Tom Quaife, Editor, Dairy Herd Network   |   Updated: May 16, 2011

The fallout continues following the rejection of a stricter somatic cell count limit in the U.S.

Matt McKnight, vice president of market access and regulatory and industry affairs for the U.S. Dairy Export Council, told those attending the Pfizer Animal Health Dairy Wellness Summit on Friday that having a 750,000 cells/ml legal limit makes it more difficult to convince international trading partners that we are serious about milk quality.

“When you are sitting down with a trading partner, what’s in your books is what you have to live with,” he said. The trading partner can point out that the regulations allow the U.S. to produce milk up to the 750,000 limit, “so the burden is greater to prove we are below it,” he added.

On May 4, the National Conference on Interstate Milk Shipments rejected a proposal to upgrade the somatic cell count standard from 750,000 to 400,000 cells/ml.

Some countries, such as Russia, may not accept imported dairy products from milk above 400,000 cells/ml.

The U.S. has increased dairy exports in recent years, but many in the international trading arena are watching to see if the American dairy industry is serious about sustaining that progress. In 2010, the U.S. exported 12.8 percent of its milk production, on a milk-solids basis.

McKnight shared the results of a Global Buyer Survey, which was conducted last fall and polled 75 buyers from more than 25 countries.

The survey found that some buyers are skeptical. There’s frustration on their part “that we don’t move fast enough and skepticism on their part that we don’t want to continue,” McKnight said. For instance, buyers point to the somatic cell count standard and the fact the U.S. won’t change it. And, there have been instances where their product specifications for milk powder and other products have not been met.

Many buyers have exact specifications and don’t want variation. Yet, “our milk powder can range from 34 to 39 percent protein,” McKnight said.

The survey also identified opportunities. For one thing, the U.S. is seen as an alternative supplier to the Oceania countries of New Zealand and Australia. Some buyers see the Oceania countries as having a monopoly aspect when it comes to dairy exports.

“We’ve been a late-comer (to the dairy export market),” McKnight said. Yet, the U.S. has entered at a time when countries around the world are “starting to get more money in their pockets and moving up the food chain to eat,” he added.

In China, 20 million babies will be born this year and those babies will be pampered by their parents and grandparents, due to China’s one-child policy. That presents tremendous possibilities for the infant formula market.

To the credit of American dairy products, they are viewed as very safe, McKnight said. “No one around the world is concerned about the safety of the U.S. supply,” he said.

---

Northeast Vermont  |  May, 16, 2011 at 10:46 AM

Seriously, right now all that is holding up the milk price is international markets. I can't believe we as an industry can't get this right. Where do we go next? Congress?

Quit with the excuses. There's no reason why 400,000 SCC should not be the limit now.

NY  |  May, 16, 2011 at 11:14 AM

There must be a reason they do this. If we are unable to export our milk it creates a stagnant market for the extra and that could keep our price down. A lot of markets here in the US would like to see us sell cheap. When the US has too much milk processors get rich.

NY  |  May, 16, 2011 at 12:28 PM

What was the reason given for the 26 negative votes? This is a slap in the face to all dairy procducers who work hard to keep their herds heatlhy. High SCC are an indication of infection in the mammary system of a cow pure and simple. The other problem is what this could do to exports which have really become a bright spot for dairyfarmers. This is further proof of the disconnect between the producers and the prople who regulate and represent them (coops).

Wapakoneta, Ohio  |  May, 16, 2011 at 01:09 PM

Any dairyman that can't reach 400,000 SCC ,maybe should find another line of work.

PA  |  May, 16, 2011 at 03:27 PM

I called some of the board members the other week right after the vote and asked if they were going to release a statement regarding their decision and also if they were going to release the names of those that voted and explain how they got into their position. But no one has called me back

Eastern Ohio  |  May, 16, 2011 at 07:18 PM

The names of those voting against lowering the SCC limit to 400,000 should be published complete with address and phone numbers and released to all dairymen. We have the right to know why they voted the way they did and their reasons. U.S. dairymen should be extremely upset by their unpopular and demeaning votes. A majority of U.S dairymen look at 400,000 as still to high. Let us lower it even further and set the standard for the world's dairymen.

ny  |  May, 16, 2011 at 08:42 PM

Can the US dairy farmers stand anymore slaps in the face from the people that are trying to "help" us! There are very few dairies in this country that have SCC of 750,000 and we are deprived of another way to survive by people whose salaries are never affected by the price paid to farmers for their milk! I agree anyone who keeps a cell count that high shouldnt be allowed to even ship milk in this country! Oh wait if i mix it in with my neighbor that has 150,000 count the average is .... come on people!!!

NE Vermont  |  May, 16, 2011 at 09:18 PM

Its about time we take advantage of every tool we can to drive our markets and control our prices. I was very disapointed in the vote to reduce SCC counts.... Maybe it is time to change personnel.