Monthly Archives: July 2024

Editorial: ‘Wouldn’t it be great if we could unite the country with whole milk?”

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine July 26, 2024

‘Wouldn’t it be great if we could unite the country with whole milk?”

Those words were messaged to me by a friend and colleague a year ago, right after the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act had passed the House Education Committee in bipartisan fashion before the overwhelming passage on the House floor Dec. 13, 2023 and before Senate Ag Chair Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) blocked it the next day, Dec. 14, 2023.

This was my first thought, when former President Donald Trump announced Senator J.D. Vance of Ohio as his running mate in the Republican campaign. (Vance is an early cosponsor of S. 1957, the Senate’s whole milk bill.)

Like others, I’ve been involved in the effort to bring the choice of whole milk back to schools for more than a decade. It’s about natural, simple goodness — to simply strip away the federal ban and allow hungry, learning children to be nourished by milk they will love. 

Looking back at the years of this long fight, I realize that if it’s so painstakingly hard to get something so simple and so right accomplished for America’s children and farmers, we’ve got problems in this country.

With President Joe Biden now withdrawing from the campaign for a second term, and Vice President Kamala Harris as presumptive nominee launching her campaign this week in the Dairyland State, I’m reminded of where she stands on such things.

Harris is no friend to livestock agriculture. She was an original cosponsor of the Senate version of “The Green New Deal.” She has strong positions on climate change that may lead to harsher rules on methane emissions and water consumption in the dairy industry, while perhaps promoting methane digesters, which are not an equitable nor necessary solution. Cows are NOT the problem!

Some in the dairy industry are on record stating that this would be good for dairy because the DMI Net Zero goals fall in-line and tout some of the same objectives. But no matter how you slice and dice all the fancy offsets, insets, innovations, grants, projects and the billions of dollars, the bottom line leaves cattle holding the bag. 

Cattle are in the crosshairs of a very long game set to control land, food and people.

Harris has already indicated she would use the Dietary Guidelines to reduce red meat consumption on the basis of this erroneous climate impact claim about cattle that we are all being brainwashed to quite literally buy into.

As a presidential candidate in 2019, in a CNN town hall, she was specifically asked: “Would you support changing the Dietary Guidelines to reduce red meat specifically to reduce emissions?”

“Yes, I would,” Harris replied, with a burst of laughter.

It’s not funny.

Earlier, she had said she “enjoys a cheeseburger from time to time,” but the balance to be struck is “what government can and should do around creating incentives, and then banning certain behaviors… that we will eat in a healthy way, and that we will be educated about the effect of our eating habits on our environment. We have to do a much better job at that, and the government has to do a much better job at that.”

Read those words again: “creating incentives and then banning certain behaviors.” In plain English, that means dangling the carrot and then showing us the stick.

Harris joins Senators like Ag Chair Stabenow, as well as Bob Casey from Pennsylvania, as card-carrying members of perennial Ag Secretary Vilsack’s food and climate police.

Not only is Ag Chair Stabenow blocking the whole milk bill in her Committee, she is dragging her feet on the critical farm bill. 

As President Biden’s approval ratings fell, there were indications she would bring her side of the aisle to the table to negotiate a compromise to get the farm bill done this year.

Now that Biden has withdrawn from the race, and the pundits, media, and party organizers are breathless with excitement over Harris as presumptive nominee, it appears that the farm bill negotiations between the Committee-passed House version, the Republican Senate version and the Democrat Senate version have fallen apart.

House Ag Chair G.T. Thompson (R-Pa.) has called upon his colleagues to get to the table and do the work because a perfect storm is brewing in Rural America as net farm income is forecast to fall by 27% this year on top of the 19% decline last year. 

Meanwhile, there is political upheaval everywhere we look. Seeing Vance picked as Trump’s running mate and knowing he was among the early cosponsors of Senate Bill 1957 – The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act – offers some hope.

That bill — in true bipartisan spirit — was introduced in the U.S.Senate in June 2023 by Senator Dr. Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) with prime cosponsors Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), John Fetterman (D-Penna.), Mike Crapo and James Risch (R-Idaho), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Angus King (I-Maine), and Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.). The bill eventually earned cosponsorship from other Senators, including the influential Democrat from Minnesota, Amy Klobuchar.

Vance signed on as cosponsor on December 14, 2023, one day after the U.S. House of Representatives had passed their version of the bill by an overwhelming bipartisan majority of 330 to 99.

