Quality Milk Alliance Survey Report for Michigan

7/30/2019 Quality Milk Alliance Survey Report for Michigan

1/7

Prepared by William Alan Coats

May 13, 2013

Michigan Dairy Report

Summary:

Michigan produces more than 8 billion pounds of milk and dairy products each year, earning 1.3

billion dollars. This production level is a small part of overall national production, but is a major part of

production in the Midwest. Dairy production is led by Huron, Clinton, and Sanilac counties (State of

Michigan 2011).

Michigan dairy cows produce the most milk during May, June, and July, when they produce just

over 2000 pounds per cow per month. Also, Michigan cows consistently produce more milk than the

average American cow, producing 23,164 pounds per cow in 2010, compared to the national average of

21,337 pounds per cow. The amount of milk produced per cow has decreased slightly, but the states

overall milk production has increased, due to an increased number of cows overall.

The average Michigan dairy farm earns $524,100 per year and has 130 cows. Both of thesecategories increased between 2002 and 2007, which leads us to believe that Michigan dairy farms are

being consolidated. Most dairy cows in Michigan are found on farms with 100 or more cows, but there

are also a great number of cows on smaller farms.

Michigan performs better than the national average in somatic cell count testing. Michigans

average somatic cell count of 182,000 cells per milliliter is below the national average of 228,000 cells

per milliliter. Michigan had 0.9% of its test days go above the national Grade A limit of 750,000 cells per

milliliter. In addition, 2.3% of days went above 600,000 cells/ml, 4.2% went above 500,000 cells/ml, and

8.3% went above 400,000 cells/ml. Michigans relatively low SCC levels reflect, at least partly, its

geographic position, as states with cooler weather tend to have lower SCC levels.

Migrant Workforce in Michigan

According to a report by the Michigan Civil Rights Commission March of 2010, Seasonal

farmworkers were last reported in 2006 (MCRC, 2010 p.2). It has been difficult to account for all

migrant and seasonal workers in the last few years because of different factors. One of the main factors

is due mobility of workers moving from farm to farm to stay employed. However, according to the

National Center for Farmworker Health, Inc. in 2006, the estimated total of migrant and seasonal

farmworkers and nonworking family members was 90,716 (MCRC, 2010 p. 2). This includes 35,148

migrant farmworkers, 10,652 seasonal farmworkers, 33,671 nonfarm workers in migrant households

and 11,245 nonfarm workers in seasonal worker households (MCRC, 2010 p.2). These statistics are

based on a report by the Michigan Interagency Migrant Services Committee, which defines a seasonal

farmworker as an individual whose principal employment is in agriculture on a seasonal basis, who has

been so employed within the last twenty-four months (IMSC 2006). The report also defines a migrant

farmworker as having the same definition, but establishes for the purposes of such employment a

temporary abode (IMSC 2006). There were 41,038 individuals in Michigans migrant and seasonal

farmworker families were under the age of 20, nearly 70% of whom were under the age of 13 (MCRC,

2010 p.2). The total economic value generated by Michigans farm sector and its related industries was

$6.69 billion in 2006; crops that use migrant labor account for almost 58% of the total economic activity.


2/7

As stated in research article from Michigan State University, researchers found that in Michigan,

between 50 and 75 percent of migrant laborer wages are spent in local businesses (MCRC, 2010 p.2).

Table 1.

Milk Cows (thousands) Average Milk per Cow (pounds)

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Michigan 335 355 366 358 366 22,761 22,180 22,445 23,201 23,164

United States 9,192 9,205 9,198 9,124 9,198 20,199 20,387 20,569 21,029 21,337

Michigan % of total 3.64 3.86 3.98 3.92 3.98 113 109 109 110 109

Source: USDA Economic Research Service, U.S. milk production and other related data, 9/20/2012

Over the past five years, Michigan has slightly increased its dairy production level, and is a relatively

small part of the overall National industry, around 4%. The amount of milk being produced per cow is

increasing both in Michigan and across the nation. Per cow, Michigan produces about 9% above the

national average (USDA ERS 2012).

Table 2.

Milk Cows and Production: February 2012 and 2013

Milk cows Average Milk per cow Average Milk production

2012 (1000

head)

2013 (1000

head)

2012

(pounds)

2013

(pounds)

2012

(million

pounds)

2013

(million

pounds)

Change

from 2012

Michigan 374 377 1875 1870 701 705 0.6

Source: USDA: NASS Agriculture Statistics Board, Milk Production, 2013

According to a monthly report from the USDA comparing February 2012 and February 2013 milk

production, Michigans milk production increased during that time. The number of cows increased by

3000 cows, and though each cow produced a slightly smaller amount of milk, the total milk production

was 4 million pounds (or 0.6%) more (USDA 2013).

