use of highyielding cows has necessitated a greater contribution of concentrate feed in the diet and the adoption of rations tailored to the cows’ needs and outputs. The widespread adoption of grass silage making and progressive improvements in silage making on many farms alongside an expansion in the use of silages made from immature grain crops (whole-crop) and from maize now means that production systems in the United Kingdom tend to be of two types, more intensive-housed systems and those that are pasture based.

Table 17 The importance of Single Payment Scheme to British agriculture (%) Lowland grazing

LFA* grazing

Specialist pig

Specialist poultry

59

16

2

57

70

Agri-environment payments

4

13

28

5

3

Diversification

6

14

4

10

10

31

57

66

28

17

Farm type

Dairy

Agricultural activity

Single Payment Scheme *LFA: Less Favoured Areas. Source: Rural Business Research, 2015.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Trends in dairy farming and milk production283

Further polarization of these systems is likely. On the one hand, lower milk prices will encourage farmers to increase herd sizes and yield to spread fixed costs. On the other, public opinion represented in supermarket contracts, planning and environmental considerations will probably encourage the alternative lower input lower cost pasturebased system. The market for fresh liquid milk in the United Kingdom is high, because of both a high per capita consumption and a substantial population. Of the milk produced, around half goes into liquid milk, with one-quarter used to produce cheese. The remaining quarter is used for yoghurt, cream or butter, or exported (AHDB, 2015). Domestic milk consumption continues to fall, with an ongoing decline in whole milk, alongside relatively stable semi-skimmed and fully skimmed milk consumption, the former taking the majority of the market (see Table 18). The decline in per capita milk consumption is partly offset by growth in consumption of yoghurts and low-fat desserts. Although yoghurt and fromage frais consumption has shown recent decreases, it remains higher than the previous 10 years. Cream and butter consumption is relatively stable. Consumption of cheese has tended to fluctuate in recent years (Defra, 2015e), with cheddar the most popular choice accounting for over half of the United Kingdom market (AHDB, 2015). The United Kingdom is self-sufficient in fresh milk but is a net importer (by about onethird) of both butter and cheese (see Table 19). In terms of trade, the country exports three times as much milk (486 000) as it imports (139 000), but the reverse is true for butter (imports 95 000 tonnes, exports 51 000 tonnes) and cheese (imports 468 000 tonnes, exports 134 000 tonnes) with a significant proportion coming from the EU. The United Kingdom’s exit from the EU could have some interesting implications for trade negotiations going forward. In recent years there has been increased domestic demand for quality and speciality cheeses, and while much of this is supplied through imports, it has also given rise to the growth of small-scale cheese-making operations often as on-farm enterprises. Nevertheless, the United Kingdom continues to export low-value commodity products and import high-added value cheeses and yoghurts. In total, the United Kingdom spends more on dairy imports than it receives for exports. There is a need for both added value Table 18 United Kingdom household liquid milk and dairy product consumption (capita/annum) 2003

2012

2013

Total liquid milk (litres)

86.6

78.3

74.7

Whole milk (litres)

30.4

15.4

14.8

Semi-skimmed milk (litres)

48.2

54.7

51.8

Skimmed milk (litres)

8.0

8.2

8.1

Yoghurt and fromage frais (litres)

9.2

10.1

10.0

Cream (litres)

1.0

1.3

1.2

Butter (kg)

1.8

2.1

2.2

Cheese (kg)

5.9

5.9

6.1

Source: AHDB, 2015; AHDB, 2016i.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

284

Trends in dairy farming and milk production Table 19 United Kingdom dairy trade balance Exports

Raw milk (million litres)

Imports

2004

2013

2014

2004

2013

2014

434

473

486

65

132

139

Butter (‘000 tonnes)

35

45

51

114

106

95

Cheese (‘000 tonnes)

93

125

134

335

468

468

Cream (‘000 tonnes)

81

44

34

15

22

30

186

88

125

68

67

66

Milk powders (‘000 tonnes) Source: AHDB Dairy, 2016j.

and a better export policy. In the past 10 years there has been an explosion of a whole range of value-added and regional products, not necessarily all originating from the United Kingdom, where the industry has been slow to innovate. For example, according to the British Cheese Board (www.britishcheese.co.uk), over 700 named British cheeses are produced in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom’s market for cheese is 644 000 t and is worth £2.75 billion at retail prices. The country produces 400 000 t. However, in the European league table of cheese consumption, the United Kingdom is placed near the bottom at around 10 kg/person/year. France, Germany, Italy and Greece consume more than double this figure.

5  The dairy sector in New Zealand New Zealand is the eighth largest producer of milk in the world, with 11 900 herds producing 21.3 billion litres of milk (or 1.85 million kg of milk solids) from 5 million cows across 1.8 million hectares at almost three cows per hectare (see Table 20) (LIC and DairyNZ, 2015). It is also the world’s largest milk exporter, producing around 3% of the world’s milk. The agricultural industry in New Zealand was based on the historic clearing of native forest, although it still occupies less than 50% of the land cover of New Zealand and

Table 20 The New Zealand dairy sector key facts 2004/5 Dairy herds Dairy cow numbers Average herd size Milk production (million litres) Litres per cow

2012/13

2013/14

2014/15

12,271

11,891

11,927

11,970

3,867,659

4,784,250

4,922,806

5,018,333

315

402

413

419

14,103

18,883

20,657

21,253

3,574

3,947

4,196

4,235

Source: LIC and DairyNZ, 2015.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Trends in dairy farming and milk production285

is dominated by pastoral-based production focused on sheep, beef and dairy systems. There is also a significant level of horticultural production. During the 1900s (Moot et al., 2009), there was a move from extensive wool production to more intensive pastoral agriculture with subsidies for land development, including labour support and fencing, water supply (irrigation) and fertilizer with associated loans, grants and access to cheap credit. This dominated the economy until 1984 when deregulation of the agricultural industry resulted in the removal of all farm subsidies. Those farmers who were unable to adapt, or who were burdened with large debt, left the industry. The farmers who remained have become more flexible and rapidly change land use to adapt to changes in market and economic signals. New Zealand dairy systems (Moot et al., 2009) are based on year-round outdoor pastoral grazing with a heavy reliance on perennial ryegrass/white clover on high-input and high-fertility farms. Direct grazing contributes about 90% of the animal feed demand and means production costs are low by international standards. Supplementary feed is required when pasture production is insufficient to meet stock demand, and includes hay, silage, other forages and/or concentrates fed in situ. Traditionally, dairy farming was restricted to ‘summer safe’ flat to rolling land in the west of the North Island where mean annual rainfall was sufficient for adequate grass growth. Currently, 74% of the dairy herds and 60% of cows are in the North Island with 34% in the Waikato region (DairyNZ, 2015). The number of herds had been in decline until 2010, but since then numbers have been increasing (LIC and DairyNZ, 2015). Recent expansion into more high-risk regions that receive less rainfall has occurred in the east of the South Island and the eastern North Island. These regions are highly reliant on access to irrigation in the summer months, although of the total agricultural land area that is irrigated, it remains a relatively small area. Of the irrigated pastoral area, the majority of which is in the South Island, spray irrigation is the dominant method at 74% and flood irrigation accounts for a further 18%. The conversion of grazing sheep and beef livestock enterprises to dairy production was fuelled by an increase in international demand and a consequent increase in dairy commodity prices. Farms are either owner operated (~8059, 67% of the national herd) or run as sharemilking farm structures (~3879, 32%) with a small number of contract milkers also operating (LIC and DairyNZ, 2015). Share-milking is a farm structure in which there is a partnership between a farmer (landowner) and a share-milker (herd owner). Partnerships vary. The 50/50 share milking structure accounts for around 17% of the national herd whilst the remaining partnerships are split in favour of either the land (~12%) or herd owner (~4%). With the growth in the national dairy herd, average herd size has also increased and is currently 419 cows, with 28% (>3300 herds) of New Zealand herds having more than 500 cows and 5% (600 herds) having greater than 1000 cows. The majority of owner operator and contract milk structures dominate the smaller herd sizes (200 cows). Share-milking is the dominant farm operating structure when herd size is 200–349 cows and reflects the inputs necessary to manage larger herds. With only 26% of herds, but 39% of cows, farm sizes in the South Island also tend to be larger than those in the North Island in terms of both the number of cows per herd and effective hectares. Holstein Friesian/Jersey is the dominant breed and accounts for just over 45% of the national herd. Holstein-Friesian accounts for a further 35% (LIC and DairyNZ, 2015). Other breeds include Jersey (10%) and Ayrshire (1%). The Holstein Friesian/Jersey and Holstein Friesian dominate because of the higher average milk production of the Holstein. Currently, average production is around 4235 litres per cow per year across © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

286

Trends in dairy farming and milk production

all breeds. Increased production by the New Zealand dairy industry is also a reflection of improvements in on-farm management and genetic gain. Over 70% of the national herd undergo herd testing, which allows low-producing or disease-prone – predominantly mastitis – animals to be identified and culled. Domestic consumption is focused on increasing liquid milk and cheese sales, set against declining butter consumption. More important is the amount of milk processed from the national herd for the export market. New Zealand is the world’s largest exporter of dairy commodities, representing approximately one-third of international dairy trade every year. As a significant industry in New Zealand, the dairy sector contributes a substantial amount to export value (37%) in both the primary sector and for all exports (29%) (DairyNZ, 2015). The removal of agricultural subsidies in the mid-1980s ensured that those farmers remaining in the sector used the resources of land, labour and capital most efficiently, meaning that New Zealand pastoral products were able to compete on world markets. The sector is still vulnerable, however, to fluctuating exchange rates, trade barriers and the subsidy regimes of its trading partners which can influence its own farmgate milk prices (see Table 21). In New Zealand, as in most Western countries, dairy co-operatives have long been the main organizational structure and processing facilities for the industry. By the late 1990s, there were four major co-operatives: the Waikato-based New Zealand Dairy Group, the Taranaki-based Kiwi Co-operative Dairies and the Tatua Co-operative Dairy Company in the North Island, and Westland Milk Products in the South Island. In 2001, Fonterra was formed from the merger of the two largest co-operatives, New Zealand Dairy Group and Kiwi Co-operative Dairies, together with the New Zealand Dairy Board, which had been the marketing and export agent for all the co-operatives. The company is owned by around 10 500 farmer shareholders. Although Fonterra has a large share of domestic milk collection and production (~85%), the legislative framework under which the industry is organized ensures competition both at the retail and the farmgate levels and facilitates the entry of new players into the processing sector. Fonterra is ranked as the fourth major dairy company in the world and is also New Zealand’s largest company. The company has an annual turnover of around US$17 billion. New Zealand is unique in that around 95% of milk production is exported due to the comparatively small domestic market. Tatua and Westland continue in operation, while many new processors are now in existence, most of them foreign-owned corporates who have entered the New Zealand market due to the comparative openness to foreign investment and the pro-competition legal framework. The second largest processor of milk in New Zealand behind Fonterra is now Open Country Dairy (OCD). The export market is concentrated around milk powders with a move away from the more traditional butter and cheese markets during the 1990s. Currently, exports consist of WMP (42%), butter and cream (16%), SMP (14%), casein protein and albumins (12%) to China, Australia, the United States, South Korea and Japan. Table 21 New Zealand/Fonterra farmgate milk prices (NZ$ per kgMS, July) Year

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

Milk price

4.40

8.40

5.84

6.08

7.60

6.10

4.72

7.59

3.87

Source: Fonterra, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Trends in dairy farming and milk production287

6  Summary and future trends It is evident that dairy farming is now a globally integrated industry. It is influenced by climate which can reduce feed availability and thus increase feed prices but can also lead to global oversupply affecting the prices that farmers can realize for their dairy products, both situations putting dairy producers’ profit margin under strain. More importantly, it is also influenced by economics, as higher incomes in developing countries push up demand for animal-based products, pushing up output prices, but the demand for animal feed also increases pushing up input costs, certainly in intensive production systems. Fluctuations in the international price of oil add another layer of volatility. Despite this, shortfalls in milk production in one country or region are easily made up by imports of milk products from surplus-producing regions of the world. This level of global integration is one reason why the viability of dairy farming has dropped and has led to the number of dairy farms falling in many countries, whilst others have seen some increase primarily to meet increasing domestic demand for liquid milk as well as for the increasing trade in value-added products such as cheese and milk powders. The number of cows for the highest-producing countries has tended to rise, more so recently, with those entering the market also demonstrating some increase. In other areas cow numbers have fallen. Average herd size is also increasing as farmers build on the need for some economies of scale in order to survive. Fluctuations in production levels have occurred, but are generally increasing. For the future, dairy production will remain profitable for many. There may be fewer producers but they will be better equipped to compete in a global market. For this there are three key areas, closer working relationships within the industry, continued technical improvement and product innovation. First, closer working relationships between producers, processors and retailers will be needed to facilitate responsiveness and equity throughout the supply chain and there is also a role for the banking sector and policy makers in facilitating a better market focus. In order to create a more sustainable dairy farming sector, build producer confidence and encourage appropriate investment, there is a need to adopt a more consistent approach to, and a long-term strategy for, milk pricing within the processing sector. Sufficient margins are needed to facilitate capital expenditure, and this may also require new forms of capital lending or incentives to encourage dairy farmers to re-invest after periods of low returns, a willingness by the banks to lend for this and its efficient implementation by farmers, not only in terms of commodity production but also in product differentiation and market segmentation. Additionally, there is a need to facilitate improved consumer engagement, understanding and acceptance of the industry. Research in the United Kingdom (Ellis et al., 2009) highlights some of the general public concerns and perceptions regarding production systems including the unacceptability of both permanently housing cattle and keeping cattle outside all year round, and the belief in good welfare standards but the lack of knowledge of assurance schemes. The drivers of consumer choice, however, remain foremost, price, and then promotion, quality, taste or smell, familiarity, healthy options, use by or sell by date, and finally brand. Second, there needs to be continued technical improvement by farmers as the market becomes more competitive with an emphasis on reducing costs and improving technical efficiency through breeding, nutrition and animal health management, whilst at the same

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

288

Trends in dairy farming and milk production

Table 22 Adding value to raw milk Milk type

Price premium

Status

Ordinary milk

No premium

Increasing traceability and assurance

Specially selected milk

No premium

Farm assured milk

No premium

Regional milks

Limited premium

Pedigree milk •• Jersey milk

Limited premium

Organic milk

Premium

Designer milks •• Breakfast milk •• Free range milk •• Raw milk

Premium Premium Premium (via direct sales)

Breed-specific milks •• Ayrshires® milk

Limited premium

Specific properties (e.g. taste)

time meeting the requirements of increased legislation and bureaucracy linked to animal welfare and environmental concerns. Labour productivity and the availability of skilled labour is another issue. There is a need to attract trained, motivated and competent people to an increasingly technological and more market-oriented industry. Third, there is a need for product innovation. Fresh milk demand will in most countries be met by domestic milk production. It is the development of a staple commodity product into value-added products that will drive the profitability and viability of the dairy industry of the future, and large volumes of homogenous high-quality milk will be required for both the commodity milk market and valued-added products (examples shown in Table 22). To summarize, to survive in the global dairy sector, farm businesses either need to get bigger or collaborate in sharing, buying or marketing. They need to be implementing best practices in their operations by buying in specialist skills such as in breeding and nutrition. There is a need to rise above commodity prices by offering substantial product attributes, backed by strong branding. Value can be added on farm through, for example, excellent animal health and welfare, or being dedicated to certain customers or markets.

7  Where to look for further information AHDB Dairy, http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk DairyNZ, http://www.dairynz.co.nz/ Europa Agriculture and Rural Development, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/ FAO Milk and dairy production, http://www.fao/ag/dairygateway FAO Commodity markets, http://www.fao.org/economic/est/est-commodities/dairy/en/ International Dairy Federation, http://fil-idf.org IFCN Dairy Network, http://www.ifcndairy.org/en/start/index.php © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Trends in dairy farming and milk production289

FAO. (2006), World agriculture: towards 2030/2050: prospects for food, nutrition, agriculture and major commodity groups. FAO, Rome. FAO. (2011), Report on Price Volatility. FAO, Rome. Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M. and de Haan, C. (2006), Livestock’s Long Shadow. Environmental Issues and Options. FAO, Rome.

8  References AHDB Dairy. (2015), Dairy Statistics. An insider’s guide 2015. AHDB. AHDB Dairy. (2016a), Market Information, EU Dairy Producer Numbers, http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/ marketinformation/farming-data (accessed 6 January 2016). AHDB Dairy. (2016b), Market Information, EU Dairy Cow Numbers, http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/ marketinformation/farming-data (accessed 6 January 2016). AHDB Dairy. (2016c), Market Information, EU Wholesale Milk Deliveries, http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/ marketinformation/supply-production (accessed 6 January 2016). AHDB Dairy. (2016d), Market Information, UK, NI and GB Farmgate Milk Prices, http://dairy.ahdb.org. uk/marketinformation/milk-prices-contracts (accessed 6 January 2016). AHDB Dairy. (2016e), Market Information, UK Dairy Producer Numbers, http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/ marketinformation/farming-data (accessed 6 January 2016). AHDB Dairy. (2016f), UK Dairy Cow Numbers, http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/marketinformation/farmingdata (accessed 6 January 2016). AHDB Dairy. (2016g), Average Herd Size, http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/resources-library/marketinformation/farming-data/average-herd-size/#.Vo0TpfmLS70 (accessed 6 January 2016). AHDB Dairy. (2016h), Average UK Milk Yield, http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/marketinformation/farmingdata (accessed 6 January 2016). AHDB Dairy. (2016i), Dairy Consumption. Defra Family Food Survey, http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/ resources-library/market-information/dairy-sales-consumption/defra-family-food-survey/#. VwT6bpwrJdg (accessed 6 April 2016). AHDB Dairy. (2016j), UK Dairy Trade Balance, http://dairy.ahdb.org.uk/marketinformation/processingtrade (accessed 6 January 2016). CLAL. (2016), New Zealand/Fonterra – Farm-gate raw milk prices, http://www.clal.it/en/?section=latte_ new_zealand (accessed 5 April 2016). DairyNZ. (2015), QuickStats about dairying – New Zealand, http://www.dairynz.co.nz (accessed 5 April 2016). Defra. (2014), Agriculture in the UK 2013, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ structure-of-the-agricultural-industry-in-england-and-the-uk-at-june (accessed 6 January 2016). Defra. (2015a), Structure of the agricultural industry in England and the UK. Annual time series: 1983 to 2015, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/structure-of-the-agriculturalindustry-in-england-and-the-uk-at-june (accessed 6 January 2016). Defra. (2015b), Agriculture in the UK 2014, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/ structure-of-the-agricultural-industry-in-england-and-the-uk-at-june (accessed 6 January 2016). Defra. (2015c), United Kingdom milk prices and composition of milk – statistics notice (data to October 2015), https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-milk-prices-and-compositionof-milk (accessed 6 January 2016). Defra. (2015d), Farm Business Income by farm type in England, 2014/15. National Statistics. Defra. (2015e), Family Food 2014 National Statistics, https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ family-food-2014 (accessed 6 January 2016). EC. (2011), Evaluation of CAP measures applied to the dairy sector. Evaluation carried out by LEI part of Wageningen UR for DG Agriculture and Rural Development, European Union. EC. (2014), EU Dairy Farms Report 2013. DG Agriculture and Rural Development, European Union.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

290

Trends in dairy farming and milk production

EC. (2015), Russian import embargo: EU agri-food export development until July 2015. DG Agriculture and Rural Development, European Union, http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/russian-import-ban/ market-data/index_en.html. Ellis, K. A., Billington, K., McNeil, B. and McKeegan, D. E. F. (2009), Public opinion on UK milk marketing and dairy cow welfare. Animal Welfare 18(3), 267–82. FAO. (2013), Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition. FAO, Rome. FAO. (2015), Statistical Pocketbook, 2015. World Food and Agriculture. FAO, Rome. FAOStat. (2016a), Dairy Cow Numbers (cows, milk, fresh), http://Faostat3.fao.org (accessed 5 April 2016). FAOStat. (2016b), World Milk Production (tonnes), http://Faostat3.fao.org/ (accessed 11 January 2016). FAOStat. (2016c), World Dairy Product Production (thousand tonnes), http://Faostat3.fao.org (accessed 11 January 2016). FAOStat. (2016d), World Farmgate Milk Prices (US Dollar/tonne), http://Faostat3.fao.org (accessed 5 April 2016). Fonterra. (2011), Annual review 2011. Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, http://www.fonterra.co/ our-financials/financial-results (accessed 11 July 2016). Fonterra. (2012), Annual review 2012. Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, http://www.fonterra.co/ our-financials/financial-results (accessed 11 July 2016). Fonterra. (2013), Annual review 2013. Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, http://www.fonterra.co/ our-financials/financial-results (accessed 11 July 2016). Fonterra. (2014), Annual review 2014. Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, http://www.fonterra.co/ our-financials/financial-results (accessed 11 July 2016). Fonterra. (2015), Annual review 2015. Fonterra Co-operative Group Limited, http://www.fonterra.co/ our-financials/financial-results (accessed 11 July 2016). Gerosa, S. and Skoet, J. (2012), Milk availability: trends in production and demand and medium term outlook. ESA Working paper No. 12-01, February 2012. Agricultural Development Economics Division. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Available at www.fao.org/ economic/esa/publications (accessed 18 January 2016). Giles, J. (2015), Point de vue. Change in the EU dairy sector post quota: more milk, more exports and a changing farmer profile. Eurochoices 14(3), 20–5. Hopkins, A. (2008), Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile’s. United Kingdom, FAO. IFCN. (2015), Dairy Report 2015. IFCN. Kearney, J. (2010), Food consumption trends and drivers. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, 2793–807. Livestock Improvement Corporation Limited and DairyNZ Limited. (2015), New Zealand Dairy Statistics 2014–15. LIC/DairyNZ, www.lic.co.nz or www.dairynz.co.nz/dairystatistics. McHoul, H., Robertson, P., Smith, D. and Wilson, P. (2015), Farm Business Survey 2013/14. Dairy Farming in England. Rural Business Research. The University of Nottingham. Moot, D., Mills, A., Lucas, D. and Scott, W. (2009), Country Pasture/Forage Resource Profile’s. New Zealand, FAO. OECD/FAO. (2014), ‘Dairy’ in OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2014. OECD Publishing, Paris. Rabobank. (2014), Rabobank Global Dairy Top-20: Challenging Conditions Pave the Way for Acquisitions and Tie-Ups. Rabobank Press Release 9 July 2014. Rural Business Research. (2015), Results from the Farm Business Survey, 2014–15. The Andersons Centre and DairyCo. (2013), The structure of the GB dairy farming industry - what drives change? The Andersons Centre and DairyCo, AHDB.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Chapter 15 Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector J. P. Hill, Fonterra Cooperative Group, New Zealand 1 Introduction 2 Socio-economic impact of the dairy sector 3 Ecological impact of the dairy sector 4 Dairy within sustainable diets 5 Global frameworks for sustainable food and dairy production 6 Where to look for further information 7 Future trends and conclusion 8 Acknowledgements 9 References

1 Introduction Any discussion on the overall global impact of the dairy sector must include all the important socio-economic and environmental benefits and costs associated with the sector: people, planet and prosperity. In this respect Fig. 1 and 2, and the following quotations from the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) provide a useful context: Sustainable consumption and production in food and agriculture is a consumerdriven, holistic concept that refers to the integrated implementation of sustainable patterns of food consumption and production, respecting the carrying capacities of natural ecosystems. It requires consideration of all the aspects and phases in the life of a product, from production to consumption, and includes such issues as sustainable lifestyles, sustainable diets, food losses and food waste management and recycling, voluntary sustainability standards, and environmentally friendly behaviours and methods that minimize adverse impacts on the environment and do not jeopardize the needs of present and future generations. Sustainability, climate change, biodiversity, water, food and nutrition security, right to food and diets are all closely connected. (FAO, 2016a) Billions of people around the world consume milk and dairy products every day. Not only are milk and dairy products a vital source of nutrition for these people, they also present livelihoods opportunities for farmers, processors shopkeepers and other stakeholders in the dairy value chain. (Muehlhoff et al., 2013) http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2016.0005.43 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

292

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

The Food System What’s your role?

Farming I N P U T S Sunlight Energy

Chemicals

Seed

Far m e rs

Labor

Water

Know-how

Waste

Money

Nutrients

Food

Food Wholesalers

Food Companies

Biodiversity Land Use Climate Change Pollution

Agriculture

B I O LO G I C A L SYSTEMS

ECONOMIC SYSTEMS

Land & Soil

Farmers Markets and CSA’s

Grocery Stores

Animal Welfare

S U P P L Y

Farming

Waste

Food Literacy

E conomic

Environmental

Ground Water

Restaurants

Transport

Lobbying

Food Waste

Commercial

Money

Consumer

Regulations

Family & Friends

Taxes

Trash

G over nm ent & Pol i c y

Subsidies

Community

DE

MAND

PO L IT IC A L SYSTEMS Ownership Trade

SOCIAL SYSTEMS

Region

National

Social Network

Civic Engagement

Media/Advertising Access

Global

Education

Food Culture

S ocial

copyright® 2011 shiftn cvba

clarity in complexity

Figure 1 The food system.

Clearly, to determine the overall impact of dairying from the perspective of sustainable consumption and production is an extremely complex undertaking. It is also clear that the dairy sector impacts billions of people. To provide even further context, analysis undertaken by the International Farm Comparisons Network (IFCN) and published by the FAO has determined that 750–900 million people live on dairy farms (FAO, 2010a). Many of these are smallholder farmers living in developing nations where dairy is indispensable to their livelihoods. Latest estimates are that up to 1 billion people derive a significant proportion of their livelihoods from dairy if you include employment throughout the whole of the dairy chain (Steinfeld et al., 2010; IFCN, 2015; Dugdill et al., 2013). Of the estimated 570 global farm holdings 25% or 150 million keep milking animals (FAO, pers. comm.). © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Education & Training

Food Security

Mental Capital

Figure 2 Global food system map.

Land

Regulating Supporting

Agro Cooperatives

Aquatic

Aquaculture Ecosystems Food ChainAquacapture

Aquatic

Total Renewable Organic Material

Agricultural Production Mix

E n vi vir i r o nme nmen nt

Outputs

Fishermen

Conservation

Terrestrial

Urbanization

Competition for land

Arable Land Forest & Fibre Feedstock Grassland Food Wildfoods Biofuel Rural

Less Productive Land

Carbon sequestration

Greenhouse Gases

Average temperature Frequency/magnitude of extreme weather events Sea level rise Changing rainfall patterns Migrating climate conditions

Monitoring

Research Policy & Funding

Development Policy & Funding

Climate Externalized Pest control Nutrient cycling Pollination Air Quality costs Nitrogen Assimilation Primary productivity Buffer Sediment Disease Soil formation Erosion Biodiversity - Genetic Fire Natural hazard Water flow & flood regulation Other Regulating CO2 sequestration Water quality regulation

Farmgate Prices

Sunlight

Climate Change

Peri-Urban

Aquatic Farmers

Pests & Diseases

S U P P L Y – F a r m i n g

Air Water Ground

Pollution

Environmental

Ownership

Farmers

Knowledge Work(ers)

Water Irrigation Fertilization Pest control Planting, Tending, Harvesting

Regional differences in production

Scientific Recreation Aesthetic Heritage Spiritual

Farming System

Seed Crop Mix: bulk/speciality/diversity

Inputs

Barriers to adoption

Mul ti func tio nali t y

Cultural

Researchers

• Improved conversion and storage of solar energy in biomass • Increase yields of agricultural production • Optimise use of available land Engineers • Precision agriculture

Economic

Farm Support

Public health Chronic diseases

Rural Development

Social equality Social cohesion

Tec echnolog echn ology y

Technology Transfer

S cien cienc i ce

Agricultural science Land use science Food science Environmental science Biotechnology

Agricultural Technology Biotechnology Agricultural Processes

Local knowledge

Fa arm Eco ono no omy

Social Capital Cultural values

SocioCultural

Knowledge Transfer Community-based innovation

Resistance to shocks is an emergent property of the whole system

Resilience:

Water

u cCivil

SelfEnergy sufficiency Economic

Se

ics e lit nc Po e r n a v y ri t Go

Money

Pri ces

Oil

Biofuel crops Energy Wind Costs Solar Hydro Wave/Tide/Current Geothermal

Oil, Gas, CoalPeak Nuclear Renewable:

Dema ema mand a

Ta T axes e Subsidies die etc.

Water Energy

Supply Supply Supp upp

Storage

Infrastructure charges

Food Safety

livestock

Meat & Dairy

Wildmeat

Fish & Seafood

Cereals, Legumes, Nuts Fruits, Vegetables

Global Trade & Transport

Trade agreements

G e o graphi c

E c o no o mi micc Currency Markets

Financial Markets

Investments

Food Service

S cien ciencc e

Sanitation

Nutrition

Ability to pay

Regional differences in consumption

Food Insecurity

Social benefits

copyright®2009 shiftn cvba

F o o d – D E M A N D

D emo e g r aph a ph i c aphi

Distribution Age Household size

Migration

en

ts

Health Wellbeing Mental Capital Social Capital

& m g ts ke t Se ar M rke a M

Consumer behaviour Behaviour change

Social Networks

Consumer Prices

Consumers

Population Size

Food Retailers

Technology

Food marketer

Ingredient blenders

Training

Consumption Patterns Food Preparation

Calories

Availability & Options

Transport Sector

Refrigeration

Refrigeration

Education

Public perception Values Preferences Beliefs Knowledge Information

Media

Perception of: food industry, farming, fair-trade sustainability, GM foods, etc.

Food Industry

Logistics

Food manufacturer

Econom mic Growth

Commodity Prices

Trader

Food Ingredient Manufacturer

Value Chain Transaction costs

PR/Marketing/ Advertising

Labelling

Marketing Intelligence

Physical, social, and economic access

Food Security

Civil Security

Political Pressure

Food quality, safety & acceptable risk

Food stock management

Education & Advocacy

re-use, by-product utilization, recycling, disposal

Transport

Waste

Food

Feed

Production Limits

Structural & Fibre

Food Agriculture Environmental Health & Safety

Regulations

Taxes & Tariffs

Policy commitments Legislation Legal obligations Ownership Structure Planning system

Economic Policy Agricultural Policy Environmental Policy Trade Policy Development Policy

Designations & Protections Zoning

E ne nerr g y

Biofuel

Civil Service

Legislators

Funding & Fees Investments Subsidies Price controls

Local

Regional

National

Global

Politics Governance

R a w M a t eri eria ials

Geopolitical Relationships

Processing

Global Food System Map

S ociooc C ultt ura al

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 293

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

294

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

Dairy including cow and buffalo milk is the world’s number one traded agricultural food by value (FAOSTAT, 2013), and in addition to providing a livelihood for approximately one-seventh of the world’s population, provides an important source of nutrition for over six billion people. In addition to providing a wide range of micronutrients, global milk production contributes on an average per capita/per day basis: 134 kcal of energy, 8.3 g of protein and 7.6 g fat; or 5%, 10% and 9% of global food energy, protein and fat (FAO, pers. comm.). Dairy farming utilises 7% of the world’s land (FAO, pers. comm.) and significant water and other resources. Dairy also produces waste streams such as effluent and greenhouse gases (GHG).

2  Socio-economic impact of the dairy sector The enormous global socio-economic impact is often neglected in discussions about the environmental impact of dairy at a local level or when discussing factors such as GHG emissions at the global level. This can result in naive or overly simplistic recommendations that, to ‘save the plant’, people should reduce or eliminate dairy from diets. As will be covered later in this chapter we still need to do more research to create better knowledge and understanding about what constitutes sustainable food systems and to develop comprehensive models and holistic frameworks to enable and drive progress. Nevertheless, current evidence points to an almost indispensable role for dairy within sustainable and nutritionally secure food systems once all socio-economic and environmental factors are taken into account.

2.1  Dairy’s impact on livelihoods Key facts: The global dairy sector produces approximately 800 billion litres of dairy nutrition and through 240 million jobs, including 150 million farms and smallholdings directly supports the livelihoods of up to 1 billion people. Dairy makes an important economic contribution to society and is both big business in terms of the intra- and inter-country trade in dairy products, with current global milk production reaching 800 billion litres (FAO Outlook, 2016; FAOSTAT, 2016; IDF, 2015), and small business in the livelihoods it provides to hundreds of millions of smallholders in many developing countries (Steinfeld et al., 2010; IFCN, 2015; Dugdill et al., 2013). It is estimated that 240 million people are employed either directly or indirectly in the dairy sector (FAO, pers. comm, elaborated from FAOSTAT and the World Bank Development Indicators Database). In the previous chapter Trends in dairy farming and milk production: the case of the UK and New Zealand the importance of dairy farming and trade in dairy products in selected developed markets was highlighted. In China 736 dairy enterprises employ over 270 000 people (IBIS World, 2016) and in Australia 6200 dairy farms create full-time employment for 39 000 people (Dairy Australia, 2015). Table 1 provides examples of the millions of dairy farmers and smallholders involved in producing milk in selected African and Asian countries. The economic contribution of dairy is the lifeblood of dairy farming families and the rural communities in which they live, with most milk being produced in the world by independent family-owned farms or smallholdings rather than by large corporate farming operations. For example, the 45 million cows in India are owned mostly by smallholders and the 5 million cows in New Zealand are mostly owned by family-operated dairy farms. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 295

Similarly 97% of the 48 500 dairy farms in the United States are family owned and operated (DMI, 2016). Farmer ownership in the dairy chain often goes beyond the farm. In many countries of the world the cooperative model predominates with farmers collectively owning either milk supply, processing assets, marketing and distribution or all aspects of a vertically integrated ‘cow-to-customer’ supply chain. Although of the top seven global dairy companies listed in chapter 35, Nestlé and Danone are publically listed and Lactalis is privately held, the next four (Fonterra, FrieslandCampina, Dairy Farmers of America and Arla Foods) are all cooperatives owned and controlled by their farmer suppliers. Similarly, the largest milk company and also the largest food product marketing organisation in India is a cooperative: Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF) popularly known as ‘AMUL’. GCMMF procures approximately 15 million litres of milk per day from over 18 500 village milk cooperative societies and approximately 3.4 million mostly smallholder producer members. In 2015, global milk production reached approximately 800 billion litres (FAOSTAT, 2016; IDF 2015). India, as the largest producer, accounted for over 150 billion litres or approximately 20% of global milk, with most of this being produced by smallholders with two or less cows (Table 1). Over 70 million Indian rural households depend upon dairying, ‘which touches the lives of the poorest of the poor’ including small and marginal farmers and landless labourers (Sibal, 2016). In addition to the employment and incomes created in milk production, over 70 jobs can be created elsewhere in the dairy chain for every 1000 L of milk produced in India (see Dugdill et al., 2013 and references therein). In Kenya, where in latest estimates there are nearly 1.7 million dairy farms averaging 3.4 cows per ‘farm’ (Table 1), every 1000 L of milk produced generates full-time employment for 77 people in milk production (Dugdill et al., 2013) and an average income that is 1.4 times Kenyan per capita GDP (World Bank, 2003). Also, in Kenya, an additional 3–20 jobs are created for every 1000 L in post milk production processing and marketing, with

Table 1 Dairy farmers and smallholders involved in producing milk in selected African and Asian countries Milk production cows and buffalo (ECM mill t)

Number of farms (000s)

Average size of farms (animals per farm)

Milk yield cow and buffalo (ECM t/cows/year)

Kenya

4.4

1690

3.4

*

Uganda

1.9

2179

2.5

0.3

China

31.6

1852

3.6

5.3

India

157.4

76136

1.6

1.2

Sri Lanka

0.5

221

3.5

0.6

Africa

Asia

Explanations: ECM = energy corrected milk on 4% fat and 3.3% protein. Source: IFCN Dairy Report 2015 based on national statistics and estimations. * Data not available. For further information on the number and importance of smallholder milk producers see FAO (2008, 2015), Dugdill et al. (2013) and IFCN Dairy Report (2015).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

296

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

the informal market creating more jobs than the formal one. On average these jobs are paid more than three times the Kenyan minimum wage. Unlike cropping, where farmers often have to manage outgoings over a long period before they get paid, dairy provides year-round income (Dugdill et al., 2013 and references therein). Similarly, dairy unlike some other livestock sectors provides more employment than, for example, rice or wheat production. Dairy can also have higher labour productivity such as in India, where it is 2.5 times that of agriculture in general (Dugdill et al., 2013 and references therein). Another important socio-economic aspect of the dairy sector is the empowerment of women. In developing and developed countries women play an important role in dairying. For example in developed countries such as New Zealand, women often work as equal partners with their spouses to manage the family farm, having similarly worked in partnership as sharemilkers while building equity towards farm ownership. In developing countries such as India the role of dairy in empowering women is profound where women not only constitute approximately 70% of the dairying labour force (Sibal, 2016), but have also created thousands of women-only dairy cooperative societies (Dugdill et al., 2013 and references therein). There are over 4.5 million women members and 330 000 women in leadership roles of Indian dairy cooperative societies (NDDB Annual Report, 2014–15; Sibal, 2016). Using empirical evidence from Kenya, Tanzania and Mozambique, Njuki and Sanginga (2013) estimated that dairy cows are directly owned by women in 25% of cattle rearing households. Smallholder milk production is also the dominant model in many Asian countries, which together with the ‘recognition that dairying represents one of the fastest returns for rural dwellers, many of them landless, have prompted many governments in the region to place a priority on dairy development as a means for economic growth’ (He Changchui, Assistant Director General and FAO Regional Representative for Asia and the Pacific, FAO, 2008). The importance of dairy development within Asia has also prompted the formation of a new organisation, Dairy Asia, to coordinate a regional strategy for sustainable development of milk production and dairy chains throughout the region (FAO, 2015). The Dairy Asia strategy will follow a holistic approach to sustainability across the different dimensions of people, planet and prosperity (FAO, 2015). More research, data and knowledge, and from this knowledge better models and frameworks are needed to inform policy and decision makers. However, it is clear that, it will be extremely difficult to sustainably replace the livelihoods provided by dairy with better alternatives once employment and, as will be discussed later in this chapter, provision of nutrition and other options for land use are taken into account.

