Lane O. Ely, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Department of Animal and Dairy Science, UGA
In the last DairyFax, I finished talking about the Dairy Buyout program in the 1980’s that resulted in the loss of 23% of the milk production in Georgia. This had a major and long-term effect on the Georgia dairy industry.
Masstock
There was a second event in the 1980’s that also had long term effects on the Georgia dairy industry. At the time dairy farmers were leaving, Masstock made the decision to build a new dairy in Georgia. Masstock is an Irish agricultural company that has agricultural operations around the world. They had a successful dairy operation in Saudi Arabia and were looking to expand. They had operations in China and Thailand that they were developing. They decided to come to Georgia for that expansion. Reasons included the market, milk price, land and a dairy industry that had just lost local supply. The state of Georgia Economic Division was involved, and some tax incentives were offered.
The reaction to the arrival of Masstock was decidedly mixed as either one was for it or against it. I felt it was a very positive move as the milk that was lost needed to be replaced and it would be better for it to be local rather than shipped in. Also, a lot of publicity was generated as every dairy magazine ran articles about the move. Many requests for information came into the Extension Dairy Science department and several producers visited the state to explore the opportunity to move to Georgia. This was decidedly a minority position.
The more popular position was the negative view of the coming of Masstock. Georgia Milk Producers, dairymen and many politicians were vocal opponents of the Masstock coming. Some objected to the tax incentives that were offered. In fact, Masstock ended up not taking them. Others objected to the development of new dairies because they felt that the Class I utilization would fall resulting in a lower milk price. Which was true but the industry was importing milk from other states to meet the demand in Georgia. There has always been a debate of how to increase local production versus trucking milk in to meet the demand. This has always set an upper limit to local price.
There was a very vocal uproar about Masstock. A call was received in the department from a South Georgia dairyman who was also a state legislature. He wanted someone to visit his farm the next day to discuss his parlor. I do not remember why but I was the one who was free to go for the visit. Joe West had recently joined the Department in Tifton. I thought this would be a good chance for Joe to meet an important dairyman so we agreed I would pick him up and we would go for the visit. We drove up to the farm, went into the office and I introduced Joe. The dairyman said that he thought it was time for him to upgrade his parlor. We talked a little bit and his next question was what I thought about Masstock. I replied that I thought it was good for the Georgia dairy industry. For the next hour, I was hammered with how bad this was for the Georgia dairy industry. Finally, he ended the discussion with “You had better get back in your car and head for Athens as fast as you can because your office will not be there when you get there.” Joe and I departed and drove a while. Joe finally asked me “Are all the farm visits like this?” I said no, this one was unusual. There were visits to the Dean and President of UGA asking to remove the dairy faculty. There was a lot of pressure but over time it settled down. I still maintain that the Masstock coming was positive for the dairy industry. It created a lot of publicity as every dairy magazine had articles about the move and about the potential for dairy in Georgia. There were several phone calls and visits by dairymen looking into Georgia. Also, Masstock demonstrated the advantages for housing to control the environment. Several employees that Masstock brought here stayed and became farm mangers as several dairyman expanded. An interesting article is in Dairy Today: October 1987.
UGA Teaching Dairy
The UGA Teaching Dairy is the oldest continual operating dairy in Georgia. The first reference to the dairy in the history of the University of Georgia is in 1908. Dr. Milton Jernigan, head of the Animal Husbandry Department, bought 2 registered Holstein bulls and 6 registered Holstein cows for the dairy farm. There are indications that the dairy was in operation before this time. The dairy was located in various places on South Campus. In 1936, a new dairy was built and is still standing on South Campus serving as the 4 Towers Visitors Center. In 1974, the dairy was moved to a new location on Walter Sams Rd. One of the first events I participated in as a new UGA faculty member was the dedication of the new dairy. The dairy was a free style housing barn, a double 3 side opening parlor, an enclosed calf barn, feed mill, research barn, and heifer raising barn, pastures, crop fields and irrigation system. At the time the state did not allow communication between the architects and the dairy department. The facility ended up with some new ideas but also had some physical limitations. The alley slopes were three times the normal but over the years caused no problems as the cows adapted easily. The bedding for the free stalls was sawdust flushed into a lagoon. The feeling at the time that the sawdust would be digested in the lagoon but in reality, the sawdust was added faster than it could be digested. The roof of the free stall barn was too low and an open ridge vent was located over a row of free stalls. The enclosed calf barn was a complete failure due to poor ventilation and the calves were moved to outside calf hutches within a few months.