The Senate bill 1957 is identical to the successful House whole milk bill H.R. 1147, which was authored by Pennsylvania’s own Representative GT Thompson.

GT is a man of courage, conviction, compassion, of humility and humanity. I’ve heard him say more than once: “God gave us two ears and only one mouth for a reason.”

He is a determined man, doing the work. He included whole milk bill in the House Committee-passed farm bill. He’s standing firm on his pledge to put the farm back in the farm bill. He is concerned about the financial crisis in agriculture on the horizon, and held a hearing July 23 with witnesses from agriculture and banking giving stark warnings.

Even though whole milk choice in schools seems like a minor issue in the grand scheme of things today, it is really a linchpin. If we could just get something with broad bipartisan support accomplished, this could lead to other steps on common ground. 

Cows are not the climate problem. Cows are a solution. Cows are part of a carbon cycle, they don’t take carbon out of the ground and put new carbon into the air. 

Carbon is essential to life. It seems that those seeking full control of land, food, and people, are starting with carbon. 

As the whole milk choice remains hung up in the Senate, let’s pause to think about how ridiculous it is that we adults get to choose, but our growing children do not. For them, whole milk is banned at two meals a day, five days a week, three-quarters of the year at school. (The federal government, via USDA school lunch rules, only allows fat-free and 1% milk to be offered with the meal or even a la carte.)

Maybe the Harris ticket would like to ban food choice behaviors for adults as well.

We have Republicans and Democrats supporting whole milk choice in schools. Both parties say they care about our nation’s farmers and ranchers who feed us and are the backbone of our national security.

Let’s take that and run with it.

-30-

Ag hearing: ‘Perfect storm’ could ignite farm financial crisis, House Ag Chair GT expresses frustration over Senate playing politics with farm bill

Posted on by
1

By Sherry Bunting for Farmshine, Aug. 2, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The extended 2018 farm law will expire Sept. 30 in the throes of a tumultuous election year while farm liquidity and cash flow decline in the face of an eroded farm bill safety net. 

Witnesses before the House Ag Committee July 23rd were (l-r) Dr. Dana Allen-Tully for Minnesota Corn Growers, David Dunlow for American Cotton Growers, Tony Hotchkiss for Ag and Rural Bankers, Joey Caldwell for the Ag Retailers Association, and University of Arkansas ag economist Dr. Ron Rainey. Hearing livestream screen capture 

Witnesses in a July 23 House Ag Committee hearing expressed support for the House bill and made it clear that another extension is a non-starter, with one witness describing the current law as facing a category-five hurricane with no protection.

“Unprecedented challenges are facing the entire agricultural sector, threatening to ignite another farm financial crisis,” said House Ag Chairman Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson (R-Pa.) as he opened the hearing on financial conditions in farm country.

USDA estimates net farm income will see the steepest drop of $43 billion this year – down 27% from 2023 and down 40% from 2022. In its report, USDA notes that livestock farms will also see net cash farm income drop for 2024 across all specializations. Within the livestock sector, dairy farms are forecast to see the largest decrease in average net cash farm income in 2024.

“The impact won’t be fully understood until early next year when farmers are unable to secure operating loans because they can’t cash flow,” said Dr. Dana Allen-Tully, member of a diversified crop and dairy farming family near Eyota, testifying for Minnesota Corn Growers.

In addition to flooding in her region and drought elsewhere, crop producers face income losses of $150 to $233 per acre, she said, citing plummeting prices, high costs of production, doubling interest rates, natural disasters, and tightening credit.

Thompson said these factors create “a perfect storm that will compromise the foundation of our agricultural economy.”

He observed U.S. agriculture is in the largest two-year decline in farm income, and by the end of 2024, total farm sector debt will be the highest since 1970.

“Unfortunately, the farm safety net has not seen significant investment since 2002. The lack of support for those that feed the world is unacceptable,” the Chairman said, pointing to the many farm bill listening sessions across the country. 

According to Thompson, the bipartisan House Committee-passed Farm, Food and National Security Act of 2024 represents the largest permanent farm bill investment in over two decades for the farm safety net, conservation, trade promotion, specialty crops, research, and livestock biosecurity. 

“It will give renewed strength… just when producers need it most,” he declared, taking aim at “pundits spreading misinformation about this bill in order to sow division.”