Table 3.

Farms Number of Cows Average Farm Size

(# of cows)

2007 2647 344,233 130.05

2002 3013 298,429 99.05

Farms by Inventory, 2007

Farms Number of Cows % of total cows

1 to 9 555 1,856 .54

10 to 19 231 3,064 .89

20 to 49 550 18,070 5.25

50 to 99 454 31,792 9.24

100 to 199 479 64,818 18.83

200 to 499 262 75,661 21.98

500 or more 116 148,972 43.28
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/321444/milkconv.xlshttp://www.ers.usda.gov/media/321444/milkconv.xlshttp://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/mkpr0313.pdfhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/mkpr0313.pdfhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/mkpr0313.pdfhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/media/321444/milkconv.xls


3/7

Source: USDA Ag Census, Table 11: Cattle and Calves - Inventory and Sales: 2007 and 2002

Between 2002 and 2007, the average number of cows per Michigan dairy farm increased by more than

30 cows. The number of farms actually decreased, but the total number of cows increased significantly.

This points to consolidation within the Michigan dairy industry. Most cows (84.09%) are found on farmswith 100 or more cows, but the number of farms is spread out fairly evenly over all size categories

(USDA 2007).

Table 4.

Milk and other dairy products from cows-Michigan

Farms $1000 $1000/Farm

2007 2,453 1,285,571 524.1

2002 2,738 697,920 254.9

Source: USDA Ag Census, Table 2: Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold Including Direct Sales:

2007 and 2002

In 2007, Michigan produced almost $600 million more from milk and dairy products than it did in 2002,

despite having 285 fewer farms. As a result, the average farm went from earning $254,900 in 2002 to

$524,100 in 2007. This also points to consolidation (USDA 2007).

Table 5.

Summary by Market Value of Dairy Products Sold: 2007

Total Sales Farms $1000

Less than $1000 0 N/A

$1000 to $2499 1 N/A

$2500 to $4999 13 N/A

$5000 to $9999 13 70

$10000 to $24999 126 1675

$25000 to $49999 214 4964

$50000 to $99999 263 12993

$100000 to $249999 647 70509

$250000 to $499999 455 122276

$500000 to $999999 419 226370

$1000000 or more 302 846695

All farms 2453 1285571

Source: USDA Ag Census, Table 59. Summary by Market Value of Agricultural Products Sold: 2007

As stated before, Michigan earns almost $1.3 billion from dairy products. However, most of this (93%) is

made by farms that earn more than $250,000. Thus, the bulk of the dairy industry in Michigan consists

of larger, higher earning farms.
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Michigan/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Michigan/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Michigan/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/


4/7

Table 6.

Summary by Farm Typology: 2007Small Family Farms

Milk Cows Total LimitedResourc

e

Retirement Residential/Lifestyle

FarmingOccupation/

Lower Sales

FarmingOccupation

/ Higher

Sales

LargeFamily

Farms

VeryLarge

Family

Farms

Nonfamily Farms

Farms 2,647 234 117 249 348 510 406 674 109

Number

of Cows

344,233 2,269 3,132 2,802 5,542 21,911 36,902 235,449 36,226

1-9 555 147 41 168 134 32 6 16 11

10-49 781 87 54 68 205 294 39 12 22

50-99 454 - 18 13 9 170 190 37 17

100-199 479 - 4 - - 14 165 275 21

200-499 262 - - - - - 6 236 20

500+ 116 - - - - - - 98 18

Percentage by Farm TypeFarms 2,647 8.8 4.4 9.4 13.1 19.3 15.3 25.5 4.1

Number

of Cows

344,233 .7 .9 .8 1.6 6.4 10.7 68.4 10.5

1-9 555 26.5 7.4 30.3 24.1 5.8 1.1 2.9 2.0

10-49 781 11.1 6.9 8.7 26.2 37.6 5.0 1.5 2.8

50-99 454 - 4.0 2.9 2.0 37.4 41.9 8.1 3.7

100-199 479 - .8 - - 2.9 34.4 57.4 4.4

200-499 262 - - - - - 2.3 90.1 7.6

500+ 116 - - - - - - 84.5 15.5

Source: USDA Ag Census, Table 64. Summary by Farm Typology: 2007

On Farm Typology: The 2007 Census of Agriculture uses a typology that classifies farms by sales and

operators occupation. Residential/lifestyle farms are those that produced less than $250,000 in sales ofagricultural products and where the principal operators reported something other than farming as their

primary occupation. Retirement farms are those that produced less than $250,000 in sales and where

principal operators who reported that they were retired. Large family farms are those with sales

between $250,000 and $500,000 and very large family farms are those with sales over $500,000 (USDA

