Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Capital press. (Salem, OR) 19??-current | View Entire Issue (Oct. 30, 2015)
12 CapitalPress.com October 30, 2015 Robotic systems have gained in popularity about the health and produc- tion of individual cows, since the systems provide “instanta- neous data,” Tranel said. Yield is measured on a per- cow and per quarter-udder basis, so a farmer can quickly notice if a cow may be getting sick or if there’s an infection on one of its teats. If there are changes to the herd’s feed rations, the impact on production also quickly becomes evident, he said. By informing farmers whether new techniques are helpful or detrimental, the system allows for “day by day management,” Tranel said. “They can gauge that pretty quickly.” Economics weighed Photos by Mateusz Perkowski/Capitol Press A cow at the Averill family’s dairy in Tillamook, Ore., is cleaned by a touch-activated spinning brush. The brushes remove manure and loose hairs, but they also entertain and relax the cows. Netarts R i er v ORE. ilc Tillamook Bay Costs vary The robotic systems have gained in popularity even though they’re a more ex- pensive option over the low- est-cost milking parlors, said Tranel of Iowa State Univer- sity. The lowest-cost milking parlor systems equate to 25 cents to $1 per hundredweight in milking costs, compared to $2 to $3 per hundredweight with robots, he said. Maintenance and repairs can also be expensive for ro- botic systems, running about $7,000 to $9,000 per year, he Area in detail Pacific O cean ROBOTIC from Page 1 Occasionally, the cows indifferently step over the mechanical manure scraper that slowly and continuously cleans the barn alleys. They are fed by an automated feed pusher that maintains their ra- tions in orderly rows. “They adapt quite well to technology. Probably easi- er than people,” said Mark Brown, a general manager for DeLaval Dairy Service, which builds and installs the equipment. The cows certainly seemed less intrigued by the automat- ed dairy system than the farm- ers who visited the Averills’ dairy during a recent open house organized by DeLaval. While DeLaval fi rst patent- ed the idea for robotic milkers in 1978 and made them com- mercially available in the late 1990s, the technology didn’t really hit its stride until the mid-2000s, said Brown. Several other manufactur- ers also produce robotic sys- tems, including Lely, GEA, BouMatic and Insentec. With the growing strength of computer power and the increased familiarity of dairy- men with the technology, such milkers are now catching on, Brown said. “It’s become really reliable and accepted,” he said. TILLAMOOK STATE FOREST his Tillamook Tr R i ve 101 Tillamo ok R. Visitors to the Averill family’s dairy in Tillamook, Ore., observe the operations of a robotic milking machine. estimated. “It’s defi nitely not the cheapest way to milk a cow, but there are other factors en- couraging producers to put in robots,” Tranel said. “The bottom line is cows like them and people like them.” Aside from labor concerns, there are “quality of life fac- tors,” since dairymen are less physically tied to the facility, he said. “Someone doesn’t al- ways have to be there.” Don Averill, whose family owns the dairy, said he de- cided to invest in the robotic milkers and other machinery Approximate site of Don Averill’s automated dairy operation N 3 miles Alan Kenaga/Capital Press when undertaking an expan- sion of the operation. The primary motivation was reducing the need for la- bor, which has become more scarce in recent years, he said. With automated equipment performing many of the duties in the dairy barns, manage- ment of the operation is easier for Averill, who can attend to other tasks. Averill also sees the system as less stressful for the cows, as they’re able to set their own routine without frequent inter- actions with humans. For example, the automat- ed brushes provide the perk of entertaining the cows while they’re being cleaned, he said. “It gives them something to do. That’s cow TV.” Apart from improving the health and longevity of his cows, the system is expected to increase their productivity, Averill said. More production Before the system’s in- stallation, the cows were only milked twice a day. Once their bodies are at full holding ca- pacity, they stop producing milk. Now, the herd is milked three times a day, so they don’t hit that limit. A major advantage of ro- botic milkers is information Each robotic milker costs roughly $200,000, but the to- tal cost will depend on how much a dairy must be retrofi t- ted to accommodate the units and which type of gate system the farmer prefers, Brown said. Manure scrapers cost about $30,000 per