2.2  Dairy’s impact on nutrition Key facts: most national dietary guidelines recommend 1–3 servings of dairy a day which approximates to 500 ml of milk/person/day. Increasing dairy consumption to match dietary guidelines could save billions of dollars in national health budgets and help maintain healthy body weight, reduce type 2 diabetes, hypertension, cardiovascular disease, osteoporosis, rickets and stunting. Dairy protein is substantially higher in nutritional quality than plantbased proteins. Dairy can be the lowest cost source of dietary calcium, riboflavin and vitamin B12 and is significantly more hydrating than water and many other beverages. The FAO publication Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition (Muehlhoff et al., 2013) provides a comprehensive treatise on the role of milk and dairy products in human © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 297

nutrition and health. The role that milk and dairy products play in diets is also covered by Miller et al. (2007), Miller and Auestad (2013) and by van Hooijdonk and Hettinga (2015). Dairy is included in national dietary recommendations because of the significant contribution to it makes towards meeting the body’s needs for a variety of macro and micro nutrients including protein, calcium, magnesium, selenium, riboflavin, vitamins B5 and B12. For example, in the United Kingdom for nutrients for which there is evidence of low intake/status dairy provides the following average contribution to daily requirements: calcium (43%), iodine (38%), vitamin B12 (36%), riboflavin (33%), zinc (17%), vitamin A (14%), potassium (13%) and magnesium (11%), despite average consumption of 200g/day (Buttris and Riley, 2013) being well below that recommended in many national dietary guidelines. Five hundred ml milk also provides approximately 35% of the RDI for protein, noting that dairy protein is also of the highest nutritional quality (Rutherfurd et al., 2015). The contribution to nutrient-poor diets in some developing countries can be even greater (Muehlhoff et al., 2013). In an analysis of dietary recommendations from 42 countries, Weaver et al. (2013) found that most counties recommend at least one serving and in some countries up to three or more servings of dairy/person/day as part of a balanced diet. Although serving sizes can vary, Weaver et al. (2013) determined that this approximates to the equivalent of 500 ml of milk/person/day. Dairy consumption can deliver substantial positive health outcomes through improved metabolic health (McGregor and Poppitt, 2013), lower insulin resistance (Nestel et al., 2013), improved muscular skeletal health (Weaver et al., 2013; Miller et al., 2014; Mitchell et al., 2015), by reducing dental caries (Weaver et al., 2013) and the incidence of cardiovascular disease, hypertension and type 2 diabetes (Kliem and Givens, 2011; Miller and Auestad, 2013; Weaver et al., 2013). The possible association of dairy consumption with certain cancers, type 1 diabetes and (for whole-fat dairy products) heart disease all look unlikely, given the findings from recent meta-analysis and the balance of scientific evidence (Kliem and Givens; 2011; Hill et al., 2011; Astrup, 2014; Rice, 2014; Larson et al. 2015). In a systematic review of milk consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease and cancer (Larson et al., 2015), no consistent association between milk consumption and all-cause mortality was found. However, Larson et al. (2015) argue that on the basis of a lack of consistent association among existing studies, large prospective studies are warranted to determine relationship between milk consumption and mortality. Dairy consumption can translate into substantial reductions in national healthcare costs, with a study in the United States concluding that consumption of 3–4 servings of dairy per day could translate into cumulative five-year savings of over US$200 billion (McCarron and Heaney, 2004). A study in Australia using different methodology and underlying assumptions found that 0.9–3.3% of direct healthcare expenditure in the 2010–11 financial year or approximately AUD$2.0 billion could have been saved had Australians previously consumed the recommended quantities of milk and dairy products (Doidge et al., 2012). There is some consistency in the findings of these studies once differences in the size of the US and Australian populations, timeframes and currencies are taken into account. New benefits from consuming dairy are being discovered. For example, a recent paper on the development of a beverage hydration index (BHI) (Maughan et al., 2016) found that skim and full-fat milk were significantly more hydrating over a 4-hour period than a range of other commercially available beverages including still water (control), sparkling water, cola, diet cola, hot tea, iced tea, coffee, lager, orange juice and a sports drink. Skim milk and full-fat milk had a similar hydrating effect to that of a specialist oral hydration © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

298

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

solution, with a BHI of approximately 1.5 compared with the other beverages that were not statistically different to the still water control (BHI of 1.0). The superiority of milk as a hydrating drink has been confirmed in a number of studies on hydration following exercise including recent findings published in the British Journal of Nutrition (Seery and Jakeman, 2016). The FAO Expert Consultation ‘Dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition’ has recommended that a new and advanced method the Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) for determining the quality of dietary proteins be adopted by Codex (for review see Leser, 2013). The DIAAS method demonstrates the superior nutritional quality of milk protein when compared with plant-based proteins (Rutherfurd et al., 2015). As milk protein was up to 30% higher in nutritional quality than the quality of the highest scoring plant proteins and over three-fold higher in nutritional quality than the worst scoring plant proteins this has significant consequences for sustainable diets and health. Inaccurate assessment of protein content and quality from different food sources could lead to erroneous conclusions about the relationship between protein production with land and water use or GHG emissions (IDF, 2016). In less-developed countries, dairy can reduce micronutrient deficiency, malnutrition and stunting or low height-for-age. Stunting can result from poor maternal nutrition, poor diet and infections during the first two years of life (Muehlhoff et al., 2013). The impact of stunting is not only restricted growth but also impaired cognitive development. Current estimates are that 159 million children under the age of five are stunted (UNICEF, WHO and World Bank, 2015). Even modest consumption of milk when compared with most national dietary recommendations has been found to markedly reduce stunting. In a study of over 2000 children in Malaysia the incidence of stunting was halved over a 21-month period through the provision of 250 ml of milk twice per week (Chen, 1989). A number of observational studies have found that milk and other animal-sourced foods are associated with better growth, micronutrient status, cognitive performance and motor function development in children in low income countries (Weaver et al., 2013; Iannotti, 2013). As the balance of evidence and expert opinion points to the essential role of dairy in diets, how much milk will the world need in the future? The FAO (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012; FAOSTAT, 2013) predicts that demand for milk could grow to approximately 1.1 trillion litres by 2050. A crude approximation of the global milk requirements for the current population of 7.3 billion (UNDESA, 2015) should everyone have access to 500 ml milk, is 1.3 trillion litres of milk/year (7.3 x 0.5 x 360) or 500 billion litres more milk than is produced today. Looking to the future if demand for milk matched current dietary recommendations by 2050 then 9.6 billion people (UNDESA, 2015) will require over 1.7 trillion litres of milk/year or more than double current production, especially as national dietary recommendations for pregnant and lactating women and for certain age groups are often higher than 500 ml/day (Weaver et al., 2013).

2.3  Reasons for low milk consumption However, even today, consumption of milk falls well short of recommendations in many countries (Miller and Auestad, 2013). In many developing countries access and affordability limit dairy consumption, whereas in many developed countries a myriad of factors influence the choice of the consumer (Fig. 1). In most developed countries consumers have almost endless choices of foods to select from and are also often confused or overwhelmed by inconsistent formal and informal dietary advice. Food choice is further complicated © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 299

by other influences such as habits, culture/values, fashion/fads, family/friends, pleasure/ enjoyment/entertainment and knowledge/education/advice. Dairy products have higher income elasticity of demand (Gerosa and Skoet, 2013). At low income levels more is spent on dairy relative to other foods but at higher income levels the elasticity of demand decreases for all food categories including dairy. Put simply we value dairy nutrition when we are poor but may lose sight of that value when we become richer and are ‘spoilt for choice’. Misperceptions about lactose intolerance, milk allergies and whole-fat dairy products may also be limiting dairy consumption. Perception of milk allergy is far more frequent than confirmed through testing. The incidence of allergies to cow's milk protein is significant at between 2 and 6% and primarily occurs in early childhood, with most individuals outgrowing the allergy by the age of five years (Weaver et al., 2013). Although residual milk protein allergy can be as high as 5–15% in those who developed it in infancy, these individuals represent much less than 1% of the adult population. By contrast, lactose mal-digestion/mal-absorption is far more common and results from the downregulation of the enzyme lactase that can develop at weaning. It is possible that as high as 70% of the world's population has at least some lactase deficiency, but the frequency can vary considerably among populations (Weaver et al., 2013). For example, in Europe, lactose mal-digestion can vary from as low as 4% in Ireland and Denmark to as high as 56% in Finland and in some Asian countries the rate can reach almost 100% (Weaver et al., 2013). Unlike some forms of milk allergy it is not life-threatening, and although some individuals experience significant discomfort, symptoms can vary considerably with wide variation in individual tolerance (Weaver et al., 2013). The vast majority of subjects can tolerate up to 12 g in a single dose and up to 24 g if consumed throughout the day (Weaver et al., 2013), noting that this is below the amount of lactose that would be consumed in a 250 ml serve or two 250 ml serves of milk, respectively. As such and in contrast to some recent food fashions and fads, most individuals should be able to tolerate the amount of lactose in milk and dairy products consumed to meet dietary recommendations in many countries. In addition, low lactose dairy products including fermented dairy products are available for individuals who genuinely have lactose intolerance and still experience discomfort with even low levels of milk consumption. There is also the common misperception that consumption of whole-fat dairy products contributes to obesity and CVD. Noting that over 41 million children are overweight and has increased by 10 million over the last two decades (UNICEF, WHO and World Bank, 2015), consumption of dairy products at dietary recommendations of 2–3 servings per day has been shown to help maintain a healthy weight and assist with weight loss during calorie-restricted diets (for reviews see chapter 7 in Miller et al., 2007 and Dougkas et al., 2011; Stonehouse et al., 2016). The long-held view that dietary fat in general and particularly whole-fat dairy products are associated with CVD does not appear to hold up to scrutiny (Weaver et al., 2013). Although more research is called for, the majority of meta-analysis of available prospective studies show that dairy consumption including whole-fat dairy consumption is not associated with increased risk of CVD (Weaver et al., 2013; Astrup et al., 2016). Nestlé et al. (2012) found that inflammatory and atherogenic biomarkers for CVD were not increased following single high-fat meals containing four different types of full-fat dairy products (butter, cream, yoghurt and cheese). Similarly, Dalmeijer et al. (2013) in a population-based cohort study and Rice (2014) in a review of eighteen observational studies concluded that dairy consumption including full-fat dairy products does not contribute to CVD. Lawrence © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

300

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

(2013) in a review of the scientific evidence for relationship between dietary fats and health found that several recent studies indicate that saturated fatty acids from dairy can improve rather than be detrimental to health. In recent years concerns over the ecological footprint of food production systems have started to influence the choice of some consumers and also the choices that are made for consumers by government policies and through choice editing within the food chain, for example by retailers who may limit the stocking or access to foods that do not meet certain criteria. However, as will be discussed later in this chapter caution is advisable at this time given the complexity of the issue, need for more data and knowledge, and the likelihood that premature action will result in unintended consequences. Attempts have been made to help consumers identify healthy and affordable foods through various government-endorsed and private-labelling schemes. These vary from simple ‘traffic light’ systems that use of colour codes to often identify the so-called negative nutrients to limit such as fat, sugar and salt, to more holistic indexes such as the nutritionrich foods (NRF) index (Drewnowski, 2010). Such holistic approaches will be necessary to establish the aggregate nutritional value of foods as a step towards the even more complex task of developing holistic frameworks that include all important socio-economic and ecological elements of sustainable food systems. The NRF index has been used to demonstrate that at least in the United States dairy is an affordable source of nutrients and lowest cost source of dietary calcium, riboflavin and vitamin B12 (Drewnowski, 2010; Miller and Auestad, 2013). The NRF index is an advancement but still suffers from an inability to take account of food matrix effects where individual food components may not elicit the same biological responses following consumption of some foods such as dairy when compared with others. Dietary guidelines should be based on foods rather than nutrients (Astrup, 2014) or better still on diets and lifestyles. Given the complex way in which a myriad of factors can influence consumer choice (Fig. 1 and 2), changing diets can be difficult to achieve so it is imperative that in doing so that unintended consequences are avoided as further changes to correct for such consequences will be equally difficult to achieve. As discussed by Golan and Kuchler (2016), empirical evidence suggests that labelling of foods and especially under voluntary schemes to achieve specific environmental or social outcomes is rarely so potent as to influence a critical number of consumers to change their consumption choices or critical number of producers to change their production practices. Influences of consumer choice (Fig. 1 and 2) of course influence the demand for dairy and the impacts of this demand on livelihoods, nutrition and the environment. Government policies, regulations, standards and labelling together with the availability, choice/variety, quality, convenience and affordability of dairy provided by food chains and systems are important influences of choice. But in a world where information can travel at the speed of light, finding ways to engage with, educate and inform consumers via social networks and other channels will be just as important.

3  Ecological impact of the dairy sector Perhaps even more challenging than assessing the impact of dairy on livelihoods and nutrition is the complex problem of assessing the ecological impact of dairy as a result of the significant variation in farming systems used to produce milk and significant variation in the ecologies with which those farming systems interact across different regions of the © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 301

world. Dairy farming can be found from Iceland to India, from Scotland to Saudi Arabia and from China to Chile. In fact, there are very few places inhabited by humans without some form of milk production mostly from cows but also buffaloes, goats, sheep and other species such as camels.

3.1  Dairy’s impact on the environment Key facts: Dairy farming utilises 7% of the world’s land, of this 85% or 850 million ha is either pastures or rangeland. Dairy cows consume 2.5 billion tonnes of dry matter or approximately 40% of the global livestock feed intake. Seventy-seven percent of this feed is human-inedible pasture or straws (FAO, pers. comm.). Dairy creates 2.7% of global GHG emissions or 4.0% including meat from dairy animals. The socio-economic benefits of dairy come at an ecological cost. However, headline statements about the amount of land and water used or GHG produced masks a level of detail that is important to understand and particularly in considerations, debates, policies and actions relating to dietary advice and sustainable food systems. Dairy farming utilises 1 billion ha or 7% of the world’s land to feed the major milking species (cows, buffaloes, goats and sheep) (FAO, pers. comm.). Of the 1 billion ha 85% or 850 million ha is either pastures or rangeland, with 150 million ha of arable land also being used to produce feed for dairy animals (FAO, pers. comm.). Dairy cows consume 2.5 billion tonnes of dry matter or approximately 40% of the global livestock feed intake (FAO, pers. comm.). However, it is important to note that 77% of this feed is human-inedible pasture or straws (FAO, pers. comm.). Dairy creates 2.7% of total anthropogenic GHG emissions or on average 2.4 kg CO2 equivalent per kg of milk produced (FAO, 2010b). However, because of very wide variations in dairy farming practices, GHG emissions vary from 1 to 7.5 kg CO2 equivalent per kg of milk produced (FAO, 2010b). Improvements in the breeding and feeding of dairy cows and management of dairy farms has created phenomenal improvements in milk production. For example, in the United States over the past sixty years milk yield increased more than fourfold while using 90% less land, 65% less water, producing 75% less manure and at 63% less GHG per unit of milk (Capper et al., 2009). Through such improvements, average milk production per cow per year in the United States is now more than ten times the global average (Miller and Auestad, 2013). However, commensurate with these improvements has been a dramatic reduction in the number of dairy farms, for example between 1970 and 2006 dairy farming operations reduced from 648 000 to just 75 000 (USDA, 2016) and has reduced further to approximately 48 500 farms (DMI, 2016). By contrast, the phenomenal increase in milk production within India through Project Flood (NDBB, 2016) from less than 25 billion litres per year in 1970 to approximately 150 billion litres in 2015 has been based on improvements to and retention of smallholder dairying. It is thus of obvious importance to not only look at the ecological impact of dairy today per unit of production and the socio-economic benefits it provides but the impact it can have in the future through improvements to dairy chains and any trade-offs between socioeconomic and ecological factors. For example, it is theoretically possible to produce over one trillion litres of milk and the nutritional benefits this could provide with fewer cows and at average GHG emissions that are 40% lower than today (van Hooijdonk and Hettinga, 2015), but this may also involve a significant reduction in the number smallholders involved © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

302

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

in dairy production and associated livelihoods. It is also why dairy development initiatives around the world should focus on all three aspects of people, planet and prosperity. Another important consideration that is often neglected when considering GHG emissions from dairy is that methane represents between 51 and 67% of dairy emissions depending on the species and production system, emissions being higher in grasslandbased systems than mixed systems (Gerber et al., 2013). By contrast, carbon dioxide plays a minor role in on-farm emissions, representing on average 5–10% of farm-based emissions. The importance of this point in terms of global warming was highlighted by Oxford University Physicist Raymond Pierrehumbert in a letter to the editor of The Economist (20 August 2016): When you stated that methane is “25 times as potent” a cause of global warming as carbon dioxide, you perpetuated the myth that there is a single conversion factor that translates the climate effect of methane into what would be caused by an “equivalent” amount of carbon dioxide (“Tunnel vision”, 23rd July). The number you quoted is based on a measure called “global warming potential”. This measure exaggerates the importance of methane because it fails to properly reflect the importance of the short (12 year) lifetime of methane in the atmosphere compared with carbon dioxide, which continues to transform the climate for centuries. A simple financial analogy is useful. If you opened a bank account for storing your methane emissions, it would be as if the account paid a negative interest rate of 8.3% annually (a concept which may become all too familiar in the real world of banking before long). The balance in the account represents the warming effect of the methane emitted. If you deposited $1000-worth of methane today, in 50 years your account would be worth only $16. A big pulse of methane released today would have virtually no effect on the temperature around the time we hope global warming will be peaking. If you were to deposit a steady $100 of methane a year your account would be valued at $1205 in a few decades but would then stop growing. The only way to increase the amount of warming from methane is to increase the annual emissions rate. Not so with carbon dioxide, which acts more like a bank account with a zero interest rate (rather like a real bank account these days). A fixed emission-rate of carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere, leading to warming that grows without bounds over time. In fact, if warming causes the land ecosystems to start releasing rather than storing carbon, it would be as if your bank account had a positive interest rate. Not a bad thing for a real bank account, but bad news for climate if it is carbon dioxide you are banking.

3.2  Nutritional value versus environmental impact Just as there are misperceptions about dairy nutrition and health, there are misperceptions that dairy is an inefficient use of natural resources (Miller and Auestad, 2013; van Hooijdonk and Hettinga, 2015). Reports from the World Resources Institute (Ranganathan et al., 2016) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI, 2016) propose a framework to shift consumers to more sustainable diets through a reduction in calorie intake, a reduction in protein consumption and a reduction in consumption of animal-based foods. These reports compare land use, freshwater consumption and GHG emissions with calories and protein consumed for the major plant-based and animal-based foods including dairy. Westhoek et al. (2014) in an analysis focused on the European Union proposed that © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 303

replacing 25–50% of animal-derived foods with plant-based foods on a dietary energy basis would reduce GHG emissions by 25–40%, nitrogen emissions by 40%, cropland by 23%, improve the nitrogen efficiency of food from 18% to between 41 and 47%, and reduce saturated fat intake by 40% with a commensurate reduction in CVD. Similarly, claims that to ‘save the planet’ the consumption of dairy should be reduced in or in some extreme cases eliminated altogether from diets are made on a regular basis in both print media and social media, but also in quality peer-reviewed scientific journals. Lang and Barling (2012) in an excellent analysis of the complexity and difficulties of integrating nutritional and sustainability policy, the authors highlight meat and dairy as one of four policy hot spots. ‘Nutrition advice tends to support their consumption, but environmental concerns suggest more consideration be given to upper limits’ (Lang and Barling, 2012). Although the authors call for more analysis and that the fragmented consideration of nutrition in either a life science or biochemical context, a socio-economic context or an environmental context must be integrated, they still conclude that more horticulture, less meat and dairy, more equal distribution, better skilled consumers, less consumption overall in the rich world are likely to be answers to sustainability and food security (Lang and Barling, 2012). Are such arguments to reduce dairy consumption valid given current knowledge and global considerations of all important socio-economic and ecological factors? Although there are similarities in some meat production systems with dairy and culled dairy cattle are a source of meat, it is questionable that meat and dairy should be aggregated given the differences in the nutrition they provide (see Table 1 in Buttris and Riley, 2013), differences in their ecological footprints (Ranganathan et al., 2016; IFPRI, 2016), differences in their global impact on livelihoods and the fact that in many developed countries meat consumption is above dietary recommendations (Ranganathan et al., 2016; IFPRI, 2016) whereas milk consumption is below dietary recommendations (Miller and Auestad, 2013). Claims that reducing milk intake will improve health including CVD do not look valid given the evidence presented earlier in this chapter. Whereas GHG is a global issue water is in the main a local issue and care is needed when using the term ‘water consumption’ because the water may not be consumed as such. Is the water used from a water rich or water stressed/deficit location? Is there a significant net usage of water or is it replaced through rainfall and so on? What is the quality of the water that is returned to the environment? This complexity is recognised by the International Standards Organisation in its guidelines for water footprints (ISO, 2014), where ‘results from a water footprint inventory may be reported, but shall not be reported as water footprint’ and ‘Water inputs and water outputs of different resource types, different quality, different form, different location with different environmental condition indicators or different timing shall not be aggregated in the inventory phase’, ‘Aggregation may be performed at the impact assessment phase’. That is not to say that water use and quality is not an issue for some dairy chains and as such should be a priority for research and improvement initiatives. Land use is also complicated by topography, local climate and soil characteristics that make some land more suitable and productive for particular agricultural purposes. Teague et al. (2016) make strong arguments that the use of grasslands and pastures for optimised systems of ruminant grazing will significantly reduce rather than increase GHG emissions. Teague et al. (2016) propose that rather than reducing livestock to mitigate climate change, producers should be encouraged to replace unsustainable crop and livestock practices with regenerative management practices. Teague et al. (2016) also argue that applying © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

304

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

such systems to just 25% of the land used by such producers would result in a greater reduction in GHG than reducing livestock numbers by 50%. An important point given that globally 85% of the land used for dairying is pasture or rangeland and 77% of the feed consumed by dairy animals is from pasture and straws. This creates a solid platform from which to make improvements to dairy farming systems to reduce GHG emission per unit of milk production. A study on the GHG emissions of self-selected individual diets in France found that dairy contributed less to diet-associated GHG emissions when compared with other animal-origin food groups (Vieux et al., 2012). This study also found that changes to the amounts of different foods consumed would have little impact on GHG emissions without a simultaneous reduction in calorie intake to match energy needs. Vieux et al. (2012) concluded that changing the structure of diets by reducing the consumption of animal-based products is probably not a sufficient approach to significantly reduce GHG emissions. The total quantity of food consumed by each individual explained more of the variance in diet-related GHG emissions than the carbon intensity or energy density of the diet. The need to reduce calorie intake to recommended levels as a means to reduce food-related GHG emissions is one of the recommendations from the World Resources Institute (Ranganathan et al., 2016) and the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI, 2016). Using a nutrient density to climate impact (NDCI) index, Smedman et al. (2010) compared nutrient density with the associated GHG emissions for a range of beverages including carbonated drinks, orange juice, beer, red wine, mineral water, milk and milk substitutes, for example, soy drink and oat drink. The NDCI index for milk was substantially higher (0.54) than all other beverages, with orange juice being the next best with an NDCI of 0.28. The soy drink had an NDCI less than half that of milk and the oat drink an NDCI index below 0.1. Thus, milk has a superior NDCI and as described previously superior BHI than many other drinks. Dairy cows are highly efficient in converting human-inedible materials such as grass, straw, silages and various inedible waste streams from human food production into milk (Miller and Auestad, 2013; van Hooijdonk and Hettinga, 2015). For example, for the average cow in the Netherlands only 6% of the diet is human-edible and with 22% of the energy and 27% of the protein from the total diet converted into milk (van Hooijdonk and Hettinga 2015). But more significantly the return on the human-edible fraction of the diet is 357% and 438% on an energy and protein basis, respectively (van Hooijdonk and Hettinga, 2015). Referencing recently completed analysis, 1 kg of animal-sourced protein was found to require 17.7 kg of protein feed for ruminants and 7.4 kg of protein feed for monogastrics (HPLE, 2016). However, when accounting for whether this feed was human-edible or non-human-edible, the human-edible protein required to produce 1 kg of animal-sourced protein was lower for ruminants than for monogastrics (HPLE, 2016). In predominantly pasture-based systems such as those used in New Zealand and in many developing countries, the return will be even higher given the lower use of humanedible energy and protein in cow’s diets.

4  Dairy within sustainable diets In the Introduction the broad and complex scope of what constitutes sustainable production and consumption of food was presented (FAO, 2016a; Fig. 2). The FAO and Biodiversity International have proposed the following definition for sustainable diets: © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 305 Diets with low environmental impacts which contribute to food and nutrition security and to healthy life for present and future generations. Sustainable diets are protective and respectful of biodiversity and ecosystems, culturally acceptable, accessibly, economically fair and affordable; nutritionally adequate, safe and healthy; while optimising natural and human resources. (Burlingame and Dernini, 2012)

Shenggen Fan, Director General of the International Food Policy Research Institute, in his introduction to the 2016 Global Food Policy Report (IFPRI, 2016) notes that a food system that promotes well-being of people and planet should have six characteristics: •• •• •• •• •• ••

Efficient Inclusive Climate-smart Sustainable Nutrition- and Health-driven Business-friendly

No doubt further definitions and elaborations for what constitutes sustainable diets and food systems will be made over the coming years. So how do we combine all important socio-economic and ecological aspects to create frameworks and models that support sustainable food systems? Moreover, how do we do this in a way that is globally relevant and locally applicable, that creates food security, accommodates the needs of developed and developing nations, scale farming and smallholder farming, recognises the diverse social and ecological needs of communities and the planet and can operate efficiently and resiliently within the complexity shown in Fig. 2. While more research, data and knowledge is needed at local, national and global scales to determine the combined socio-economic and ecological impact of food chains and systems, it is almost certain that dairy will be an important component in sustainable food systems given its broad impact and magnitude of benefits described earlier in this chapter.

5 Global frameworks for sustainable food and dairy production The need for more research and knowledge relating to sustainable food systems is highlighted by the FAO (FAO, 2016b). Furthermore there needs to be a common understanding of issues, adaptation of knowledge tools to the needs of the various categories of actors within the sustainable food system and information sharing between these actors (Maybeck, 2016). This can be challenging given the different motivations and drivers of these actors such as intergovernmental organisations, national governments, commercial companies and civil society. Nevertheless, knowledge, the way it is constructed, organised and shared, is key to any type of transformation of agriculture and food. (Ren Wang Assistant Director General, Agriculture and Consumer Protection Department, FAO, 2016b)

Although new knowledge relevant to nutrition, food security and sustainability will be created over the coming years, we cannot wait for all the answers and must make progress towards the development of a nutritional secure world and sustainable food © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

306

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

systems. In this respect, progress will be highly iterative and care will be needed to avoid unintended consequences of policies and actions. We must be conscious of trade-offs and confident that actions will indeed take us two steps forward and at worst only one step backwards (2:1) and will not result in the opposite (1:2). We must recognise that although environmental performance is an important aspect of sustainability they are not the same thing nor are food security and sustainability, although they are closely interlinked (FAO, 2016b). Care will be needed in both policy development and action to ensure that outcomes actually do good rather than just feel good. Simplistic solutions are unlikely to be robust or at least make a significant impact in isolation. For example, buying local could be part of the solution but so could fairer and more open international cross-border trade as it is almost certain that sustainable food systems will need to encompass both. The recent WTO agreement to eliminate export subsidies and in so doing reduce distortions in trade policies should facilitate improved efficiency of value chains, markets and trade systems (IFPRI, 2016). Similarly smallholders are not always the most efficient producers in agricultural systems but given the 1 billion livelihoods, many of them smallholders supported by dairy: Any solution which ignores the livelihood issues would be inequitable T. Nanda Kumar, Chairman, India National Dairy Development Board (FAO, 2015).

Recognising the complexity of the challenge and the need for common global frameworks to be locally relevant and applicable, the dairy sector has developed a comprehensive Dairy Sustainability Framework (DSF). The DSF is composed of eleven sustainability criteria (Fig. 3) covering socio-economic and ecological aspects of the dairy chain (GDAA-DSF, 2014; 2015/16). The DSF is designed to recognise the variability of global dairy farming systems and chains, and the necessity for prioritisation of sustainability issues at a local level. The DSF provides a common way for the dairy sector to make and measure progress towards more sustainable food systems whilst further work is undertaken to develop models to integrate all socio-economic and ecological impacts. So far the DSF is being used to assist hundreds of dairy organisations to align, connect and progress approximately two hundred sustainability-related initiatives (GDAA-DSF, 2015–16). Participation in the DSF is growing rapidly, with 27% of global milk production already operating under the DSF covering over 30 million cows, 658 000 farms and 3700 processing plants worldwide. In recognition of the need for more knowledge, the UN Committee on World Food Security (CFS) established a High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE) to report on the role of livestock in sustainable agricultural development (SAD) for food security and nutrition (FSN). The HLPE report (HLPE, 2016) recognises the complexity of the challenges for SAD to create FSN and makes a number of high-level recommendations to address these challenges including the need to fill data gaps and the need for more research and development. The HPLE report also recognises the variation in livestock farming systems and for the purposes of priority areas for intervention (Table 2) categorises them into four systems: smallholder mixed farming, pastoral systems, commercial grazing systems and intensive livestock systems. A number of case studies are included in the report to highlight initiatives and best practices, but falls short of outlining the strengths of the various farming systems and focuses more on areas for improvement. Another weakness in the report is that although it recognises the need for SAD to be incorporated into trade policies, the report puts more focus on progress at a national level without describing how such progress can be globally integrated. The HPLE report sets out an eight-step © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 307 Greenhouse Gas Emissions GHG emissions across the full value chain are quantified and reduced through all economically viable mechanisms.

Soil Nutrients Nutrient application is managed to minimize impacts on water and air, while maintaining the enhancing soil quality.

Waste

Waste generation is minimized and, where unavoidable, waste is reused and recycled.

Water Water availability, as well as water quality, is managed responsibly throughout the dairy value chain.

Soil

Soil quality and retention is proactively managed and enhanced to ensure optimal productivity.

Biodiversity Direct and indirect biodiversity risks and opportunities are understood, and strategies to maintain or enhance it are established.

Market Development Participants along the dairy value chain are able to build economically viable businesses through the development of transparent and effective markets.

Working Conditions Across the dairy value chain, workers operate in a safe environment, and their rights are respected and promoted.

Product Safety & Quality The integrity and transparency of the dairy supply chain is safeguarded, so as to ensure the optimal nutrition, quality, and safety of products.

Animal Care

Dairy animals are treated with care, and are free from hunger and thirst, discomfort, pain, injury and disease, fear and distress, and are able to engage in relatively normal patterns of animal behaviour.

Rural Economies The dairy sector contributes to the resilience and economic viability of farmers and rural communities.

Figure 3 Dairy Sustainability Framework Criteria. The DSF consists of 11 Sustainability Criteria To ensure the desired sector alignment is achieved, the industry has developed for each of the Criteria, a strategic intent. The Strategic Intent is designed to guide the sector when designing mitigation initiatives under any of the Criteria by specifying the desired improvement for each.

pathway in order to design national SAD strategies starting with a situation analysis and ending with monitoring and ongoing iterative adjustment; and three interlinked principles: improve resource efficiency given the huge opportunity for improvements to be made by the adoption of best practices, strengthen resilience to risk and shocks, and improve social equity/responsibility outcomes. The CFS has also established another HLPE to provide scientific and technical information to support the implementation of decisions of the second International Conference on Nutrition (ICN2, 2014) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs, 2016, see Fig. 4). © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

308

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

Table 2 Priority challenges to attain SAD for FSN in different farming systems

System Smallholder mixed farming

Scale and geography Around 600 million persons mainly in south and southeast Asia and Africa Around 30 million small farmers in developed countries

Key health and One-Health challenges

Key social challenges

Key environmental challenges

Key economic challenges

Endemic animal diseases

Farm fragmentation

Climate change

Low economies of scale

Zoonotic diseases

Lack of rights, entitlements, tenure

Land degradation

Exclusion from high-value markets and service

Food-borne diseases Contribution to NCD

Ageing workforce and exodus of young people

Loss of biodiversity

Low productivity and high yield gaps

Rural abandonment Pastoral

Nearly 200 million pastoralists

Endemic animal diseases Zoonotic diseases

Marginalisation: lack of rights, entitlements, tenure Conflict over land and water

Climate change Extreme events (droughts, floods)

Lack of access to markets and services Low productivity

Water scarcity

Inequitable norms and institutions Commercial grazing

Hundreds of thousands of farmers in Latin America, parts of the United States, Australia, and southern Africa

Emerging diseases Contribution to NCD

Displacement of indigenous peoples and local communities Vulnerable groups

Deforestation; contribution to climate change

Exposure to world price volatility

Land conversion

International market access

Poor work conditions

Low economies of scale

Rural abandonment Intensive

Around 2 million intensive dairy farmers in the United States, Brazil, Europe, New Zealand Several million intensive pig, poultry and beef/ sheep feedlot farms, mainly in BRICs and highincome countries

Emerging diseases

Poor work conditions

Air, land, water pollution

Food-borne diseases

Poor animal welfare

High water use

Contribution to antimicrobial resistance and NCD

Contribution to climate change

Exposure to world price volatility Price squeeze from input suppliers, processors and retailers

From Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition: what roles for livestock? A report by the High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. July 2016. www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe.

The HLPE is tasked with considering food chains from ‘farm to fork’ and all sustainability challenges including economic, social and environmental dimensions and how they relate to nutrition. The report from the HLPE is planned to be released in 2017 and will hopefully take us a step further towards integrated thinking if not integrated models for

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 309

Figure 4 Sustainable Development Goals. Source: www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/sustainabledevelopment-goals.

sustainability and together with the report on the role of livestock in SAD and FSN (HPLE, 2016) provide guidance to existing initiatives such as the DSF, the Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock partnership (GASL, 2016), Livestock Environment Assessment and Performance partnership (LEAP, 2016) and Dairy Asia.

6  Where to look for further information For further information see www.dairy.declaration.org and Milk and dairy products in human. FAO, 2013. ISBN 978-92-5-107863-1.

7  Future trends and conclusion Given the enormous socio-economic impact of dairy and the significant natural capital used to produce it, further work to assess the holistic impact of dairying is an important priority if we are to create sustainable food systems that will feed over nine billion people by 2050. More knowledge is needed to enable the combined (Livelihood impacts) + (Nutritional impacts) + (Ecological impacts) of the dairy sector to be established even at local levels or within different sustainable food systems, noting that there will not be a single ‘one-size-fits-all’ system that will work across all geographies. Calls to limit dairy consumption on environmental or nutritional grounds do not look valid given the balance of current knowledge. That is not to say that the dairy sector is perfect and there is scope for significant improvements in the efficiency and effectiveness

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

310

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

of dairy chains. For example although the global loss and waste of milk and dairy products is estimated to be significantly lower than cereals (30%) or root crops, fruit and vegetables (40–50%), 20% of milk that is produced is not consumed (FAO, 2011). There is a considerable opportunity to increase milk production whilst decreasing resource use and GHG emissions per unit of production, but this will need to be done in ways that recognize the critical role that dairy plays in livelihoods. Growing access to dairy to meet nutritional guidelines and enrich diets will need to be done through a balanced approach involving local dairy development programmes and international cross-border trade of dairy products. Moving forwards, the SDGs should provide a common high-level context to discuss the relevance and impact of dairy and the DSF a common mechanism for the dairy sector to measure and drive progress towards the SDGs; national and local socio-economic and ecological targets; and the business strategies, social responsibility plans and priorities of individual organisations in the dairy chain.