More forward 25 years and the dairies in Athens and Tifton were in need of repairs. The philosophy at the time was to use a facility and then to build a new one. A budget request was made for new dairies to be built. Due to politics, the request for the Tifton dairy went forward with plans to do the Athens dairy at a later date. The Tifton dairy was built and requests for the Athens dairy were developed but were never forwarded from the planning stage.
In 2000, I was appointed the faculty coordinator for the dairy farm to work with the manager and workers. The dairy had some physical problems with facilities failing and needing repairs. Plans were developed to make changes with potential budget request to convert from sawdust to sand for bedding, open up the free stalls and sidewalls of the barn for air flow, new fencing for the pastures and repairs to the feed mill.
Before much could be done, the Dean of Agriculture announced the Athens dairy was being closed. A meeting was held with the Dean, Associate Deans, Department Head, permanent dairy farm workers and I as the farm coordinator. The permanent workers were the manager, assistant manager, 2 milkers, calf manager and research associate. They were each handed a letter stating that their job would be terminated in 6 months. The College promise they would do their best to help the people gain other jobs. Ironically, this effort amounted to give the workers a list of opening of positions in the College and University. This was one of the most disappointing moments in my time at the university. The reason for closing the dairy was it was losing money and would cost too much to make it profitable. This is the reason almost always used by the universities when closing agricultural facilities (See the Tifton dairy closing). At this time period, several universities were closing their dairies with very little opposition. The backlash was almost immediate and very loud and widespread. Georgia Milk Producers, Georgia Beef, and the Veterinary School all provided support for the dairy to stay open. The most vocal and continued outcry about the closing was the students. Not just the dairy students but all of the Animal Science students as the dairy was used by several classes. They wrote letters, had some rallies and contacted the media. The students were in the papers, magazines and made TV news by having a demonstration at the ARCH.
After a few months, another meeting was called and a compromise was proposed to keep the dairy open. The dairy was to have a milking herd of 60 cows. All workers were to be paid from the milk check with no state funds except for the manager who was going to be paid for one year. All expenses had to come out of the milk check. The dairy would become an A budget instead of a B budget funding.
I need to put some information out about the University budgets. The A budget is for the teaching and B budget is for extension and research in the College of Agriculture. There are different formulas used for the 2 budgets. The important fact is the A budget funds could not be spent on B budget activities or B funds on A activities.
The compromise was accepted, and we started work to keep the dairy open. I was told later by the Associate Dean, they were sure the dairy would collapse and be closed within 6 months.
The first thing that was done was to cut the milking herd to 60 cows from the 150 cows we were currently milking. After several rounds of the dairy workers and faculty, a list of 60 to be kept was created. There were 25 cows that had no dairy value and were sold for beef. There were 69 cows that had dairy value, and we wanted to sell these for money to make repairs. Remember that Tifton had built a new dairy, and the Dean decided we would donate the cows to Tifton, so the cows were shipped to Tifton. Tifton kept some and sold some but were able to increase their cow numbers. (When the Tifton dairy closed, they wanted the Athens dairy to buy cows but ended up selling them all to a Georgia dairy man) No one had said anything about the number of heifers we could keep so about a dozen close-up heifers were also shipped to Tifton, but the Athens dairy kept all the younger heifers. This allowed the cow numbers to increase over the next 2 years, so we were milking 100 cows.
The next big change was the effect of being switched to the A budget. The B budget was allocated to the Department and the department head could spend the money across the farms. This meant that at times the horse feed bill, or the beef feed bill, or the fuel and repair of equipment was charged to the dairy. Often times, this meant things were not done at the dairy. Being on the A budget now the milk check could only be spent on the dairy. This increased the funds that were available for repairs at the dairy.
The other aspect of the A budget was funding for maintenance and operation (M&O) funds. The formula for these funds was an amount per square foot. The A budget amount was 3 times the B budget formula. The College of Agriculture had for years worked to increase the B budget rate with little success. Now the dairy was generating over $200,000 in M&O funds. The dairy was receiving no funds as the M&O money went to the physical plant and they approved projects. As I was told several times, a facility getting M&O funds did not get funds automatically as there were more projects than there were funds. After some requests, a meeting was set up with myself, department head, associate dean, agricultural business office, the university business office and physical plant. After discussion about the availability of funds for projects being limited, I brought up the amount the dairy was generating and receiving nothing. I was asked how I knew that and I replied, “I had a list of University buildings, their square footage and whether they were A or B budget.” I then showed them to printout and commented that it was interesting that the Coliseum was listed as an A budget facility The whole conversion changed, and they said the dairy would get the basic maintenance such as light bulbs, check-up for motors and electricity. Also, our request for funds was approved for some bigger projects. Funds were granted to build a solid separator so the bedding could be converted to sand. Using the farm labor and milk check funds the free-stalls were converted to sand, new loops put up and the walls in front of the free stalls and outside walls were removed. Over about 18 months the barn was remodeled with better air flow, increased cow comfort and more milk and cutting the SCC in half. The dairy was on a more stable footing and continued to operate.