unit, feed push- ers cost about $20,000 and touch-activated brushes cost about $2,600 each, he said. Robotic systems are best suited for dairies with about 260 or fewer cows, as larger operations can achieve greater profi ts with low-cost milking parlors, said Tranel. “For me, it’s more of a smaller-farmer technology.” Robotic systems that in- volve a major upfront invest- ment are often more diffi cult for dairies to manage than traditional milking parlors, in which the labor costs are more spread out, said Mathew Haan, a dairy educator at Pennsylva- nia State University who has studied the systems. That challenge is mitigated by dealers who can lease the equipment or banks that agree to fi nance it, Haan said. “It makes it much more attractive from a fi nancial standpoint.” ‘They tortured the data to ensure a specifi c outcome’ WHO from Page 1 although it is not yet fully un- derstood how it is increased, the panel stated. The IARC notes that red meat has nutritional value but stated the fi ndings support current public health recom- mendations to limit it in diets. A healthy lifestyle, a bal- anced diet and maintaining a healthy weight are more im- portant to reducing risks than a single carcinogen as rated by this panel, the NCBA’s El- lis said. A double-blind study of the same research that was reviewed by IARC conducted on behalf of the beef checkoff has concluded a weak asso- ciation, if any, between red meat consumption and cancer, he said. It was clear sitting in the IARC meeting that many of the panelists were aiming for a specifi c result despite old, weak, inconsistent, self-re- ported intake data, North American Meat Institute Vice President of Scientifi c Affairs Betsy Booren stated in a press release. “They tortured the data to ensure a specifi c outcome,” she said. The panel was given the task of looking at hazards that meat could pose at some lev- el, under some circumstances but was not asked to consider any off-setting benefi ts, such as the nutrition meat delivers or the implications of drasti- cally reducing or removing meat from the diet, she said. “IARC’s decision simply cannot be applied to people’s health because it considers just one piece of the health puzzle: theoretical hazards,” she said. ‘We’re hoping all the water users in district 63 will stick together on this’ Unless Booth’s recommendation is overturned by Wildman, “he’s bound by it,” Rice said. “The direc- tor has no authority to reverse the court. His ruling is of no effect.” But Weaver said while both cas- es were about the refi ll issue, they asked different questions on the mat- ter and Spackman’s order addressed different aspects of the issue. The department supports letting both of the current cases play out because they allow both parties to participate fully in resolving the re- fi ll matter, he said. “The department, of course, is going to comply with” the ultimate legal outcomes of both processes, Weaver said. REFILL from Page 1 Boise to Parma in Southwestern Ida- ho. Based on snowpack levels and spring runoff calculations, water is released from Boise River system reservoirs in January or February to prevent fl ooding in the valley. When the snow melts, the res- ervoirs fi ll again and the water is available for irrigators during the summer. Idaho Department of Water Re- sources offi cials believe the water released downstream for fl ood con- trol should count against irrigators’ storage water rights. Because senior water right hold- ers get fi rst dibs to the water that fi lls the reservoirs, they are the ones af- fected by that means of accounting for fl ood control releases. Confl icting rulings Under Idaho water law, if the per- son with those water rights didn’t use the water when it was available to them, it’s available to the next per- son in line who will put it to benefi - cial use, said IDWR Deputy Director Mathew Weaver. Weaver pointed out that the Idaho Supreme Court ruled last year that the IDWR director has discretion to determine what constitutes the fi lling of a storage water right. The depart- ment believes that under Idaho water law, storage water right holders are required to take the water when it’s available to them. A legal opinion by Idaho’s dep- uty attorney general, Clive Strong, agrees with the IDWR’s position on the issue. But an Oct. 9 ruling by a special court master agreed with the Trea- sure Valley irrigators’ position that fl ood control releases should not count against reservoir storage wa- ter rights. That 46-page ruling was made by Theodore Booth, a special master of the Snake River Basin Ad- judication court. Sean Ellis/Capital Press Treasure Valley Water Users Association Executive Director Roger Batt