8  Acknowledgements The author is grateful to Torsten Hemme (International Farm Comparisons Network) and Udo Pica-Ciamarra and Henning Steinfeld (FAO) for supplying some of the data referenced in this chapter (FAO, pers. comm.) and is based on FAOSTAT (accessed August 2016) plus analysis of other official sources of information. The author thanks shiftTM for Fig. 1 and 2 on the global food system; and Sharon Mitchell and Christina Gomes (Fonterra Cooperative Group) for support in preparation of this chapter. The advice of Francesca Eggleton and Francis Reid (Fonterra Cooperative Group) is also greatly appreciated.

9  References Alexandratos, N. and Bruinsma, J. (2012). World agriculture towards 2030/2050: the 2012 revision. ESA Working paper No. 12-03. www.fao.org/economic/esa Astrup, A. (2014). A changing view on SFAs and dairy: from enemy to friend. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. doi:10.3945/ajcn.114.099986. Astrup, A., Rice Bradley, B. H., Brenna, J. T., Bernadette Delplanque, B., Ferry, M. and TorresGonzalez, M. (2016). Regular-fat dairy and human health: a synopsis of symposia presented in Europe and North America (2014–2015). Nutrients 8(8), 463. doi:10.3390/nu8080463. Barbara Burlingame, B. and Dernini, S. (2012). Sustainable diets and biodiversity: directions and solutions for policy, research and action. Proceedings of the International Scientific Symposium Biodiversity and Sustainable Diets United Against Hunger, 3–5 November 2010, FAO Headquarters, Rome. E-ISBN 978-92-5-107288-2. Buttriss, J. and Riley, H. (2013). Sustainable diets: Harnessing the nutrition agenda. Food Chemistry 140, 402–7. Capper, J., Cady, A. and Bauman, D. (2009). The environmental impact of dairy production: 1944 compared with 2007. Journal of Animal Science 87, 2160–7. Chen, S. T. (1989). Impact of a school milk programme on the nutritional status of school children. Asia Pacific Journal of Public Health 3, 19–25. Dairy Australia (2015). Australian Dairy Industry in Focus 2015. Dairy Australia: Southbank (Melbourne) Dalmeijer, G. W., Struij, E. A., van der Schouw, Y. T., Soedamah-Muthu, S. S., Verschuren, W. M. M., Boer, J. M. A., Geleijnse, J. M. and Beulens, J. W. J. (2013). Dairy intake and coronary heart disease or stroke – A population-based cohort study. International Journal of Cardiology 167, 925–9. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 311 DMI (2016). Dairy Management Inc. www.dairy.org Doidge, J. C., Segal, L. and Gospodarevskaya, E. (2012). Attributable risk analysis reveals potential healthcare savings from increased consumption of dairy products. Journal of Nutrition 142, 1772–80. Dougkas, A., Reynolds, C. K., Givens, I. D., Elwood, P. C. and Minihane, A. M. (2011). Associations between dairy consumption and body weight: a review of the evidence and underlying mechanisms. Nutritional Research Reviews 24, 72–95. Drewnowski, A. (2010). The cost of US foods as related to their nutritive value. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 92, 1181–8. Dugdill, B., Bennett, A., Phlan, J. and Scholten, B. A. (2013). Dairy-industry development programmes: Their role in food and nutritional security and poverty reduction. In Muehlhoff, E., Bennett, A. and McMahon, D. (Eds), Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition, pp. 313–54. FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-107863-1. FAO (2008). Strategy and Investment Plan for Smallholder Dairy development in Asia. ISBN 978-92-5-106043-8. FAO (2010a). Status and Prospects for Smallholder Milk Production: A Global Perspective. In Hemme, T. and Otte, J. (Eds). ISSB 978-92-5-106545-7. FAO (2010b). Greenhouse gas emissions from the dairy sector, A Life Cycle Assessment. Available from http://www.fao.org/docrep/012/k7930e00.pdf FAO (2011). Global food losses and food waste. Available from www.fao.org/docrep/014/mb060e/ mb060e.pdf FAO (2015). Dairy Asia: Towards Sustainability. Elements of a regional strategy for sustainable dairy development in Asia. FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Bangkok. Available from www.fao.org/publications. FAO (2016a). Sustainable Food Systems Programme. Available from www.fao.org/ag/ags/ sustainble-food-consumption-and-production/en/ FAO (2016b). Knowledge and Information for Sustainable Food Systems: A workshop of the FAO/ UNEP Programme on Sustainable Food Systems. In Meybeck, A. and Redfern, S. (Eds), FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-109068-8. FAO Outlook (2016). FAO Bi-Annual Dairy Report, June 2016. Available from fao.org/fileadmin/ templates/est/COMM_MARKETS_MONITORING/Dairy/Documents/FO_Dairy_June_2016.pdf FAOSTAT (2013). faostat.fao.org FAOSTAT (2016). faostat3.fao.org GASL (2016). Global Agenda for Sustainable Livestock. Available from www.livestockdialogue.org Gerber, P. J., Steinfeld, H., Henderson, B., Mottet, A., Opio, C., Dijkman, J., Falcucci, A. and Tempio, G. (2013). Tackling Climate Change Through Livestock – A Global Assessment Of Emissions And Mitigation Opportunities. FAO: Rome. ISBN 978-92-5-107920-1. Gerosa, S. and Skoet, J. (2013). Milk availability: Current production and demand and medium term outlook. Milk and dairy products in human nutrition. FAO, pp. 11–40. ISBN 978-92-5-107863-1. Global Dairy Agenda for Action, Dairy Sustainability Framework Annual Report 2014. www. dairysustainabilityframework.org Global Dairy Agenda for Action, Dairy Sustainability Framework Annual Report 2015-16. www. dairysustainabilityframework.org Golan, E. and Kuchler, F. (2016). Development of Voluntary Sustainability Standards and labels in the United States of America. In Meybeck, A. and Redfern, S. (Eds), Knowledge and Information for Sustainable Food Systems: A workshop of the FAO/UNEP Programme on Sustainable Food Systems. FAO, pp. 85–91. Hemme, T. and Otte, J. (2010). Status and Prospects for Smallholder Milk Production. A global Perspective. FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-106545-7. Hill, J. P., Boland, M. J. and Landells, V. A. (2011). Diabetes mellitus and consumption of milk and dairy products. In Fuquay, J. W., Fox, P. F. and McSweeney, P. L. H. (Eds), Encyclopaedia of Dairy Sciences, Academic Press. ISBN: 978-0-12-374402-9. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

312

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

HPLE (2016). Sustainable agricultural development for food security and nutrition: what roles for livestock? A report by The High Level Panel of Experts on Food Security and Nutrition. July 2016. www.fao.org/cfs/cfs-hlpe Iannotti, L. L. (2013). Milk and dairy programmes affecting nutrition. In Muehlhoff, E., Bennett, A. and McMahon, D. (Eds), Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition, pp. 275–312. FAO. ISBN 978-92-5-107863-1. IBIS World (2016). Dairy Product Production in China: Market Research Report. IBIS World: Beijing. ICN2 (2014). Second International Conference on Nutrition. Rome, 19–21 November 2014. Conference Outcome Document: Rome Declaration on Nutrition. www.ifrc.org/docs/IDRL/aml542e.pdf IDF (2015). The World Dairy Situation 2015. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 481/2015. ISSN 0250-5118 IDF (2016). Evaluation of nitrogen conversion factors for dairy and soy. Bulletin of the International Dairy Federation 482/2016. ISSN 0250-5118. IFCN Dairy Report (2015). For a better understanding of the dairy world. www.ifcndairy.org/en/news/ DairyReport2015.php IFPRI (2016). Global Food Policy Report 2016. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, USA. ISBN: 978-0-89629-582-7. ISO (2014). Environmental management – Water footprint – Principles, requirements and guidelines. International Standard ISO 14046. Reference number ISO 14046-2014(E). Kliem, K. E. and Given, D. I. (2011). Dairy products in the food chain: their impact on health. Annual Reviews in Food Science and Technology 2, 21–36. Lang, T. and Barling, D. (2013). Nutrition and sustainability: an emerging food policy discourse. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 72, 1–12. Larson, S. C., Crippa, A., Orsini, N., Wolk, A. and Michaelsson, K. (2015). Milk consumption and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease, and cancer: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Nutrients 11, 7749–63. Lawrence, G. D. (2013). Dietary fats and health: Dietary recommendations in the context of scientific evidence. Advances in Nutrition, 4, 294–302. LEAP (2016). Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance Partnership. www.fao.org/ partnerships/leap Leser, S. (2013). The 2013 FAO report on dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition: Recommendations and implications. Nutrition Bulletin 38, 421–8. Maughan, R. J., Watson, P., Cordery, P. A., Walsh, N. P., Oliver, S. J., Dolci, A., Rodriguez-Sanchez, N. and Galloway, G. D. (2016). American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 103, 717–23. McCarron, D. A. and Heaney, R. P. (2004). Estimated healthcare savings with adequate dairy food intake. American Journal of Hypertension 17, 88–97. McGregor, R. A. and Poppitt, S. D. (2013). Milk protein for improved health: a review of the evidence. Nutrition & Metabolism 10, 3–13. Miller, G. D. and Auestad, N. (2013). Towards a sustainable dairy sector: Leadership in sustainable nutrition. International Journal of Dairy Technology 66, 307–16. Miller, G. D., Jarvis, J. K. and McBean, L. D. (2007). Handbook of Dairy Foods and Nutrition, Third Editing. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. ISBN 10: 0-8493-2828-4. Miller, P. E., Alexander, D. D. and Perez, V. (2014). Effects of whey protein and resistance exercise on body composition: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Journal of the American College of Nutrition 33, 163–75. Mitchell, C., McGregor, R., D’Souza, R., Thorstensen, E., Markworth, J., Fanning, A., Poppitt, S. and Cameron-Smith, D. (2015). Consumption of milk or whey protein results in a similar increase in muscle protein synthesis in middle aged men. Nutrients 7, 8685–99. Muehlhoff, E., Bennett, A. and McMahon, D., (2013). Milk and dairy products in human nutrition. FAO, 2013. ISBN 978-92-5-107863-1. National Dairy Development Board Annual Report 2014–15. www.nddb.coop. NDDB (2016). National Dairy Development Board. Genesis, Operation Flood. www.nddb.coop. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector 313 Nestel, P. J., Pally, S., MacIntosh, G. L., Greeve, M. A., Middleton, S., Jowett, J. and Meikle, P. J. (2012). Circulating inflammatory and atherogenic biomarkers are not increased following single meals of dairy foods. European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 66, 25–31. Nestel, P. J., Strznicky, N., Mellet, N. A., Wong, G., De Souza, D. P., Tull, D. L., Barlow, C. K., Grima, K. B. and Meikle, P. J. (2013). Specific plasma lipid classes and phospholipid fatty acids indicative of dairy food consumption associate with insulin sensitivity. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition doi: 10:3945/ajcn.113.071712. Njuki, J. and Sanginga, P. C., eds. (2013). Women, Livestock Ownership and Markets. Bridging the Gender Gap in Eastern and Southern Africa. Routledge: London and New York; IRDC: Ottawa; ILRI: Nairobi. Ranganathan, J., Vennard, D., Waite, R., Dumas, P., Lipinski, B., Searchinger, T. (2016). Shifting diets for a sustainable food future. World Resource Institute Working Paper April 2016. www.WRI. org. Rice, B. H. (2014). Dairy and Cardiovascular Disease: A Review of recent Observational Research. Current Nutrition Reports 3, 130–8. Rutherfurd, S. M., Fanning, A. C., Miller, B. J. and Moughan, P. J. (2015). Protein Digestible-Corrected Amino Acid Scores and Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Scores Differentially Describe Protein Quality in Growing Male Rats. Journal of Nutrition 145, 372–9. SDGs (2016) Sustainable Development Goals. www.un.org/sustainabledevelopment/ sustainable-development-goals Seery, S. and Jakeman, P. (2016). A metered intake of milk following exercise and thermal dehydration restores whole-body net fluid balance better than a carbohydrate–electrolyte solution or water in healthy young men. British Journal of Nutrition, http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0007114516002907 (About DOI), 9 pages. Published online: 01 August 2016 Sibal, R. S. (2016) Kamadhenu: Story of the Indian Cow. Wisdom Tree, 4779/23, Anasari Road, New deli-2. ISBN: 978-81-8328-458-5. Smedman, A., Lindmark-Mansson, H., Drewnowski, A. and Edman, A.-K M. (2010) Nutrient density of beverages in relation to climate change. Food and Nutrition Research, 54:5170. Steinfeld, H., Monney, H. A., Schneider, F. and Neveille, L. E eds. 2010. Livestock in a changing landscape: Vol 1: Drivers, consequences and resources; Vol2: Experiences and regional perspectives. Stonehouse, W., Wycherley, T.,, Luscombe-Marsh, N., Taylor, P., Brinkworth, G. and Riley, M. (2016). Dairy Intake Enhances Body Weight and Composition Changes during Energy Restriction in 18–50-Year-Old Adults—A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Nutrients 2016, 8(7), 394; doi:10.3390/nu8070394 Teague, W. R., Apfelbaum, S., Lal, R., Kreuter, U. P., Rountree, J., Davies, C. A., Conser, R., Rasmussen, M., Hatfield, J., Wang, T., Wang, F., and Byck, P. (2016), The role of ruminants in reducing agriculture’s carbon footprint in North America. Journal of Soil Science and Water Conservation 71, 156–64. UNDESA (2015) United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World population prospects. Key findings and advance tables. 2015 Revision. Population Division. New York, USA, United Nations. UNICEF, WHO and World Bank (2015) Joint Child Malnutrition Estimates – Levels and Trends. UNICEF-WHO-The World Bank joint child malnutrition estimates. http://www.who.int/entity/ nutgrowthdb/jme_unicef_who_wb.pdf USDA (2016) Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Changes in the Size and Location of U.S. Dairy Farms. www.ers.usda.gov/media/430528/err47b_1_. pdf Van Hooijdonk, T. and Hettinga, K. (2015). Dairy in a sustainable diet: a question of balance. Nutrition Reviews 73, 48–54. Vieux, F., Darmon, N., Touazi, D. and Soler, L. G. (2012). Greenhouse gas emissions of self-selected individual diets in France: Changing the diet structure or consuming less? Ecological Economics 75, 91–101. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

314

Assessing the overall impact of the dairy sector

Weaver, C., Wijesinha-Bettoni, R., McMahon, D. and Spence, L. (2013). Milk and dairy products as part of the diets. In Milk and dairy products in human nutrition. FAO, 2013. ISBN 978-92-5107863-1. pp103–206. Ed. Muehlhoff, E., Bennett, A. and McMahon, D. Westhoek, H., Lesschen, J. P., Rood, T., Wagner, S., De Marco, A., Murphy-Bokern, D., Leip, A., van Grinsven, H., Sutton, M. A., and Oenema, O. (2014). Food choices, health and environment: Effects of cutting Europe’s meat and dairy intake. Global Environmental Change 26, 196–205. World Bank (2003) World development Indicators. Washington DC, World Bank.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Part 3

Improving quality, safety and sustainability in developing countries

Chapter 16 Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia John Moran, Profitable Dairy Systems, Australia 1 Introduction 2 Dairy farming in Asia 3 Supporting smallholder dairy farmers 4 Key constraints facing smallholder dairy farmers in tropical Asia 5 Benchmarking performance 6 Case study: cow colonies 7 Summary and future trends 8 Where to look for further information 9 References and further reading

1 Introduction Globally, agriculture provides a livelihood for more people than any other industry (primary or secondary), while dairy farming is one of the major agricultural activities. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimated that the world’s milk production in 2012 stood at 754 billion tonnes. Hemme and Otto (2010) estimated that 12–14% of the world’s population (or a total of 750–900 million people) live on dairy farms or are within dairy farming households. Livestock provide over half the value of global agricultural output and one third of the value of agricultural output in developing countries. Milk is nature’s most complete food and dairy farming represents one of the fastest returns for livestock keepers in the developing world. The Asia-Pacific region has seen the world’s highest growth in demand for milk and dairy products over the last 30 years. Even though Asia has increased its milk output (as a percentage of global production) from 15% in 1981 to 37% in 2011, it still accounts for over 40% of the world’s total dairy imports. The consumption of milk and dairy products in Asia has doubled over the last 30 years, now contributing to more than 60% of the total increase in global consumption. Many of these countries now have school milk programmes to encourage young children to drink more milk and thus improve their health through increased consumption of the energy, protein and minerals (particularly calcium and phosphorus) contained in it. http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2015.0005.37 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

318

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia

In future years, as these children grow and have their own families, milk consumption will increase at an even faster rate. In the future, per capita milk consumption in South East Asia is expected to nearly double – from the current 10–12 kg/hd/yr to 19–20 kg/hd/yr by the year 2020 (Delgardo et al. 2003). This 3% per annum growth will lead to a total milk consumption of 12 million tonnes/yr by 2020, which Delgardo et al. (2003) predict will require a net import of 9 million tonnes of milk/yr. This will be a significant increase from the 4.7 million tonnes of milk/yr imported in 2000. In summary, by 2020, South East Asia will be producing only 25% of its total milk requirements. Such growing demands have arisen due to a combination of the following factors: •• increasing per capita incomes; •• the emergence of affluent middle-class people in many low- to middle-income countries; •• westernisation trends which increase the demand for protein foods and value-added dairy products; •• increasing urbanisation; and •• expansion of modern retail outlets (with refrigeration cabinets) throughout Asia. In other words, higher incomes and increasing urbanisation have combined with economic reforms and market liberalisation policies to heighten the import dependency of many countries in this region. Asia has then become increasingly dependent on the highly competitive, but increasingly volatile, global dairy commodity markets. This reliance on imported dairy products is likely to continue for most Asian countries, although many of them are striving towards self-sufficiency in dairy production. There is a group of Asian countries with low per capita milk consumption and low selfsufficiency and these are likely to be the ones with most proactive dairy development programmes. These include the Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

2  Dairy farming in Asia Dairy farming in Asia can be broadly classified into three major types of production systems: 1 Mixed farming, in which income from milk production constitutes only a relatively small proportion of the total farm income. Many of these farms have evolved from essentially cropping enterprises to those where livestock production is becoming more important. Milking herd sizes are generally quite small on these farms, ranging from fewer than 5 to more than 20 cows approximately. 2 Essentially smallholder dairy farms, where milk production has increased over recent years to become a major contributor to farm income. While in many cases, construction of the dairy facilities has evolved and more land is available, these improvements may not be sufficient to meet future requirements. Milking herd sizes are very small, generally no more than 5–10 cows. 3 Larger specialist dairy farms, which were established primarily to produce raw milk. Dairy facilities on these farms have been better planned to satisfy the requirements for a predetermined number of milking cows. In most cases, land would have been © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia319

allocated to produce the required fodder for the planned herd size, although in certain cases, agreements would have been made with surrounding farmers to provide the necessary forage base. Milking herd sizes on these farms would range from 20 to 100-plus cows. The contribution of these various farming systems to the total milk produced in each country will vary with population pressures and demands for alternative land use, other than providing livestock fodder. However, Categories 1 and 2 contribute the bulk of the raw milk. The majority of dairy farmers are smallholders, with average herd sizes often as small as one to five milking cows. In the developing world, 80% of milk is produced by smallholder dairy (SHD) farmers, who thus make a significant contribution to the annual world production. Despite their high profile in the dairy industry, there are relatively few large dairy feedlots in Asian countries. Dairy farmers around the world produce milk from six different types of ruminant animals: •• large (cattle and buffalo plus camels in Africa and yaks in Asia) •• small (goats and sheep) Small ruminants are rarely milked in Asia. Of the two buffalo ecotypes, river buffalo are the traditional dairy stock, with swamp buffalo rarely being milked. The majority of milk in Asia is derived from cattle, with some buffalo milk produced in Myanmar, Vietnam, the Philippines and Thailand, while the large buffalo-milk-producing countries are India, Pakistan, China and Nepal. On any dairy farm, no matter its size or location, dairy production technology can be broken down into nine key activities, which can be considered as steps in the supply chain of profitable dairy farming (Moran 2009a). Any chain is only as strong as its weakest link – thus, each step in the dairy farming supply chain must be properly managed. Weakening any one link through poor decision-making can have severe ramifications on overall farm performance and hence profits. In chronological order of their role in ensuring a profitable dairy enterprise, the ‘links’ are presented in Fig. 1. It is important to note the important role of women in carrying out many of the key activities in the dairy value chain. With the cows typically being located in close proximity to the home, dairying offers more opportunities than other farming pursuits for women to become closely involved in day-to-day management. This is important in the village life in Asia, where women have traditionally been homemakers and family rearers. The cultural and religious bonds limiting their contribution to managing the family budget have frequently been loosened in many smallholder dairying communities. In West Java for instance, Innes (1997) has documented gender roles in smallholder farm activities in four dairy cooperatives. She reported that women in the farm family were responsible for over 40% of the farm management decisions and spent 52% of their working hours on dairy-farm-related jobs. Men were largely responsible for sourcing forages, often from large distances particularly during the dry season. However, women frequently milked the cows, transported the milk to the collection centres, cleaned the shed and looked after the young stock. This has important implications for the process of technology transfer, which has traditionally been aimed at men. Since milking hygiene is largely the responsibility of women, milk quality is definitely an area where women should be targeted by extension services. Efforts should also be made to attract female participants to workshops on feeding management and young stock. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

320

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia 1. Soils and forage management To optimise forage agronomy and fodder conservation

9. Value adding milk To improve unit returns for raw milk 8. Milk harvesting and hygiene To maximise milk quality pre and post farm gate

2. Young stock management To generate the productive milking cows 3. Nutrition and feeding management To optimise cow performance through adequate supplies of feed nutrients

4. Disease prevention and control To overcome the limits imposed by microbial and invertebrate pests

Smallholder dairy farm productivity and profits

5. Reproductive management To ensure herds can replace themselves in future generations

7. Environmental management To limit the constraints of the climate on stock performance

6. Genetics To maintain an acceptable rate of genetic improvement for each generation

Figure 1 The nine steps in the supply chain of profitable dairy farming.

3  Supporting smallholder dairy farmers National governments, international aid agencies and benevolent governments of, or agencies from, developed countries have devoted and are still devoting a lot of resources towards improving the productivity and profitability – hence sustainability – of the SHD industries throughout Asia. The focus is on sustainable intensification of SHD farming. The term ‘intensification’ requires clarification. In general terms, intensification is understood to be increases in efficiency for a unit of a given resource. For advisers and researchers of crop-livestock or pasture-based livestock production, the term is often interpreted as increasing productivity per unit of land, usually associated with an increase in stocking rate. The national dairy development (5- or 10-year) programmes in most Asian countries concentrate much of their efforts towards the Category 2 farmers mentioned earlier, that is, smallholder dairy farms. In other words, they are trying to phase out ‘part time’ dairy farmers (in Category 1) and encourage ‘full time’ dairy farmers. National dairy plans provide government support, which often includes the establishment of dairy cooperatives. Category 3 farmers (larger, specialist dairy farms) are usually less reliant on public support as their establishment is often financed by private investors. However, in recent years there © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia321

has been considerable interest (and investments) in larger scale, feedlot dairies. This is occurring because governments have struggled to overcome the inefficiencies of current SHD systems, such as low milk yields, poor cow fertility and high young stock mortality rates, which drastically limit their ability to greatly increase their dairy sectors to achieve self-sufficiency in dairy production. Smallholder farms generally yield low outputs of milk per animal. However, a costbenefit analysis can show these farms to be productive – the use of by-products or other waste as feed and multiple outputs such as calves and meat production in these farms can allow them to outshine dairying monocultures despite the latter’s apparent efficiencies. Moreover, application of current technologies and a better understanding of the nutrient requirements of the animals, in addition to the requirements for growth and meat production, will lead to higher efficiency in milk and meat production. There are many benefits that will accrue from the improved productivity and profitability of SHD farmers. In addition to higher levels of milk production (hence gross returns) per cow and/or per farm, Falvey and Chantalakhana (1999) list the following: •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

year-round engagement of rural and peri-urban labour; utilisation of agricultural and other by-products; integration with cropping systems management; conversion of by-products into organic manure for application to crops; provision of nutritious and hygienic food for children; production of meat from male calves and older cows; reduction in the cost of production of meat for traditional markets as draught power declines as the primary bovine product; a basis for rural and peri-rural industrial development through milk factories; development of new products for niche exports; reduction in rural to urban population drift; draught and traction as a dairy industry by-product or adjunct; and landless people making a reasonable local living from dairying.

A recent industry study of SHD farming in the tropics highlights the role of SHD farming, using a SWOT analysis to evaluate the industry’s strengths and weaknesses. The analysis assesses the business or industry’s strengths (S), weaknesses (W), opportunities (O) and threats (T). Although Table 1, presented below, was undertaken specifically for Indonesia’s SHD industry by Anon (2005), it is applicable to any SHD industry in tropical Asia. Anon (2005) then concluded that SHD farming in Indonesia, as in other tropical Asian countries, •• improves the food security of milk-producing households; •• creates employment opportunities throughout the entire dairy chain (for both producers and processors); •• is a powerful tool for reducing poverty and creating wealth in rural areas; and •• can incur relatively low production costs. In spite of several decades of dairy farming in developing countries, the productivity of SHD farms has remained relatively low; this is due to a lack of appropriate dairy research and extension. Due to the socio-economic and agro-economic conditions of small farmers in developing countries being greatly different from those prevalent in developed countries, the farmers cannot readily adopt the science and technology available in developed © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

322

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia

Table 1 Findings of a SWOT analysis of Indonesia’s SHD industry Components of SWOT

Findings

Strengths

Low production costs High farm income margins Low liabilities Relative resilience to rising feed prices SHD farmers are cost competitive and resilient to market fluctuations They provide a competitive source of milk supply to imported dairy products

Weaknesses

Lack of knowledge and technical skills Poor access to support services Low capital reserves and limited access to credit Low labour productivity (small herd sizes and low output per cow) Poor milk quality SHD farmers are often unable to take advantage of existing market opportunities

Opportunities

Growing demand for dairy products in developing countries Likelihood of increased milk returns Major potential to increase labour productivity Great potential to increase milk yields Employment generation Significant opportunities to improve the demand (quality and milk price) Significant opportunities to improve the supply (improving production technology)

Threats

Policy support in developed countries Exposure to competitive business forces Underinvestment in dairy chain infrastructure Unsuitable dairy development plans Environmental concerns such as a high carbon footprint Increasing consumer demand for food safety Succession of dairy farms Increasing local wage SHD rarely meets its full potential because of many threats, particularly the last four

Source: Anon. (2005).

countries. It is essential that any production technology being transferred is relevant to the needs of these smallholders as well as being feasible, given their local support networks of dairy cooperatives, advisers (government and agribusiness), creditors and milk handling and processing infrastructures. Even the most appropriate technology is rarely transferred successfully to smallholders due to a lack of effective support services. There must be institutional support to facilitate dairy industry growth through mechanisms such as provision of farmer credit, farmer training centres, well-equipped milk collection centres, processing and marketing facilities, farmer cooperatives or groups, and appropriate research and extension infrastructures and methodologies. For intensification to be sustainable, there must then be: •• adequate infrastructure and marketing opportunities; •• access to reliable markets for increased milk production; © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia323

•• •• •• •• •• •• •• ••

promotion of dairy development through government policy; availability of credit for purchasing of livestock and planting pastures; available productive and adapted forage species; ready access to information; farm management systems that ensure adequate feed throughout the year; management of animal wastes; disease control measures; and adequate hygiene for milk collection.

4 Key constraints facing smallholder dairy farmers in tropical Asia As a result of applied dairy research, development and extension over the last 20 years, Western countries have produced sophisticated dairy production systems (such as those described by Little 2012). Herd sizes have grown, efficient feeding systems have evolved and many farmers routinely monitor test results on their cows for milk production, composition and quality, and for mastitis. They then use this information for making decisions on culling milking cows and for breeding genetically improved stock. Another feature of Western dairy farming is the high degree of mechanisation, to address the high labour costs, such as milk harvesting and forage conservation systems. In addition, cheap land has allowed for grazing stock which reduces the costs of harvesting fresh forages while the lack of population pressures has allowed these farms to rapidly expand in both area and herd sizes. Unfortunately, the dairy industries of tropical Asia have failed to keep pace with the speed of such dairy development in Western countries (Devendra 2001). It is true that the number of cows in most Asian countries has greatly increased, largely through government support for social welfare and rural development programmes, whose driving forces have been the increased demand for milk (accentuated through school milk programmes) and the concept of national food security. However, in terms of milk production per cow and feed inputs per kg of milk produced, improvements have been slow (Moran 2005, 2009a, 2012). There are many reasons why the productivity and efficiency of SHD farming has not greatly improved over the last two decades. Many of these developing dairy industries are located in tropical regions where high temperatures and humidity and, in some cases, seasonal growing conditions, adversely affect potential milk yields. Milking cows are not well suited to the tropics because their large requirements for feed nutrients and their high internal heat production (compared to other species of livestock) cannot easily be incorporated into production systems that have to cope with poor forage quality, exposure to many disease agents and the climatic stresses that constrain cow appetite, reproductive efficiency, performance of young stock and animal health (Moran 2005). In addition, many of the farmers, usually smallholders with fewer than 10 milking cows, have not been able to develop the skills of efficient milk production. As previously mentioned, this can be attributed more to poor extension services than to a lack of technical knowledge on tropical dairy farming. SHD farmers, who hail from regions where socio-economic and agro-economic conditions are vastly different from those in Western dairy industries, cannot readily adopt the science and technology available in developed countries. Therefore, it is essential that any production technology being transferred is © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

324

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia

relevant to the needs of smallholders as well as being feasible, given the smallholders’ local support networks of dairy cooperatives, advisers (government and agribusiness), creditors and milk handling and processing infrastructures (Devendra 2001). Falvey and Chantalakhana (1999) categorised the factors limiting SHD production into: •• institutional factors, such as dairy cooperatives, suppliers of credit, training, extension services; •• government policies, such as development programmes, milk promotion, dairy boards; •• socio-economic factors, such as farmer education, off-farm jobs, traditional beliefs; •• technical factors, which can be further categorised into feeding, breeding, health; and •• post-farm gate factors, such as milk processing, marketing and consumption. This analysis can be compared with a more recent study (Burrell and Moran 2004). In the early 2000s, a series of strategic planning workshops were conducted in Indonesia to identify the key constraints limiting milk production and to develop action plans to combat them. Burrell and Moran (2004) laid out the constraints and the relevant action plans by region, making separate lists for East and West Java. In East Java, the priority industry issues and the action plans for industry development were: 1 Low cow productivity: improve management of feeding, reproductive management and milk harvesting. 2 Low milk price: reduce costs of production, improve milk quality, mediate on milk pricing, find alternative markets. 3 Poor milk quality: improve milking hygiene at both farm and post-farm gate, improve milk composition through better feeding management. 4 Poor feed quality and availability: identify better forage species (e.g. legumes), appoint quality control teams for concentrate supplies, utilise marginal land for forages. 5 Cooperative management: reduce management structure and merge small cooperatives, improve post-harvest technology, improve calf and heifer rearing practices. Other industry issues were raised but were not discussed in detail. These included the need to promote fresh and manufactured dairy products, improve technology transfer, stimulate farmer motivation, work towards autonomy of cooperatives and improve collaboration between government agencies and training organisations. West Java’s priority industry issue and action plan list, developed independently, was as follows: 1 Human resources: improve knowledge, skills and attitudes of farmers and support staff; 2 Poor feed quality and availability: increase area of land for growing forages, overcome seasonality of forage supplies, reduce variability of concentrate quality; 3 Low capital investments in industry: invest in infrastructure for post-farm gate industry support; 4 Small scale of farming: increase herd sizes, overcome shortage of breeding stock;

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia325

5 Insufficient technology: increase supply of breeding bulls, improve feed supplies, diversify farming systems, value add milk in farming areas to help overcome farmers’ low cash flows; 6 Institutions: improve coordination amongst service providers, introduce better control over milk quality, improve efficiency of administration in institutions. Other industry issues were raised but were not discussed in detail. These included the need to promote fresh drinking milk, facilitate and support milk marketing and develop post-farm gate technology in milk processing. The on-farm constraints to SHD dairy production technology in tropical Asia are many and varied. Thirty-five of the key ones were summarised by Moran (2013) and are listed in Table 2. They are categorised using the nine key activities from Fig. 1 and a range of possible solutions to overcome them are provided. An extra category ‘Other on farm constraints’ is included in this Table to take into account those covering farm business skills.