Thompson said Democrats in Congress have “unilaterally added billions to climate and conservation programs, and the current Administration added one-quarter of one trillion dollars to nutrition programs — all while ignoring the farm safety net.”

“I will not apologize for advancing a bill that seeks to put the farm back in the farm bill. I am tired of the politics and gamesmanship, and I know folks out in the countryside are too,” he said.

Thompson stated further that this work has been “saddled with a meddling Senate Democrat and others who do not seem to appreciate the dire circumstances in farm country.” 

The “meddling Senate Democrat” is Ag Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), who is retiring at the end of 2024 and is also responsible for holding hostage the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act.

As recently as last week, some Ag Committee Democrats have expressed a preference to see a farm bill fail before engaging in the process, Thompson reported, adding that his door remains open “to renegotiation from any partner willing to come to the table with a serious proposal — not more red lines.”

He stressed the difficulty in reconciling a bipartisan 900-page House bill with a partisan 90-page Senate summary.

“For negotiation to be viable, Chairwoman Stabenow needs to unveil her bill text,” he challenged.

During the hearing, witnesses cited meaningful improvements to the safety net via updates to reference prices, crop insurance, and the conservation title.

Both the current 2018 law and the incomplete Senate summary do not meet the needs of farmers, witnesses indicated. Even the stronger safety net in the House bill is not enough, they said, but would help farmers weather the storm.

While pundits say the House bill cuts nutrition programs, Thompson has repeatedly demonstrated no program cuts in the bill, even though the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) score showed $30 billion in savings on the 10-year baseline compared with earlier scores. 

Nutrition Title spending accounts for nearly 80% of the estimated $1.5 trillion total farm bill. Nutrition spending also increases by 73% ($484 billion) since the 2018 farm bill enactment.

“Quite frankly, we are not going to have nutrition, if we do not have farmers, so our investment here is in the farm safety net,” Thompson stated. 

The House farm bill seeks a stronger farm safety net within a shrinking piece of the total farm bill pie. Senate Ag Committee minority graphic

Ranking member David Scott (D-Ga.) emphasized in his remarks the Democrat position that CCC authority remains “exclusively in the hands of the Secretary of Agriculture,” without the congressional oversight proposed in the House bill.

The witnesses didn’t bite when asked about this. Several indicated it is more desirable to have a stronger safety net so the CCC does not have to be dipped into in the first place.

At the same time, witnesses indicated the need, now, for supplemental intervention under the current price squeeze.

To that point, Rep. Mark Alford (R-Mo.) asked: “Did you know we are losing 1000 farms every month in America right now? It’s a staggering number when we consider our food security and our national security.”

“Working capital is fast depleting,” Dr. Allen-Tully testified. She called John Deere’s layoffs “a canary in the coal mine” and warned against another farm bill extension because “it won’t stop the hemorrhaging. Even a new farm bill with a strong safety net may not be timely or sufficient, though I pray Congress will pass a new farm bill this year because it will help in the long run.

“We put everything on the line for a thin and often negative margin. Young people aren’t going into farming, and that’s why the average age of farmers is nearing 60… no parent wants their kids to go through life facing constant worry. We need our full-time farm and ranch families,” she said.

North Carolina farmer, David Dunlow testified for American Cotton Growers. He noted the size of operating loans farmers in all commodities take on every spring, and the lines of credit with input companies.

“That has to be paid back – every year — before we can go and get another operating loan,” he said. “The margins are very thin … under normal conditions, and with the economy now, nothing cash flows. It’s very difficult to get those loans paid and to move on to the next year.”

Testifying for the Ag and Rural Bankers, Tony Hotchkiss said lenders are seeing changes. Farmers are working through liquidity faster than anticipated and are now beginning to leverage equity through refinancing debt. This is further challenged by the cash flow needed for the refinancing payment.

“This has made ag bankers feel as though they are looking over the cliff,” Hotchkiss stated, stressing the need for ag policy changes, many of which are included in the 2024 House farm bill.

Joey Caldwell of GreenPoint Ag Holdings in the Southeast U.S., testified for the Ag Retailers Association. He said a strong farm bill safety net is critical to Rural America: “If the farmer is not successful, the supply chain is not successful, and this impacts the very fabric of our communities.” 

University of Arkansas ag economist Dr. Ron Rainey also testified that farm debt levels are increasing as divergence between input costs over ag prices is widening, even if the overall price indices are higher.