stands in front of Lucky Peak Reservoir Oct. 22. Treasure Valley water users are fi ghting the state’s decision to count fl ood control releases from Boise River system reservoirs against storage water rights. Both sides say the issue is likely to end up before the Idaho Supreme Court. “Special master Booth’s ruling was in favor of our irrigators’ posi- tion that we do have a right to the water that fi lls in the reservoirs after fl ood control releases are made and that fl ood control releases do not count against the storage rights of our water right holders,” Batt said. Six days later, IDWR Director Gary Spackman issued an order in a contested case hearing on the matter that backs the department’s position on the issue. That adminis- trative case, which is separate from the SRBA case, was initiated by the department and Spackman was the judge. In his 84-page order, Spackman ruled that the department’s “current water right accounting method is consistent with the prior appropria- tion doctrine and is the best method for effi ciently accounting and dis- tributing water and maximizing wa- ter use without waste.” Treasure Valley water users who disagree with Spackman’s order can petition for a judicial review of that decision and the judicial review can in turn be appealed to the Idaho Su- preme Court. Special master Booth’s ruling is a recommendation to Judge Eric Wildman, the presiding judge of the SRBA court. The IDWR can chal- lenge those recommendations before Wildman and can also appeal Wild- man’s decision to the Idaho Supreme Court. Parties on both sides say the issue will likely be decided by the state’s top court. “Nampa-Meridian is prepared to go the distance,” said NMID Water Superintendent Greg Curtis. “We’re hoping all the water users in district 63 will stick together on this.” Sen. Jim Rice, R-Caldwell, chair- man of the Idaho Senate’s Agricul- tural Affairs Committee, said Spack- man’s order cannot overrule the SRBA court’s decision. stored and it can’t be used, we say, ‘You can’t count it against our wa- ter rights,’” Steenson said. “It’s very simple.” The offi ce of Gov. Butch Otter declined to comment on the issue. The issue has galvanized water users in district 63, who formed the water users association earlier this year largely as a result of it. Coon, of the Nampa & Meridian Irrigation District, said water users in this area have struggled to under- stand the state’s stance on the issue. “The ‘why’ is very baffl ing,” he said. “You begin to believe it’s simply a water grab ... because this makes absolutely no (legal) sense at all.” 1953 agreement No change in policy In 1953, an agreement between Treasure Valley water users, the state and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers stip- ulated that fl ood control releases would not count against reservoir storage rights, said Boise attorney Dan Steenson, who is representing Treasure Valley water users on the issue. The agreement was approved by Congress in 1954. Despite the complexity of the court proceedings in the two cases, the issue really isn’t complex, Steen- son said. “The basic issue is whether or not water released for fl ood control purposes counts against your stor- age rights,” he said. “Our position is that water released for fl ood control purposes doesn’t count against your water storage right. It never has and it can’t.” Because a certain amount of res- ervoir space has to remain empty to prevent fl ooding, that water can’t be stored, Steenson said. And because the water is released during a time when irrigators can’t use it, he add- ed, it can’t be put to benefi cial use by them. “Because that water can’t be Weaver said it’s not correct for people to say the state has recently changed how it accounts for fl ood control releases and storage rights in district 63. The department has ac- counted for those releases this way since it adopted a year-round com- puterized water rights accounting system in 1986, he said. “This is how we have always done it, since 1986,” he said. “The department has made no recent changes in its practices.” Those opposed to the IDWR stance on fl ood control releases say the adoption of the computerized water right accounting program didn’t change water rights or Idaho water law. “It didn’t change the water right and it didn’t change the way the wa- ter rights are administered,” Steen- son said. He said the 1953 agreement with the Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers is legally bind- ing and water users hope the IDWR reverses its course on the issue. “We hope the state admits they’re wrong because the facts, the evi- dence and the record are so clear, as (demonstrated) by Booth’s deci- sion,” he said.