5  Benchmarking performance The dynamic nature of dairy farming makes it difficult to develop a simple set of criteria with which to assess current management skills. The term Key Performance Indicators (KPI) refers to a series of measures of dairy farm performance with which realistic targets can be set after effecting improvements in feeding, herd and farm management. Such a set of KPIs for SHD farming has recently been published by Moran (2009b). All these KPIs can be quantified to provide guidelines on which ones require priority in any dairy farm improvement programme. Although some are relatively easy to quantify, others are quite difficult. Probably the simplest, and most commonly used, single measure of SHD farm performance is the average milk yield of the milking cows. The correct term for this figure is ‘rolling herd average’, as it is the average milk yield of all the milking cows, which on any one day will be at various stages in their lactation cycle. This single value provides a summation of all the important aspects of SHD farm management, so any interpretation must take into account a diversity of feeding, herd and farm factors (Moran 2012). Accordingly, many dairy specialists may query its usefulness as a single measure of dairy farm performance. However, it is routinely used by farmers to describe their farm’s performance in relation to their neighbour’s farm and also in relation to production targets provided by many government advisers. In addition, it is often quoted by government officials when summarising the stage of development of their national dairy industries. Table 3 attempts to describe the adequacy of the farm’s dairy farm management practices using the rolling herd average. There are other factors and KPIs to consider when interpreting such data: •• differences between rolling herd averages and peak milk yields •• milk composition as an indicator of feeding management, for example: {{ Low milk fat can indicate possible subclinical rumen acidosis. {{ High milk protein can indicate good dietary energy intake. {{ However milk lactose levels are fairly constant.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Better parturition management to minimise likelihood of infecting new born calf Ensure use of semen or bulls with low calf birth weights Improve colostrum feeding programme (Quantity, Quality, Quickly) Pay greater attention to navel dipping with iodine Better shed hygiene Develop skills in identifying potentially sick calves Better health management Identify causes of death or sickness and change management accordingly Improve calf housing Minimise stress in calf shed Consider feeding less milk to encourage concentrate intakes Be more aware of fluid replacers vs. antibiotics for treating calf scours Feed adequate amounts of concentrates Ensure calf concentrates have 18% protein Feed less forages to stimulate concentrate intakes Better health management Ensure routine Clostridial vaccination programme Monitor post-weaning growth rates Dairy cooperatives could consider heifer farms

b. Poor post-weaning growth rates

c. High wastage rates (from birth to conceiving in 2nd lactation)

Consider silage making of wet season forages Plan year-round forage supplies

c. Shortage of dry season forages

a. High calf mortality

Use inorganic fertilisers as well as manure Use most appropriate forage species for region Consider other forages such as tree legumes Reduce harvest intervals

b. Poor forage quality

2. Young stock management

Use inorganic fertilisers as well as manure Reduce nitrogen volatilisation of shed effluent by directing it into water storage Optimise forage agronomy (soil preparation, weed control)

a. Low yields of forage

1. Soils and forage management

Approaches to solutions

Key constraints

Key activity

Table 2 Key constraints to improved milk production on tropical Asian smallholder dairy farms and possible approaches to solutions

326 Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

4. Disease prevention and control

3. Nutrition and feeding management

Plan year-round sourcing (growing or purchasing) of quality forages Ensure year-round supplies of by-products and formulated concentrates Ensure adequate supplies of drinking (and washing) water throughout the dry season Ensure adequate cow comfort throughout the year Check milk income less feed costs (MIFC) Be aware of marginal milk responses if feeding too much Set realistic target milk yields and feed to achieve them Ensure ration is balanced for nutrient contents Maybe feeding too many cows for available feed supplies Feed fewer cows better

d. Seasonality of milk production

e. Little profit in milking cows

(continued)

Ensure sufficient forages and concentrates are fed Check to see if rapid loss in weight or body condition Ensure at least 16% protein in total ration Consider vet checking for ovarian or uterine health

c. Cows (particularly high genetic merit cows) do not cycle for many weeks after calving

Check floors for ease of walking on them Consider foot bath for all stock Check ration if too much concentrates causing laminitis Undertake locomotion test and treat affected cows

Ensure best forages for cows in early lactation, never rice straw Ensure enough forages are fed (30–50 kg fresh grass per cow per day) Monitor total dry matter intakes and increase if insufficient Consider wilting fresh forages to stimulate intake Ensure at least 16% protein in total ration Ensure all feeds are palatable Ensure adequate clean drinking water Provide Ca & P supplements in formulation Check if sufficient rumen buffers in concentrates Do not make concentrates and water into a slurry Chop forages to reduce selection and wastage Address any heat stress issues

b. Poor performance of cows during early lactation (poor peak and daily milk yields, delayed cycling)

a. Problems with lameness

Routine laboratory testing of ingredients and formulation Quality control during formulation Use coop system to bulk purchase quality by-products

a. Low quality of by-products and formulated concentrates

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia327

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

5. Reproductive management

Key activity

Table 2 Continued

Better feeding management during early lactation Check AI (artificial insemination) techniques Can veterinarian confidently undertake pregnancy diagnosis? Pay closer attention to heat detection Improve AI techniques or check that technician is sufficiently skilled Pay closer attention to heat detection Consider vet checking for ovarian or uterine health This is a simpler measure of poor reproductive performance so follow procedures above There may well be a role for sexed semen in well-managed dairy farms

c. High number of services per conception

d. Low % mature cows are milking

e. Increasing the proportion of heifer calves

Develop skills in identifying potentially sick stock Routinely inspect stock for external parasites Isolate sick stock Improve routine use of vaccinations Routinely use quality and viable pharmaceuticals Reduce the degree of exposure by improving shed hygiene Consider testing for internal parasite egg counts Reduce any overuse of antibiotics Find better-trained veterinarians

d. General animal health problems

Follow procedures for poor post-weaning growth rates in young stock management

Follow procedures as in young stock management

c. High calf and heifer morbidity and mortality

b. Low 100 day in calf rate (pregnant within 100 days from calving) or high 200 not in calf rate (not pregnant within 200 days of calving)

Identify subclinical cases with California Mastitis Test Ensure one towel to wash only one cow policy Treat every infected cow with antibiotics ensuring withdrawal period is followed Milk-infected cows last Initiate routine dry cow antibiotic therapy Consider culling chronically infected cows

b. Problems with mastitis

a. High age at first calving

Approaches to solutions

Key constraints

328 Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia

8. Milk harvesting and hygiene

7. Environmental management

6. Genetics

Address any limiting feed nutrient deficiencies Ensure sufficient forage intake to maintain milk fat content Maximise cow comfort so cows will maintain their appetite (continued)

Unfortunately it is not easy since tropical forages are more fibrous than temperate forages. Soil testing can assist with overcoming monitoring leaching due to high rainfall

c. Reduced forage quality due to high temperatures and rainfall

a. Poor milk composition (fat and protein content)

Improve shed hygiene Remove manure more frequently Isolate sick stock

b. High incidence of animal health problems due to poor shed hygiene

More emphasis on permanent identification of heifers Pay greater attention to maintaining cows in milking herds for relatively lengthy periods

c. Difficulty of collecting robust data from genetic improvement programmes

Count respiration rates to quantify degree of heat stress Pay closer attention to heat dissipation - Check shed design for ventilation - Consider artificial cooling (sprinklers and fans) Feed cows during the evening, when cooler Consider outside area for night time cooling and heat (cycling) observations Feed better quality forages to reduce internal heat production

Some countries will not allow Jersey crossbreds to be imported hence the imported Friesians limit the dairy production to the highlands If Jerseys are allowed to be imported, they may well prove the more profitable breed in lowland regions

b. Most suitable genotype for the system

a. High incidence of heat stress during the 24-hour period

This generally is not an issue because the genetic merit of imported dairy heifers is likely to be better than any cow on the farm It is quite likely that the performance of most milking cows will be limited by the environment (feeding, disease, heat stress, etc.) rather than genetic merit Be aware of the genotype by environment interaction which means that high genetic merit stock require better levels of feeding and farm management to express their higher potential performance

a. Poor milking cow quality

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia329

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Dairy cooperatives could develop cow colonies (see next section) Quantify profitability over 6–12 month period Quantify milk returns and overall farm income (actual and potential) Quantify cost of production (COP) Be aware that increased profitability can result from decreased COP as well as increased farm income Dilute fixed costs with higher farm cash throughput Seek alternative low interest loans Institutional support to improve farmer training Work closely with potentially successful farmers to help develop these skills Provide training in farm business management and developing farmer business skills Become more vocal to improve them

a. The small farm size restricts development potential

b. Poor profitability of dairy farming

c. Low capital resources for investing in farm infrastructure

d. Poor dairy farming skills

e. Underdeveloped entrepreneurial skills in dairy farmers

f. Poor farmer–management dairy coop relationships

10. Other on-farm constraints

Consider value adding to improve unit milk returns

Improve milking hygiene (hot water, detergent, sanitiser) Ensure machine milkers are operating effectively (short milking times, correct pulsation rate) Ensure rubber liners are correctly replaced Address any mastitis problems Ensure rapid milk cooling Could be a post-farm gate issue hence outside farmer’s control

b. Poor milk quality (bacterial contamination)

a. Poor milk returns

Approaches to solutions

Key constraints

9. Value adding milk

Key activity

Table 2 Continued

330 Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia331 Table 3 Interpreting the adequacy of dairy farm management from cow milk yields: range in average herd milk yields on tropical Asian dairy farms Herd milk yield (kg/cow/day)  5  7

Adequacy of dairy farm management practices Very poor feeding and herd management and low genetic merit cows (or milking buffalo)

 9

Typical of many SE Asian smallholder farms, even with high-grade Friesians

11

Gradual response with grade and crossbred Friesian cows to improved feeding, herd, young stock and shed management. Milk yields of 15 kg/day are considered acceptable by many government dairy advisers.

13 15 17 19 20

Potential level in lowland humid tropics following improved management of body condition throughout lactation

25

High genetic merit cows in tropical highlands or lowland dry tropics with excellent farm management

30

Typical peak milk yields in herds with 25 kg/cow/day rolling herd averages

35

Unrealistic in SE Asia except where all major constraints to milk production have been overcome

•• Excessive body condition, as it is indicative of low protein diets. This results in: {{ inability of cow to partition nutrients from body reserves to milk synthesis and {{ poor fertility as cows cannot easily cycle, hence conceive. •• Very poor body condition, as it is indicative of low energy intake. It should be noted that: {{ high genetic merit cows preferentially partition body reserves to milk synthesis and {{ cows will not cycle due to excessive weight loss. •• Herd dynamics, as it can indicate adequacy of dairy farm management. In particular: {{ excessive number of dry non-pregnant cows can indicate very poor farm management and {{ low percentage of lactating adult cows can indicate poor farm management.

6  Case study: cow colonies In many tropical Asian countries, considerable attention has been paid to large-scale investments in ‘cow colonies’. These consist of large dairy sheds, holding 50 or more cows, that are owned by a number of SHD farmers, and surrounding large areas that are meant for forage production. Although smallholders still own and manage their own herds in these large sheds, the perceived benefits of cow colonies lie in the magnitude of size of the total herd management. While such an approach can overcome many constraints to production, it may introduce other constraints. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

332

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia

The potential benefits of cow colonies are as follows: •• greater investment potential since cooperatives have more borrowing power than individual farmers; •• use of mechanical forage choppers and milking machines; •• presence of contract labour to rear young stock; •• growth of large areas for forages, such as maize; •• less wastage in recycling manure to forage production area, through building effluent ponds to minimise volatilisation of nitrogen from urine; •• bulk handling of conserved forages using large-scale silage bunkers; •• easier communication between advisers and farmers and between farmers themselves; •• easier implementation of training programmes involving practical skills as well as technical theory; •• easier monitoring of post-training application of new skills; •• better motivation of farmers to improve management practices; •• easier monitoring of individual farmer’s milking hygiene practices and hence individual remuneration for better quality milk; •• the concentration of farmers in one place, which provides an ideal opportunity to introduce other motivational techniques such as regular awards for best management practices; •• better coordination of forage production, cow feeding, insemination, animal health, milk handling, etc.; •• training of farmers in specialist skills such as machine milking or calf rearing; •• the installation of cooling units on site; •• more rapid cooling of milk and greater availability of hot water for more effective cleaning and sanitising equipment; •• increased likelihood of sufficient milk production to justify small value adding operations to benefit small dairy cooperatives; and •• greater potential returns to the local dairy cooperative, hence the farmers themselves. Unfortunately, these impressive facilities have gone hand in hand with high-profile projects – for instance, these facilities have been stocked with imported pregnant Friesian heifers. The high mortality rates so far experienced in countries such as Indonesia suggest that the colony feeding and herd management practices have yet to be improved to benefit from these high genetic merit animals. The following are problems that have often been associated with cow colonies: •• the sheds are constructed and filled with cows before the forage production area has been developed, leading to many poorly fed cows; •• insufficient attention is placed on growing out non-revenue generating, young stock; •• poorly planned forage production areas – for example, minimal water is available for irrigation during the dry season; •• insufficient land allocated to forage production, partly because of provision of insufficient daily forage allocations to achieve target milk yields; •• incorrect perception that rice straw, sugar cane tops and over mature maize stover are suitable forage sources for milking cows, particularly when target milk yields are 15 l/cow/day or more; •• lack of understanding of the potential of forage and tree legumes as important forage sources for high-yielding cows; © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia333

•• potential spread of disease because of variable management practices of individual farmers during calf rearing – for example, the spread of mastitis when milking machines are used by farmers; •• poor understanding of the need for milking hygiene when using milking machines – for example, the need to regularly replace milk liners and to test machine performance; •• continual breakdown of machinery, choppers and milking machines; •• lack of highly trained and well-skilled labour for year-round supply of quality forages; •• failure of senior managers to develop both short-term and long-term views on development programmes; •• difficulties involved in regularly sourcing finances for completion of these largescale capital development projects, such as provision of milking equipment, durable forage choppers; •• skilled individuals have limited responsibility as the management teams are small – the larger the operation the more essential that skilled individuals be given more responsibility in specialist areas, such as forage production, animal health, milk quality; •• the expectation on management teams of large-scale cow colonies to oversee nearby smallholder farms; •• failure of senior managers to find and keep quality staff with capabilities of solving both day-to-day small management problems as well as contribute to large-scale development. This problem could be addressed by employing bright young animal science graduates who would be prepared to live as well as work in villages near cow colonies. With the penalties imposed by milk processors, returns on these large capital investments are markedly reduced because of the low unit milk returns through poor quality milk. Small investments, such as steam cleaners and small hot water units, become even more effective in light of the large capital costs of sheds, silage bunkers, etc.; and •• too many cows. It is more profitable, as has been found true in smallholder ventures, to ‘feed fewer cows better’. Poorly resourced SHD farmers, whose businesses are often in ‘survival mode’, can become very individualistic and can take time to develop the cooperative, sharing nature required for successful cow colonies. This has been given as a common reason for their poor success rate in countries with relatively new SHD industries such as Indonesia. The problems associated with cow colonies show the need to take a holistic view that accounts for each step in the dairy value chain.

7  Summary and future trends After several decades of dairy development in many Asian countries, typical milk yields per cow per day still range between 8–10 kg as compared to average yields of 20–30 kg in developed countries. In addition, the average calving interval of dairy cows on SHD farms is commonly as long as 16–20 months, when it could be reduced to 14–15 months. With regard to young stock management, heifer ages at first calving are more commonly 30–36 months rather than the 24–28 months commonly found in temperate, more developed dairy industries. This clearly shows the low levels of farm productivity in tropical Asia. Many technical solutions are available (as in Table 2), but they must be carefully selected so they will be suitable for small farmers and their © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

334

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia

socio-economic conditions. This means that scientists and extension workers must be able to understand factors influencing acceptance when transferring such technology to farmers. Scientific knowledge alone cannot solve small-scale farm problems (Falvey and Chantalakhana 1999). Policy makers should resist the all too common assumption that development efforts should move from smallholders towards supporting larger scale, ‘more efficient’ milk producers to meet growing consumer demand. Instead, growing demand should be used as a stimulus to help continue and sustain SHD enterprises particularly when they face increasing barriers to participation in value chain markets (Ahuja et al. 2012). If well organised, SHD can compete with large-scale, capital intensive ‘high tech’ dairy farming systems as practised in both developed and developing countries. However, SHD development plans must include strategies to increase competitiveness in all segments of the dairy industry chain, namely input supply, milk production, processing, distribution and retailing (APHCA 2008; Otto et al. 2012). The future for SHD farming in tropical Asia is optimistic so long as the industry can rectify many of the constraints to improving domestic production of raw milk, particularly those at the farm level.

8  Where to look for further information A standard introduction to the subject is J. B. Moran, Tropical Dairy Farming (see Moran 2005 in the References and further reading section for full details). The best single source of information on smallholder dairying in Asia is the Asia Dairy Network jointly established by the FAO and the Animal Production and Health Commission for Asia and the Pacific (APHCA) (http://www.dairyasia.org/). The site includes information resources and key contacts. Centres of expertise include: •• The International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) (http://asia.ilri.org/) •• The National Dairy Research Institute in India (http://www.ndri.res.in/) •• The author’s own consultancy, which has undertaken numerous projects to support smallholder dairy farmers in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Bangladesh, Myanmar and India (http://www.profitabledairysystems.com.au). There are a number of current research projects designed to support dairy farmers in Asia and which identify current problems and ways of tackling them, including: •• The CGIAR’s Research Program on Livestock and Fish which includes improving the dairy value chain for Indian smallholders (http://livestockfish.cgiar.org; an overview can be found in Rao et al. (2014)) •• The Smallholder Dairy Development Programme coordinated by the FAO and others, focusing on Bangladesh, Myanmar and Thailand (http://www.dairyasia.org/ projects) •• The Market Access for Smallholder Farmers (MASF) Project, coordinated by Practical Action, which supports dairy farmers in Nepal (http://practicalaction.org/ region_nepal_masf_project)

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in tropical Asia335

9  References and further reading Ahuja, V. B., Dugdill, N., Morgan, N. and Tiensin, T. (2012). Smallholder dairy development in Asia and the Pacific. In: Planning dairy development programs in Asia. Proceedings of Symposium 15th AAAP Congress. Bangkok, Thailand. pp. 77–85. Available from: http://www.dairyasia.org/ file/Proceedings_dairy.pdf Anon. (2005). Indonesia’s dairy farming industry SWOT analysis 2005. Stanton, Emms and Sia, Singapore, September 2005. Anon. (2014). Dairy Asia: Towards Sustainability (Proceedings of an international consultation held in Bangkok, Thailand 21-23 May 2014), FAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, Thailand. APHCA (2008). Developing an Asian regional strategy for sustainable small holder dairy development. Proceedings of FAO/APHCA/CFC funded workshop, Chiang Mai, February 2008. Burrell, D. E. and Moran, J. B. (2004). Developing a strategic plan for Indonesia’s small holder dairy industry. In H. K. Wong, J. B. Liang, Z. A. Jelan, Y. W. Ho, Y. M. Goh, J. M. Panandam and W. Z. Mohamad (eds). Proceedings of the 11th Animal Science Congress. Vol. 1. pp. 143–6. September 2004. Asian-Australasian Association of Animal Production Societies, Malaysia. Delgardo, C., Rosegrant, M. and Wada, N. (2003). Meating and milking global demand: Stakes for small-scale farmers in developing countries. The livestock revolution. A pathway to poverty? ATSE Crawford Fund Conference. Canberra, Australia. pp. 13–23. Devendra, C. (2001). Small holder dairy production systems in developing countries: Characteristics, potential and opportunities for improvement. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science. 14. pp. 104–15. Falvey, L. and Chantalakhana, C. (1999). Small Holder Dairying in the Tropics. Kenya: ILRI. Falvey, L. and Chantalakhana, C. (2001). Supporting smallholder dairying in Asia. Asia-Pacific Development Journal. 8 (2). pp. 89–99. Hemme, T. and Otto, J. (2010). Status and Prospects for Smallholder Milk Production: A Global Perspective. Rome: FAO. Innes, T. (1997). The Role of Women in Dairy Farming. Baseline Data Collected from Four Cooperatives in West Java, Indonesia. Ottawa: Canadian Cooperative Association. Little, S. (2012). Feeding systems used by Australian dairy farmers. Grains2Milk. Dairy Australia website. Available from: http://www.dairyaustralia.com.au/-/media/Documents/Animals%20feed%20 and%20environment/Feed%20and%20nutrition/Feeding%20Systems%20latest?Aus%20 five%20main%20feeding%20systems.pdf Moran, J. B. (2005). Tropical Dairy Farming. Feeding Management for Small Holder Dairy Farmers in the Humid Tropics. Melbourne: CSIRO Publications. Available from: http://www.publish.csiro. au/nid/197/issue/3363.htm Moran, J. B. (2009a). Business Management for Tropical Dairy Farmers. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing. Available from: http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/220/issue/5522.htm Moran, J. B. (2009b). Key performance indicator’s to diagnose poor farm performance and profitability of smallholder dairy farmers in Asia. Asian-Australian Journal of Animal Science. 22. pp. 1709–17. Moran, J. B. (2012). Managing High Grade Dairy Cows in the Tropics. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing. Available from: http://www.publish.csiro.au/nid/220/issue/6812.htm Moran, J. B. (2013). Addressing the key constraints to increasing milk production from small holder dairy farms in tropical Asia. International Journal of Agriculture and Biosciences. 2 (3). pp. 90–8. Otto, J., Costales, A., Dijkman, J., Pica-Ciamarra, U., Robinson, T., Ahuja, V., Ly, C. and Roland-Holst, D. (2012). Livestock sector development for poverty reduction: An economic and policy perspective. Livestock’s many virtues. FAO. Available from: http://aphca.org/Avian%20 Influenza%20Alert/i2744c00.pdf Rao, C. K. et al. (2014). Smallholder Dairy Value Chain Development in India and Selected States (Assam and Bihar): Situation Analysis and Trends. Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Thappa, G. (2009). Smallholder Farming in Transforming the Economies of Asia and the Pacific. Rome: International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Chapter 17 Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa J. M. K. Ojango, R. Mrode, A. M. Okeyo, International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Kenya; J. E. O. Rege, Emerge-Africa, Kenya; M. G. G. Chagunda, Scotland’s Rural College (SRUC), UK; and D. R. Kugonza, Makerere University, Uganda 1 Introduction 2 Sub-Saharan Africa 3 Management practices in smallholder dairy systems 4 Improving dairy production via breeding under smallholder systems 5 Improving productivity in smallholder dairy systems 6 Key organizations supporting smallholders 7 Future trends 8 Where to look for further information 9 Acknowledgements 10 References

1 Introduction Africa hosts an estimated 310 million head of cattle, representing 20.9% of the world cattle population (FAOSTAT, 2014). The continent, however, produces a relatively small proportion (5.8% in 2013; FAOSTAT, 2016) of the global milk from cattle. It is estimated that 80% of the milk produced in Africa is from smallholder dairy production systems (FAO, 2016). Smallholder dairy production systems are defined as systems where less than 10 head of cattle are reared on land sizes that vary from less than 0.2 hectares to 4 hectares. Smallholder livestock keepers represent an estimated 20% of the world population and farm most of the agricultural land in tropical areas (McDermott et al., 2010). Within the smallholder systems in Africa, dairy production is practised under very different circumstances depending on climatic variability between regions, availability of feed and land resources, the economic ability of the producers to access the production resources as well as consumer demands and available markets (Peeler and Omore, 1997; Devendra, 2001b; Thornton et al., 2007; Banda et al., 2012; Marshall et al., 2015). The

http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2016.0005.38 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

338

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

1,60,00,000 1,40,00,000 1,20,00,000 1,00,00,000 80,00,000 60,00,000 40,00,000

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2000

0

2002

20,00,000 2001

Quantity of milk produced (Tons)

1,80,00,000

Year Eastern Africa

Southern Africa

Western Africa

Figure 1 Differences in annual milk production from different regions of sub-Saharan Africa over time (FAOSTAT, 2016).

variability of production systems across regions is further reflected in differential quantities of milk production from cattle over time as illustrated in Fig. 1. Dairy production under smallholder systems is considered to be a market-oriented enterprise, contributing to food and nutritional security of communities and ensuring a regular income for the farming households. Dairy animals also play a central role in socio-economic activities of many households, while the practice of dairying provides direct and indirect employment to a large number of people. It should, however, be noted that farmers value both marketable and non-marketable by-products of their animals, consume part of the produce themselves, and appreciate intangible benefits of the animals in insurance, financing and display of status within societies (Moll et al., 2007). The economic impact of dairy production is not confined to individual households. Rural wage rates and the opportunity costs of family labour are greatly influenced by costs of dairy production under smallholder farming systems (Staal, 2001). The impact of smallholder dairy production on rural economies has resulted in substantial development support for the enterprises from both national and international agencies (Chagunda et al., 2015), including the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation (BMGF), the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), Stichting Nederlandse Vrijwilligers Netherlands (SNV), Heifer International (HI) and the Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke). This chapter presents a general overview of existing smallholder dairy production systems and management practices in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), highlights key challenges and opportunities in the systems, and presents intervention options for sustainable change.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 339

2  Sub-Saharan Africa 2.1  Classifying smallholder systems in SSA There is no single system for classifying dairy production systems that can be mapped across all the regions of SSA. A review on classifications and definitions of livestock production systems by Robinson et al. (2011) highlighted the need for improvement in the classification and mapping of systems. Classification methods used in various studies include definitions that use combinations of resources available, and data-driven definitions based on statistical methods that involve clustering of spatial units by cattle and human population densities, cultivation intensity, livestock management practices and the elevation on the area (Mburu et al., 2007). Statistical groupings are, however, sensitive to both geographical region and value range, and hence cannot be systematically replicated. Major livestock production systems classified through a typology that integrates natural resource potential, population density and market access developed by Herrero et al. (2009, 2010) are presented in Box 1.

Box 1  Classification of livestock production systems Agro-pastoral and pastoral systems characterized by low population densities, low agro-ecological potential and weak linkages to markets. Crop production is marginal and livestock predominate as a source of livelihood. Extensive mixed crop–livestock systems characterized by rain-fed agriculture, medium population densities, moderate agro-ecological potential and weak linkages to market. Farming practices incorporate crop and livestock with limited use of purchased inputs. Intensive mixed crop–livestock systems characterized by high population densities, irrigation or high agro-ecological potential and good linkages to markets. Farming practices incorporate crops and livestock, but with intensive use of purchased inputs. Industrial systems characterized by large vertically integrated production units and in which feed, genetics and health inputs are combined in controlled environments. Source: Herrero et al. (2009, 2010).

Figure 2 Animals reared under different smallholder management systems. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

340

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

Table 1 Cattle management systems adopted for smallholder dairy production in Africa Production system

Main characteristics of cattle management

Main cattle feeds provided

Breeds/genotypes of animals reared

Intensive mixed crop–livestock systems (often in urban to peri-urban areas)

•• Stall feeding (zero grazing): all feeds required brought to animals •• Good attention to preventive health care of animals •• Water availed to the cows in the unit •• Labour intensive •• Animals produce 8–20 litres of milk per day

•• Planted mixed grasses and fodders •• Good quality crop residues •• Supplementation with commercially manufactured concentrate feeds

•• Exotic breed types (Holstein Friesian, Jersey, Ayrshire, Guernsey, Brown Swiss) •• High-grade exotic crosses with local breed types

Semi-intensive mixed crop– livestock systems

•• Some stall feeding and some grazing: animals confined in paddocks with some feed provided in troughs •• Generally good attention to well-being and healthcare of animals •• Water brought to the paddocks •• Animals produce 7–15 litres of milk per day

•• Planted grasses •• Crop residues •• Little supplementation with commercially manufactured concentrate feeds

•• Exotic breed types •• High- and medium-grade exotic crosses with local breed types

Extensive mixed crop–livestock systems

•• Animals grazed on natural pastures often on communal land (roadsides, beside river beds) •• Poor disease control: Animals treated as diseases occur •• Water available from rivers and ponds •• Animals produce 2–5 litres of milk per day

•• Natural pastures •• Crop residues; cows allowed to graze on harvested lands •• Little or no supplementation with concentrates

•• Medium- to low-grade exotic crosses •• Local Indigenous breed types

A majority of the smallholder dairy production is carried out in crop-dairy systems which benefit from the synergies between the dairy and the crop enterprises. Examples of these systems are presented in Table 1 and illustrated in Fig. 2.

2.2  Dairy cattle breeds reared in smallholder systems The breeds reared for dairy production under smallholder systems differ across the regions of SSA as the farmers keep a multiplicity of crosses between local (Bos indicus) and imported exotic (Bos taurus) animals. Over time, smallholder farmers cross-breed and © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 341

Box 2  Categories of livestock genotypes found in developing countries •• Indigenous genotypes: Tropically adapted breeds unique to Africa and/or Asia. Play critical roles in the socio-economic and cultural orientation of the communities raising them. Diversity of indigenous Zebu breeds found in Africa are presented in Rege and Tawah (1999) and Rege et al. (2001). •• Exotic genotypes: Breeds developed to produce high quantities of a specific product that have been introduced into the target systems to improve livestock productivity, usually from the developed world – mainly Europe and North America (e.g. Holstein-Friesian, Jersey, Ayrshire, Guernsey, Brown Swiss); also breeds introduced from other developing regions/ countries, e.g. the Boran originating from Kenya/Ethiopia and introduced in southern Africa or Sahiwal originating from Pakistan/India and now reared in Kenya; usually single product focus (e.g. Holstein–Friesian cattle), but also dual-purpose (e.g. Sahiwal cattle). The most predominant exotic dairy cattle breed type across all regions is the Holstein Friesian. •• Cross-breeds: Animals derived from cross-breeding either indigenous and exotic breeds or two different exotic breeds. A wide range of these exist, from those having mostly indigenous blood to those nearly exotic in their composition. A sample listing of cross-bred cattle in developing countries with published information on their productivity is presented in Galukande et al. (2013). •• Synthetic / composite breeds: Animals derived from systematic cross-breeding involving three or more breeds (usually exotic and indigenous) followed by generations of inter se mating to achieve stabilization. Source: Adapted from Rege et al. (2011).

replace their animals in response to their needs, thus creating a mosaic of genotypes in the systems (Galukande et al., 2013; Leroy et al., 2015; Roschinsky et al., 2015). The main categories of dairy genotypes found in SSA are presented in Box 2. Numbers of the different breed types and cross-bred combinations are not known. Countries in SSA have no regular mechanisms for collecting livestock population information through census, and more than 80% of the breed populations have no recorded data over the last ten years (FAO, 2015). Comprehensive definitions of breeds to distinguish different populations and descriptions of the production environments under which the breeds are reared are also scarce (FAO, 2007, 2015).

3  Management practices in smallholder dairy systems Smallholder farmers tend to adapt models of cattle management in line with the resources at hand in a bid to meet the market demands for dairy products while at the same time balancing the social and cultural values associated with owning cattle. Husbandry and management skills of the farmers are reflected through the choice of breeds that they keep and level of animal care meted within a given production system. An understanding of the general management practices related to feed, water, animal health, handling © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

342

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

and breeding in the smallholder systems and the socio-economic factors that influence management decisions is a prerequisite to unlocking the potential of dairy animals within the systems. Practices adopted tend to be outlined as constraints to dairy production in developing countries in published literature (Devendra, 2001a; Nkya et al., 2007; Tebug et al., 2012; Makoni et al., 2013; SNV, 2013; Marshall et al., 2015).

3.1  Feed, fodder and water It is estimated that smallholder dairy farmers can produce up to 70% of the feed required from their own resources. In the intensive zero-grazing production systems, for example, fodders for animals when not available or in short supply on own farms or on rented land are either collected from public land or purchased from other farmers. In dry seasons, feed resources are scarce. The quality of forages thus greatly fluctuates over the lactation cycle of the animals (Reynolds et al., 1996; Banda et al., 2012; SNV, 2013). Availability of animal feed is identified as one of the greatest constraints to improving dairy productivity within smallholder farming systems of SSA. Actual quantities of feeds provided to animals in smallholder systems are not documented, and the quality of feed provided is variable (Reynolds et al., 1996; Banda et al., 2012). Zero-grazed animals in these systems may not get sufficient feeds of the right quality (Msangi et al., 2004; Banda et al., 2012). Nutrient deficiencies result in a negative energy balance, which in turn contributes to low fertility of animals exhibited through a high rate of repeat services when artificial insemination (AI) is used (Nkya et al., 2007). Animals with constrained energy reserves tend to have a delayed onset of their next reproductive cycle and, if served, are not able to carry pregnancies to term. Calves in all the systems are either fed milk using buckets or left to suckle one milking quarter of their mothers’ udder after milking the other quarters (Nkya et al., 2007). Many farmers, however, do not leave enough milk in the udder for the calves. Calf feed supplementation is rarely practised, resulting in malnutrition, retarded growth and delayed puberty. Reynolds et al. (1996) indicated that the survival rate of calves in smallholder systems is greatly affected by the value placed on them by the farmers. In the more intensive production systems, female calves receive better care than male calves, as females are viewed as potential replacement animals. Male calves could be raised for sale as beef animals; however, the market price for meat in many countries does not justify rearing male calves on milk to produce quality products such as veal. Smallholder farmers in most countries rely on seasonally available sources of water for their dairy enterprises. These include rivers, wells and rain water. Very limited investments are made in water harvesting during periods of high rainfall, its storage, and also the use of ground water. Water scarcity limits development and adoption of technologies in the mixed crop–livestock systems. Provision of water for animals in many smallholder farms is rationed in relation to its availability, thus negating the benefits of investment in breeds for potentially high milk production (Forbes and Kepe, 2014).

3.2  Animal health and disease control Vector borne diseases, notably East coast fever spread by ticks, trypanosomiasis spread by tsetse flies and anaemia caused by worm infestations, negatively impact the potential for increased dairy productivity in vast areas of SSA (Nkya et al., 2007). Increasing amounts of information on diseases affecting cattle in Africa, and various options for treatment and the © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 343

management of animal health, are accessible through various web resources (South Africa, 2014; ILRI, 2016). Parasitic diseases cause serious losses in dairy productivity through both mortality and morbidity of animals in smallholder farming systems. Mortality rates (up to 30%) have been reported for young Holstein Friesian animals raised under good management systems in Kenya (Menjo et al., 2009), whereas morbidity rate of 62% and mortality rate of 22% have been reported for calves within their first six months of life under smallholder systems in Ethiopia (Wudu et al., 2008). Within smallholder farms, the situation is more serious due to inadequate access to appropriate disease control measures. Diseases related to production and management of animals such as mastitis, foot and leg problems, as well as reproduction- and feed-associated disorders, are a challenge in many smallholder farms (Tebug et al., 2012). Mastitis is one of the most common production diseases in smallholder dairy systems, resulting in great economic losses (Chagunda et al., 2015). Ultimately the control of diseases at farm level is the responsibility of the farmer. With support from national systems and private sector actors in service provision, most critical diseases of animals in SSA could be kept at bay. However, in most countries, legislations and regulations related to animal disease control, veterinary supplies and animal health services are weak. This has resulted in the haphazard use of various products and in the emergence of drug-resistant strains of disease-causing organisms (Tebug et al., 2012). Farmer training and innovative ways of regulating and monitoring use of antibiotics at farm level are required. Community-led animal health strategies such as vaccination programmes driven by farmer groups and executed by private veterinarians and community animal health workers, and community-based disease and vector control (e.g. community dip-tanks and community-coordinated rotational grazing) could greatly benefit smallholder dairy farmers in Africa (Rege et al., 2011).

3.3  Animal handling structures and living environment Structures to facilitate animal management such as housing, milking facilities, animal holding crushes, troughs for feed and water, and disposal of manure are highly variable. In intensive zero-grazing systems, cows are kept in pens throughout the year, and feed provided for them. The animals are housed in structures made of various construction materials. Roofs may be of thatch grass, iron sheets or a combination of plastic sheets and grass thatch, whereas floors may be of mud, concrete or sand. Bedding may or may not be provided for the animals. Stalls are often made from wood, and are poorly drained, resulting in accumulation of slurry, notably in the rainy seasons. This makes it difficult to keep the stalls clean, and is detrimental to the animals as the slurry provides a medium for proliferation of pathogens. Animals under semi-intensive smallholder systems tend to be in better environmental conditions as they have more space available without the accumulation of slurry. Under these conditions, animals are better able to balance their nutrient intake through both grazing and stall feeding. Extensive grazing does not lend to improved management as smallholder farmers using this system depend on communal grazing areas with low forage quality and limited quantity due to overgrazing typified as ‘a tragedy of the commons’. Animals thus spend high amounts of energy moving in search of feed. Farmers in these systems also rely heavily on crop by-products and dry mature grass of poor quality for feeding their animals during the dry season. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

344

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

Adaptation of management techniques and mechanization of processes through introduction of portable low energy equipment such as milking machines, chaff cutters and tractor carts to carry feeds and fodder would reduce the labour requirements within the smallholder systems. However, for capital inputs to be cost-effective, greater volumes of production are required (Staal, 2001).

3.4  Husbandry and breeding management Husbandry and breeding management of animals in smallholder farming systems is variable. Animals reared are reported to have long calving intervals (up to 18 months). Practices related to timing intervals for re-breeding animals with high milk production potential under smallholder farming conditions are directly adopted from those used under systems where feed and water resources are not limited. Measures of reproductive efficiency and understanding how to manage introduced breeds are often not clear to the farmers, leading to inefficient reproductive management. Low nutrient availability and environmental factors such as diseases, high ambient temperatures and the housing environment for high-yielding cows significantly impact their milk production and reproductive performance (Walshe et al., 2011). Strategic management and monitoring of animals for optimal reproductive performance following calving is not common on smallholder farms. Published literature on the reproductive performance of different breeds of cattle raised under smallholder farming conditions outlining details on days open, conception rates, calving intervals and their effects on milk production is limited. The use of AI to introduce genes for improved productivity and for cross-breeding is common. However, in many instances, livestock keepers indicate a challenge with conception rates when AI is used, resulting in the farmers opting for bull services. Several smallholder farmers retain a bull within their herds. Studies on smallholder farmers in Kenya, for instance, indicate that, where dairy production using higher grade exotic animals is widespread, the use of bull services, rather than AI, is preferred due to the need for several repeat inseminations when AI is used (Baltenweck et al., 2004; Murage and Ilatsia, 2011).

3.5  Socio-economic factors Although dairy has the potential to transform communities, realized productivity is usually affected by several social factors including ownership of land and livestock assets. In most societies, land and cattle are owned by men, while women may own smaller animals such as sheep, goats and poultry. Men and women in societies also manage different categories of cattle and are responsible for different aspects of their care. Women feed and manage calves, sick and pregnant animals; clean barns and milk cows; and play an important role in the marketing of milk, whereas men tend to be more involved in watering, managing of diseases and the sales of animals (Mekonnen et al., 2010; Herrero et al., 2013). In more recent times, however, a high proportion of men from rural areas have migrated to urban areas in search of higher wages, leaving routine livestock management practices to women, children and the elderly. Adoption of interventions aimed at intensifying livestock production such as shifting from grazing to stall feeding or keeping of potentially higher-yielding, but also more demanding, breeds, may be slow within communities as the intensification affects traditional tasks of women and would increase their workload (Roschinsky et al., 2015). The multiple © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 345

social roles of cattle in smallholder systems may also lead to compromise solutions that prevent the attainment of maximum environment and production efficiencies from dairy cattle (McDermott et al., 2010). Productivity levels achieved in smallholder farming systems also tend to be inherently related to the poverty level of individual producers, and to the experience and exposure of the farmers to alternative technologies. Generally, the more the years of farming experience, the higher the probability of adopting new technologies.

4 Improving dairy production via breeding under smallholder systems To achieve increased efficiency in the smallholder dairy production and to improve the competitiveness of the production systems, strategies aimed at ensuring increased productivity, rather than increased population size, need to be promoted and adopted. Smallholder farmers with limited resources are unlikely to be able to respond sustainably to increased demands for animal products without increased public investment in innovation and support platforms essential to foster technological changes required to increase productivity (Herrero et al., 2013). In this section we highlight challenges related to the adoption of breeding technologies by smallholder farmers in SSA.