2007).
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Michigan/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Michigan/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_State_Level/Michigan/


5/7

Table 7.

Milk production: Total by month, 2006-2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Month Million poundsJanuary 593 640 657 660 681

February 542 576 605 602 627

March 602 645 645 673 710

April 588 636 638 664 703

May 614 654 677 698 741

June 601 638 653 675 718

July 610 655 669 692 725

August 589 649 655 678 702

September 578 620 630 651 677

October 589 638 651 660 689

November 585 626 628 639 662

December 624 648 655 676 693

Annual 7115 7625 7763 7968 8327Source: State of Michigan

Table 8.

Milk production: Total by month, 2006-2010

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Month pounds

January 1890 1945 1910 1865 1920

February 1725 1755 1760 1700 1765

March 1905 1960 1870 1895 1990

April 1850 1920 1840 1865 1970

May 1920 1970 1935 1955 2065

June 1865 1910 1860 1890 2000

July 1895 1950 1900 1945 2020

August 1840 1920 1860 1910 1955

September 1800 1830 1790 1835 1885

October 1835 1870 1845 1860 1915

November 1810 1825 1780 1805 1840

December 1915 1885 1850 1910 1920

Annual 22234 22761 22180 22445 23260

Source: State of Michigan

Michigan dairy cows tend to produce the most milk between April and August, usually peaking between

May and July. The total amount of milk produced has increased every year. The minimum milk output

generally occurs November and February. Michigan dairy cows decreased in average milk production

per cow between 2007 and 2008, but are making their way back (State of Michigan 2011).

According to statistics published by Progressive Dairyman, Dairy is the 5th most valuable agricultural

commodity in the Midwest, making 7.5% of all commodity receipts and grossing $9.9 billion in 2010. In

the study, the Midwest is defined as including IN, IL, MI, WI, MN, IA, MO, ND, SD, KS, and NE. In

addition, Michigan ranked 8th nationally in milk production. Progressive Dairyman lists an average herd

size of 169 cows, a growth of 9% from 2010-2011. Also, Clinton County is listed as the 4th most
http://worldcat.org/arcviewer/6/EEX/2012/02/28/H1330438805749/viewer/file1.pdfhttp://worldcat.org/arcviewer/6/EEX/2012/02/28/H1330438805749/viewer/file1.pdfhttp://worldcat.org/arcviewer/6/EEX/2012/02/28/H1330438805749/viewer/file1.pdfhttp://worldcat.org/arcviewer/6/EEX/2012/02/28/H1330438805749/viewer/file1.pdfhttp://worldcat.org/arcviewer/6/EEX/2012/02/28/H1330438805749/viewer/file1.pdfhttp://worldcat.org/arcviewer/6/EEX/2012/02/28/H1330438805749/viewer/file1.pdf


6/7

productive county for dairy in the Midwest, producing 99.4 million pounds in May 2011 (Progressive

Dairyman 2012).

Table 9.

Characteristics of test-day milk yield and somatic cell count (SCC) from Dairy Herd Improvement herds by State during 2010

Herd test

days

Cows

per herd

Average daily

milk yield

Average SCC Herd test days with greater than

(no.) (no.) (lbs) (cells/mL,

1000s)

750,000

cells/mL

(%)

600,000

cells/mL

(%)

500,000

cells/mL

(%)

400,000

cells/mL

(%)

Michigan 6,240 177.4 77.7 182 0.9 2.3 4.2 8.3

US 198,218 145.2 72.7 228 2.7 5.7 10.0 18.0

Source: Norman, H.D, Cooper T.A, & Ross, Jr. F.A (2010). Somatic cell counts of milk from Dairy Herd Improvement herds

during 2010.
http://aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/dhi/dhi11/sccrpt.htmhttp://aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/dhi/dhi11/sccrpt.htmhttp://aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/dhi/dhi11/sccrpt.htmhttp://aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/dhi/dhi11/sccrpt.htmhttp://aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/dhi/dhi11/sccrpt.htmhttp://aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/dhi/dhi11/sccrpt.htm


7/7

Works Cited

Economic Research Service (2011). Milk production costs and returns per hundredweight (cwt) sold.