Another result of the compromise was an increase in student labor to operate the dairy. This fits well with our educational function, but it results in a very inefficient labor force. There is lots of training, turnover (many students would work for 1 semester to get it on their resume) and the time to recruit workers. Think about teaching a 20 year who has been driving for 4 years how to drive a manual shift. It turns out to be more time-consuming than I would have thought. Over the years, many students have worked on the dairy to go on to work in the dairy industry, feed industry, and become vets, researchers, teachers and extension agents.
The dairy has survived another 25 years from the attempt to close the dairy. In fact, there is a current proposal for a new dairy facility. I wish them the best of luck.
Farm Visits
Farm visits were an integral of our extension program over the years. They were part of the problem-solving process for an individual farmer but also were part of our education programs, trainings, field days and contests. For most of my career, I spent much of my efforts developing computer programs to analyze production and financial records to identify problems and suggest solutions. Often times to reach a good solution among the options, a farm visit was necessary to see the limitations or potential for that farm.
Most visits were straight forward. A visit, discussion of the problem, solutions and a decision reached. But there were some unusual farm visits that were not normal. I have already mentioned one which was my visit during Masstock’s move to Georgia to be contested by the dairyman about the decision.
The Silo
Another different farm visit involved a silo. A farm in Newton County had been sold and the seller and buyer were in a dispute about the value of the silage in the silo. Some silage had been fed and they could not agree on how much was there and what it was worth. Jim Smith and I were called to the dairy by the county agent to talk with the two parties about the sale. When we got there it was obvious that the two parties were not close to agreeing on the value of the silage. The silo was a classic concrete stave silo 75 feet tall with an enclosed chute on the outside for the doors and ladder. I made some estimates from observation and what they were saying but there was no agreement. Jim said since I was the silage expert I should climb up and see what was in the silo. That seemed to be OK with the two parties, so I climbed up the silo to see where the level of silage was and its condition. What no one had said was that they had not used the silo in 6 months when the dispute began. I quickly realized that the climb was going to be more difficult than I had imagined. The chute was full of cobwebs (and spiders), bits of silage and other trash. I climbed up, measured the doors to the silage. Measured the height of the silage that had been removed and looked at the condition of the silage which was excellent because the silo was covered. I climbed down and as I emerged from the chute everyone started laughing. I was covered in spider webs and bits of silage. I guess it loosened up the situation because the two farmers agreed to my estimate of the value of the silage.
The Labor Pool
On a visit to a farm in South Georgia, I was amazed by the number of workers around the farm. The farm had 150 milk cows, grew some crops for sale and had a pecan orchard but there still seemed to be a lot of workers. I asked the farmer about all of the workers, and he said, “I have one crew working, one crew in jail and one crew drying out.” It seemed to work for him.
The Bull
Many dairies used bulls for their reproduction program. Always a safety concern as the bulls could be erratic in their behavior. There had been some accidents and fatalities so whenever we were on farm visits we were very conscious of where the bulls were. Many producers though were very causal about the bulls because they were around them all the time. I went to Warren County to visit a dairy about their feeding program and low milk production. The herd fed grain in the parlor, free choice hay and pasture. The herd had been milked and the herd was in the pasture and woods. So, we got in the farmers truck and went to the field to look at the cows. The herd was scattered out and he said let’s go look at the herd. As we are getting out of the truck, he says that “his bull had been acting up.” He reached over and pulled a 45 from the glove box. We get out to look at the herd. I am trying to look at the herd, look for the bull and try to make sure the if I see the bull I am not between the farmer with the 45 and the bull. After about 10 minutes, I had seen most of the cows, found the bull and was ready to go. I do not remember the nutrition advice I gave him, but it must have been OK as we did not need a follow-up.
Lots of memories. The best part of the memories are the many people in the dairy industry.