4.1  Matching genotypes to production environments One of the greatest technical challenges around optimizing utilization of breed resources in smallholder production systems in SSA is how to match livestock genotypes to production systems while taking into consideration both tangible objectives (such as increased growth rate and milk production) and less tangible objectives (such as the keeping of livestock for saving and insurance purposes, or for ceremonies and dowry). In matching genotypes to environmental situations, issues that need to be adequately addressed include: which specific breed type and reasons for its choice, what breeding strategy would be adopted for future generations – pure breeding or cross-breeding? What level of productivity would be optimum, given the existing opportunities within the farming system targeted? (Philipsson et al., 2011). Use of genetic improvement from temperate countries may be seen an easy alternative; however, such an approach is unsuitable for two major reasons: (1) differences in the breeding objectives between importing and exporting countries and (2) presence of genotype by environment interaction (G x E) between temperate and tropical countries. When genotypes are moved from an environment where their genetic value is known, to a similar environment elsewhere, they are likely to perform at a similar level. If, however, they are moved to a different environment, genotype by environment interactions will affect performance, and, in tropical countries, performance of high-yielding temperate breeds is often negatively affected (Ojango and Pollott, 2000; Chagunda et al., 2015). Within individual countries of SSA there exists a significant difference in the milk yields of dairy cattle, depending on the type of production system they are reared in and on the management adopted. Lowest yields are achieved under more extensive smallholder systems as illustrated for East Africa in Fig. 3. The production environment generally limits the full expression of the genetic potential of dairy cattle imported from more productive © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

346

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

40 35

Kg of milk per day

30 Y1

X1

25

Best Large-Scale

X3

20 Best Small-Scale

15 Y2 X2

10 5

DGEA-Best Y3 Project-Average

0 0

1

2

3

4 5 6 Months in Milk

7

8

9

10

Figure 3 Lactation curves of dairy cows in Kenya demonstrating ‘yield gaps’ (X1, X2, X3) in milk production by cattle under different farming systems (Adapted from Dairy Genetics East Africa (DGEA), ILRI project reports).

farming systems within the same country (Galukande et al., 2013). A more detailed analysis demonstrating potential changes in yield achievable when breeding technologies are adopted for dairy cattle raised in different developing countries, is presented by Mwacharo et al. (2009).

4.2 Cross-breeding Cross-breeding is extensively used in an attempt to improve performance of livestock populations in developing countries (Djoko et al., 2003; Galukande et al., 2013; Leroy et al., 2015; Roschinsky et al., 2015). Generally the performance of the first cross (F1) between the high-producing breeds from temperate environments and highly adapted breeds from tropical environments is very productive, as they are an ideal combination of both the production and adaptability. However, inter se crosses to form an F2 are much less productive, and backcrosses to parent breeds either are poorly adapted or lack production potential (Syrstad, 1989). The lack of direction after the first cross has resulted in three main strategies being developed in the tropics: (1) continual formation of the first cross, (2) backcrossing to exotic breeds associated with improved management and (3) the formation of many informal composite populations. The use of cross-breeding for dairy production in Africa is documented in reviews by Galukande et al. (2013), FAO (2015) and Leroy et al. (2015).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 347

4.3  Adoption and use of AI The most widely and readily available reproductive technology used to introduce and disseminate new breeds with desired dairy characteristics in populations of SSA is AI. However, although AI has been available since the 1930s, and is relatively cheap and easy to use, it has been difficult to administer it successfully in smallholder cattle production systems mainly due to logistical and institutional challenges (Okeyo et al., 2000; Kosgey et al., 2011; Zonabend et al., 2013). Costs of semen for AI are highly variable across countries, depending on the level of development of the dairy value chain (VC), government support to the production systems, and the number of actors involved in the distribution chain (Makoni et al., 2013; Ouma et al., 2014). Additionally, the genotypes that result from the use of AI are often incompatible with the management levels and approaches in the smallholder farming systems. Small herd sizes and lack of animal pedigree and performance records result in haphazard use of semen from select sires raised under highinput environments. In zero-grazed animals, success rates of AI are generally compromised when service providers are few. There are high chances of animals not being served, even when oestrus is correctly detected. Some countries have national semen distribution centres (Zonabend et al., 2010); however, they produce only a limited amount of semen while the rest comes from external sources. The choice of breeds for which semen is provided also tends to be driven by private agencies and perceived high levels of milk production potential by the farmers. This has resulted in widespread use of the Holstein Friesian for increasing milk production in many countries of SSA (Djoko et al., 2003; Chagunda et al., 2004; Galukande et al., 2013; Zonabend et al., 2013).

4.4  Livestock recording Lack of comprehensive livestock data/records hugely limits planning and implementation of dairy development and breeding programmes for sustainable improvement of cattle productivity (Rege et al., 2011; Syrstad and Ruane, 1998). Livestock keepers tend to rely on their knowledge, memory and practical experiences with no written records on animal performance and management practices. Livestock records are an essential component for genetic evaluation of selection candidates, traceability of animal movements, disease control and good farm management, and contribute to securing access to markets for higher quality and geographical identifiable products (Hoffmann et al., 2011; Durr, 2012). Several constraints have been identified that limit the adoption and practice of livestock recording in developing countries (Trivedi, 2002; Banga et al., 2010; Kosgey et al., 2011; Chagunda et al., 2015), these include: 1 Inadequate and unsupportive policies and infrastructure 2 Weak or non-existent organizations and institutions to carry out and support recording systems 3 Lack of appropriate related legal frameworks resulting in inadequate and weak partnerships, networks and collaboration 4 Small and dispersed herds/flocks, leading to high transaction costs 5 Diverse and multiple stakeholders, often overlapping in their roles

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

348

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

6 Limited capacity and understanding of livestock recording, processing of information and feedback both at farmer level and at institutional level 7 Inadequate resource mobilization and allocation to support pilot activities for livestock recording systems Innovative use of hand-held electronic data-capturing devices that are linked to cell phones would greatly facilitate livestock recording.

4.5  Generating replacement animals Breeding animals for replacement within the smallholder systems are usually few, mainly as a result of poor reproductive management and low fertility rates of cows. A limited supply of quality replacement heifers of the appropriate genotype for smallholder farmers constrains scaling out dairy improvement in many countries. Lack of replacement animals also leads to farmers retaining animals in their herds over many lactations even if their productivity is not very high (Bebe, 2008; Banda et al., 2012; SNV, 2013). In some instances, smallholder farmers deliberately rear and retain few young animals as potential replacement stock in order to minimize labour and feeding costs (Bebe, 2008). There is, however, a high demand for replacement animals within smallholder farming systems, resulting in inflated costs of breeding animals from other sources (Leroy et al., 2015; Roschinsky et al., 2015).

5  Improving productivity in smallholder dairy systems The 2013 GAP report (Global Harvest Initiative, 2013) notes that the adoption of advanced agricultural technologies and better production practices are critical for realizing significant productivity gains in both industrialized and developing countries. Intensification and more extensive use of technologies provide an opportunity to transform dairy production systems in Africa. In the smallholder farming systems, producers tend to intensify some but not all aspects of their production, attracting investments in targeted technologies and facilities for management of both the animals and the products obtained. These provide a good opportunity for enhancing productivity of smallholder dairy systems.

5.1  Breeding and reproductive technologies Breeding and reproductive technologies (biotechnologies) are major avenues through which herd improvement has been achieved in developed countries. Breeding technologies adopted over time include cross-breeding, assortative and non-assortative mating, selection using BLUP breeding values and economic indexes. These are outlined in detail in the second report on the state of the world animal genetic resources (FAO, 2015). Various reproductive technologies and their impacts on breeding schemes for livestock populations in developing countries are discussed by Van Arendonk (2011). Where smallholder farmers can afford the inputs required, AI has positively contributed to increased productivity (Chagunda et al., 2004; Roschinsky et al., 2015). As smallholder systems increasingly adopt a more commercial outlook, oestrus synchronization in combination with AI using sexed semen could be adopted. The use of sexed semen enhances a farmer’s ability to obtain replacement heifers from their own herds, and could help increase the efficiency of producing F1 dairy hybrids (Van Arendonk, 2011; FAO, 2015). A combination of in © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 349

vitro fertilization with sexed semen, followed by embryo transfer as a possible solution to increasing heifer availability, is under investigation in East Africa (Mutembei et al., 2008). The combination of using sexed semen with oestrus synchronization using hormones helped to increase the national dairy cattle herd population in Rwanda through the ‘onecow per resource-poor household’ (Girinka) programme (Hirwa et al., 2013; Kugonza et al., 2013). Costs of reproductive technologies targeting female animals (multiple ovulation, embryo transfer, in vitro fertilization) are, however, significantly high (FAO, 2015) and constrain their widespread use in smallholder farming systems.

5.2  Molecular technologies Advances in high-density single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) technology which enables genotyping of an individual at a low cost present an opportunity for revolutionary changes in the genetic analysis of populations and genetic improvement programmes (Schaeffer, 2006; Van Arendonk, 2011; FAO, 2015). For animals under smallholder farming systems, SNP technology offers an opportunity to reconstruct pedigrees of cross-bred animals and use genomic information in combination with phenotypic information to estimate variance components of quantitative traits. DNA samples of sires frequently used in the populations are important for facilitating pedigree reconstruction. Genomic selection offers possibilities for increasing the accuracies of breeding value estimations, lowering the rates of inbreeding, and reducing the generation intervals in dairy cattle breeding (Schaeffer, 2006). By genotyping a large number of selection candidates and animals with performance records, one can start a selection programme using SNP-based relationships. Research is, however, needed to determine the optimal design of a breeding scheme based on SNPbased relationships from a genetic and economic point of view. Though use of molecular information and genomic selection technologies is still limited in SSA, studies are ongoing on its utilization in smallholder farming systems (Kios, van Marle-Köster and Visser, 2012; Mujibi et al., 2014; Ojango et al., 2014; Brown et al., 2016). In a simulation study that sought to optimize the design of small-sized nucleus genetic improvement dairy cattle schemes for situations where phenotype records are limited, Genomic Selection (GS)based schemes resulted in a higher overall population mean performance with lower rates of inbreeding than progeny test schemes. However, to be optimum, the breeding scheme would rely on the annual genotyping of 5000 commercially recorded cows in the genetic evaluation (Kariuki et al., 2014).

5.3 International livestock data platforms and information and communications technologies There is an increasing amount of information available at country level on the diversity, characteristics and use of different cattle-breed types in Africa through web-based resources including the Domestic Animal Genetic Resources Information Systems (DAGRIS, 2016) availed through ILRI, and the Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS, 2007) availed through the FAO. Livestock breed types that have demonstrated potential in specific production systems found on the continent need to be more extensively availed and used in targeted systems. In the East African highlands, for example, diverse mixes of cross-bred dairy cattle have resulted from over 50 years of cross-breeding efforts. There is clear evidence that some kind of cross-bred which best fits into the dairy production system has emerged (Rege et al., 2011), representing an opportunity for refined composite breed © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

350

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

development. A meta-analysis of information from 23 tropical countries where indigenous breeds are cross-bred with exotic Bos taurus breeds of dairy cattle by Galukande et al. (2013), showed that the resultant cross-breeds had higher milk yields, increased lactation lengths, shorter calving intervals and a lower age at first calving compared with the local breeds. Other potential opportunities for introducing ‘new’ genotypes include use of N’Dama cattle from West Africa in tsetse-infested areas of eastern Africa, the possibility for introducing Kenana and Butana of the Sudan for milk production in other low to medium potential areas of eastern Africa, and the possible use of Brazilian ‘dairy’ zebu breeds (for example, the Gir and Guzera) in different parts of Africa (Rege et al., 2011). Information and communications technology tools, notably mobile telephony, can potentially transform marketing in smallholder production systems in Africa, allowing small-scale producers, processors and traders to collaboratively avail and use product and market information. The use of mobile phones within smallholder farming systems to record inputs and animal performance is currently being piloted in the East Africa region through a public and private partnership project: African Dairy Genetic Gains (http://www. ilri.org/node/40458). Training on farmer cooperation in recording is, however, required. Data collected will help guide the selection and use of sires within villages with similar environmental conditions. Recording needs to be linked to day-to-day management and used as a tool to track economics of production (Rege et al., 2011).

5.4 Feeding technologies Development of fodder banks, improved pasture species, planted legumes and feed supplementation with crop by-products would result in better-quality diets for dairy cattle in SSA. More recently, novel livestock feeds based on crop species more indigenous to SSA are being used as an alternative sources of carbohydrates and proteins for animals (Chagunda et al., 2015). These include use of cassava roots and by-products, development of dual-purpose sorghum varieties (for grain and fodder) and use of sweet potato vines and roots as energy sources (CTA, 2015). Crop breeding for improved fodder quality can increase available feed resources and improve efficiency of feed utilization, resulting in an increase in milk production. These changes can additionally help mitigate methane emissions from smallholder dairy production systems (Herrero and Thornton, 2009). Several manuals have been developed and updated with country- and region-specific information on feeding and management of dairy cattle in SSA, and are available to farmers through dairy development projects, or through the internet. These include manuals on feeding and managing dairy cattle in different countries of Africa (Pandey and Voskuil, 2011; Lukuyu et al., 2012; Ministry of Livestock Developement-Nairobi Kenya, 2012). Additionally, tools have been developed that provide systematic methods of assessing local feed resources available in addition to supporting the design of appropriate intervention strategies for optimal feed utilization such as ENDIISA (Mubiru et al., 2011) and FEAST (ILRI, 2014).

5.5 Delivery of breeding services 5.5.1  Breeding programmes Community-based breeding programmes (CBBP) offer opportunities for effectively involving local farmers. Examples of CBBP in use in different countries for different species of livestock are presented by Mueller et al. (2015). Improvement in dairy productivity © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 351

under smallholder systems can be created in locally available genetic resources using cross-breeding as a first stepping stone, and AI to disseminate improved genetic material to other farmers. Developing different breeds specialized for the different environments under which smallholder dairy production is practised would help maintain genetic diversity while improving productivity. Nucleus-based models can also be adapted in which the available adapted dairy genetic resources are concentrated in a few smallholder herds for selective breeding. Rege et al. (2011) proposed a model consisting of ‘cattle breeding units’ run by individuals or groups specializing in the production of desired genotypes (e.g. purebreds or F1 crosses) – akin to the day-old-chick model in poultry – for smallholder dairy production systems. Kahi et al. (2004) illustrated how a well-organized nucleus could be established as a private enterprise owned by farmer cooperatives utilizing the smallholder farmers as the commercial population. Kahi and Nitter (2004) proposed a two-tier nucleus breeding scheme using young sires for dairy production systems in developing countries. Smallholder farmers could serve as the commercial population in which improvement achieved under nucleus conditions on larger-scale, more commercial enterprises would be utilized. The nucleus could also be in the form of a private enterprise owned by farmer cooperatives or individuals. Options for smallholder farmers to remain competitive would include their linking up to grow in scale through cooperative arrangements, or their becoming contract farmers to larger operations (Delgado et al., 2008). For nucleus breeding programmes to be successful, business plans need to be developed to provide direction on the generation of income in the long run through the marketing of breeding stock and/or culled animals (Mwacharo and Drucker, 2005).

5.5.2  Production and access to improved sires Use of locally produced semen from young bulls, sons of sires tested within a country has been shown to be more cost-effective than using imported semen from sires raised in more temperate environments (Okeno, Kosgey and Kahi, 2010). Innovative contractual arrangements would, however, be required to link the multiple smallholder livestock producers. Smallholder farmers within a village using collectively determined cost-sharing methods could own and manage select bulls for use in breeding within the village. Such a scheme could be adapted to include rotation or swapping of bulls across villages in order to avoid potential inbreeding within the smallholder herds. An increasing interest by private sector actors, willing to invest in the development, adoption and dissemination of targeted reproductive technologies for increasing profits from smallholder dairy production also provides expanded options for choice of breeds and sires to use in AI programmes. Using business model options in which farmer advisory services are combined with AI services for a large number of smallholder farmers, economies of scale are achievable for dissemination of breeding sires across populations.

5.5.3  Models for heifer production Options for availing quality heifers of the right genotype, at a price that smallholder farmers or new entrants wishing to establish dairy farming at small or even medium scale, can afford, notably in eastern Africa include: •• Breed Heifers from within the herd: While this is the most logical approach to producing replacement heifers, it is not practical for smallholders because the herd © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

352

••

••

••

••

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

sizes are too small to guarantee that heifer calves will be born and successfully raised for use as replacement animals when they are needed. Contract mating for cross-bred heifer production: This approach emerged from an innovation platform (IP) in East Africa and is dubbed ‘wombs for hire’ (AgriBiz Consult Company Kenya, pers. comm.). The approach involves mating of quality beef cows (e.g. from ranches or improved pastoral systems) with dairy bulls (or AI semen) in a contractual arrangement with the aim of producing cross-bred heifer calves of specific breed combinations. The contract clearly stipulates the obligations of the parties (ranch and the heifer business entity) in regard to the resulting calves – both heifers and bulls. The link with larger-scale farming systems ensures a reliable supply of a targeted number of improved animals which can be availed on given orders. Combined with sexed semen, this approach has potential to address the major heifer supply deficit that characterizes smallholder systems in eastern Africa. Calf nursery model: This model seeks to address the inability of smallholder farmers to rear good calves because of limited resources in terms of space, time, and milk (which is valued for sale) or milk-replacers (which these farmers cannot afford). Under the calf nursery model, the operator (e.g. a medium-scale farmer) goes into an arrangement with smallholder farms so that heifer calves born on smallholder farms are taken away soon after being reared on colostrum and are reared under the best possible conditions to develop them into high-quality heifers. Online animal trading platforms: There is emergence of online platforms and mobile-phone-based applications designed to connect buyers to sellers and service providers to livestock keepers. In the livestock sector, commodity specific platforms include I-COW (http://www.icow.co.ke/) and CowSoko (http://www.cowsoko.com/). Using simple menu systems, farmers can access improved heifers from a broader population, and are in a position to better negotiate for prices of animals with knowledge of their availability. Pass on the gift model: This approach of transforming recipients into donors was spearheaded in the dairy sector by Heifer International (Njwe et al., 2001). The approach mandates that each family that receives a donation in the form of a heifer undertakes to pass on to a neighbour (member of a group) the first heifer calf produced by the heifer received. This approach which proves that small actions can achieve big results, at a minimum, has potential to double the impact of the original gift, transforming a once-impoverished family/community into full participants who improve and strengthen the bonds within their broader communities.

5.6  Support groups for smallholder dairy production In many countries, national governments have livestock ministries to support dairy production (FAO, 2007; Zonabend et al., 2013; Leroy et al., 2015). However, resources to support extension services and availing inputs for different farming systems are limited. Governments thus generally provide a policy framework for operation. Producer organizations play an important role for smallholder dairy farmers. Through coming together in organized groups, the smallholder farmers can seek services and knowledge support to help in their operations. Different types of organized groups exist. Initial groups are generally formed around the marketing of products; however, more recently, groups have been formed to seek information and lobby for services and inputs to support dairy © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 353

production. Cooperation between farmers is crucial, especially in light of the change in demand patterns for livestock products, and of the growing regional economies. Examples of cooperating farmer groups are as follows.

5.6.1  Dairy cooperatives Cooperatives in the dairy sector of SSA are membership organizations, which are generally organized around the marketing of milk by concentrations of farmers. Cooperatives provide focal points to provide services to farmers as well as promoting organized collection, handling and sale of milk to consumers. In many countries of SSA, notably countries of Eastern and Southern Africa, cooperatives have served to catalyse increased milk production from smallholder farms through access to broader markets for the products. They enable improving competition, product quality and open market economics in the dairy sectors. Cooperatives also provide a safety outlet for farmers to sell their milk through bulking and marketing of the products. Many cooperatives, however, need strengthening in terms of management, governance, negotiation capacities and organization.

5.6.2  Dairy hubs Dairy hubs (also referred to as milk bulking groups (Tebug et al., 2012)) are a growing concept used in areas with a high concentration of smallholder dairy farmers to stimulate productivity and reduce dependency. The hub concept is based on linking farmers in a specific area – covering a certain number of villages, smallholder farmers and cows – to a dedicated dairy processor. The processor sets up milk collection stations (hubs) with cooling tanks for bulking and controlling quality of milk collected from farmers. The hubs additionally serve as business centres for dairy farmers to access a host of services through a check-off system. Under the check-off system, farmers deliver milk to their dairy hub and secure inputs (feeds, drugs) and services (credit, AI, veterinary) on account of their deliveries. The cost of the inputs and services is then deducted from their milk income at the end of the month when collecting payment (ILRI, 2008; SNV, 2013). The hubs minimize the cost of collecting milk from small, scattered producers by the major processing firms who pay a premium price for bulked and chilled milk. Through the hubs, processors are able to tap into a reliable supply of locally produced, high-quality milk and gain better control over the supply chain. At the same time, public access to safe and affordable milk is increased. The dairy hub model has been successfully introduced and promoted in eastern Africa through development projects such as the East Africa Dairy Development (EADD) programme in Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania (ILRI, 2008), and in Malawi.

5.7  Ensuring VCs work for smallholders Rege et al. (2011) make a compelling case that institutional arrangements and enabling policies are critical for the success in identifying and applying appropriate genetic technologies, improving access to input services and facilitating access to markets in order to translate productivity gains into incomes for smallholders. The main actors involved in smallholder dairy VC include individual producers (farmers) or producer groups, associations or cooperatives, policy-makers, and implementers and regulators; © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

354

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

input suppliers; other VC service providers; market agents; research and development organizations; and development partners as well as non-governmental organizations supporting smallholders. Many challenges in the smallholder dairy VC can only be addressed if the VC actors worked together. For example, while smallholder systems are generally associated with low production costs and potential for high profit margins, limited access to quality, affordable and dependable inputs, services and high value and reliable output markets, limit the potential of this important sub-sector. Indeed, the viability and profitability of milk production by smallholders depends not only on production costs and what individual producers can do on their own, but more critically on the efficiency of the overall dairy VC in which the producers are involved (McDermott et al., 2010). Organized small-scale dairy systems can compete successfully with largescale dairies and, in some aspects, can outdo the individual large-scale operators if a functioning VC is developed. A functioning VC is a market-focused collaboration among the different stakeholders involved in the VC. IPs (Hall and Mbabu, 2012; Hounkonnou et al., 2012) can be effective as a means of organizing functioning VCs. An IP facilitates the bundling of complementary skills and competencies that the VC actors bring – and that are linked to their core businesses, expertise and experiences as individuals, teams or organizations – and allows for working on institutional change at different levels in the system. IPs ensure that different interests are taken into account, and various groups contribute to finding solutions. An IP formed to enhance VC functionality takes the form of a ‘partnership’ whose basic construct is defined by direct and honest engagement of VC actors to facilitate ongoing sharing, problem identification and co-creation of solutions to common challenges whose impacts are felt by multiple VC actors. In the process, individual entities (e.g. producers) also learn how to improve their own businesses and at the same time expand their networks. The success of the VC will be principally defined by core VC actors who stand to gain if the VC is flourishing and to lose if it is dysfunctional. The IP provides a formal forum through which this recognition plays out repeatedly.

6  Key organizations supporting smallholders Continental organizations in place to support the development of the livestock sector in Africa, and which provide guidance and mobilize resources for the adoption and use of various technological applications for improved productivity include The African Union–Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR, http://www.au-ibar.org/) and the Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA, http://faraafrica.org/). These organizations work together with sub-regional organizations including the Association for Strengthening Agricultural Research in East and Central Africa (ASARECA, http:// harvestchoice.org/regions/ASARECA), the West and Central Africa Council for Agricultural Research and Development (CORAF/WECARD, http://www.coraf.org/en/) and the Centre for Coordination of Agricultural Research and development for Southern Africa (CARDESA, http://www.ccardesa.org/). These organizations serve to mobilize stakeholders around a portfolio of programmes and projects seeking to address specific challenges or harness opportunities.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 355

7  Future trends Long-term sustainability of improvement of dairy cattle productivity under smallholder farming systems of SSA still remains a challenge. The smallholder farmers tend to lapse on the implementation of the management regimes instituted through projects once the projects come to an end (Bebe, 2008; Roschinsky et al., 2015). The small scale of milk production and marketed output implicit in smallholder farming systems can result in low bargaining power and a limited ability to capture economies of scale in marketing. Inadvertently, attention needs to be paid both to the production side and to the complexity in the VC including simple methods of value addition and continued access to services and markets for products (Staal, Pratt and Jabbar, 2008). External factors are, however, catalysing change in existing smallholder production systems of SSA: •• Population pressure: As the human population increases, the demand for products increases, thus motivating livestock keepers to increase their productivity. This drives uptake of productivity-enhancing interventions but also affects the available land and water resources needed to support commercial dairying. •• Public infrastructure development: Road networks, electricity and fuel availability, and communication networks, all these influence every component of the dairy VC, and particularly stimulate access to inputs, markets for livestock products and access to administrative and technical services. Intervention options to enable sustainable change in smallholder dairy production systems can be categorized into five main clusters outlined below and illustrated in Fig. 4. 1 Develop and adopt transformative approaches to generate evidence on the magnitude and impacts of smallholder dairy production on national food security and regional stability. Such evidence should inform policy development and drive investments in the smallholder farming sector. Pilot farmers using an agricultural innovation systems approach in the smallholder dairy production VC could serve to catalyse adoption of new approaches. 2 Empower smallholder livestock producers to enable them improve the efficiency of their dairy production through seeking and adopting demand-driven inputs and services for the sector. With less than 50% of the milk produced by smallholder farmers in Africa being sold through formal (processed) channels, the safety of dairy products is becoming an increasing concern. Urbanization and growth in incomes has resulted in increased consumer demand for food safety, and formal marketing of dairy products is important in the livestock food chain. Smallholder farmers need to adapt to the changes in the VC in order to improve their credibility (Delgado et al., 2008). 3 Support inclusive and collective actions by organized groups operating within the smallholder dairy VC. This could be in the form of frameworks that support and generate confidence in private–public partnerships; advocacy at national and regional levels for raising profiles on opportunities and causes of concern for smallholder dairy farmers; engagement of a new and younger generation of farmers who are willing and able to collate, share and use information via information and communications technology platforms.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

356

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

Figure 4 Interventions for sustainable smallholder dairy production.

4 Enhance markets for quality dairy products and develop stratified markets with system specific improved breeding animals for optimal productivity. Milk component traits rarely emphasized in the production systems need to be valued and milk pricingbased quality rather than on volume. Markets should have graded product levels and requisite payment for producers able to avail products of specific quality standards in the marketplace. 5 Innovatively adapt technological interventions in a cost-effective manner to suit smallholder production systems. One strength of smallholder dairy producers that is often overlooked as an asset in terms of investment by the private sector is the large number of producers. Used strategically, these producers could provide a significantly large population of test animals with wide variation that could serve to prove robustness of different technologies. Important are the IPs that bring together different actors in the dairy production sector to raise issues and to propose solutions to challenges encountered.

8  Where to look for further information An increasing amount of information on livestock production systems in developing countries is being generated and published in peer-reviewed open source journals, including the Animal Genetic Resources (FAO), Tropical Animal Production and Health and Livestock Research for Rural Development. There are also several international agricultural research institutes that carry out research and document information on livestock farming systems in developing countries, including the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR) centres (International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI, http://www.ilri.org), International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), the International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT)), ICIPE, and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, http://www.fao.org). The individual countries of SSA

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 357

through national universities and national agricultural research centres also implement research on, and document information unique to, their existing cattle populations. Rapid on-farm surveys implemented by a range of research groups address critical information gaps on production systems, population statistics of breeds, physical descriptive characteristics and prevailing performance levels of animals reared under smallholder farming systems (ILRI rapid surveys, FAO guidelines, AGTR Case studies) (Nkya et al., 2007; Mekonnen, Dehninet and Kelay, 2010; Tebug et al., 2012).

9  Acknowledgements The authors acknowledge support for this study through the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) and the African Union–Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR).

10  References Baltenweck, I., Ouma, R., Anunda, F., Okeyo, M. and Romney, D. (2004), ‘Artificial or natural insemination: the demand for breeding services by smallholders’, in Proceedings of 9th KARI Biennial Scientific Conference and Research week. 8–12 November 2004, Nairobi, Kenya. Banda, L. J., Kamwanja, L. A., Chagunda, M. G. G., Ashworth, C. J. and Roberts, D. J. (2012), ‘Status of dairy cow management and fertility in smallholder farms in Malawi’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 44(4), pp. 715–27. Banga, C. B., Besbes, B., Balvay, B., Chazo, L., Jamaa, O. M., Rozstalynyy, A., Rovere, G., Toto, A. and Trivedi, K. R. (2010), ‘Current situation of animal identification and recording systems in developing countries and countries with economies in transition’, in E. Skujina, E. Galvanoska, O. Leray and C. Mosconi (Eds), ICAR Technical Series No 14. Farm Animal Breeding, Identification, Production Recording and Management. ICAR, Rome, Italy. Bebe, B. O. (2008), ‘Assessing potential for producing dairy replacements under increasing intensification of smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands’, Livestock Research for Rural Development. Retrieved 22 April 2016, p. 20. Brown, A., Ojango, J., Gibson, J., Coffey, M., Mwai, O. and Mrode, R. (2016), ‘Genomic selection in a crossbred cattle population using data from the Dairy Genetics Project for East Africa’, Journal Dairy Science, 99, pp. 1–5. Chagunda, M.G.G., Bruns, E.W., King, J.M. and Wollny, C.B.A. (2004), ‘Evaluation of the breeding strategy for milk yield of Holstein Friesian cows on large-scale dairy farms in Malawi’, Journal of Agricultural Science, 142, pp. 595–601. Chagunda, M.G.G., Bruns, E., Wollny, C.B.A. and King, H.M. (2004), ‘Effect of milk yield-based selection on some reproductive traits of Holstein Fresian cows on large scale dairy farms in Malawi’, Livestock Research for Rural Development, 16(7), pp. 20–32. Available at: http://www. cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd16/7/chag16047.htm. Chagunda, M.G.G., Mwangwela, A., Mumba, C., Dos Anjos, F., Kawonga, B.S., Hopkins, R. and Chiwona-Kartun, L. (2015), ‘Assessing and managing intensification in smallholder dairy systems for food and nutrition security in Sub-Saharan Africa’, Regional Environmental Change. Springer Berlin, Heidelberg. CTA (2015), Fodder and Forage Solutions – Feeding Africa’s Livestock. Technical Centre for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation ACP-EU, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Available at: http://archive. spore.cta.int/en/component/content/article?id=11543:feeding-africa-s-livestock.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

358

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

DAD-IS (2007), Domestic Animal Diversity Information System, FAO. Available at: dad.fao.org/cgi bin/EfabisWeb.cgi? DAGRIS (2016), Domestic Animal Genetic Resrouces Information System, ILRI. Available at: http:// dagris.ilri.cgiar.org/dagrisv3/default.asp. Devendra, C. (2001a), ‘Small ruminants: imperatives for productivity enhancement improved livelihoods and rural growth – a review’, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Science, 14(10), pp. 1483–96. Devendra, C. (2001b), ‘Smallholder dairy production systems in developing countries: characteristics, potential and opportunities for improvement – a review’, Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 14, pp. 104–13. Djoko, T. D., Mbah, D. A., Mbanya, J. N., Kamga, R., Awah, N. R. and Bopelet, M. (2003), ‘Crossbreeding cattle for milk production in the tropics: effects of genetic and environmental factors on the performance of improved genotypes on the cameroon western high plateau’, Revue d Elevage et de Medecine Veterinaire des Pays Tropicaux, 56(1–2), pp. 63–72. Durr, J. (2012), ‘Animal identification, recording and evaluation – Interbull’s perspectives’, http://www. icar.org/Documents/Santiago%202011/Papers/Durr.pdf. FAO (2007), The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Edited by R. Burbeck and D. Pilling, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. FAO (2015), The Second Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Edited by B. D. Scherf and D. Pilling, FAO Commissnion on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4787e/ index.html. FAO (2016), Dairy Producion and Products. Available at: http://www.fao.org/agriculture/dairygateway/milk-production/production-systems/en/#.Vs6qguZL8ic (Accessed 12 July 2016). FAOSTAT (2014), ‘FAO Statistical Database’, FAO, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org. FAOSTAT (2016), ‘FAOSTAT Database’, FAO, Rome, Italy. Available at: http://apps.fao.org/ (Accessed 29 Septmeber 2016). Forbes, B. and Kepe, T. (2014), ‘Smallholder farmers’ attitudes toward the provision of drinking water for dairy cows in Kagera, Tanzania’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 47(2), pp. 415–21. Galukande, E., Mulindwa, H., Wurzinger, M., Roschinsky, R., Mwai, A. O. and Sölkner, J. (2013), ‘Crossbreeding cattle for milk production in the tropics: achievements, challenges and opportunities’, Animal Genetic Resources/Ressources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales, 52, pp. 111–25. Global Harvest Initiative (2013), The 2013 Global Agricultural Productivity (GAP) Report. Washington, DC. Hall, A. and Mbabu, A. N. (2012), Capacity Building For Agricultural Research For Development: Lessons From Practice in Papua New Guinea. Edited by A. Hall and A. N. Mbabu. Maastricht, UNU-MERIT. Herrero, M., Grace, D., Njuki, J., Johnson, N., Enahoro, D., Silvestri, S. and Rufino, M. C. (2013), ‘The roles of livestock in developing countries’, Animal, 7, pp. 3–18. Herrero, M. and Thornton, P. K. (2009), Mitigating Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Livestock Systems. Agriculture and Climate Change: An Agenda for Negotiation in Copenhagen. IFPRI 2020 Vision for Food, Agriculture, and the Environment, Focus 16. Washington, International Food Policy Research In. Report. Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Notenbaert, A., Msangi, S., Wood, S., Kruska, R., Dixon, J., Bossio, D., Van de Steeg, J. A., Freeman, H. A. and Parthasarathy Rao, P. (2009), Drivers of Change in Crop– Livestock Systems and their Potential Impacts on Agro-Ecosystems Services and Human WellBeing to 2030, Nairobi. Report. CGIAR Systems and their programme, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. Herrero, M., Thornton, P. K., Notenbaert, A. M., Wood, S., Msangi, S., Freeman, H. A., Bossio, D., Dixon, J., Peters, M., van de Steeg, J., Lynam, J., Parthasarathy Rao, P., Macmillan, S., Gerald, B., McDermott, J., Seré, C. and Rosegrant, M. (2010), ‘Smart investments in sustainable food production: revisiting mixed crop-livestock systems’, Science, 327, pp. 822–5.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 359 Hirwa, C. D., Kugonza, D. R., Manzi, M., Murekezi, T., Nyabinwa, P., Semahoro, F., Rwemarika, D., Nshimiyimana, A. M. and Gahakwa, D. (2013), Efficacy of Progesterone Releasing Intra-Vaginal Device (Prid) In Pure Ankole Cattle And Crossbreds With Three Exotic Breeds. Centre for Agriculture and Bioscience International (CABI), Oxfordshire, UK. Hoffmann, I., Besbes, B. and Battaglia, D. (2011), ‘Capacity building in support of animal identification for recording and traceability: FAO’s multipurpose and global approach’, Animal Production and Health Division, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Rome, Italy. Hounkonnou, D., Kossou, D., Kuyper, T. W., Leeuwis, C., Nederlof, E. S., Röling, N., Sakyi-Dawson, O., Traoré, M. and Van Huis, A. (2012), ‘An innovation systems approach to institutional change: smallholder development in West Africa’, Agricultural Systems, 108, pp. 74–83. ILRI (2008), The East Africa Dairy Development (EADD) Project. Available at: http://www.ilri.org/ EADD (Accessed 1 November 2015). ILRI (2014), ‘FEAST: Feed Assessment Tool’, International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10568/16539. ILRI (2016), Animal BioSciences. Available at: https://www.ilri.org/taxonomy/term/26, https://www.ilri. org/taxonomy/term/28, https://www.ilri.org/taxonomy/term/41. Kahi, A. K. and Nitter, G. (2004), ‘Developing breeding schemes for pasture based dairy production systems in Kenya. I. Derivation of economic values using profit functions’, Livestock Production Science, 88, pp. 161–77. Kahi, A. K., Nitter, G. and Gall, C. F. (2004), ‘Developing of breeding schemes for pasture based dairy production systems in Kenya. II. Evaluation of alternative objectives and schemes using a two- tier open nucleus and young bull system’, Livestock Production Science, 88, pp. 179–92. Kariuki, C. M., Komen, H., Kahi, A. K. and van Arendonk, J. A. M. (2014), ‘Optimizing the design of small-sized nucleus breeding programs for dairy cattle with minimal performance recording’, Journal of Dairy Science, 97, pp. 7963–74. Kios, D., van Marle-Köster, E. and Visser, C. (2012), ‘Application of DNA markers in parentage verification of Boran cattle in Kenya’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 44(3), pp. 471–6. Kosgey, I. S., Mbuku, S. M., Okeyo, A. M., Amimo, J., Philipsson, J. and Ojango, J. M. K. (2011), ‘Institutional and organizational frameworks for dairy and beef cattle recording in Kenya: a review and opportunities for improvement’, Animal Genetic Resources. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 48, pp. 1–11. Kugonza, D. R., Kayitesi, A., Semahoro, F., Ingabire, D., Manzi, M., Hirwa, C. A. and Gahakwa, D. (2013), ‘Factors affecting suitability of surrogate dams for embryo transfer in cattle’, Journal of Animal Science Advances, 3(4), pp. 203–10. Leroy, G., Baumung, R., Boettcher, P., Scherf, B. and Hoffmann, I. (2015), ‘Review: sustainability of crossbreeding in developing countries; definitely not like crossing a meadow’, Animal (November), pp. 1–12. Lukuyu, B., Gachuiri, C. K., Lukuyu, M. N., Lusweti, C., Mwendia, S., Gachuiri, C. and Lukuyu, M. (2012), ‘Feeding dairy cattle in East Africa’, p. 2. Available at: https://cgspace.cgiar.org/ bitstream/handle/.../EADDDairyManual.pdf. Makoni, N., Mwai, R., Redda, T., van der Zijpp, A. and van der Lee, J. (2013), ‘White gold: opportunities for dairy sector development collaboration in east africa’, Centre for Development Innovation (February), p. 203. Marshall, K., Tebug, S., Juga, J., Tapio, M. and Missohou, A. 2016. ‘Better dairy cattle breeds and better management can improve the livelihoods of the rural poor in Senegal’, ILRI Research Brief 65. ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. Available at http://hdl.handle.net/10568/72865 Mburu, L. M., Wakhungu, J. W. and Kang’ethe, W. G. (2007), ‘Characterization of smallholder dairy production systems for livestock improvement in Kenya highlands’, Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19, p. 110. Available at: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/8/mbur19110.htm. McDermott, J. J., Staal, S. J., Freeman, H. A., Herrero, M. and Van de Steeg, J. A. (2010), ‘Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics’, Livestock Science, 130(1–3), pp. 95–109.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

