Wood floors bad?

More on the stable controversy

By Ann Ingerson
July 1984

WOOD floored dairy barns have been controversial ever since regulations in the 1950s required an “impervious surface”. Now the controversy seems to be once again in the news. (See the June NEF for Charlie Calley’s article on the subject). Various states in New England place different priorities on this particular requirement of the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance. Political realities seem to dictate that states with a high percentage of consumers and a low percentage of farmers put more emphasis on the public image of dairy farms, while the farm dominated states tend to “look the other way,” as long as milk quality standards are met.

What are the reasons behind the regulation? Supporters cite two basic purposes; quality and aesthetics. Wooden surfaces are difficult to maintain. They absorb moisture from manure and the surface becomes uneven, rotten, and difficult to clean. Upstairs stables have manure stored beneath the cows all Winter. Unclean surroundings mean unclean milk.

The classic three storey dairy barn at Pearlmont Farm, Barnet, Vt. made entirely of wood. Haymow up top, cows on the middle floor, and manure management plus equipment storage down below.

Aesthetics are a second important consideration. In the production of a food product, public image is everything. A smooth cement floor gives the consumer an impression of efficiency, cleanliness and sanitation.

During the 1960’s, enforcement of the “impervious surface” regulation was taken fairly seriously. Farmers throughout New England were warned that they would be wise to convert to cement or risk being cut off from their markets. Many Connecticut farmers, in particular, chose to close up shop rather than invest in expensive new facilities. After the initial push, and considerable resistance in farm-dominated states, the officials, according to one farmer, “figured all those barns were about to fall down anyway.” It was easier to let them die a quiet death than to push the issue of conversion. But the old barns have not died.

Agrimark has nearly 150 members with wood floors and Cabot Coop Creamery in Vermont has about 25 or 30. For these co-ops, marketing the milk from these farms can complicate life. The state of Connecticut will not accept milk from wood-floored barns. This is a matter of principle for them. Since so many of their own farmers were forced out of business by this regulation, they feel it is only fair to hold the same standards for milk from other states. This means that fluid milk shipped through Agrimark, Cabot, or other coops must be specially routed to avoid Connecticut markets. For Cabot, this special routing is not too difficult, since most of the wood-floored farms are near the plant in the town of Cabot. The coop’s South Ryegate plant accepts milk only from Connecticut-approved farms.

At this time, farms with wood floors in the Ryegate area send a full load of milk daily to the Cabot plant. The truck can take a return load of Connecticut-approved milk from the North back to Ryegate. Farmers in the Ryegate area receive seven and a half cents per hundredweight less for their milk than their neighbors do since it is marketed in a more distant zone. At this time, this is their only penalty for milking on wood. If the numbers drop too far below a full truck load, however, the coop may be forced to charge them an extra transportation charge to truck their milk to Cabot.

The wooden floor question poses quite a dilemma for milk marketing coops. Many farms with wood floors have received milk quality awards. All coops would like to find the highest-priced market for their members’ milk, a fluid and not a manufacturing market. Agrimark’s directors believe it is futile to encourage a change in the Connecticut standards. Some farmers with wooden floors have neglected upkeep and have caused serious sanitation problems. These few have brought the law down on others who have done a good job with maintenance.

Agrimark’s strategy has been to ask the state of Connecticut for a moratorium on enforcement. By giving farmers a breathing space of a few years, most of them may be able to convert over to cement. In the meantime, the coop would help patrol its members to be sure the remaining wood floors are kept sound and clean.

Farmers with wood-floored stables who have survived into the 1980’s must have their reasons for sticking with wood all this time. To find out what they were, I spoke with three of them in the Craftsbury, Vt., area.

Small & proud
Neil Stoddard began farming with seven Jerseys in 1947. His operation hasn’t grown much, and he’s proud of it. He now milks between 16 and 21. “If everybody farmed like I have, we’d be getting $20 a hundred weight, I didn’t cause this milk surplus. It’s the new farms getting into it and expanding, and we’re going to pay for it. The 20 to 25 cow farms, they don’t know we exist. But if they figured up what we spend in a year, the community would sure miss us.”