He said more farmers need to be involved in using risk management, whether that is through better subsidy levels or technical assistance to enhance understanding and use of it.

“If they don’t have crop insurance, and if they are outside of the safety net, then they’re financing their risk on their balance sheets. The more we can move from ad hoc disaster assistance, the better off the farmers are,” said Dr. Rainey. 

“But where we are now… that’s going to require some intervention. That’s just the bottom line,” he added.

Rep. Eric Sorenson (D-Ill.) brought up sustainable aviation fuel and the inequity in how current Energy Department tax credits are given for ethanol from Brazil and used cooking oil from China, while American farmers, who can serve this need, are getting nothing.

“Sustainable aviation fuel is one of the most exciting things coming as a corn farmer,” Dr. Allen-Tully replied. “But the way the Treasury Department has their guidance written excludes us. It is almost insulting to believe that we would bring in sugarcane ethanol in place of ethanol we can grow here.”

Rep. Mary Miller (R-Ill.) asked witnesses how the climate policies of the current administration are affecting farmers, and she gave her own opinion as a farmer:  “It’s painful.”

Caldwell responded, pointing to energy and fertilizer as the largest costs, and they are much higher under these policies.

“Farmers need a strong farm bill,” said Caldwell. “When a farmer plants a crop, they put more than their job at risk. It is their home, their livelihood – a pillar of their community. For many, it is also their family legacy, passed down through generations that they hope to pass on to their kids… they risk losing it all.”

-30-

State Vet: Early H5N1 detection key to protecting dairy, poultry

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, July 12, 2024

HARRISBURG, Pa. – Pennsylvania State Veterinarian Alex Hamberg stressed the importance of early detection and wants to step up voluntary milk sample surveillance for the highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI H5N1) in dairy cows, according to comments on the July 10 Center for Dairy Excellence monthly HPAI industry call.

There have been no detections in Pennsylvania dairy herds and no active poultry detections at the present time. Hamberg wants to keep it that way, and he wants to make sure that if the virus surfaces here, it is his office — working in collaboration with dairy farmers — that are the ones who detect it, by being proactive.

A scenario playing out right now in Colorado gives clues about why.

Colorado has had 30 dairy herds affected since April, the most of any state, representing more than one-fourth of the 110 dairy farms in the 13th ranked milk state, where the average herd size is 1827 cows. Of the 30 total herds affected since April, 25 were in the past 30 days, and three in the past week.

Colorado also has the most poultry flock infections in the past 30 days — one layer operation and three meat growers (two turkey). Two workers in Colorado, one in 2022 on a poultry farm and one recently on an affected dairy, were confirmed with the virus, but recovered quickly. Public risk is extremely low do to food safety protocols, testing, and pasteurization. Precautions are in place for those working closely with infected animals, including PPE states are making available through USDA, such as eye and face protection, gloves and disposable overalls.

Even though Colorado has had bird flu in poultry locations (and wildlife) across the state since the worldwide outbreak began in 2022, the recent detections in dairy cows and poultry appear to be occurring in the northeast part of the state, especially in Colorado’s number one dairy and poultry county.

In fact, on July 9, the Colorado Governor declared a disaster for Weld County, which was necessary to receive federal support to take mitigation steps and depopulate 1.8 million layer hens on an infected poultry farm neighboring an infected dairy operation.

Michigan and Texas are not out of the woods. On July 8, the APHIS 30-day ‘situation’ status showed 48 herds in six states had H5N1 in the prior 30 days. Michigan was down to one and less than a week away from being dropped off the status map. Texas was down to two and 10 days away. But on July 9, the APHIS update showed both states had a new case, and Colorado had three new ones.

This put the 30-day status at 53 herds in six states, which dropped to 49 herds in six states on July 10. The U.S. total since March 25 is 146 dairy herds in 12 states.

“The positive thing is that once a herd tests positive, it is then tested on a regular basis. In Ohio, for example, there are no more cases. This shows the possibility of getting rid of this in dairy,” said Dr. Ernest Hovingh, PADLS director.

For poultry, however, the risk is ever-present with no reprieve since this particular HPAI outbreak began in 2022. It continues to be found on poultry farms and in wild birds, worldwide, according to USDA veterinarian Dr. Michael Kornreich. He reported eight commercial flocks and four backyard flocks have been detected in the past 30 days, nationwide.