360

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

Mekonnen, H., Dehninet, G. and Kelay, B. (2010), ‘Dairy technology adoption in smallholder farms in “Dejen” district, Ethiopia’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42(2), pp. 209–16. Menjo, D. K., Bebe, B. O., Okeyo, A. M. and Ojango, J. M. K. (2009), ‘Survival of Holstein-Friesian heifers on commercial dairy farms in Kenya’, Applied Animal Husbandry & Rural Development, 2, pp. 14–17. Ministry of Livestock Developement-Nairobi Kenya (2012), Dairy Farmers Training Manual 1. Nairobi, Kenya. Moll, H. A. J., Staal, S. J. and Ibrahim, M. N. M. (2007), ‘Smallholder dairy production and markets: a comparison of production systems in Zambia, Kenya and Sri Lanka’, Agricultural Systems, 94(2), pp. 593–603. Msangi, B. S. J., Bryant, M. J., Nkya, R. and Thorne, P. J. (2004), ‘The effects of a short-term increase in supplementation on the reproduction performance in lactating crossbred dairy cows’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 36(8), pp. 775–87. Mubiru, S. L., Wakholi, P., Nakiganda, A., Sempebwa, H. N., Namagembe, A., Semakula, J., Lule, A. and Kazibwe, P. (2011), ‘Development of Endiisa decision support tool for improved feeding of dairy cattle in Uganda’, in CTA and FARA. Agricultural Innovations for Sustainable Development. Contributions from the Finalists of the 2009/2010 Africa-wide Women and Young Professionals in Science Competitions. Accra, Ghana, pp. 45–50. Mueller, J. P., Rischkowsky, B., Haile, a., Philipsson, J., Mwai, O., Besbes, B., Valle Zárate, A., Tibbo, M., Mirkena, T., Duguma, G., Sölkner, J. and Wurzinger, M. (2015), ‘Community-based livestock breeding programmes: essentials and examples’, Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 132(2), pp. 155–68. Mujibi, F. D. N., Ojango, J., Rao, J. E. O., Karanka, T., Kihara, A., Marete, A., Baltenweck, I., Poole, J., Rege, J. E. O., Gondro, C., Weerasinghe, W. M. S. P., Gibson, J. P. and Okeyo, A. M. (2014), ‘Use of high density snp genotypes to determine the breed composition of cross bred dairy cattle in smallholder farms: assessment of reproductive and health performance’, in Proceedings of 10th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, pp. 4–6. Murage, A. W. and Ilatsia, E. D. (2011), ‘Factors that determine use of breeding services by smallholder dairy farmers in Central Kenya’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 43(1), pp. 199–207. Mutembei, H. M., Muasa, B., Origa, R., Jimbo, S., Ojango, J. M. K., Tsuma, V. T., Mutiga, E. R. and Okeyo, A. M. (2008), ‘Delivery of appropriate cattle genotypes to Eastern African smallholder farmers through in-vitro embryo production technologies- the technical procedures, prospects and challenges’, in Pan AFRICAN Chemistry Network-Biodiversity Conference. 10–12 September 2008, Chiromo, Nairobi, Kenya. Mwacharo, J. M. and Drucker, A. G. (2005), ‘Production objectives and management strategies of livestock keepers in South-East Kenya: implications for a breeding programme’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 37, pp. 635–52. Mwacharo, J. M., Ojango, J. M. K., Baltenweck, I., Wright, I., Staal, S., Rege, J. E. O. and Okeyo, A. M. (2009), Livestock Productivity Constraints and Opportunities for Investment in Science and Technology, BMGF-ILRI Project on Livestock Knowledge Generation. Report. Nairobi, Kenya, ILRI. Njwe, R. M., Kwinji, L. N., Gabche, A. L. and Tambi, E. N. (2001), ‘Contributions of Heifer Project International (HPI) to small-scale dairy development in Cameroon’, in D. Rangnekar and W. Thorpe (Eds), South-South Workshop held at NDDB. 13–16 March 2001, NDDB (National Dairy Development Board), Anand, India and ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), pp. 414–30. Nkya, R., Kessy, B. M., Lyimo, Z. C., Msangi, B. S. J., Turuka, F. and Mtenga, K. (2007), ‘Constraints on smallholder market oriented dairy systems in the north eastern coastal region of Tanzania’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 39(8), pp. 627–36. Ojango, J. M. K., Marete, A., Mujibi, D., Rao, J., Pool, J., Rege, J. E. O., Gondro, C., Weerasinghe, W. M. S. P., Gibson, J. P. and Okeyo, A. M. (2014), ‘A novel use of high density SNP assays to optimize choice of different crossbred dairy cattle genotypes in small-holder systems in East

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa 361 Africa’, Proceedings of 10th World Congress of Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, pp. 2–4. Ojango, J. M. K. and Pollott, G. (2000), ‘Effects of Genotype by Environment Interactions on milk production between Holstein-Friesians in Kenya and the United Kingdom’, in 3rd All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture and 11th Conference of the Egyptian Society of Animal Production, pp. 657–61. Okeno, T. O., Kosgey, I. S. and Kahi, A. K. (2010), ‘Genetic evaluation of breeding strategies for improvement of dairy cattle in Kenya’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42(6), pp. 1073–9. Okeyo, A. M., Kajume, J. K., Mosi, R. O., Okila, E. V. A., Gathuma, J. M., Kiere, S. M. N., Agumbah, G., Kuria, J. N. and Chema, S. (2000), ‘Artificial Insemination a bio-technological tool for genetic improvement of Kenyan dairy cattle herds: historical perspective, Current status, Challenges and Way forward in the next Millenium. A Kenya Country Paper’, in Symposium on Dairy Cattle Breeding in East Africa: Sustainable Artificial Insemination Service. Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), Headquarters, Kaptagat Road, Nairobi, 20–21 March 2000. Ouma, R., Jakinda, D., Magati, P. and Rege, J. E. O. (2014), Benchmarking the Kenyan Artificial Insemination Service Sub-Industry. A Study for the Kenya Markets Trust and the Competition Authority of Kenya. Nairobi, Kenya. Pandey, G. S. and Voskuil, G. C. J. (2011), Manual on Improved Feeding of Dairy Cattle By, Golden Valley Agricultural Research Trust, Lusaka, Zambia, p. 52. Peeler, E. J. and Omore, A. O. (1997), Manual of Livestock Production Systems in Kenya KARI/DFID National Agricultural Research Project II, Nairobi, Kenya. Philipsson, J., Rege, J. E. O., Zonabend, E. and Okeyo, A. M. (2011), ‘Sustainable breeding programmes for tropical farming systems’, in J. M. Ojango, B. Malmfors and A. M. Okeyo (Eds), Animal Genetics Training Resource, version 3. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya and Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. Rege, J. E. O., Kahi, A. K., Okomo-Adhiambo, M. O., Mwacharo, J. and Hanotte, O. (2001), Zebu cattle of Kenya: Uses, Performance, Farmer Preference, Measures of Genetic Diversity and Options for Improved Use, Animal Genetic Resources Research, ILRI, Nairobi, Kenya. Rege, J. E. O., Marshall, K., Notenbaert, A., Ojango, J. M. K. and Okeyo, A. M. (2011), ‘Pro-poor animal improvement and breeding – what can science do?’, Livestock Science, 136, pp. 15–28. Rege, J. E. O. and Tawah, C. L. (1999), ‘The state of African cattle genetic resources II. Geographical distribution, characteristics and uses of present-day breeds and strains’, Animal Genetic Resources Information, 26, pp. 1–25. Available at: http://agtr.ilri.cgiar.org/documents/Library/ docs/agri26_99.pdf. Reynolds, L., Metz, T. and Kiptarus, J. (1996), ‘Smallholder dairy production in Kenya’, World Animal Review (FAO), 87–1996/2. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/W2650T/W2650t07. htm#P0_0. Robinson, T. P., Thornton, P. K., Franceschini, G., Kruska, R. L., Chiozza, F., Notenbaert, A., Cecchi, G., Herrero, M., Epprecht, M., Fritz, S., You, L., Conchedda, G. and See, L. (2011), Global Livestock Production Systems. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI). Roschinsky, R., Kluszczynska, M., Sölkner, J., Puskur, R. and Wurzinger, M. (2015), ‘Smallholder experiences with dairy cattle crossbreeding in the tropics: from introduction to impact’, Animal: An International Journal of Animal Bioscience, 9(1), pp. 150–7. Schaeffer, L. R. (2006), ‘Strategy for applying genome-wide selection in dairy cattle’, Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, 123(4), pp. 218–23. Available at: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/ query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Citation&list_uids=16882088. SNV, K. (2013), Dairy Sector Policy Study and Capacity Needs Assessment of Stakeholder Associations. Nairobi, Kenya. South Africa (2014), Summary of Livestock Diseases for South Africa Report for August 2014. Available at: http://www.angoras.co.za/page/summary_of_livestock_disease_for_south_africa_report_for_ august_2014.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

362

Improving smallholder dairy farming in Africa

Staal, J. S., Pratt, A. N. and Jabbar, M. (2008), Dairy cattle Development for Resource Poor Part 2: Kenya and Ethiopia Dairy development Case Studies, Pro-poor Livestock Policy Initiative Working Paper N0. 44–2. Report. Staal, S. J. (2001), ‘The competitiveness of smallholder dairy production: evidence from sub-Saharan Africa, Asia and Latin America’, in D. Rangnekar and W. Thorpe (Eds), South-South Workshop held at NDDB. 13–16 March 2001, NDDB (National Dairy Development Board), Anand, India and ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), pp. 250–64. Syrstad, O. (1989), ‘Dairy cattle cross-breeding in the tropics: performance of secondary cross-bred populations’, Livestock Production Science, 23(1–2), pp. 97–106. Tebug, S. F., Kasulo, V., Chikagwa-Malunga, S., Wiedemann, S., Roberts, D. J. and Chagunda, M. G. G. (2012), ‘Smallholder dairy production in Northern Malawi: production practices and constraints’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 44(1), pp. 55–62. Thornton, P., Herrero, M., Freeman, A., Mwai, O., Rege, E., Jones, P. and Mcdermott, J. (2007), ‘Vulnerability, Climate change and Livestock – Research Opportunities and Challenges for Poverty Alleviation’, Open Access Journal published by ICRISAT, 4(1), pp. 1–23. http://www. dfid.gov.uk/research/climate-change.asp. Trivedi, K. R. (2002), ‘Recommendations and summaries’, in K. R. Trivedi (Ed.), International Workshop on Animal Recording for Smallholders in Developing Countries, 20–23 October, 1997. ICAR Technical Series 1, Anand, India. Van Arendonk, J. A. M. (2011), ‘The role of reproductive technologies in breeding schemes for livestock populations in developing countries’, Livestock Science, 136, pp. 29–37. Wudu, T., Kelay, B., Mekonnen, H. M. and Tesfu, K. (2008), ‘Calf morbidity and mortality in smallholder dairy farms in Ada’a Liben district of Oromia, Ethiopia’, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 40(5), pp. 369–76. Zonabend, E., Okeyo, A. M., Ojango, J. M. K., Hoffmann, I., Moyo, S. and Philipsson, J. (2013), ‘Infrastructure for sustainable use of animal genetic resources in Southern and Eastern Africa’, Animal Genetic Resources/Ressources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales, 53, pp. 79–93. Zonabend, E., Okeyo, A. M., Ojango, J. M. K., Moyo, S. and Philipsson, J. (2010), ‘Infrastructure for sustainable utilization of animal genetic resources’, in All Africa Conference on Animal Agriculture. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp. 1–11.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Chapter 18 Organic dairy farming in developing countries Gidi Smolders, Wageningen University, The Netherlands; Mette Vaarst, Aarhus University, Denmark 1 Introduction 2 Characteristics of milk from different species 3 Organic dairy production 4 Dairy production systems in Africa 5 Conclusion and future trends 6 Where to look for further information 7 References

1 Introduction In African countries, organic farming was practised on almost 1.3 million ha or about 0.1% of the total agricultural area of the continent in 2016. The number of certified organic farmers is about 600 000 who mainly focus on arable and permanent crops (for export). Only 6% of the organic area is permanent grassland and fodder crops (Lernoud et al., 2016). According to Altieri (2012) two forms of organic production exist in the global south: certified organic production, mainly focusing on export, and non-certified organic production, primarily focusing on food self-sufficiency. Besides certified organic land, there is an area for so-called ‘wild collection’ on about 12 million ha where no pesticides or any other chemicals are used and which is farmed and exploited by about 13 million farmers. Data show that there are many organic farmers with small acreage and with no particular focus on dairy production (Willer and Lernoud, 2016; Odong, 2014, Kiggundu et al, 2014; Nalubwama et al, 2011). Chander et al. (2011) stated that only negligible development in organic dairy farming occurred in tropical countries. In Africa, Asia and Latin America, the consumption of milk and milk products has increased over the past decade (Buerkert and Schlecht, 2012). Developing countries often import dairy products to meet increasing demand for organic milk and other products, especially in urban areas. Some governments in the global south support (organic) dairy farming because it promotes health by providing a variety of diets, and it adds to the household income. Different countries have special governmental or NGO programmes to increase the number of dairy animals aimed at improving diets and alleviating poverty (FAO, 2016b; Mwebaze and Kjaer, 2013; EADD, 2014; SDP, 1997; Srairi et al., 2013; Ndambi, 2008; RDCPII, 2015; http://dx.doi.org/10.19103/AS.2016.0005.41 © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

364

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

Lipita et al., 2015). Staal et al. (2008) advise policy-makers and development investors to resist the assumption that the role of smallholders is ending and that efforts should now be made to support larger scale, ‘more efficient’ milk production to meet growing consumer demand. Instead, that growing demand should be used as a mechanism to help continue and sustain smallholder dairy enterprises. Contrary to promotion of dairy farming in developing countries is the growing import of skimmed milk powder from the EU which risks undermining the development of the local dairy industry (Goodison, 2015). Goodison (2015) proposes the creation of a right ‘not to be harmed by the imposition of trade rules’, which is particularly important in developing countries that seek to promote the development of local milk-to-dairy supply chains as part of their broader agriculture and rural development policies. Many smallholder farming families with certified organic cash crop production keep non-organic dairy cows to provide the family with milk and valuable manure for the crops. The animals can be fed partly with residues from the organic cash crops, as well as with industrial by-products and grass from common land and roadsides. This milk is produced from low-value forage with family labour. In cases where it is impossible to harvest grass on the farm, organic dairy farming becomes far more costly, for example, in terms of feed costs, and hence requires more effort, when farming according to organic rules and regulations. Smallholder farmers are not provided with many incentives for converting the herd to certified organic production (Odong et al., 2014; Nalubwama et al., 2011). In studies of organic production involving dairy cattle in Uganda and Kenya, the majority of farms had less than 5 dairy animals and the amount of milk sold was generally low (300–1500 kg of milk per year per cow and sold milk was only up to 50% of the milk produced). In some cases, the cows were only producing during the rainy season (Nalubwama et al., 2016; Wambugu et al., 2011; Olwande et al., 2015), and organic milk was not priced at a premium. In Kenya, Wambugu et al. (2011) estimated that the informal milk market controls about 70% of the total amount of milk marketed. In other African countries it could be even higher and a large part of the milk is used as raw milk (i.e. not pasteurized). This informal sector is important and is driven by the traditional preferences for fresh raw milk and its relatively lower cost. Raw milk markets offer both higher prices to producers and lower prices to consumers (Wambugu et al., 2011); this way they could provide an opportunity for selling good-quality organic milk, with or without certification. From the point of view of the dairy industry, the volumes of organic milk are relatively low and collecting different lines of milk only increases logistic challenges. In Sub-Saharan Africa the number of cattle per human is far higher than in Western Europe: 0.35 versus 0.21 head of cattle per human, respectively (FAO, 2006). In highly populated areas in the global south, there is a competition between land used for human food and animal feed. Dairy animals are not efficient users of nitrogen (protein) and phosphorus compared to other farm animals. Depending on the yield, cows retain between 31% (high yielding cow) and 50% (for a low yielding cow) of the total protein intake (Wit et al., 1997). For the most efficient production of food, dairy animals should only eat feedstuffs that humans cannot use: roughage grown on soil, where no food will grow because of soil condition, (slope or landscape) and by-products of (processed) human food, which in the case of ‘organic dairy production’ should, of course, comply with organic standards and principles in their growth and processing. In other words, animals should add value in the form of milk and meat to material that cannot be digested by humans (Herrero et al., 2013). It is supported by and in accordance with the organic farming principles, taking © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries365

Figure 1 Seasonality in milk production in Kenya in kg per animal per month (Wambugu et al., 2011).

a systems approach and emphasizing that resources should be recycled and different farm elements connected in a farming system. One of the main reasons that fodder crops are rarely used for animal feed in the global south is that cultivated land is scarce and therefore prioritized for humans. In large areas of the world the number of animals do not match the amount and quality of locally available feed. That is especially clear in regions with a dry season, where feed scarcity causes a dramatic drop in milk yield and even starving animals, particularly in areas where the size of the herd is contributing with its social/cultural value rather than by being productive (Millogo, 2010). In countries in the global south, farmers are often unable to buy feed from outside the farm. Furthermore, aiming at certified organic dairy production is challenged by the seasonality of production which is largely based on rain-fed feed. Both crop yield and, therefore, milk yield are highly dependent on the annual rain pattern, although animals can often produce even under very dry circumstances, as opposed to crops. In Figure 1, an example is given of the seasonality of milk production in Kenya due to feed and water shortage. On the other hand, with optimal rain, crops yield more than animals (Lee et al., 2014) which gives farmers an opportunity to harvest roughage in the wet season and store it for the dry season. This practice is slowly increasing, and the use of crop residues and industrial by-products is gaining importance (Makesha, 2016). The main focus of this chapter will be (organic) dairy farming in African countries because Africa is a continent where animal production has traditionally always been important and organic dairying is increasing. The continent has the world’s largest number of (smallholder) dairy producers, and the potential for dairying in the near future can be turned into real development with an increasing middle class and its increasing interest in and purchasing power to buy organic animal products.

2  Characteristics of milk from different species Cow milk production is predominant in Africa, followed by goat milk, sheep milk and camel milk (Bingi and Tondel, 2015). The development in the number of potentially milk-producing animals in Africa is given in Figure 2. ‘Potentially milk producing animals’ refers to the number of dairy animals that can be milked, which also highlights that especially in pastoral systems, a large part of the dairy herd is not milked. In many smallholder © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

366

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

400.0

Number *1.000.000

350.0 300.0 250.0 200.0 150.0 100.0 50.0 0.0

Sheep

Goats

Camels

Cattle

Buffaloes 1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

Year

Figure 2 Number of potentially milk-producing animals in Africa from 1991 to 2012, in million animals (Faostat, 2016).

systems, some cows are not milked as long as a calf is suckling (up to 5–6 months of age). The number of potentially milk-producing animals is continuously increasing and reached a total of more than 1 billion in 2013 in Africa, with the majority being sheep and goat. The number of animals shows steady increases in the last decade and can be expected to develop in the same way in the near future. Camels and buffaloes are a minority in African countries (Faostat, 2016). The total value of the milk produced in Africa is increasing too, as shown in Figure 3, in particular cow milk. The trade of milk from goats, sheep, buffaloes and camels in Africa is small but also increasing. Goat milk generally has about the same amount of fat and lactose as cow milk, but contains more protein, magnesium, manganese and selenium than cow milk, less vitamin C and no precursor of vitamin A (Devendra, 1980). Goat milk composition depends on the breed and conditions under which the goats are kept and can be used by people allergic to cow’s milk. Goats can withstand harsh conditions and are kept in dry and semi-dry conditions. In a review of Knights and Garcia (1997) goats are better at producing milk from low-quality forage to cows, sheep and buffaloes. Goats are often kept in free-range herds or tethered during the day and kept indoors at night to prevent them from being stolen. Sheep milk contains higher levels of fat, protein and total solids than cow milk (Park et al., 2007). While making cheese, it is important to notice that renneting parameters for sheep milk are affected by its physico-chemical properties, including pH, larger casein micelle, more calcium per casein weight and the presence of other minerals in the milk, which can cause variations in coagulation time and rate, curd firmness and the amount of rennet needed. Buffalo milk contains more fat, protein, beta casein and total solids than cow milk, the contents of calcium, phosphorus and magnesium are higher and it has a longer shelf life. The higher fat content in buffalo milk helps increase the quantity of milk supplied to the cities by reducing the fat content to 3% by adding skimmed milk. Higher total solids © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries367 14000

USD*1.000.000

12000 Sheep

10000

Goat 8000

Camel Buffalo

6000

Cow 4000 2000 0

1991

1996

2001

2006

2011

Year

Figure 3 Development of the value of milk in Africa, period 1991–2013, in million USD (Faostat, 2016).

in buffalo milk also provide more calories than cow milk (100 calories are derived from 100 g of buffalo milk while 70 calories from 100 g of cow milk). No allergic reactions to buffalo milk are reported (Talpur et al., 2007). Camel milk has low fat (1.5–3%), low protein (2.5%) and has a longer shelf life, and higher ratio of ß-casein to k-casein than cow milk. Processing cheese is difficult because of variations in protein content. Fresh and fermented camel milk is an important nutritional and functional source and has been reported to provide particular health benefits to the consumer because of the presence of bioactive substances. More extensive research is needed to confirm these suggested health benefits, including its role as an antimicrobial agent or as a protein source for children allergic to bovine milk (Patil, 2011; Alhaj and Al Kanhal, 2010). The opportunities for producing certified organic camels milk are limited due to the way in which the majority of camels are kept in (migratory) pastoral subsistence systems, although these systems can be considered organic by default as there are no chemicals or mineral fertilizers (Schwartz, 2013). However, the economic incentive to convert and certify the production by an enhanced price for the milk is lacking. Milk from animals grazing fresh grass generally has a more desirable fatty acid composition, seen from a human health view, than milk from non-grazing cows (ŚrednickaTober et al., 2016). A meta-analysis showed that organic milk has significantly higher a-tocopherol and Fe, but lower I and Se concentrations. On (certified) organic farms cows are grazed; on conventional farms cows can be grazed, but on the industrialized farms in developing countries, the majority of the cows are kept indoors and are fed low-freshgrass-diets. In an overview of Hamadani and Khan (2015) the beneficial effects of organic milk are summarized, assuming that organic cows are grazing fresh grass and organic principles are respected, including limited use of antibiotics and no hormones, pesticides or genetically modified organisms in animal feeds. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

368

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

3  Organic dairy production 3.1  Principles of organic dairy production Organic dairy farmers should keep the animals according to organic principles and apply the rules and regulations of the certifying organization in their country or region (EAS, 2007). When dairy products are exported, they must also meet the regulations of the countries the products are exported to. The International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM, 2014) published the following list of principles: •• Fairness means that those involved in organic agriculture (OA) should conduct human relationships in a manner ensuring fairness at all levels to all parties: farmers, workers, processors, distributors, traders and consumers. OA should provide everyone involved with a good quality of life and contribute to food sovereignty and poverty eradication. Fairness also means that animals should be provided with the conditions and opportunities suiting their physiology, natural behaviour and well-being. Natural and environmental resources used for production and consumption should be managed in ways which are socially and ecologically just and should be held in trust for future generations. •• Health of the soil, plants, animals, humans and planet are indivisible and must be sustained and enhanced. The health of individuals and communities cannot be separated from the health of ecosystems. Healthy soils produce healthy crops, thereby fostering the well-being of animals and people. •• Care means that the health and well-being of current and future generations as well as the environment should be managed in a precautionary and responsible manner. Practitioners of OA can enhance efficiency and increase productivity, but this should not be at the risk of jeopardizing health and well-being. Consequently, new technologies need to be assessed and existing methods reviewed. Given the incomplete understanding of ecosystems and agriculture, care must be taken. Science is necessary to ensure that OA is healthy, safe and ecologically sound. However, scientific knowledge alone is not sufficient. Practical experience, accumulated wisdom and traditional and indigenous knowledge offer valid solutions tested over time. Significant risks should be prevented by adopting appropriate technologies and rejecting unpredictable ones such as genetic engineering. •• Ecology means that OA should be based on living ecological systems and cycles, working with them, emulating them and helping sustain them. Production should be based on ecological processes and recycling. Organic farming, pastoral and wild harvest systems should fit the site-specific cycles and ecological balances in nature. Organic management must be adapted to local conditions, ecology, culture and scale. Inputs should be reduced by reuse, recycling and efficient management of materials and energy to maintain and improve environmental quality and conserve resources. OA should attain ecological balance through better designed farming systems, establishment of habitats and maintenance of genetic and agricultural diversity. Those who produce, process, trade or consume organic products should protect landscapes, climate, habitats, biodiversity, air and water. The organic regulations reflect these principles, but shape them into something which can be checked and accessed meaningfully. In practice it means, for instance, that animals © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries369

should have enough space to move, a non-slippery surface in their stabling, enough goodquality feed, access to fresh water and pasture, freedom to behave naturally and treatment when diseased. Tethering may be practised, provided it does not affect the well-being of the animal and adequate feed, shade and water is provided. The animal must be able to move freely within the grazing area without getting entangled or choked and the tether shall not cause wounds or otherwise physically harm the animals. In Zambia tethering of dairy animals is forbidden (Afrisco, 2011). Animals must have the opportunity to feed according to their natural behaviour, for example, grazing. However, where providing fodder is a more sustainable way to use land resources than grazing, animals may be fed with brought fodder, provided they have access to an outdoor run regularly (EAS, 2007). Cattle should be provided with rations containing enough roughage to stimulate ruminating, so with limited amounts of by-products or concentrates. Living conditions must promote health and in cases where disease treatments are considered necessary, they should preferably be based on non-synthetic medicine, or involve ‘natural medicine’ such as phytotherapy or homoeopathy. Wolde and Tamir (2016) pose that organic livestock farming is based on the principle of a close link between animals and the soil. The need for a link with the soil requires animals to have free access to outside areas for exercise and also implies that their feed should not only be organic, but be made on the farm.

3.2  Challenges of converting to organic dairy production In tropical countries especially there are specific and widely varied challenges converting to organic, some of which are listed in the bullet points below: •• Smallholder farmers often do not have a grazing area, but use communal pastures which are shared with animals reared conventionally. This creates challenges not only in terms of defining ‘an organic pasture’ but also between the animals, where, for example, the use of communal bulls for breeding and (infected) stray animals interfering with dairy herds makes it challenging to stay free of certain diseases. •• Organic farming requires special skills and knowledge which is not always easily accessible. •• Organic concentrates and ingredients are scarce and roughage quality, especially in the dry season, is too low for a profitable yield. •• Contagious diseases such as brucellosis, foot-and-mouth disease, East Coast fever and tuberculosis are still common in countries in the global south. •• Animals of organic origin are rarely available on the market. In case of low breeding results or high mortality in the herd, the regulations demand supplementation with organic animals. •• Organic certification and inspection costs money: for smallholder farmers producing small volumes of milk, it is difficult if not impossible to make a financial profit converting to organic. •• Local markets for organic dairy products are not fully developed so there is no premium price for organic products. •• Export of organic dairy products should not be the main focus in developing countries and might be limited by regulations and requirements concerning the danger of importing diseases (Vaarst et al., 2005). Farming according to organic principles and keeping animals in integrated farming systems is beneficial for soil health and fertility and prevents environmental degradation © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

370

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

and desertification. When livestock is integrated into the whole system, it creates a situation where the livestock contribute to the system and, at the same time, the system supports the animals’ well-being and helps ensure the organic principle of fairness (Odong, 2014).

4  Dairy production systems in Africa In most African countries, agriculture is the backbone of the economy; it is dominated by smallholder farmers who occupy the majority of land and produce most of the crops and livestock (Salami et al., 2010). Ndambi et al. (2007) divide the African dairy cow production systems into traditional systems, semi-intensive systems and intensive systems. •• In traditional (pastoral) systems, local breeds are kept for beef (and subsistence milk) in herds up to 300 low-yielding cows and young stock and a small portion of the milk is sold. •• In the semi-intensive system, large state-owned farms or cooperatives keep large herds of local and exotic breeds with an average annual milk yield of 2500 kg per cow and up to 80% of the milk is sold. •• In intensive systems smallholder farmer families keep 1–20 exotic and/or crossbreeds with local cows and young stock on limited areas, yielding 1500–3500 kg of milk per year and sell 50–60% of the milk. A large proportion of milk is produced in these sedentary production systems, usually without grazing, with cows kept in stalls and fed forage. Intensive systems become increasingly important, especially in urban areas where they are close to input and output markets (Bingi and Tondel, 2015). Sudan, Kenya, South Africa and Egypt are the top four milk producers of the continent (Faostat, 2016). Some smallholder farmers earn other income from sources other than farming (Omunyin et al., 2014), although Lipita et al. (2015) reported that in Malawi the majority of dairy farmers had milk production as their main occupation. In organic farming, cows should at least have outdoor access and preferably be grazing to enable them to show natural behaviour (IFOAM, 2014). The East African regulations for organic farming (EAS, 2007) also require access to grazing, except in situations where it is more sustainable to bring fodder, due to sustainable land use and provided that the animals have access to an outdoor run regularly. The regulations also say that grazing management shall not degrade soil, pasture and water resources (EAS, 2007). In countries with communal land and no such regulations, overgrazing and land degradation are serious risks with increasing (grazing) animal numbers (Leeuw and Reid, 1995). In organic farming, records should be kept to show that management is in compliance with the regulations. Record keeping is a challenge and traditionally most smallholder farmers have not kept records. As dairy farming evolves into a business instead of being subsistence based, the importance of record keeping increases. In households more and more members have a formal school education and will be able to keep records.

4.1 Feed Most farmers with dairy animals are dependent on natural grasses. In a minority of farms this is supplemented with concentrates in some form, for example, industrial by-products. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries371

Land for dairy cows is small or unavailable and grass has to be found on communal land or on roadsides and between bushes. Fodder crops like maize for silage are often rare because labour and land are scarce. Furthermore, maize may be needed for human consumption, or a cash crop for the local or regional markets rather than be available as a fodder crop. Some farmers grow improved grasses to ensure high-quality roughage. In large areas there is a big difference between the wet and the dry season in availability of feed, as well as the quality of natural grasses, which is much lower in the dry season (Idibu et al., 2016; Hatungumukama et al., 2007). A scenario study was undertaken by Klapwijk et al. (2014) to evaluate the one-cow-per-poor-family-programme in Rwanda. The scenarios had different ratios of Pennisetum purpureum, Calliandra calothyrsus and banana plant parts in the rotation. It shows that the poorest farmers are not able to feed a local cow under all scenarios. Moderately wealthy farmers can sustain a local cow during both seasons when using all possible fodder resources, but can sustain an exotic cow only during the rainy season. Wealthy farmers can feed an exotic cow during both the rainy and dry season. Previously, it has never been the practice to harvest and store roughage in the wet season for the dry season, although supplementation with Napier grass during the dry season will increase milk yield and the content of fat and protein (Nyambati et al., 2003). In countries with no shortage of land, farmers graze their animals further away from their homestead in the dry season. When farmers do not have this possibility, it is common practice to dry off cows because of feed scarcity. In extension programmes, harvesting and storage of roughage is one of the main issues and example farms can be visited to demonstrate the profitability of saving feed from the wet season to provide the cows with enough quality feed in the dry season. Lack of available organic by-products and or concentrates is a challenge. In research projects, crop residuals and by-products of, for instance, pineapple have been tested with different ratios of beans to find the best ration for dairy cattle (Kiggundu et al., 2014) and proteinrich feeds (Bwire et al., 2004) to ensure that these feed stuffs do not affect the milk quality. Khan et al. (2009) recognized that milk production is much more dependent on the quantity and quality of feed eaten, rather than on the genetic merits and traits of the animal. When concentrates and/or industrial by-products are available, dairy breeds with a high capacity for milk production supply more milk than indigenous breeds are able to do. Currently, the amount of organic food is increasing in many developing countries and industrial by-products for organic animals must be expected to be increasingly available as well. According to the African organic standards (EAS, 2007; Afrisco, 2011) the ration should contain at least 60% organic roughage, preferably from the owner’s farm or in cooperation with local farmers to have closed mineral circles. When farmers purchase roughage from others or produce own roughage from communal land the quality and status of the feed will be difficult to assess in most cases (Odong, 2014). There are no special regulations concerning water for organic animals. In many regions, the availability of good-quality water is a constant challenge. The rule that there should always be water available cannot be met when water has to be carried from a distance. This surely affects the animal well-being in many cases, and it can affect its health, resulting in disappointingly low milk yield.

