Overview of the Michigan Livestock Industry

Wendy PowersDirector of Environmental Stewardship

for Animal AgricultureMichigan State University

Animal agriculture in Michigan

• Agriculture is 2nd largest industry in Michigan

• Dairy is 25% of ag receipts

< 3% increase <3% decrease

3-5% increase 3-5% decrease

5+% increase 5+% decrease

U.S. = 2.8% increase (consumption tends to increase 1-4% annually)

Change in Milk Production, 2005-06

Michigan Dairy Trends: Cow Numbers and Total Milk, thru 2006

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

1924

1927

1930

1933

1936

1939

1942

1945

1948

1951

1954

1957

1960

1963

1966

1969

1972

1975

1978

1981

1984

1987

1990

1993

1996

1999

2002

2005

Milk Production (mil. lbs)Milk Cows (100 hd)

MI Cows & Milk, 1924-2006

Dairy Cows in MI1887: 336,6122007: 324,000

Michigan Dairy Trends: Milk Per Cow, thru 2006

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

1924

1926

1928

1930

1932

1934

1936

1938

1940

1942

1944

1946

1948

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Milk

/Cow

/Yea

r (lb

s)

MI Milk per Cow, 1924-2006

Change in Dairy Cows, 2005-06

>10,000 cow increase

<10,000 cow increase

<10,000 cow decrease

>1.7M >300K

>1.2M >200K

>400K >100K

Dairy Cows (April, 2007)Top Ten

California 1,797,000

Wisconsin 1,246,000

New York 627,000

Pennsylvania 550,000

Idaho 503,000

Minnesota 455,000

Texas 347,000

New Mexico 345,000

Michigan 328,000

Ohio 275,000

Dairy Cows, 2007

>20,000

>15,000

>10,000

>5,000

Top Ten

Huron 24,400

Clinton 21,100

Sanilac 19,500

Allegan 19,000

Newaygo 12,900

Ionia 21,100

Gratiot 11,800

Missaukee 11,700

Ottawa 11,200

Hillsdale 10,900

Change in Dairy Cows, ’97-’07Michigan +12,000 (312,000 to 324,000)

>4,000 ↑

>1,000 ↑

<1,000 ↑

<1,000 ↓

>1,000 ↓

>4,000 ↓

Top Fivefrom both ends

Huron +8,900

Clinton +5,600

Lenawee +4,900

Newaygo +4,900

Gratiot +4,300……………………………….……………………………

Lapeer -3,000

Washtenaw -3,200

Ottawa -3,300

Muskegon* -3,800

Sanilac -5,000* Reported as zero in 2007becasue of too few farms

Hillsdale & Lenawee Co. Dairy Industry 1887-2006

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

1887 1925 1935 1945 1954 1965 1975 1985 1995 2005 2006

YEAR

DA

IRY

CO

WS.

LenaweeHillsdaleCombined

Source: Michigan Agricultural Statistics Service

Lenawee #1 Dairy County in MI in 1887

Michigan Trends: Number of Dairy Farms, thru 2006

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

50000

19501952195419561958196019621964196619681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006

Year

Num

ber o

f Dai

ry F

arm

s

MI Dairy Farms, 1950-2006

Michigan Dairy Trends: Cows Per Farm, thru 2006

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1950

1952

1954

1956

1958

1960

1962

1964

1966

1968

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

2002

2004

2006

Year

Ave

rage

Cow

s pe

r Dai

ry F

arm

Average Herd Size 1950-2006

Total < 50 50-99 100-199 200-499 > 5002700 1200 650 480 265 105

% herds 44% 24% 18% 10% 4%% cows 7% 15% 21% 23% 34%% milk 5% 13% 19% 24% 39%

Michigan Dairy Farms by Herd Size, 2006

1200, 44%

650, 24%

480, 18%

265, 10%105, 4%

< 5050-99100-199200-499> 500

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

U.S. Hogs and Pigs Inventory 1975 to 2005

Sow farm inventory by state 6/29/07

IA 16,800NC 9,400

6,9004,0503,2003,0502,8502,3401,8401,7001,2801,100

980

MNILINNEMOOKKSOHSDPAMI

Sow inventory

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

200000

1945 1964 1967 1974 1978 1982 1987 1992 1997 20020

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

45000

Michigan sow & gilt inventory

Number of farms reporting sows and gilts

Michigan swine industry

• In 1980, Michigan was reported to have 9,600 farm operations with hogs. In December 1991, this number had decreased by approximately 4,600 farms to a reported 5,000 farms with hogs.

• 1991 – ranked 11th in number of pigs

Michigan swine industry

• NASS – 2100 operations in 2006

1-99 100-499

500-999

1,000-1,999

2,000-4,999

>5,000

1540 240 75 80 120 45

73% 11% 4% 4% 6% 2%

Top 10 counties 2005

Green: Cass (1) and Allegan (2)

Blue: Ottawa (3) Branch (4) Huron (5) and Calhoun (6)

Yellow: Hillsdale (7) Gratiot (8) Van Buren (9) Kalamazoo (10)

2

1

3

4

5

67

8

9 10

Feedlot numbers for 1999-2006: (1,000 hd)Heifers

Steers>500 lb Non-replacements >500

1999 195 452000 200 502001 190 452002 195 452003 195 422004 215 512005 200 472006 195 45

• Generally moving north with highest concentration in the thumb

Feedlots

Cow-calf operations

• Spread out across state, focused in areas of lower land values and higher forage production capability

• Highest concentrations in the south-west and west-central regions

• Numbers have declined in the U.P. and north-east Michigan

Beef Cows 1999-2006 (1,000 hd)1999 1052000 952001 852002 712003 892004 852005 93

2006 108

Overall growth

• Dairy is essentially the only growing sector• Dairy and other sectors continue to see

fewer, larger operations with no net change in animal inventories for beef, swine and poultry

Rationale behind changes

• Increased productivity means increased profits

• Fewer people interested in growing their own food or the world’s food

• Economies of scale leads to increased size

• Increasing size provides greater opportunities

Implications of change

• More waste in one place• Specialization compounds the issue…• as does urban sprawl/population increase

• But manure management has continually improved in the livestock industry

Challenges for producers

• Cost of compliance– May be better absorbed by larger operations– Get bigger to help spread the cost of

compliance over greater units of production• Siting

– Availability of good sites– Availability of good siting tools

Challenges for producers

• Siting– Availability of good sites– Availability of good siting tools

Challenges for producers

• Public perception– Bad actors– ‘CAFO’

Things aren’t black and white

• Manure application near tile line or on frozen ground always leads to runoff

• Size dictates pollution potential• Extensive agriculture is better for the

environment• Agriculture has a larger impact than

humans

Perspective is essential

• Air quality• Water quality• Quality of life• Biodiversity• Ecological footprint

Future of animal agriculture in Michigan

• Impact of a moratorium– Who benefits?– Who is hurt?

• Need for good siting• Need for good community planning• Do environmental regulations improve the

environment?• What are the social implications?