Neil Stoddard is a firm believer in wood floors. His son, John, who ships to Cabot, has continued in the family tradition. His 1979 barn has a wood stable, which probably cost $1,000 less per cow than a cement floor. ,

The Stoddards favor wood for a multitude of reasons. The softer surface is easier on the legs, for both cows and people. Neil worked in the service on a cement floor and knows the fatigue that comes of standing on that unyielding surface all day long. Cement is slippery as well as hard and requires expensive rubber mats or large quantities of bedding. Sawdust collects excess moisture on cement floors and harbors mastitis-causing bacteria. On wood floors the bedding stays drier.

Neil Stoddard disagrees with the argument that aesthetics favor cement floors. “You walk in first thing in the morning, before the farmer does anything. In a cement stable there’s urine in the gutter. The cows’ tails get wet and they switch them around. It’s just not as clean. A lot of visitors here who aren’t familiar with farming comment on how clean this barn is. They’ve seen loose housing “where the cows were standing in a week’s worth of manure.”

Furthermore, Stoddard claims, the best milk comes from wood stables. And he has the quality awards to prove it. In 1982, he received first place for high quality in Agrimark’s Region 14. His most recent milk test shows a raw count of 6000, pasteurized count of 100, and preliminary incubation count of 3000 (100,000 allowable). You can’t argue with those figures, or with the rich pure taste of his milk either.

Scott Reed is a young farmer who rents his father’s farm. He owns the cows, 47 Jerseys and a Holstein or two, and the machinery. Just now he’s milking 28. He admits that larger herds couldn’t operate with his upstairs stable setup. His century-old barn has its inconveniences. He feeds by hand and can’t use a gutter cleaner. He lets the cows out each day for exercise. Scott spends a lot of time in his barn. But it’s adequate for his herd and he sees no reason to make a large investment in a new facility.

“For $50,000 I can put up with some inconvenience. My income won’t go up any if I build a new barn, and I can’t manage my cows any better.”

Advantages
Scott claims some definite advantages to wood. “The cows stay cleaner on an upstairs wood stable. If anyone wants to argue they can come see it in Winter.” Manure is well contained and covered to prevent leaching away of nutrients, and during the summer, the area below the cows is kept clean.

Scott doesn’t hesitate to spend money where he believes it’s important. He began updating his milking system last year with new bucket milkers and a new vacuum regulator, a move which has helped him improve his milk quality. To Scott, the production of quality milk is a matter of management, not housing. A poor manager will produce poor quality milk on cement floors as well as wood.

Robert and Jeanette Anderson’s farm stands just down the road from the Reeds’. Their barn is 90 years old and has seen some additions (such as a milk room downstairs) but the stable itself hasn’t changed. They are now milking 36 to 40 Holsteins.

The Andersons like their upstairs stable. It is the easiest way for them to handle manure. Their manure storage is a pit with blacktop bottom which is cleaned out each Spring and through to Fall. The upstairs stable is well ventilated, naturally, with no need for electric fans. They believe the wood floors are also easier on cows. With a little “give” to the floor there are fewer foot problems and skinned knees and less bedding is needed than on a slick cement floor.

Not overly concerned
The Andersons are not overly concerned about the push to convert to cement. They remember a 1964 deadline for conversion which passed by without strict enforcement. They themselves switched from NFO to Cabot seven or eight years ago, since NFO shipped to Connecticut and could not use their milk. Much of Cabot’s best milk comes from northern Vermont wood stables and Cabot has a ready market for their milk. “If you send good milk they overlook some things.”

Good milk is, after all, what we’re all after–farmers and consumers alike. Doesn’t it make more sense to hold farmers to high quality standards than to dictate the methods they use to achieve that quality? If good milk is made by good managers, shouldn’t we allow farmers to choose the type of facilities that best fit their own situation?

On the other hand, some farmers have complied with the regulation by cementing over a few stanchions for use as an “ad hoc” milking parlor. Cows may be housed on wood floors if the milking area is separate from the housing. This option requires a smaller investment than a whole new cement floored barn. And the housing advantages of wood floors could be retained. Of course moving the cows in and out of the milking area would complicate the milking procedure. For farmers with upstairs stables, cementing a section of the stable would not be easy.

So the argument remains. How much authority should regulatory agencies have to dictate production methods as well as quality standards?