4.2 Breeds Smallholder livestock farmers often keep mixed herds. That can be two or more animal species of sheep, donkey, goats and cattle of several local breeds, which serve different © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

372

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

purposes (e.g., milk, meat, draught, manure, leather, prestige and ‘life insurance’). Some are high producers only under good conditions; others perform lower but are efficient under difficult conditions (Bayer et al., 2001). The breeding goal for dairy cows is formulated by Bayer et al. (2001) as follows: animals should produce milk from basic rations and should not require too much concentrate. When dry, they should survive on low-quality forage. The optimal milk yield should be strongly independent of roads for transport of recourses and dairy products and input supply and animals should have a good fertility. The breeding industry has been less successful in developing dairy breeds that perform well in non-modified tropical low-input environments (FAO, 2006). On the other hand, exotic breeds (Holstein Frisian, Jersey, Ayrshire) have been imported in the developing countries for many years in some countries replacing most of the local breeds. When high-quality feed is available and the rest of the management meets the requirements of those exotic breeds, it can be profitable because of their higher milk yield. Bebe and co-authors (2003) found that farmers with local breeds such as Zebu, Boran and Sahiwal rank production for home-consumption highest, and farmers with exotic breeds rank milk production for farm-income highest. It is not the size of the farm that determines whether exotic animals can thrive, but the amount and quality of the feed and quality of the management. Kawambwa et al. (2014) state that the widely held misconception: that commercial milk production can only be undertaken with exotic animal breeds is one of the barriers for development of the dairy industry. Actually, a substantial amount of milk of a better quality (because of higher fat content) can be obtained from local breeds, compared to exotic breeds. According to Herath and Mohamad (2009) exotic breeds are by definition not well adapted to the local climate, feed resources and management systems and require environmental modifications to remain reasonably healthy and productive. A meta-analysis from Oliveira (2015) suggests that crosses of local and exotic breeds have a lower maintenance energy level, but are less efficient converting energy into milk. Kahi et al. (2000) predicted performances of nine crossbreeding strategies for milk production and reproductive traits. The study shows that Frisian* Sahiwal cows were closely rivalled by the Brown Swiss*Frisian* Sahiwal rotation and the four-breed cross with unequal parts of Ayrshire Brown Swiss, Friesian and Sahiwal. This led to the conclusion that a two-breed cross is generally not best suited for dairy production systems in the tropics. Also Hatungumukama et al. (2007) found in Burundi that 50% and 75% crossbreeds performed better than the pure local and exotic breeds. Local breeds are mainly grazing, while exotic breeds are mainly zero grazing (Bebe et al., 2003a). Because of low resistance against tropical diseases and low adaptation to local climatic conditions, cows often do not perform as expected or planned for. This means that fertility is low, calving intervals are prolonged and animal welfare is at risk (Berman, 2011; Buaban et al., 2015). According to the review of Berman (2011) breeds suited for warm climates and F1-crosses generally are characterized by having lower maintenance requirements and lower milk yields. In donation programmes where farmers are given an exotic animal, there should be greater emphasis on the quality of the management on the farm. If there is a risk of poor management and no possibility of combining donations with educational programmes, it must be recommended that exotic animals should not be given to farms, to prevent false hope and suffering. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries373

4.3  Natural mating versus artificial insemination In organic farming natural mating is in principle preferred over artificial insemination because it is a part of natural behaviour and needs. When farmers have their own bulls or when communal bulls are used, knowledge about breeding performances are lacking. In addition, breeding diseases can spread to all the cows that are served by the communal bull (Bebe et al., 2003). Artificial insemination becomes more common among smallholder dairy farmers, due to subsidized support from projects and cooperatives and because of better breeding possibilities as the traits of the bulls are known. Unsubsidised AI is expensive compared to natural service, mainly because of the poor state of rural roads and other transport costs, and these are unlikely to change in the near future (Bebe et al., 2003). Part of the long calving intervals in tropical countries are caused by untimely insemination (Tadesse and Dessie, 2003) due to missing heat signs and lack of AI-service at the right time. The farmers’ abilities to detect cows in heat are a great challenge when using artificial insemination combined with the logistics of the insemination technicians. As a result, some artificial insemination organizations insist on synchronizing heat, where the farmer applies hormones according to a scheme, ensuring that cows are in heat and ready for insemination at a fixed day. AI technicians are able to plan their route as soon as the farmers start applying hormones because they know that the animal will be in heat, for example, 10 days later. Depending on the type of hormones and the scheme used, no heat detection is necessary (blind insemination could be done) or heat detection is part of the scheme. In organic farming using hormones to synchronize heat is not allowed and farmers have to be educated in detecting heat in cows and young stock, to determine the best period to inseminate animals. This requires that AI organizations must improve logistics to make it possible to inseminate animals during the desired period to ensure a high pregnancy rate.

4.4  Housing and grazing Animals shall be protected from direct sunlight, excessive noise, heat, rain, mud and wind to reduce stress and ensure their well-being. At the same time, animals shall have sufficient space for free movement, sufficient dry and clean lying and resting area provided with natural bedding according to their natural behaviour (EAS, 2007). More and more stables also serve as a collection yard for manure to be used in a bio-digester to produce biogas. For smallholder dairy farmers, it is difficult complying with organic farming regulations. Very few smallholder farmers have loose housing systems and when available they do not use it as such: cows are tethered in the feeding rack and/or in cubicles. Many smallholder farmers do not have housing facilities for the cows, or – in many cases where there are structures – they are insufficient in terms of space, hygiene level, floor quality and other important factors for good animal health and welfare. The protection that housing should offer can – depending on the circumstances – also be reached with a cover under a roof of leaves or local building materials, provided that the soil is kept clean and the area is well drained. In many African systems cows are tethered under a tree or in pasture. Tethering may be practised as long as it does not affect the well-being of the animals. Animals must have access to adequate feed, shade and water. The method of tethering must allow them to move freely within the grazing area, without getting entangled or choked and without © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

374

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

causing wounds (EAS, 2007). In some countries (i.e. Zambia, South Africa) tethering of animals is forbidden (Afrisco, 2011). Zero grazing is not the preferred system in organic dairy, because it does not fulfil the requirements mentioned above. Wambugu and co-authors (2011) showed in a study with four different ‘grazing’ systems in Kenya that grazing systems provided higher economic profit than zero-grazing systems. Zero-grazing cows produced more milk but the system increased costs providing concentrates, maintenance and repairs. Bebe et al. (2003a) showed that many zero-grazed herds in Kenya required external sources of replacement animals to sustain their populations. The productive life of zero-grazed animals was about a year shorter than that of grazed animals. Grazing cows need extra feed to be able to walk over longer distances: in a study from Rocha et al. (1991) cows on average walked more than 12 km per day and in the dry season up to 16 km a day to find grass.

4.5  Fertility and reproduction In organic farming, farmers are encouraged to close nutrient and mineral circles and use local resources wherever feasible. To maximize profit as much as possible from locally available feed, seasonal calving is preferred. This ensures that the period with the greatest energy and protein requirements for the animals coincides with the highest feed supply. This also means that for the optimal production of the cows, the calving interval should be about one year, assuming that milk yield is too low to rely on extended lactations over a period of more than 1.5 years. However, seasonal calving also means that the availability of milk for the dairy varies significantly over the year conflicting with efficient milk processing. In countries in the global south, animals often only start producing at a mature age (not calving until at least 30 months old) and calving intervals are long with low milk yield due to breed, ratio of calves and cows, availability of bulls and suckling of calves till weaning. (Tadesse and Dessie, 2003; Mgeni, 2010; Omunyin et al., 2014; Kanuya et al., 2000; Kanuya et al., 2006).

Table 1 Average total milk yield, annual milk yield and daily milk yield in kg, calving interval in days and breeding efficiency of local dairy breeds and cross breeds with Holstein Friesian in Ethiopia

Total milk (kg)

Annual milk (kg)

Daily milk (kg)

Calving interval (days)

Breeding efficiency (%)

Barca

869

1099

4.46

397

–

1/2 Barca*1/2 Friesian

2055

1903

6.66

415

92

1/2 Boran*1/2 Friesian

1740

1752

5.93

440

99

1/4 Barka* 3/4 Friesian

2214

1797

6.17

474

87

1/4 Boran*3/4 Friesian

2044

1689

5.77

471

87

1/8 Barca*7/8 Friesian

2381

1511

5.84

512

86

1/8 Boran*7/8 Friesian

1902

1420

5.55

493

81

Holstein Friesian

3028

2611

9.99

460

83

Breed groups

Source: Tadesse and Dessie (2003).

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries375

In Table 1, milk yield, calving interval and breeding efficiency of local breeds and crosses with Holstein Friesians are given as an example. Long calving intervals are reported when oestrus detection in artificial insemination (AI) is low and insemination techniques are not optimal (Kanuya et al., 2000). The management systems of the animals should be improved to increase conception rates and reduce health problems (Khan et al., 2009).

4.6  Animal health Livestock can be detrimental to human health and nutrition due to 13 major zoonotic diseases causing some 2.2 million deaths a year, mostly among poor and middle-income populations (Grace et al., 2012). For many endemic zoonoses there is poor understanding of specific risk factors for both human and animal infection, which contributes substantially to a lack of recognition of clinical impacts of disease in animal and human populations. In both developing and developed countries, the emphasis should be on health promotion and disease prevention, rather than relying on curing diseases when they occur. In many tropical countries, epidemic and endemic diseases as well as infectious diseases are dominant and biosecurity measures in terms of closed herds are important components in achieving manageable disease control. Obviously the potential for adoption of this varies considerably between systems and regions. Many traditional farming systems involve, or even rely on, movement between herds and flocks, for example, the sharing and loaning of animals between families, or communal grazing. Additionally, marketing tends to be less formal and less controlled (Vaarst et al., 2006). In many tropical countries contagious animal diseases are common. They lack systematic disease eradication programmes, posing a high disease risk. Animal health is further compromised by poor hygiene as mentioned above and there are higher risks in areas with communal grazing, interference with stray animals (re-wilded goats for instance) and wildlife spreading diseases near wild parks and nature areas. Wildlife species act as reservoirs for several important transboundary animal diseases (Garine-Wichatitsky et al., 2013). Use of communal male animals poses additional risks, even though local breeds are often more resistant to the most common diseases than imported exotic breeds. In all African countries tick-borne diseases and successive problems are prevalent (RubaireAkiiki et al., 2006; Vaarst, 2015; Omunyin et al., 2014; Vaarst et al., 2006). East Coast fever, foot-and-mouth disease, lumpy skin disease, skin sensitivity to light, black quarter and the tsetse-borne trypanosomiasis are the main diseases. Animals adapted to a harsh environment can normally manage without the use of acaricides or anthelmintics (Bayer et al., 2001). In workshops with farmers in Tanzania and Zambia (Smolders, 2015) participants mentioned that the main diseases connected with ticks were East Coast fever and anaplasmosis. Anthrax and foot-and-mouth disease were also mentioned as diseases causing significant losses. The strategy for controlling tick-borne diseases may be to ‘live with it’ in terms of attempting to create endemic stability and to ‘prevent it’ depending on the individual farm or area, climate, type of livestock kept etc. (Vaarst et al., 2006; Rubaire-Akiiki et al., 2006). ‘Living with’ tick-borne disease implies the creation of a balance of challenge and immunity within the management unit. Preventing tick-borne disease implies the prevention of any feeding by ticks on the animal. There are various factors that impinge on the dynamic system, which a manager attempts to create when ‘living with’ tick-borne diseases. The use of a vaccine, for example, is an aid to ‘living with’ the disease. However, the possibilities of vaccination against diseases are not always available for farmers because © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

376

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

they lack finances to pay for the service and vaccination schemes vary in the different countries. Interventions that control zoonotic infection in animal populations or prevent disease transmission from animals to people may offer more effective and economically viable approaches to disease management than those focusing on the human population alone. This is particularly true where zoonotic infections have a detrimental effect on household livelihoods through the impact of infection on livestock reproductive success and productivity (Halliday et al., 2008). Veterinary medicine, including antibiotics, is often immediately accessible without the need for a prescription from a trained veterinarian. Knowledge about (double) withdrawal periods for organic animals is not always shared and antibiotics from subcutaneous injection are not expected to appear in the milk, so milk is not withdrawn. The different modes of application are not always respected (subcutaneous injection or intramammary application). Vaarst et al. (2006) showed examples from Uganda and stated that farmers were generally uneducated as regard the use of veterinary medicine or the handling of treated animal food products for human consumption. Prevalence of penicillin in milk samples was found to be up to 15%, in tissue up to 23%. Vaarst et al. (2006) refer to studies of mastitis prevalence and management (Byarugaba, 2004; Byarugaba et al., 2001) where many farmers were found to be under-dosing when treating mastitis, for example, using one intramammary tube to all four glands. Such practices may partly explain antimicrobial resistance levels which in these studies were found to be up to 100% for tetracycline, ampicillin and cloxacillin for the main mastitis pathogens. This clearly illustrates that a high level of antimicrobial resistance can develop for widely different reasons, here misuse and under-use, rather than extensive use of antibiotics. In organic animal farming, farmers are encouraged to use natural, locally available treatments. The indigenous knowledge about those treatments is disappearing in many places and guidance is rarely given in the manuals farmers are provided with (NAADS, 2011; FIBL, 2001; We-effect, 2014; Kinsey, 1993).

4.7  Milking: technique and methods In developing countries there are a variety of applied milking techniques and systems, not always promoting the best hygiene or the highest milk quality and food safety. On smallholder farms, hand milking is the most common method and when yields are low, milking often takes place only once a day, usually in the morning. In some areas, milk collection centres (MCCs) only operate in the morning. This means that farmers who also milk in the afternoon have to cool the milk on the farm before it is transported to the collection centre the following morning. The hand-milking technique used is either stripping out the milk from the udder or the generally preferred method of squeezing. The latter usually causes less stress on the udder tissue and a lower incidence of mastitis compared with the stripping method without affecting the milk yield (Millogo et al., 2012). It is quite common for calves to get part of the milk from its mother, rather than milk substitutes. For some indigenous breeds, it is almost a precondition for letting the milk down that the calf suckles while milking. In organic dairy herds, it should be cow’s milk (or an organic milk replacement). This can be done by (restricted) suckling in different ways. Farmers leave part of the milk in the udder and let the calf suckle after milking for a short period or alternatively let the calf suckle before milking. Combellas and co-authors (2003) found that suckling before milking or the presence of the calf during milking © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries377

increased the amount of saleable milk and its fat content, at the expense of the amount of milk consumed by the calves. A study with restricted suckling for 30 minutes a day after morning and afternoon milking in Mexico (Fröberg et al., 2008) revealed that this practice stimulated udder health compared to only hand milking. The bacteriological quality of the water used to wash the udder and milking utensils is often very poor, which creates a major problem in rural areas. A study of Gran et al. (2002) in Zimbabwe showed that the water quality was unsatisfactory due to the presence of Escherichia coli. The quality could be improved by adding chloride or by boiling the water, but few farmers used detergent to clean utensils. In this study, a positive correlation was found between the herd size and the number of Coliform bacteria in the milk at delivery, possibly because of a delay in delivery due to increased total milking time.

4.8  Collecting milk, milk losses and the milk market Dairy farming starts with a cow producing milk for the household and producing manure for the crops. The animal can turn grass and crop residues into valuable milk for the family. Any surplus milk can be sold or just given away to neighbours. When dairying becomes a business, the milk has to be collected, processed and transported to shops. Owing to the small volumes of milk available per farm, it is impossible for the dairy companies to collect the milk at the farm. In many countries cooperatives are established with the main aim of running an MCC. To date there is only one type of milk and hardly any certified organic milk is collected. Farmers bring the milk as soon as possible after morning milking to the collection centre where it is weighed and sampled and collected in a cooled milk bulk tank. The milk can be rejected by the reception attendant if the hygiene and/or scent are inadequate. The cans are rinsed with water and can be taken home after the process is finished: both the farmer and the milk reception attendant sign for the amount of milk. The same procedure is repeated in the evening, although some collection centres are only open in the mornings. A large proportion of farmers milk only once a day or utilize the milk from the evening milking for their own use (in the household, for calves and for local sales). The amounts of milk per farmer vary widely from less than 5 litres per day to more than 200 litres. The quality of the milk increases dramatically when aluminium cans are used to transport the milk. In some areas milk is only accepted when delivered in aluminium cans and farmers are helped to buy them with loans from the MCC. In other areas it is impossible to convince farmers to invest in such cans and cooperatives are unable to offer loans. Mwebaze and Kjaer (2013) describe how plastic cans could replace aluminium containers in Uganda due to the successful intervention of the Dairy Development Authority. As a result all kinds of plastic buckets with a lid are being used to transport the milk by bike, moped or motorbike over distances up to 30 km, decreasing in bacteriological quality during transport (Gran et al., 2002). Better-trained farmers and shorter delivery time result in more hygienic milk (Mhone et al., 2011). Lipita et al. (2015) report that in Malawi 72% of dairy farmers use a bike to transport milk and attend markets. The poor road infrastructure in small-scale production areas adversely affects milk transportation from farms to the collection centres and subsequently from the collection centres to the processors. The lack of electricity in most areas has limited the establishment of cooling plants (Wambugu et al., 2011) and opportunities to cool the milk on the farm. The collection centres have a contract with a dairy company with the milk being collected every day and transported in a cooled tanker to be processed and packed, mostly as fresh pasteurized milk and a little as yogurt, in plastic bags with different volumes. © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

378

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

Poor bacteriological milk quality limits the volumes of processed products that processors can supply, especially for value-added products such as milk powder, sour milk, cheese and yogurt (Bingi and Tondel, 2015), and can be at a dangerous level when it reaches the consumer (Millogo, 2010). Dependent on the general quality of the milk, based on hygiene (bacterial count) some dairy companies pay a price corresponding to the grade of the total milk delivered at the MCC rather than that supplied by individual farmers. Few dairies pay for fat and protein content of the milk of the MMC. The MCC gets a small fee for their services. Most cooperatives also provide other services: they sell concentrates (mainly industrial by-products) and veterinary medicine, they arrange and subsequently refund loans, collect the interest and they sell semen straws for artificial insemination. A few also arrange courses in animal husbandry, feed harvesting and storage and have an employed advisor. All costs are deducted from the milk sold and farmers are paid the remaining amount every two to four weeks. A few farmers have started their own small-scale processing plants and marketed the products themselves in the local community. Challenges are the unreliable electricity supply (if available at all), the availability of clean water and for local farmers, aluminium cans, lack of cooling facilities for the milk and long distances to the MCC in hot temperatures. Feed shortage in the dry season leads farmers to dry off cows after a short lactation period to prevent cows getting skinny and being susceptible to disease but results in less marketable milk. For the dairy processors the small and changing volumes between the wet and dry season prevent efficient market planning. The loss of milk due to spoilage is also cited as a major risk for all stakeholders in the dairy supply chain, resulting in lost income and supply disruptions (Bingi and Tondel, 2015). A report from the International Livestock Research Institute (Lore et al., 2005) shows that significant milk losses occur at the farm level (8.4, 28.6, 46.4 and 54.2 million litres of milk per year for Uganda, Ethiopia, Tanzania and Kenya, respectively) valued at approximately 0.9–11 million USD. Post-harvest losses of milk at the farm represented 1.3–6.4% of the value of available milk at the farm level. Poor road infrastructure and inadequate markets for raw milk are the main causes of farm-level losses which are largely in the form of spoilage, spillage and ‘forced home consumption’ (by calves and humans) over and above normal household consumption. Although in quantity terms forced losses may seem to be high, in value terms they are less significant, because an estimated 70% of the value of the milk is still captured. Along the marketing chain, milk loss is mainly due to spillage and spoilage. These losses are occasioned by poor access to markets, poor milk handling practices as well as irregular power supply in milk processing plants. On the basis of the dry season rapid appraisal data, the total value of post-harvest milk losses per year amounted 9.9, 14.2, 17.8 and 23.9 million USD for Tanzania, Ethiopia, Kenya and Uganda, respectively.

5  Conclusion and future trends The major changes in consumption patterns, population growth, rising per capita incomes in parts of the world and urbanization all increase the demand for food. Rising incomes prompt consumers to increase their consumption of animal protein (OECD/FAO, 2015). Dairy products are exported by many traditional ‘dairy countries’ in the global north, and are imported by countries in the global south, although the bulk of milk is locally produced. At a global level, the demand for dairy products is foreseen by the OECD/FAO (2015) to © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries379

be expanded by 23% over the next ten years, where the additional dairy production will mainly be consumed as fresh dairy products in the developing world. Milk production is projected to increase by an annual average of 1.8%, with the bulk of the additional milk produced in developing countries. In developing countries, growth in milk production will result from both herd expansion and productivity gains, meaning a fast increase in yield per dairy animal, and smallholder livestock production will remain dominant in Africa and Asia. As developing country economies grow and diversify over time, more rural people will migrate out of livestock production and the remaining smallholder farmers are foreseen to consolidate, specialize and commercialize (McDermott et al., 2010). In contrast, if the world should be able to feed itself, less animal products should be produced at the expenses of human food (Zanten et al., 2016). Where crops produce higher amounts of human digestible protein than animals on the same acreage, food security profits by using the soil for crop production. Where animals produce more human digestible protein than crops, that is, on marginal land less suitable to grow arable crops, animals add to food security. Rations for dairy cows can be supplemented by crop residues and by-products from human food processing. On the African continent, large areas with fertile soils are idle and still not used for agriculture (Ndambi, 2008). They can contribute to food and (indirect) feed production. The demand for dairy products will mainly be concentrated in the urban areas. In competition for land, dairy farming will have to move to rural areas with less market opportunities for dairy products as long as the roads are not available, or it has to be included in more integrated rural–urban planning. Scenarios show (Schader et al., 2013, 2014) that organic farming practices combined with less feed and more food production using agri-ecological approaches can provide food for a growing population. In developing countries, feed production could be far more efficient by intercropping and undersowing legumes, making use of improved grasses, use of scrubs and trees but mostly by conserve roughage as hay and silage and make better use of industrial by-products from human food. Integrated crop – animal farming systems could play an important role in intensified organic farming in developing countries (FAO, 2016; CIAT, 2015). Animals that are able to manage without the use of acaricides or anthelmintics would be classified as ‘organic’, and many local breeds are able to do this. Genetic improvement is central to dairy development efforts. Genetic improvement, in addition to changes in feed regimes, can lead to gains of 60–300% in milk productivity in cattle (McDermott et al., 2010). Encouraging smallholders to keep breeds adapted to local conditions thus offers a chance for entry into an attractive niche market, if – at the same time – good marketing support is provided (Bayer et al., 2001). Farmers and financial institutions providing loans should realize that dairy business is not a short term but a long-term venture. Adoption of One Health approaches is the opportunity to implement control programmes that reduce the multiple impacts of zoonoses in both human and animal populations and could also lead to more healthy animal products (especially milk). Success for development of sustainable dairy production depends on fertile land and reliable water resources and potential for year-round quality fodder production, education of farmers and sustainable extension provision and continuous capacity building in best dairy practices so as to open opportunities for less educated, resource poorer farmers. Dairy producers and dairy processors need reliable market through wet seasons, seasonality and quality premium incentives and timely milk payments (Makoni et al., 2013). A study from Kavoi et al. (2013) concludes that dairy farmers are more responsive to nonprice factors than to price factors, so for development the non-price factors might be © Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

380

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

even more relevant. Smallholder dairy farmers value non-marketable products of their animals, especially for whom the livestock enterprise is typically part of a farm-household set enterprise to provide a livelihood under variable conditions (Moll et al., 2007). The importance for dairy farmers of non-price factors could be a constraint to convert to organic because the higher costs for inputs in organic might not be beneficial in organic non-marketable products. While there is a need for a consistent and a sustained liberalization programme in the dairy sub-sector, it is necessary to increase public expenditure on rural infrastructure, particularly the roads, the rural water supply, strengthening of extension services, human resource development and other agricultural support services in the marginal production zones.

6  Where to look for further information Organic principles, definitions and regulations are set by the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM; www.ifoam.org), with member organisations in 120 countries all over the world. At the website of the Biovision Foundation (http:// www.infonet-biovision.org/AnimalHealth/Animal-health-welfare), you can get further information on the practical application of IFOAM’s organic principles and the various organic standards, under East African and tropical conditions. An overview of the production of organic food is given in ‘The world of organic agriculture: statistics and emerging trends 2017’ edited by Helga Willer and Julia Lernoud, published every year by FIBL (http://www. fibl.org) and IFOAM (www.ifoam.bio). Every three years the world organic congress is held. Although the main focus is soil and plants, also topics about dairy husbandry and dairy processing are on the agenda. Continental congresses and workshops focusing on organic dairy are held more often in the different continents. On the webpages www.ifoam.bio/ en/african-organic-sector links are made with all organic movements and organisations in East Africa. These organic movements organise the East African Organic conferences every two years. The International Centre for Research in Organic Food Systems, ICROFS (www.icrofs.org), has coordinated a research project on organic value chains in East Africa, where the potentials for organic milk production was also researched (more info on http:// icrofs.dk/en/research/international-research/progrov/).

7  References Alhaj, O. A. and Al Kanhal, H. A. (2010), Compositional, technological and nutritional aspects of dromedary camel milk. International Dairy Journal 20, 811–21. Altieri, M. A., (2012), The scaling up of agroecology: spreading the hope for food sovereignty and resiliency. SOCLA’s Rio+20 position paper, 20p. Afrisco, (2011), Afrisco standards for organic production (South Africa), 9, 67p. Bayer, W., Lossau, A. von and Feldmann, A. (2001), Smallholders and Community-Based Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources. Proceedings of the workshop held in Mbabane, Swaziland, 7–11 May, 1–12. Bebe, B. O., Udo, H. M. J., Rowlands, G. J., Thorpe, W. (2003), Smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands: breed preferences and breeding practices. Livestock Production Science 82, 117–27.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries381 Bebe, B. O., Udo, H. M. J., Rowlands, G. J., Thorpe, W. (2003a), Smallholder dairy systems in the Kenya highlands: cattle population dynamics under increasing intensification. Livestock Production Science 82, 211–21. Berman, A., (2011), Invited review: Are adaptations present to support dairy cattle productivity in warm climates? Journal of Dairy Science 94, 2147–58. Bingi, S. and Tondel, F., (2015), Recent developments in the dairy sector in Eastern Africa Towards a regional policy framework for value chain development. ECDPM- brief noting 78, 19p. Buaban, S., Duangjinda, M., Suzuki, M., Masuda, Y., Sanpote, J. and Kuchida, K. (2015), Genetic analysis for fertility traits of heifers and cows from smallholder dairy farms in a tropical environment. Journal of Dairy Science 98, 4990–8. Buerkert, A. and Schlecht, E. (2012), Organic agriculture in developing countries Status quo and challenges. Rural 21, 6–8. Byarugaba, D. K. (2004), A view on antimicrobial resistance in developing countries and responsible risk factors. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents 24(2), 105–10. Byarugaba, D. K., Olilia, D., Azuba, R. M., Kaddu-Mulindwa, D. H., Tumwikirize, W., Ezati, E., Khalid, T. and Mpairwe, Y. (2001), Development of Sustainable Strategies for the Management of Antimicrobial Resistance in Man and Animals at District and National Level in Uganda. Feasibility Report, May 2001, Makerere University. Bwire, J. M. N., Wiktorsson, H., and Shayo, C. M. (2004), Effect of level of Acacia tortilis and Faidherbia albida pods supplementation on the milk quality of dual-purpose dairy cows fed grass hay-based diets. Livestock Production Science 87, 229–36. Chander, M., Subrahmanyeswari, B., Mukherjee, R. and Kumar, S. (2011), Organic livestock production: an emerging opportunity with new challenges for producers in tropical countries. Revue scientifique et technique (International Office of Epizootics) 30 (3), 969–83. CIAT, (2015), Lifestockplus, Fast-tracking tropical forages for twin-win agricultural systems. CIAT strategic initiative 2014-20, 6p. Combellas, J., Tesorero, M. and Gabaldo, L. (2003), Effect of calf stimulation during milking on milk yield and fat content of Bos indicus*Bos taurus cows. Livestock Production Science 79, 227–32. Devendra, C. (1980), Milk Production in Goats Compared to Buffalo and Cattle in Humid Tropics. Journal of Dairy Science 63, 1755–1767. EADD, (2014), East Africa Dairy Development, phase II, Tanzania, Annual Report, 12p. EAS, (2007) East African standards. East African organic products standard. East African Community, Arusha, Tanzania, 23p. FAO, (2006), Livestock’s long shadow: environmental issues and options. LEAD-website: http://www. viralcentre.org, 390p. FAO, (2016), Integration of crop and livestock production in conservation agriculture: guidelines for project design, www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/agphome/images/iclsd/.../wk3_c4_rota.doc, 15p. FAO, 2016b, http://www.fao.org/agriculture/dairy-gateway/projects-and-programmes (Uganda, Djibouti and Somalia). Faostat, (2016), http://faostat3.fao.org/download/Q/QA/E FIBL, (2001),African Organic Agriculture Training Manual. A Resource Manual for Trainers, 29p. Fröberg, S., Gratte, E., Svennersten-Sjaunja, K., Olsson, I., Berg, C., Orihuela, A., Galina, C. S., Garcı, B. and Lidfors, L. (2008), Effect of suckling (‘restricted suckling’) on dairy cows’ udder health and milk let-down and their calves’ weight gain, feed intake and behaviour. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 113, 1–14. Garine-Wichatitsky, M. de, Miguela, E., Mukamurid, B., Garine-Wichatitskye, E., Wenceliuse, J., Pfukenyif, D. M. and Caron, A. (2013), Coexisting with wildlife in transfrontier conservation areas in Zimbabwe: Cattle owners’ awareness of disease risks and perceptions of the role played by wildlife. Comparative Immunology, Microbiology and Infectious Diseases 36, 321–32. Goodison, P., 2015, EU Dairy Sector Policies and their impact on Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Initiativet for Handel og Udvikling, 24p.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

382

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

Grace, D., Mutua, F., Ochungo, P., Kruska, R., Jones, K., Brierley, L., Lapar, L., Said, M., Herrero, M., Phuc. P., Thao, N. B., Akuku, I. and Ogutu, F. (2012), Mapping of poverty and likely zoonoses hotspots. Report to the Department for International Development. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, Kenya. Gran, H. M, Mutukumira, A. N., Wetlesen, A. and Narvhus, J. A. (2002), Smallholder dairy processing in Zimbabwe: hygienic practices during milking and the microbiological quality of the milk at the farm and on delivery. Food Control 13, 41–7. Halliday, J. O. B., Allan, K. J., Ekwem, D., Cleaveland, S., Kazwala, R. R. and Crump, J. A. (2015), Endemic zoonoses in the tropics: a public health problem hiding in plain sight. Veterinary Record, 28 February 2015, 220–5. Hamadani, H. and Khan, A. A. (2015), Organic Dairy Farming – An Overview. Journal of Livestock Science 6, 4–9. Hatungumukama, G., Sidikou, D. I., Leroy, P. and Detilleux, J. (2007), Effects of non-genetic and crossbreeding factors on daily milk yield of Ayrshire  (Sahiwal  Ankole) cows in Mahwa station (Burundi). Livestock Science 110, 111–17. Herath, P. S. M. H., and Mohammad, S. (2009), The current status of cattle breeding programmes in Asia. In Selection and Breeding of Cattle in Asia: Strategies and Criteria for Improved Breeding. IAEA, Vienna, Austria, 3–10. Herrero, M., Grace, D., Njuki, J., Johnson, N. and Rufi, M. (2013), The roles of livestock in developing countries. Animal 7 (Suppl 1), 3–18. Idibu, J., Kabi, F. and Mpairwe, D. (2016), Behavioural response of pure Ankole and crossbred(Ankole   Holstein) cows to seasonal pasture variations in south-western Uganda. Applied Animal Behaviour Science 174, 11–18. IFOAM, (2014), The IFOAM norms for organic production and processing. IFOAM August 2014, 134p. Kahi, A. K., Nitter, G., Thorpe, W. and Gall, C. F. (2000), Crossbreeding for dairy production in the lowland tropics of Kenya. II. Prediction of performance of alternative crossbreeding strategies. Livestock Production Science 63, 55–63. Kanuya, N. L, Kessy, B. M., Bittegeko, S. B. P., Mdoe, N. S. Y. and Aboud, A. A. O., (2000), Suboptimal reproductive performance of dairy cattle kept in smallholder herds in a rural highland area of northern Tanzania. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 45, 183–92. Kanuya, N. L., Matiko, M. K., Kessy, B. M., Mgongo, F. O., Ropstad, E. and Reksen, O. (2006), A study on reproductive performance and related factors of zebu cows in pastoral herds in a semi-arid area of Tanzania. Theriogenology 65, 1859–74 Kavoi, M. M., Hoag, D. L. and Pritchett, J. (2013), Supply response of smallholder dairy farms in the marginal zones of Kenya. Journal of International Development 25, 393–41. Kawambwa, P., Hendriksen, G., Zandonda, E. and Wanga, L. (2014), Business Viability assessment study of small holder dairy farming in Zambia. Wageningen, Alterra Wageningen UR (University & Research centre), Alterra report, 52p. Khan, M. J., Peters, K. J. and Uddin, M. M. (2009), Feeding strategy for improving dairy cattle productivity in small holder farm in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science, 38(1 and 2), 67–85. Kiggundu, M., Kabi, F., Vaarst, M., Nalubwama, S. and Odhongo. C. (2014), Management and use of dairy cattle feed resources on smallholder certified organic pineapple farms in Central Uganda. Journal of Agriculture and Environment for International Development-JAEID 108 (2), 207–25. Kinsey, E. (1993), Integrated Smallholder dairy Farming manual. Heifer International Zambia, 96p. Klapwijk, C. J., Bucagu, C., Wijk, M. T. van, Udo, H. M. J, Vanlauwe, B., Munyanziza, E. and Giller, K. E., (2014), The ‘One cow per poor family’ programme: Current and potential fodder availability within smallholder farming systems in southwest Rwanda. Agricultural Systems 131, 11–22. Knights, M. and Garcia, G. W. (1997), The status and characteristics of the goat (Capva hircus) and its potential role as a significant milk producer in the tropics: A Review. Small Ruminant Research 26, 203–15.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries383 Lee, van der J., Schiere, H., Bosma, R., Olde, de E., Bol, S. and Cornelissen, J. (2014), Aid and Trade for Livestock Development and Food Security in West Africa. WUR-Report 745, 101p. Leeuw, P. N. de and Reid, R. (1995), Impact of human activities and livestock on the African environment: an attempt to partition the pressure. In Livestock Development Strategies For Low Income Countries – Proceedings of the Joint FAO/ILRI Roundtable on Livestock Development Strategies For Low Income Countries. International Livestock Research Institute, Ethiopia. Lernoud, J., Willer, H. and Schlatter, B. (2016), Africa: current statistics. In Willer, H. and Lernoud, J. The world of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging trends 2016. Research Institute of Orgainc Agriculture (FiBL) Frick and IFOAM – Organics International Bonn, 163–70. Lipita, W. G., Ngongola, D. H., Kamwanja, L. A., Mataya, C., Gondwe, T. N. and Kankwamba, H., (2015), Determinants of smallholder dairy farming adoption in Malawi: A microeconometric analysis. Journal of Agricultural Economics and Development 4(6), 095–104. Lore, T., Omore, A. and Staal, S. (2005), Types, levels and causes of post-harvest milk and dairy losses in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Near East. Phase Two Synthesis Report by International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi, 40p. Makesha, A. (2016), Temporal change in relative availability/contribution of different livestock feed resources to the total feeds available to livestock keepers in the mixed crop-livestock highlands of Ethiopia: the case of household perception in Tiyo District, Arsi Zone. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports (in press). Makoni, N., Mwai, R., Redda, T., Zijpp, A. van der, Lee, J. van der. (2013), White Gold; Opportunities for Dairy Sector Development Collaboration in East Africa. Centre for Development Innovation, Wageningen UR (University & Research centre). CDI report CDI-14-006. Wageningen, 203p. McDermott, J. J., Staal, S. J., Freeman, H. A., Herrero, M. and Steeg, J. A. van der. (2010), Sustaining intensification of smallholder livestock systems in the tropics. Livestock Science 130, 95–109 Mgeni, B. L. (2010), A study of dairy cattle productivity in Kilolo district, Tanzania. Master dissertation of Sokoine University of Agriculture. Morongoro, Tanzania. 95p. Mhone, T. A., Matope, G. and Saidi, P. T. (2011), Aerobic bacterial, coliform, Escherichia coli and Staphylococcus aureus counts of raw and processed milk from selected smallholder dairy farms of Zimbabwe. International Journal of Food Microbiology 151, 223–8. Millogo, V. (2010), Milk Production of Hand-Milked Dairy Cattle in Burkina Faso. PhD thesis Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science Department of Animal Nutrition and Management Uppsala, 86p. Millogo, V., Norell, L., Ouédraogo, G. A., Svennersten-Sjaunja, K. and Agenäs, S. (2012), Effect of different hand-milking techniques on milk production and teat treatment in Zebu dairy cattle. Tropical Animal Health and Production 44(5), 1017–25. Moll, H. A. J., Staal, S. J. and Ibrahim, M. N. M. (2007), Smallholder dairy production and markets: A comparison of production systems in Zambia, Kenya and Sri Lanka. Agricultural Systems 94, 593–603. Mwebaze, T. and Kjaer, A. M. (2013), Growth and Performance of the Ugandan Dairy Sector: Elites, Conflict, and Bargaining. International Journal of Agriculture Innovations and Research, 2 (3), 287–298. NAADS, (2011), User guide on dairy husbandry. National Agricultural Advisory Service, Uganda, 12p. Nalubwama, S., Mugisha, A., Vaarst, M. (2011), Organic livestock production in Uganda: potentials, challenges and prospects. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 43 (4), 749–57. Nalubwama, S., Kabi, F., Vaarst, M., Smolders, G. and Kiggundu, M. (2016), Cattle management practices and milk production on mixed smallholder organic pineapple farms in Central Uganda. Tropical Animal Health and Production, doi 10.1007/s11250-016-1123-5. Ndambi, O. A., Hemme, T. and Latacz-Lohmann, U. (2007), Dairying in Africa - Status and recent developments. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19, Article #111. Retrieved 10 June 2016, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/8/ndam19111.htm Ndambi, O. A., (2008), Perspectives for dairy farming systems in Africa. PhD thesis Christian-AlbrechtsUniversität, Kiel, September 2008, 184p.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