Unlike dairy cows that mostly recover, HPAI is lethal to poultry. A positive test means the whole flock is promptly depopulated, and quarantine zones are established. This is a big concern for the Ag Department in Pennsylvania, where the 2022 Ag Census showed poultry surpassed dairy as the number one ag product.

Hamberg described a scenario that has occurred in at least one state where both dairy and poultry are currently affected: “Dairies waited to report sick cows for testing. By the time they did, other dairies were infected, and poultry had become infected.”

He observed that the virus appears to be shedding in milk up to two weeks prior to clinical signs in cows. Anecdotal evidence suggests that workers had conjunctivitis (pinkeye) before cows showed clinical signs in herds at the beginning of the outbreak, Hamberg noted.

“Early detection is important not just to protect our own dairy farms but also our neighboring poultry operations. If you suspect HPAI, report it, work with us, and we will work alongside you to address it and protect you,” he said. “This is why we need the surveillance data.”
To-date, one Pennsylvania dairy farm has enrolled in the voluntary PA Lactating Dairy Cow Health Monitoring Program to achieve ‘monitored herd’ status.

In a separate program, one Pennsylvania processor has enrolled in testing at the milk hauling level.

Dairy farms can enroll online. They will receive a box with everything needed to collect and ship bulk tank samples at no cost. As a ‘monitored herd,’ they avoid pre-movement testing for interstate cattle transport.

Three consecutive weekly bulk tank samples are collected, followed by testing of a few animals from the sick pen to achieve ‘monitored herd’ status. Continuing the weekly bulk tank testing will continue the ‘monitored’ status. If a positive is detected, the farm keeps its ‘monitored’ status, and any movement or biosecurity concerns are addressed between the Dept. of Agriculture and the farm management.

What researchers know at this point is “transmission from farm to farm is heavily driven by ‘fomites.’ That means people, equipment, and animal movements,” said Hamberg.

“Robust testing helps us figure out where it is, to eliminate it by counter measures. We can do that while it is still definitely controllable, and not in a wildlife reservoir. But if it spills back into wild birds and circulates in them again, we may have a bigger problem,” he explained. “We need surveillance data to figure out where it is. If that is all negative, that’s great news. If we get a positive or two, we know we are doing something and have a chance to contain it.”

Could early detection have changed the course for the dairy/poultry interplay unfolding in Colorado? “Maybe,” said Hamberg. “There was no sharing of workers between affected farms, but there was cohabitation — poultry workers living with dairy workers — and this is a known transfer mechanism. Early reporting might have made a difference in that.”

-30-

While fakes campaign to BE ‘milk’, dairy checkoff aims to REINVENT milk. New ‘milk beverage platform’ deemed ultrafiltered, ESL, shelf-stable

Posted on by
Reply
As new milk beverage platform is developed, it sounds to me like people want the many attributes fresh whole unfooled-around-with fluid milk already delivers. It checks all the boxes! Maybe children just need to be allowed to have whole milk at school and daycare where they eat most of their meals, and maybe new generations of adults need the education about why and how the dairy protein and natural nutrition in real milk beat the imposters, hands down.

By Sherry Bunting, republished from March 2023 editions of Farmshine

SAVANNAH, Ga. — Dairy checkoff-funded researchers say a new milk beverage platform is being developed to provide “the keys to the kingdom.”

Their consumer studies show people want clean labels, and at the same time they want more attributes. On the one hand, they want energy and protein. On yet anotherhand, they want indulgent creaminess. 

Consumers also want flavor, but they want less sugar. They want sweeteners, but not artificial sweeteners. They want thickness without the thickeners. They do not want gums or gels, but they are okay with fibers and starches. 

Some consumers want higher protein products. Others want everyday nutrition that is reasonably priced. 

These are some of the highlights that were shared back in January 2023 during the Georgia Dairy Conference in Savannah. There, Dr. MaryAnne Drake, professor of food science at North Carolina State University and director of the Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center talked about the fluid milk innovation work funded through DMI.

The ‘new milk beverage platform’ leverages different processing applications for flavor and functionality around dairy protein, based on global protein trends in a rapidly growing nutritional drink market.

ESL shelf-stable milk: key to kingdom?

“We are after a shelf-stable milk that tastes great and meets our consumer’s sensory needs and our industry’s sustainability needs,” said Drake about the work of the four university research centers, including North Carolina State and Cornell, that are drilling into milk’s elements to sift, sort, and test different combinations, as part of the checkoff-funded Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, under the DMI umbrella.