Source Retrieved from:www.ers.usda.gov/media/321444/milkconv.xls

Larson, Alice C. Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers Enumeration Study. Rep. State of Michigan

Interagency Migrant Services Committee, Sept. 2006. Web.

.

Michigan Civil Rights Commission (2010). Michigan Immigrant Statistics received from: A Report on the

Conditions of Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers in Michigan. Retrieved from:

www.michigan.gov/.../mdcr/MSFW-Conditions2010_318275_7.pdf

Michigan State Facts Sheet (2013). Economic Research Service, USDA, Washington, DC. UpdatedFebruary 26, 2013. Retrieved from :

www.ers.usda.gov/ReportExport.aspx?...=/StateFactSheets/StateFactS...

Michigan State Profile. (2007).Census of Agriculture, Volume 1, Geographic Area Series,

www.agcensus.usda.gov/2007/

Norman, H.D, Cooper T.A, & Ross, Jr. F.A (2010). Somatic cell counts of milk from Dairy Herd

Improvement herds during 2010. Source Retrieved from :

http://aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/dhi/dhi11/sccrpt.htm

Progressive Dairyman. "May 2012 Regional Statistics Combined." Progressive Publishing, n.d. Web.http://www.progressivepublish.com/downloads/2012/general/2012_pd_r_stats_highres.pdf

State of Michigan (2011). Michigan Agricultural Statistics 2010-2011. Department of Agriculture and

Rural Development.

http://worldcat.org/arcviewer/6/EEX/2012/02/28/H1330438805749/viewer/file1.pdf

"USDA Census of Agriculture." United States Department of Agriculture: 2007 Census of Agriculture.

United States Department of Agriculture, 4 Feb. 2009.

United States Department of Agriculture (2013). Farms, Land in Farms, and Livestock Operations 2012

Summary. ISSN: 1930-7128; Source Retrieved from

www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/fnlo0213.pdf

United States Department of Agriculture (2013). Milk Production. ISSN: 1949-1557; Source Retrieved

fromhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/mkpr0313.pdf
http://www.ers.usda.gov/media/321444/milkconv.xlshttp://www.ers.usda.gov/media/321444/milkconv.xlshttp://www.michigan.gov/.../mdcr/MSFW-Conditions2010_318275_7.pdfhttp://www.michigan.gov/.../mdcr/MSFW-Conditions2010_318275_7.pdfhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/ReportExport.aspx?...=/StateFactSheets/StateFactShttp://www.ers.usda.gov/ReportExport.aspx?...=/StateFactSheets/StateFactShttp://www.agcensus.usda.gov/2007/http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/2007/http://aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/dhi/dhi11/sccrpt.htmhttp://www.progressivepublish.com/downloads/2012/general/2012_pd_r_stats_highres.pdfhttp://worldcat.org/arcviewer/6/EEX/2012/02/28/H1330438805749/viewer/file1.pdfhttp://worldcat.org/arcviewer/6/EEX/2012/02/28/H1330438805749/viewer/file1.pdfhttp://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/fnlo0213.pdfhttp://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/fnlo0213.pdfhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/mkpr0313.pdfhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/mkpr0313.pdfhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/mkpr0313.pdfhttp://www.nass.usda.gov/Publications/Todays_Reports/reports/mkpr0313.pdfhttp://www.usda.gov/nass/PUBS/TODAYRPT/fnlo0213.pdfhttp://worldcat.org/arcviewer/6/EEX/2012/02/28/H1330438805749/viewer/file1.pdfhttp://www.progressivepublish.com/downloads/2012/general/2012_pd_r_stats_highres.pdfhttp://aipl.arsusda.gov/publish/dhi/dhi11/sccrpt.htmhttp://www.agcensus.usda.gov/2007/http://www.ers.usda.gov/ReportExport.aspx?...=/StateFactSheets/StateFactShttp://www.michigan.gov/.../mdcr/MSFW-Conditions2010_318275_7.pdfhttp://www.ers.usda.gov/media/321444/milkconv.xls

Quality Milk Alliance Survey Report for Michigan

Documents

Transcript of Quality Milk Alliance Survey Report for Michigan