384

Organic dairy farming in developing countries

Nyambati, E. M., Sollenberger, L. E. and Kunklec, W. E. (2003), Feed intake and lactation performance of dairy cows offered napier grass supplemented with legume hay. Livestock Production Science 83, 179–89. Odong, C., Wahome, R. G., Vaarst, M., Kiggundu, M., Nalubwama, S., Halberg, N. and Githigia, S. (2014), Challenges of conversion to organic dairy production and prospects of future development in integrated smallholder farms in Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development 26 (7). Odhong, C. (2014), Feasibility of integrating organic milk production into certified smallholder organic farms in Kiambu and Kajiado counties, Kenya. PhD thesis University of Nairobi. Livestock Production Systems, 193p. OECD/Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2015), OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2015,OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2015-en Oliveira, A. S. (2015), Meta-analysis of feeding trials to estimate energy requirements of dairy cows under tropical condition. Animal Feed Science and Technology 210, 94–103. Olwande, J., Smale, M., Mathenge, M. K., Place, F. and Mithöfer, D. (2012), Agricultural marketing by smallholders in Kenya: A comparison of maize, kale and dairy. Food Policy 52, 22–32. Omunyin, M. E., Ruto, J., Yegon, M. K. A. and Bii, F. (2014), Dairy Production Constraints in Kericho and Bomet Counties of Kenya: Evidence from Farmers Fields. International Journal of Science and Research 3 (12), 2141–6. Patil, N. V. (2011), Vision 2030 National Research Center on Camels, ICAR, Rajasthan, India, 24p. Park, Y. W., Juàrez, M., Ramos, M. and. Haenlein, G. F. W. (2007), Physico-chemical characteristics of goat and sheep milk. Small Ruminant Research 68, 88–113 RDCPII, (2015), Rwanda Dairy Competitiveness Program II, Land O'Lakes International Development. http://www.landolakes.org/Where-We-Work/Africa/Rwanda/Dairy-Competitiveness-Program-II Rocha, A., Starkey, P. and Dionisio, A. C. (1991), Cattle production and utilisation in smallholder farming systems in Southern Mozambique. Agricultural Systems 37, 55–75. Rubaire-Akiiki, C. M., Okello-Onen, J., Musunga, D., Kabagambe, E. K., Vaarst, M., Okello, D., Opolot, C., Bisagaya, A., Okori, C., Bisagati, C., Ongyera, S. and Mwayi, M. T. (2006), Effect of agro-ecological zone and grazing system on incidence of East Coast Fever in calves in Mbale and Sironko Districts of Eastern Uganda. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 75, 251–66. Salami, A., Kamara, A. B. and Brixiova, Z. (2010), Smallholder Agriculture in East, Africa: Trends, Constraints and Opportunities. African Development Bank, 51p. Schader, Ch., Muller, A. and El-Hage Scialabba, N. (2013), Sustainability and organic livestock modelling (SOL-m). Impacts of a global upscaling of low-input and organic livestock production. Preliminary Results. Natural Resources Management and Environment Department FAO, April, 10p. Schader, Ch., Muller, A., El-Hage Scialabba, N., Hecht, J. and Stolze, M. (2014), Comparing global and product-based LCA perspectives on environmental impacts of low-concentrate ruminant production. 9th International Conference LCA of Food San Francisco, USA 8-10 October. Schwartz, H. J. (2013), Global Development of Camel Populations, Production Systems, and Systems Productivity. http://amor.cms.hu-berlin.de/~h1981d0z/ SDP, (1997), The Kenyan smallholder dairy project. http://www.smallholderdairy.org/ Smolders, E. A. A. (2015), personal experience in dairy learning lab with dairy farmer groups in Uganda, Zambia, Tanzania and Rwanda. Sraïri, M. T. Benyoucef, M. T. and Kraiem, K. (2013), The dairy chains in North Africa (Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia): from self-sufficiency options to food dependency? Springerplus 2(1), 162. doi 10.1186/2193-1801-2-162 Średnicka-Tober, D., Barański, M., Seal, C. J., Sanderson, R., Benbrook, C., Steinshamn, H., Gromadzka-Ostrowska, J., Rembiałkowska, E., Skwarło-Soń ta, K., Eyre, M., Cozzi, G, Krogh Larsen, M., Jordon, T., Niggli, U., Sakowski, T., Calder, P. C., Burdge, G. C., Sotiraki, S., Stefanakis, A., Stergiadis, S., Yolcu, H., Chatzidimitriou, E., Butler, G., Stewart, G. and Leifert, C. (2016), Higher PUFA and n-3 PUFA, conjugated linoleic acid, a-tocopherol and iron, but lower iodine and selenium concentrations in organic milk: a systematic literature review and meta- and redundancy analyses. British Journal of Nutrition 115, 1043–60.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Organic dairy farming in developing countries385 Staal, S. J., Nin Pratt, A. and Jabbar, M. (2008), Dairy Development for the Resource Poor Part 2: Kenya and Ethiopia Dairy Development Case Studies PPLPI Working Paper No. 44-2, ILRI, 52p. Tadesse, M. and Dessie, T. (2003), Milk production performance of Zebu, Holstein Friesian and their crosses in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development (15) 3. Talpur, F. N., Memon, N. N. and Bhanger, M. I. (2007), Comparison of fatty acid and cholesterol content of pakistani water buffalo breeds. Pakistan Journal of Analytical & Environmental Chemistry 8 (1 and 2), 15–20. Vaarst, M., Weisbjerg, M. R., Kristensen, T., Thamsborg, S. M., White, A., Roderick, S. and Lockeretz, W., (2005), Animal health and nutrition in organic farming. In Organic Agriculture, A Global Perspective, Kristiansen, P., Taji, A. and Reganold, J. (eds), Cabi publishing, Wallingford, UK, pp. 167–85. Vaarst, M., Roderick, S., Byarugaba, D. K., Kobayashi, S., Rubaire-Akiiki, C. and Karreman, H. J. (2006), Sustainable veterinary medical practices in organic farming: a global perspective. In Global Development of Organic Agriculture: Challenges and Prospects, Halberg, N., Alrøe, H. F., Knudsen, M. T. and Kristensen, E. S. (eds), CAB International, pp. 241–67. Vaarst, M. (2015), The role of animals in eco-functional intensification of organic agriculture. Sustainable Agriculture Research 4(3), 103. Wambugu, S., Kirimi, L. and Opiyo, J. (2011), Productivity trends and performance of dairy farming in Kenya. Tegemeo Institute of Agricultural Policy and Development, Nairobi, Kenya, 37p. We_effect, (2014), Improved Dairy farming Practices for Small Scale Milk Producers, 132p. Willer, H. and Lernoud, J. (eds.) (2016) The World of Organic Agriculture - Statistics and Emerging Trends 2016. Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL), Frick, and IFOAM, Organic International, Bonn, 333p. Wit, de J., Keulen, van H., Meer, van der H. G. and Nell, A. J. (1997), Animal manure: asset or liability? http://www.fao.org/ag/AGA/agap/frg/feedback/war/W5256t/W5256t05.htm Wolde, D. T. and Tamir, B. (2016), Organic livestock farming and the scenario in the developing countries. Opportunities and Challenges Global Veterinaria 16(4), 399–412. Zanten, H. H. E, van, Mollenhorst, H., Klootwijk, C. W., Middelaar, C. E. van and Boer, I. J. M. de. (2016), Global food supply: land use efficiency of livestock systems. The International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment 21, 747–58.

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Index Acidity tests  32 Acquired resistance  121 AFB1. see Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1) Aflatoxin B1 (AFB1)  101 Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1)  102 Aflatoxins 101–105 description 101–102 diagnostics 103 impacts 102–103 animal health  102–103 economic 103 human health  102 prevention and management  103–105 AFM1. see Aflatoxin M1 (AFM1) African Dairy Genetic Gains  350 African Union-Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR)  354 Agri-Traçabilité Québec (ATQ)  142 Agro-pastoral, and pastoral systems  339 AI. see Artificial insemination (AI) Alcohol test  32 AMUL. see Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF) Animal Care Assessment Framework  141 Animal handling structures, and living environment 343–344 Animal health  102–103, 107, 108, 110, 111, 375–376 and biosecurity  141 and disease control  342–343 impacts of contaminants in dairy feed  99 and welfare  141, 255–256 Animal traceability  142 Antibiotics, for mastitis treatment  124–129 against bacterial infections  127–129 cow medical history  126 detection and diagnostic protocols  124 duration of use  125–126 overview 117–118 selection 124–125 Antimicrobial resistance clinical relevance of  121–122 of mastitis pathogens  122–123 overview 117–118 use of  118–121 Arla 278 Artificial insemination (AI)  252, 342, 344, 347 Atlantic Pasture Research Centre  194 Atomic absorption spectrometry  111 ATQ. see Agri-Traçabilité Québec (ATQ)

AU-IBAR. see African Union-Inter-African Bureau for Animal Resources (AU-IBAR) Australian Dairy Food Safety Regulatory Framework 150 Australian dairy industry  149 description 149 issues management framework  152–153 regulatory framework  150–152 sustainability framework  150 Australian Dairy Industry Council  150 Australian Dairy Research Council  158 Autonomous systems  169 Bacillus cereus  6, 15 Bactofugation 13 BCF. see Biodiversity Condition Fund (BCF) Best management practices (BMP)  139 Beverage hydration index (BHI)  297 BHI. see Beverage hydration index (BHI) Biodiversity in dairy farming  227–242 catchment case studies in South Island 237–241 effects of grazing on bog turtle in USA 232–234 engaging farmers in  231–232 enhancement 229–231 impacts 228–229 mixed methods, in New Zealand  236–237 organic, in Ireland and New Zealand  234–235 overview 227–228 riparian plantings in New Zealand  236 impacts 179–180 ecosystem services  180 method to assess  179–180 Biodiversity Condition Fund (BCF)  237 Biodiversity International  304 Biological hazards  96, 106–108 Biosensors 46 Bio Suisse  256 Bird’s-foot trefoil  252 Blue WF (BWF)  220–221 BMP. see Best management practices (BMP) BMSCC. see Bulk milk SCC (BMSCC) Bog turtle  232–234 Bovine milk  64 Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE)  97, 99 Breed heifers  352

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

388 Breeding technologies delivery of services  350–352 models for heifer production  351–352 production and access to improved sires  351 programmes 350–351 and reproductive  348–349 by smallholder farmers in SSA  345–348 adoption and use of AI  347 cross-breeding 346 generating replacement animals  348 livestock recording  347–348 matching genotypes to production environments 345–346 Breeds 371–372 British Cheese Board  284 Brucella spp., 17, 35 Brundtland, Gro  158 BSE. see Bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) Buffalo milk  366–367 Bulk milk SCC (BMSCC)  45 Butter 72 BWF. see Blue WF (BWF) CAC. see Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) Calcium hypochlorite  74, 83 Calcul Automatisé des Performances Environnementales en Elevage de Ruminants (CAP’2ER)  177 Calf nursery model  352 California Mastitis Test (CMT)  33, 45 Camel milk  367 Campylobacter jejuni  13–14, 16 Canada on-farm sustainability programmes in  138–142 Canadian Quality Milk (CQM)  138–140 integration in proAction  140–142 Canadian dairy farms, food safety on  136–138 Codex Alimentarius Commission  136 Guide to Good Dairy Farming Practice  137 HACCP system  136 National Dairy Code  138 on-farm 137–138 Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA)  139 Canadian On-Farm Food Safety (COFFS)  137, 138 Canadian Quality Milk (CQM)  138–140 CAP. see Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)

Index CAP’2ER. see Calcul Automatisé des Performances Environnementales en Elevage de Ruminants (CAP’2ER) Carbon footprint, product  176–177 CAP’2ER 177 method 176–177 Care, organic agriculture  368 Casein  48, 50 CBBP. see Community-based breeding programmes (CBBP) CCP. see Critical Control Points (CCP) Centrifugation 13 CFIA. see Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) CFS. see Committee on World Food Security (CFS) Chain cleavage  75 Charter 147–149 controversies about livestock production 148–149 management practices and collective involvement 147 quality of management practices  148 training and networking  148 Cheese composition 50 and pathogenic microorganisms  13–15 outbreaks related to consumption  15–18 ripened 72 Chemical contaminants  63–86 cleaning and disinfecting products  74–85 chlorate residues  82–84 marketing of food products  81–82 milking equipment  79 practice for chlorate use  84–85 trichloromethane (TCM)  75–78 iodine 64–69 animal dietary requirements  65–66 cows’ diet as source of  64 experimental study  65–69 veterinary medicines  69–74 analysis of flukicide residues  70 significance 73–74 stability of residues during manufacturing 73 stability of residues during storage and freezing 73 transfer of residues from milk to product 72–73 treatment during dry period  71–72 treatment during lactation  71 Chemical hazards  96

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Index389 Chlorate on-farm practice  84–85 in treated water  85 residues as contaminant  82–84 analysis 83–84 Chlorine 74–75 Chronic mastitis  44 CIP. see Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) plant Cleaning and disinfecting products  74–85 chlorate residues  82–84 analysis 83–84 marketing of food products  81–82 milking equipment  79 rinseability of detergent/ disinfectants 80–81 on-farm practice for chlorate use  84–85 in treated water  85 trichloromethane (TCM)  75–78 as by-product of disinfection  75–76 in drinking water  76–77 in food  77 haloform reaction  75 human exposure to  76 metabolisation of  78 toxic effects of  77–78 Cleaning-In-Place (CIP) plant  80 Climate change models  271 Clinical mastitis  44 Closantel  71, 72 Clostridium botulinum  6, 7 Clot-on-boiling test  32 CMT. see California Mastitis Test (CMT) Code of Hygienic Practice for Milk and Milk Products  136, 152 Code of Practice for Handling of Dairy Cattle 141 Code of Practice on Good Animal Feeding  101 Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC)  100, 101, 136 COFFS. see Canadian On-Farm Food Safety Commercial grazing systems  161 Committee on World Food Security (CFS)  306, 307 Common Agricultural Policy (CAP)  274 Community-based breeding programmes (CBBP) 350 Composite samples SCC (CSSCC)  45 Concentrates 95–96 Conductance test  33 Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection  233 Consumptive water use (CWU)  221

Contract mating  352 Cost reduction strategies  215, 218 Cow colonies  331–333 Critical Control Points (CCP)  139 Cross-breeding  341, 346 Cross-contamination  109, 110 CSSCC. see Composite samples SCC (CSSCC) CWU. see Consumptive water use (CWU) CYP2E1 enzyme  78 DAD-IS. see Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS) DAGRIS. see Domestic Animal Genetic Resources Information Systems (DAGRIS) Dairy cattle feed contaminants in  96–111 description 96–97 diagnosis of  100 economic and animal health impacts of  99 human health impacts of  98–99 management principles  101 safety governance  100 hazards in  101–111 aflatoxins 101–105 dioxins 108–109 heavy metals  110–111 mycotoxins 105–106 other biological  108 other chemical  109 Salmonella  106–108 veterinary drug residues  109–110 importance of  96 overview 95 types 95–96 Dairy cooperatives  353 Dairy Development Authority  377 Dairy Farmers of Canada  141 Dairy farming. see also Organic dairy farming biodiversity in  227–242 catchment case studies in South Island 237–241 effects of grazing on bog turtle in USA 232–234 engaging farmers in  231–232 enhancement 229–231 impacts 228–229 mixed methods, in New Zealand  236–237 organic, in Ireland and New Zealand  234–235 overview 227–228 riparian plantings in New Zealand  236 energy use in  211–220

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

390 efficiency incentives  213–214 energy consumption modelling  214 overview 212–213 results, analysis and recommendations 218–220 strategies to reduce  214–218 environmental targets for  173–181 biodiversity impacts assessing  179–180 challenges and limits  180–181 global typology of dairy production systems 174 life cycle assessment (LCA)  174–179 overview 173–174 forage systems management for  183–199 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change  185–188 management-intensive grazing (MIG) 194–196 overview 183–185 soil quality, biodiversity and land use optimization 188–194 and milk production  267–289 European Union (EU)  274–278 global 267–274 in New Zealand  284–286 overview 267 in United Kingdom  278–284 sustainability 157–171 beyond 2050, 169–170 challenge 164–165 defining 158–161 future 165–169 overview 157–158 status of global  161–164 water use in  220–221 Dairy herd improvement (DHI)  45 Dairy hubs  353 Dairy Management Inc., 143 DairyNZ  195–196, 236 Dairy Power Summit (2009)  166 Dairy Primary Production and Processing Standard 151 Dairy production systems, in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) breeding technologies by smallholder farmers 345–348 adoption and use of AI  347 cross-breeding 346 generating replacement animals  348 livestock recording  347–348 matching genotypes to environments 345–346

Index smallholder systems  339–341 cattle breeds reared in  340–341 classification 339–340 Dairy sector ecological impact of  300–304 on environment  301–302 nutritional value vs. environmental impact 302–304 in New Zealand  284–286 overview 291–294 socio-economic impact  294–300 on livelihoods  294–296 on nutrition  296–298 reasons for low milk consumption  298–300 sustainable diets  304–305 sustainable food and dairy production  305–309 in United Kingdom  278–284 Dairy Sustainability Alliance  143 Dairy Sustainability Framework (DSF)  164, 306 Dairy Trades Federation  278 Dairyville 2020, 165–167 DairyWise 214 DAWR. see Department of Agriculture and Water Resources’ (DAWR) DBPs. see Disinfection by-products (DBPs) DDDs. see Defined daily dosages (DDDs) Defined daily dosages (DDDs)  119 Demand side management (DSM)  213 Department of Agriculture and Water Resources’ (DAWR)  151, 152 Design and Implementation of Identification Systems to Achieve Animal Traceability 142 DHI. see Dairy herd improvement (DHI) DIAAS. see Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) ‘Dietary protein quality evaluation in human nutrition,’ 298 Digestible Indispensable Amino Acid Score (DIAAS) 298 Dioxin-like compounds (DLC)  109 Dioxins 108–109 description 108 diagnostics 109 impacts 108 animal health  108 economic 108 human health  108 prevention 109 Direct expansion (DX)  217 Direct pathogens testing  30–31, 33–34

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Index391 milk ring  34 on-farm culture  33–34 Disinfection by-products (DBPs)  75 DLC. see Dioxin-like compounds (DLC) Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS) 349 Domestic Animal Genetic Resources Information Systems (DAGRIS)  349 3-D printing  169 DSF. see Dairy Sustainability Framework (DSF) DSM. see Demand side management (DSM) DX. see Direct expansion (DX) ‘Dynamic Movers,’  214 ECD. see Electron capture detector (ECD) ECM. see Energy corrected milk (ECM) Ecology 368 Economic impacts  99, 103, 107, 108, 110, 111 EDRP. see Energy demand research project (EDRP) Electricity consumption model  215–216 flat and day and night tariffs  215 real time pricing (RTP) tariffs  215–216 Electron capture detector (ECD)  76 Energy corrected milk (ECM)  213 Energy demand research project (EDRP)  213 Energy management, in dairy farming analysis and recommendations  218–220 cost reduction strategies  218 energy reduction strategies  218–220 technology requirements  220 efficiency incentives  213–214 energy consumption modelling  214 overview 212–213 reduction strategies  214–218 description 217–218 MECD 215–216 model inputs  216–217 profitability module  217 Escherichia coli  4 Ethanol generation, and dairy farming  167–168 European Commission  271 Exchange Rate Mechanism  278 Exotic genotypes  341 Extensive mixed crop–livestock systems  339 FAC. see Free available chlorine (FAC) Fairness, in organic agriculture  368 Family/kinship breeding  253 Fan, Shenggen  305 FAO. see Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)

FARA. see Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) FARM. see Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) Farm Act (2014)  270 Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) 143–145 Animal Care Program  143–144 Antibiotic Stewardship  144 Environmental Stewardship  144–145 Fat, and mastitis  48 Fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM)  213 FDA. see Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Feed, and fodder  342, 370–371 Feeding technologies  350 ‘Feed-no-Food’ project  256–257 Fertility, and reproduction  374–375 FiBL. see Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) First Milk  278, 279 Flat, and day&night tariffs  215 Flukicide residues analysis  70 Fonterra 286 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)  100, 101, 137, 291, 304 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)  142 Food safety  141 Australian dairy industry description 149–153 regulatory framework  150–152 safety issues  152–153 sustainability framework  150 on Canadian dairy farms  136–138 Codex Alimentarius Commission  136 Guide to Good Dairy Farming Practice  137 HACCP system  136 National Dairy Code  138 on-farm 137–138 on-farm sustainability programmes in Canada  138–142 in France  145–149 in United States of America  142–145 overview 135–136 Food Safety Enhancement Program (FSEP)  137 Food safety plan (FSP)  151 Food security and nutrition (FSN)  306 Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) 151–152 Forage systems management management-intensive grazing (MIG) 194–196

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

392 minimizing environmental impacts in perennial 185–194 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate change  185–188 soil quality, biodiversity and land use optimization 188–194 overview 183–185 Forum for Agricultural Research in Africa (FARA) 354 FPCM. see Fat and protein corrected milk (FPCM) France on-farm sustainability programmes in  145–149 Charter 147–149 technical areas of beef and dairy production 146–147 Free available chlorine (FAC)  75 French Charter for Good Agricultural Practices. see Charter French Livestock Institute  177 French Ministry of Agriculture  145 FSANZ. see Food Standards Australia and New Zealand (FSANZ) FSEP. see Food Safety Enhancement Program (FSEP) FSN. see Food security and nutrition (FSN) FSP. see Food safety plan (FSP) Fuel cells  168–169 Future Farm Online  195 GAP. see Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) GCMMF. see Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF) General Principles of Food Hygiene  136 Genomics 170 Genomic Selection (GS)-based schemes  349 GHG. see Greenhouse gas (GHG) GLEAM. see Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM) GLEAMi. see Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model-interactive (GLEAMi) Global Food Policy Report  305 Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model (GLEAM)  174 Global Livestock Environmental Assessment Model-interactive (GLEAMi)  174 Global warming potential  302 GMP. see Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) Goat milk  366 Good Agricultural Practices (GAP)  101 Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)  101

Index Good Production Practices (GPPs)  138 Grade ‘A’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO)  138, 142–143 Gram-negative bacteria  128 Gram-positive bacteria  128 Grassland management for biodiversity  191–193 in changing climate  187–188 to reduce enteric methane emissions and concentrate feeding  185–187 for soil health  190–191 Greenhouse gas (GHG)  176, 185–188, 211, 304 enteric methane emissions and concentrate feeding 185–187 grassland management and climate change 187–188 GS. see Genomic Selection (GS)-based schemes Guide to Good Animal Welfare in Dairy Production 141 Guide to Good Dairy Farming Practice  100, 137, 140 Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd (GCMMF)  295 HACCP. see Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP) Halogenation 75 Hand-milking technique  376 Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points (HACCP)  136, 138–139 Hazards, in dairy cattle feed  101–111 aflatoxins 101–105 dioxins 108–109 heavy metals  110–111 mycotoxins 105–106 other biological  108 other chemical  109 Salmonella  106–108 veterinary drug residues  109–110 Head-space gas chromatography (HS-GC)  76 Heavy metals  110–111 description 110 diagnostics 111 impacts 110–111 prevention 111 Henderson, C. R  170 High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE)  306–308 High-performance liquid chromatographyelectrochemical detection (HPLC-ECD) 70 High resolution mass spectroscopy (HRMS)  109 HLPE. see High Level Panel of Experts (HLPE)

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Index393 Housing, and grazing  373–374 HPLC-ECD. see High-performance liquid chromatography-electrochemical detection (HPLC-ECD) HRMS. see High resolution mass spectroscopy (HRMS) HS-GC. see Head-space gas chromatography (HS-GC) Human health impacts, in dairy feed  98–99, 102, 106–111 Husbandry, and breeding management  344 Hypochlorites  74, 83, 84 Ice Bank (IB) milk cooling system  218 ICN. see International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) IDF. see International Dairy Federation (IDF) IFCN. see International Farm Comparisons Network (IFCN) IFOAM. see International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM) IFPRI. see International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) ILRI. see International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) IMI. see Intramammary infections (IMI) IMM. see Intramammary (IMM) infusion Immuno-biosensors 46 Indigenous genotypes  341 Indirect pathogens testing  30–33 acidity tests  32 organoleptic 31–32 somatic cell counts (SCCs)  32–33 Industrial systems  339 Information, and communications technologies 349–350 Information science  170 Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy  143 Institut de l’Elevage  145 Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST)  230 Intensive livestock systems  161 Intensive mixed crop-livestock systems  339 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 174 International Conference on Nutrition (ICN) 307 International Dairy Federation (IDF)  33, 44, 137 International Farm Comparisons Network (IFCN) 292 International Federation of Organic Agricultural Movement (IFOAM)  255, 368

International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) 302 International livestock data platforms  349–350 International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)  36, 378 International Standards Organisation  303 Intramammary (IMM) infusion  119, 120 Intramammary infections (IMI)  43 Intrinsic resistance  121 InVEST. see Integrated Valuation of Ecosystem Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Invisible soil  79 Iodine 64–69 animal dietary requirements  65–66 cows’ diet as source of  64 experimental study  65–69 Ions, milk  49 Ion trap mass spectroscopy (ITMS)  109 Kakanui Community Catchment Project  237 Key Performance Indicators (KPI)  325 Lactate dehydrogenase  33 Lactose 49 mal-digestion 299 Land use, for forages  193–194 Large farm (LF)  216 LCA. see Life cycle assessment (LCA) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) 159 LEAP. see Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP) LEED. see Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) LF. see Large farm (LF) Life cycle assessment (LCA)  142, 174–179 overview 174–176 product carbon footprint  176–177 CAP’2ER 177 method 176–177 product water footprint  178–179 Linear scores (LS). see Somatic cell score (SCS) Listeria monocytogenes  15, 17, 35 Livestock Environmental Assessment and Performance (LEAP)  175 Livestock genotypes  341 Livestock production systems  339 ‘LowInputBreeds’ project  257–258 Management-intensive grazing (MIG)  194–196 at Atlantic Pasture Research Centre  194 case studies from other areas  195–196

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

394 on commercial dairy farm in Nova Scotia  195 Margin Protection Program  270 Mastitis  43–54, 343 antibiotics for treatment of  124–129 against bacterial infections  127–129 choice 124–125 cow medical history  126 detection and diagnostic protocols  124 duration of use  125–126 overview 117–118 antimicrobial resistance of pathogens  122–123 dairy product quality and  49–50 indicators of  44–46 milk composition and  46–49 fat 48 ions 49 lactose 49 protein 48 milk production yield and  50–54 overview 43–44 clinical 44 subclinical 44 Maximum residue limits (MRLs)  70 MCFC. see Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC) MECD 215 Medium farm (MF)  216 Methane emissions, and concentrate feeding 185–187 MF. see Medium farm (MF) Microfiltration 13 Milk and Dairy Products in Human Nutrition  296 Milk bulking groups. see Dairy hubs Milk collection centre (MCC)  378 Milk composition  46–49 fat 48 ions 49 lactose 49 protein 48 Milking techniques, and methods  376–377 Milk ions  49 Milk losses, and milk market  377–378 Milk Marketing Boards (MMBs)  278 Milk Marque  278 Milk production dairy farming and  267–289 European Union (EU)  274–278 global 267–274 in New Zealand  284–286 in United Kingdom  278–284 yield 50–54

Index Milk quality  140 Milk Quotas  274 Milk ring test (MRT)  34 Milk separation  72 MMBs. see Milk Marketing Boards (MMBs) Molecular technologies  349 Molten carbonate fuel cell (MCFC)  168–169 MRLs. see Maximum residue limits (MRLs) MRT. see Milk ring test (MRT) Muller 278 Mycotoxins  96–97, 105–106 N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (NAGase)  33 NAGase. see N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (NAGase) Narrow-spectrum antibiotics  125 National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS)  142 National Dairy Code  138 National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) 141 National Food Safety Auditor  151, 152 National Milk Producers Federation  143 National Standard  141 Natural mating vs. artificial insemination  373 NCIMS. see National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments (NCIMS) NDCI. see Nutrient density to climate impact (NDCI) New Zealand Centre for Advanced Engineering 213 New Zealand Landcare Trust  231, 237 NFACC. see National Farm Animal Care Council (NFACC) Nitrogen, and phosphorus losses  188–190 Non-volatile organic chlorine  75 North Canterbury Sustainable Farming Systems Project 238 No-till grassland renovation  190 NRF. see Nutrition-rich foods (NRF) index Nucleus-based models  351 Nutrient density to climate impact (NDCI)  304 Nutrition-rich foods (NRF) index  300 OA. see Organic agriculture (OA) OCD. see Open Country Dairy (OCD) OECD/FAO Outlook  272 OFC. see On-farm culture (OFC) Office of Fair Trading  278 Office of Gas and Electricity Metering  213 OIE. see World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Index395 On-farm culture (OFC)  33–34, 128 On-farm food safety  137–138 On-farm sustainability programmes in Canada  138–142 Canadian Quality Milk (CQM)  138–140 integration in proAction  140–142 in France  145–149 Charter 147–149 technical areas of beef and dairy production 146–147 in United States of America  142–145 Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) 143–145 Grade ‘A’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance 142–143 Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy  143 Online animal trading platforms  352 Open Country Dairy (OCD)  286 Organic agriculture (OA)  368 Organic dairy farming  247–259 animal health and welfare  255–256 breeding 252–255 in developing countries  363–380 in Africa  370–378 characteristics of milk  365–367 overview 363–365 production 368–370 feed efficiency and ecological sustainability 248–250 integrated dairy and beef production 250–251 longevity 250–251 overview 247–248 roughage-based feeding strategies 251–252 sustainable 256–258 ‘Feed-no-Food’ project  256–257 ‘LowInputBreeds’ project  257–258 Organic dairy production  368–370 challenges of converting to  369–370 principles of  368–369 Organoleptic tests  31–32 Our Common Future  158 Oxyclozanide 71 Pass on the gift model  352 Pasteurization  4, 11 Pastoral systems  161 Pathogenic microorganisms  3–21 and cheese  13–15 outbreaks related to consumption  15–18 contamination 6–8

heat treatment and other techniques to prevent  11–13 description 4–6 growth of bacteria  8–11 overview 3–4 Pathogens detection and testing  27–34, 34–37, 37–39 controlling disease  34–35 direct  30–31, 33–34 milk ring  34 on-farm culture  33–34 indirect 30–33 acidity tests  32 organoleptic 31–32 other 33 somatic cell counts (SCCs)  32–33 milk quality in India  35–37 overview 27 reasons 27–30 to investigate milk quality  29 as part of quality assurance  28–29 for research  30 zoonotic risks in Tanzania  34–35 Phenotypic resistance  121 Phycotoxins 97 Physical hazards  97 Pierrehumbert, Raymond  302 Plant secondary compounds (PSC)  251–252 Plasmin 48 PMO. see Grade ‘A’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) Population pressure  355 Pressure, state, response (PSR) approach  179 Principles for the assessment of livestock impacts on biodiversity  179 ProAction, on-farm programmes in  140–142 animal health and biosecurity  141 animal welfare  141 environment 142 food safety  141 milk quality  140 traceability 142 Product carbon footprint  176–177 CAP’2ER 177 method 176–177 Protein 48 PSC. see Plant secondary compounds (PSC) PSR. see Pressure, state, response (PSR) approach Public infrastructure development  355 Quarter milk SCC (QMSCC)  45

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

396 Rafoxanide  71, 72, 73 Real time pricing (RTP) tariffs  215–216 Red clover  187 Research Institute of Organic Agriculture (FiBL) 256 Return on investment (ROI)  217 Roughages based feeding strategies  251–252 and concentrates  95–96 RTP. see Real time pricing (RTP) tariffs Rumen undegradable protein (RUP)  189 Ryegrasses 187 SAD. see Sustainable agricultural development (SAD) SAI. see Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI) Sainfoin 252 SAI Platform Dairy Working Group  164 Salmonella  106–108 description 106 diagnostics 107 impacts 106–107 animal health  107 economic 107 human health  106–107 prevention 107–108 SDGs. see Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) SEM. see Single Electricity Market (SEM) Sexed semen  348–349 SF. see Small farm (SF) Share-milking 285 Sheep milk  366 Single Electricity Market (SEM)  215–216 Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP)  349 Single Payment Scheme  274 Skim-milk powder  73 Small farm (SF)  216 Smallholder dairy farming in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA)  337–357 dairy production systems  339–341 improving dairy production via breeding 345–348 improving productivity  348–354 key organizations supporting  354 management practices  341–345 overview 337–338 in tropical Asia  317–334 benchmarking performance  325–331 cow colonies  331–333 description 318–320 key constraints  323–325

Index overview 317 supporting 320–323 Smallholder mixed farming systems  161 SMP. see System marginal electricity price (SMP) SNP. see Single-nucleotide polymorphism (SNP) SNP-based relationships  349 SOC. see Soil organic carbon (SOC) Socio-economic factors  344–345 in dairy sector  294–300 on livelihoods  294–296 on nutrition  296–298 reasons for low milk consumption  298–300 Sod suppression  190 Sodium hypochlorite  74 Soil C sequestration  177 Soil health  368 Soil organic carbon (SOC)  177 Soil organic matter (SOM)  190 Somatic cell counts (SCCs)  32–33, 43, 45 Somatic cell score (SCS)  50 South Coast Dairy Ltd., 236 Staphylococcus aureus  6, 15, 17, 35, 122 Staphylococcus epidermidis  35 State Regulatory Authority  151, 152 Sterilization 11 Stewardship and Sustainability Framework for U.S. Dairy  143 Streptococcus equisimilis  15 Subclinical mastitis  44 Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) smallholder dairy farming in  337–357 dairy production systems  339–341 improving dairy production via breeding 345–348 improving productivity  348–354 key organizations supporting  354 management practices  341–345 overview 337–338 Sustainability, and dairy farming  157–171 beyond 2050, 169–170 challenges 164–165 defining 158–161 global status  161–164 innovations for  165–169 on-farm programmes in Canada  138–142 in France  145–149 in United States of America  142–145 overview 157–158 Sustainable agricultural development (SAD)  306, 307 Sustainable Agriculture Initiative (SAI)  159

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

Index397 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)  307 Synthetic/composite breeds  341 System marginal electricity price (SMP)  216

Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy  143 Upper Buller Enhancement Group Project  238 Upper Taieri Water Resource Management Project 231 U.S. Dairy Sustainability Commitment  143 U.S. Public Health Service  142

Taranaki-based Kiwi Co-operative Dairies  286 Tatua Co-operative Dairy Company  286 TCM. see Trichloromethane (TCM) Terrestrial Animal Health Code  100, 141, 142 The Economist  302 Thermization 11 Tick-borne encephalitis virus (TBEV)  6, 17, 375 Time-of-use (TOU) tariffs  213, 214 Total milk solids (TMS)  162 Total organic chlorine (TOX)  75 TOU. see Time-of-use (TOU) tariffs TOX. see Total organic chlorine (TOX) Toxic metals  110 Toxoplasma gondii  18 Trichloromethane (TCM)  75–78, 80, 81–82 as by-product of disinfection  75–76 in drinking water  76–77 in food  77 haloform reaction  75 human exposure to  76 metabolisation of  78 toxic effects of  77–78 Triclabendazole  70, 71, 72, 73 Tropical Asia smallholder dairy farming in  317–334 benchmarking performance  325–331 cow colonies  331–333 description 318–320 key constraints  323–325 overview 317 supporting 320–323 Two-tier nucleus breeding scheme  351

Value chain (VC)  353–354 Veterinary drug residues  109–110 diagnostics 110 impacts 109–110 animal health  110 economic 110 human health  109–110 prevention 110 Veterinary medicines  69–74, 255, 376 flukicide residues analysis  70 significance 73–74 stability of residues during manufacturing  73 during storage and freezing  73 transfer of residues from milk to product  72–73 butter 72 cheese 72 milk separation  72 skim-milk powder  73 treatment during dry period  71–72 treatment during lactation  71 Visible soil  79 Volatile organic chlorine  75

Ultra-high-temperature sterilization (UHT)  4, 11 UNEP. see United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle Initiative  162 United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) 291 United Nations World Commission on Environment and Development  158 United States of America on-farm sustainability programmes in  142–145 Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM)  143–145 Grade ‘A’ Pasteurized Milk Ordinance 142–143

Waikato-based New Zealand Dairy Group  286 Water Accord  236 WaterFootprintNetwork 178 Water footprint (WF)  178–179, 212 Water management total water footprint  220 types of water use  220 Water stress index (WSI)  222 Water withdrawal to water availability (WTA) ratio 222 Welfare and Dairy Cattle Production Systems 141 Westland Milk Products  286 WF. see Water footprint (WF) White clover  187 World Health Organization (WHO)  100, 101 World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE)  100, 141, 142 World Resources Institute  164, 302

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.

398 World Wildlife Fund (WWF)  164 WSI. see Water stress index (WSI) WTA. see Water withdrawal to water availability (WTA) ratio WWF. see World Wildlife Fund (WWF)

Index Yersinia enterocolitica 6 Yersinia pseudotuberculosis 6 Zero grazing  374 Zoonotic risks, in Tanzania  34–35

© Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing Limited, 2017. All rights reserved.