Through processes like membrane technology, ultrafiltration, and aseptic packaging, the physical, nutritional and sensory elements of milk are being isolated at a molecular level to create beverages that aim to deliver this broad list of what consumers say they are looking for. 

At the same time, researchers are using interpretive surveys to understand how consumer desires actually translate into purchases, and then work with processors to build relationships with retailers to get these new beverage products into stores.

Reinventing milk

What does all of this mean? Reinventing milk by focusing on the domains in which real milk has a clear advantage for consumers among so many plant-based and now cell-based options. 

For example, said Drake: “Consumers want to know from a credible source what the immune-boosting elements are in milk, not what we have added. They tell us they want to know the science. That’s new.” 

Drake explained that the findings from their interpretive surveys represent a huge and divergent set of innovations to sort through and capitalize on as part of a new strategy.

“Consumers don’t see the perceived value of animal protein vs. plant protein, so we had them graph what they want and don’t want, what they know and don’t know,” she said, adding that consumers gave the slight edge to plant protein over dairy protein. They rated the top three protein categories as plant protein, whey protein, and milk protein — in that order. (A large percentage believed whey protein is plant protein.)

As their familiarity with the differences between plant and animal protein increased, their liking of dairy protein increased, the researchers learned.

In other words, consumers do not know the science about the nutritional differences between plant and animal protein, and if they knew the differences, they would rank milk protein as number one. 

Clearly, this is a failure in consumer education and messaging. Isn’t that the domain of the dairy checkoff?

New strategy

Drake indicated that educating consumers about dairy protein as a ‘complete protein’ is one thing that can help. However, she said, the functionality around dairy protein is the innovation strategy that is being pursued by the industry.

“The number one label claim consumers are looking for in a protein beverage is ‘naturally sweetened.’ We own that, and this is where we can deliver,” Drake declared.

“We own protein functionality. We understand the process parameters that impact flavor and functionality, and we can leverage this over plant proteins on this platform,” she said.

Bottom line: The surveys and flavor panels showed that consumers want “desirable flavor, texture and appearance. They want a protein drink that is nutritious, naturally sweetened, and has a clean label with simple ingredients,” said Drake. 

“They also want education, messaging and positioning, and they are looking at sustainability,” she added.

“We are working on what does clean label mean? It’s not what we think it is,” Drake reported. “It’s costing us sales if what they actually want is not on the shelf. We have the opportunity to deliver what consumers still want. We just have to find those things they want — that we have — and be more strategic in how we deliver them.”

Food technology and engineering was a big part of the picture painted for attendees that day.

Diversify processing

Producers were urged to challenge the status quo and to not just add processing, but to diversify it. They were also reminded that the 10 southeastern states had lost eight fluid milk plants in the previous roughly two-year period (2020-22).

During his annual market outlook that year, retired co-op executive Calvin Covington hit the nail on the head with this reminder, saying “that’s done some damage. The major challenge for milk markets in the Southeast is we need more of them,” he said. “A lot of the fluid milk products that are sold in the Southeast are not processed here. If we are going to have a viable dairy industry in the Southeast, we need growing and stable markets for milk produced in the Southeast.”

Covington also differentiated the trends for domestic and export demand, showing that both lagged their respective 5-year-average annual growth in 2022, with domestic demand growing by just 0.5%, while exports grew by 3.5%.

Keeping in mind as exports are expected to top 20% of U.S. milk production on a total solids basis in the next two years and fluid milk sales as a percentage of total milk production have fallen to just under 20%, seismic shifts are already occurring in the heavily fluid milk market of the Southeast.

Transformation brings investors

Geri Berdak, CEO of Dairy Alliance, the Southeast regional checkoff organization, talked about “creating a path forward” with objectives centered on driving milk volume, increasing dairy’s reputation and transforming dairy while building checkoff support.

She said transformation is necessary to “identify high-growth opportunities and stimulate outside investment, technology and innovation.”

The need for processing is big as plants are closing in response to declining fluid milk demand, leaving the the need for more diverse processing assets.

Exports drive innovation

“The biggest thing exports do is to drive value and innovation,” said Patti Smith, a food technology specialist and CEO of DairyAmerica, now wholly-owned by California Dairies Inc. (CDI) milk cooperative. Earlier in her career, Smith held a leadership position with Fonterra and has served at board and officer levels with IDFA and USDEC.

“Exports are a lot more than powder today. Our biggest item is still excess powder,” she said. “But we also export many other products — even UHT (ultra high temperature) and ESL (extended shelf life) fluid milk and cream.”

What Smith sees into the future are “opportunities for the right products and the right product configurations. We have the opportunities to capitalize on them and the technologies to grow them.”

Smith said the biggest benefit of exports to-date is to have a home for milk that grows the dairy industry without relying on core domestic demand for that growth, but that U.S. dairy processing infrastructure is not quite reflective of the new export era.

“We need to make our industry world renown, through a strategic plan that the whole industry will work on together, with digitized supply chains and infrastructure for growth that is reliable and can be consistently demonstrated, and that includes shipping,” said Smith, citing the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy as the nexus, where the industry’s “strategic plan” for global trade is being built.

Developing ‘new milk beverage platform’

Emanating from the DMI-founded and checkoff-funded Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy is the marketing and promotion arm of new product alliances and the National Dairy Research arm through several universities looking to essentially create a milk beverage platform by drilling into milk’s elements, sifting, sorting and testing different combinations.

Dr. Drake said the new milk beverage platform holds the “keys to the kingdom” as global protein trends were valued at $38.5 million in 2020 and projected to grow. Meanwhile, the nutritional drink markets are growing steadily, with 42% of consumers eating healthy as a higher priority since Covid, and the number of conversations about protein (95% positive) steadily flowing across social media platforms. 

Those keys, she said, are membrane technology, ultrafiltration, aseptic packaging and research exploring all of the physical, nutritional and sensory elements of milk at the molecular level to bottle up what consumers say they are looking for, while also gauging through interpretive surveys how this translates to purchases, and then working with processors to build relationships with retailers to get new products into stores.

Drake shared details about the roadmap to play to dairy’s strengths through nutrition, education, capitalizing on calming and immune benefits and using dairy protein functionality to limit added ingredients in beverages to satisfy the clean label trend.

She talked about how elements like fat, protein and lactose at different levels impact milk’s flavor and appearance: “We want to determine the impact of ultrafiltration levels for different concentrations of fat and protein for different sensory or physical experiences.”

She talked about ultrafiltration in conjunction with aseptic packaging for shelf-stable storage using an elaborate diagram of processes.

Bottomline, she said: “The chemistry of these (aseptic) milks is different.”

She described consumer flavor panels where shelf-stable and fresh fluid milk were served cold and compared. The flavor panels evaluated two different storage temperatures for the shelf-stable milk.

The North Carolina researchers worked with their Northeast Dairy Foods Research counterpart at Cornell and with Byrne Dairy, running grad students from North Carolina to Syracuse, New York when batches were available for study. (The Southeast and Northeast as well as Midwest and California Dairy Foods Research Centers all receive funding from checkoff and other sources.)

‘Training consumers’

“Consumer panels still liked the HTST (fresh fluid) milk best overall, but in 14-day and 6-month follow up, we found we can train them,” said Drake, reporting the two best storage temperature options for aseptic milk saw longer-term increase in acceptance.

HTST is the acronym for High Temperature Short Time pasteurization that is basically commodity fresh fluid milk vs. ‘value added’ UHT (ultra high temperature) and ESL (extended shelf life) as well as aseptically-packaged, which is milk processed for longer shelf life and then bottled in a special sterile process and package to last months without refrigeration, but will taste best served cold.

Schools are the gateway

“For 25 years, consumers have not liked aseptic milk,” said Drake, “but we are changing that. Consumers may not like it or want it, yet, but it is great for schools.”

She reported the practical applications to come up with “great tasting school lunch milk that contains no lactose (no natural sugar).” Another practical application is to  “determine the impact of storage temperature of 1% aseptic milk on physical and sensory properties.”

This partially checkoff-funded research is also working on “changing the chocolate milk formula to have zero sugar,” she said. “When we think about school milk, the question is how to get the sugar out of it. We want a chocolate milk that tastes great and new government standards on low- or no-added-sugars. Right now, chocolate milk has 8.5 grams of added sugar and 12 grams of natural sugar (lactose).”

In addition to ultrafiltration removing natural sugar, or lactose, they are exploring “non-nutritive” sweeteners like monk fruit and stevia. Additionally, they are looking at “lactose-hydrolized” to boost the flavor profile at much lower levels of sugars or other sweetener.

Whether talking about consumers or children, parents, and schools, the milk beverage platform is tricky “They want to know from a credible source what the immune-boosting elements are in milk, not what we have added. They tell us they want to know the science. That’s new.

“We have a huge and divergent set of innovations to sort through,” said Drake. 

-30-

USDA recommends changes to milk pricing formulas and other Milk Market Moos

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Milk Market Moos column in Farmshine, July 5, 2024 (with updates)

USDA issued a 332-page recommended decision on July 1 for changes to pricing formulas in all 11 Federal Milk Marketing Orders, which was later published in the Federal Register July 15.

The bottom line is a mixed bag of positives, negatives, and questions requiring further study.

USDA AMS professionals did yeoman’s work with the 49 hearing days across five months of proceedings on 21 proposals, yielding 500 exhibits; more than 12,000 pages of transcripts of testimony from farmers, cooperatives, processors and others, along with cross-examination; and over 30 post hearing briefs and correspondence.

Once the draft decision is officially published in the Federal Register in the coming weeks, the 60-day public comment period begins, followed by 60 days of USDA evaluation of the feedback, followed by a final rule, followed by a producer referendum.

According to the FAQ section at the USDA AMS national hearing website, only producers who are pooled in the selected representative month in each Federal Order will be eligible to vote. Each of the 11 Orders votes separately.

If two-thirds of those eligible dairy farmers OR two-thirds of the pooled volume they represent in an Order vote “yes,” then that Order continues, as amended. If neither two-thirds threshold is met, then that Order is terminated. *AMS answered our question on the two-thirds determination that it is determined by the number of eligible (pooled) producers who actually participate in the vote, stating: “If a producer receives a ballot but does not return it, the producer is not included in either the numerator or the denominator of the two-thirds calculation.”

Here’s what’s in the USDA recommended decision package:

1) Milk Composition Factors: USDA recommends updating the milk composition factors to 3.3% true protein, 6.0% other solids, and 9.3% nonfat solids. This would mainly affect Class I in all Orders and the other Class prices in the fat/skim priced Orders.

2) Surveyed Commodity Products: The recommendation here is to remove the 500-pound barrel cheese prices from the Dairy Product Mandatory Reporting Program survey and rely solely on the 40-pound block cheddar cheese price to determine the monthly average cheese price used in the Class III and protein formulas. National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) proposed this and International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) opposed it. American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) had proposed adding unsalted butter and 640-lb block cheddar to the survey, and California Dairy Campaign had proposed adding bulk mozzarella. Neither of these proposals were included in USDA’s recommended decision.

AFBF chief economist Roger Cryan discussed this recently on Farm Bureau Newsline, where he also talked about USDA decision not to include AFBF’s proposal to raise the Class II differential.

3) Class III and Class IV Formula Factors: USDA chose to recommend make allowance increases that fall in between the lower increase proposed by NMPF and the higher increase proposed by IDFA and Wisconsin Cheesemakers. The USDA recommendation is to raise these manufacturing allowances from current levels to these new levels: Cheese: $0.2504; Butter: $0.2257; NFDM: $0.2268; and Dry Whey: $0.2653. The recommended decision also proposes updating the butterfat recovery factor to 91%.

By our calculations, the proposed make allowance increase would equate to roughly an additional 80 cents per hundredweight deduction from milk checks embedded in the pricing formulas. Current make allowances total up to about $2.75 to $3.60 per hundredweight, depending on product mix. New make allowances would total up to about $3.25 to $4.50 per hundredweight, depending on product mix.

AFBF economist Danny Munch was interviewed by Brownfield Ag on July 2, noting the increase is 5 to 7 cents per pound. “When we loop that into a per-hundredweight value, that means farmers will be seeing 75 cents to 87 cents less per hundredweight on their milk checks because of the increased make allowance.” He says the data used for the make allowances was based on voluntary cost of production surveys. 

Farm Bureau president Zippy Duvall did not mince words: “We strongly believe make allowances should not be changed without a mandatory, audited survey of processors’ costs. Our dairy farmers deserve fairness in their milk checks and transparency in the formula, but the milk marketing order system can’t deliver that unless make allowances are based on accurate and unbiased data,” he said in an AFBF news release.

American Dairy Coalition CEO Laurie Fischer also weighed in: “We are disappointed that USDA has proposed higher make allowance credits for processors, which are — in effect — deductions from farmer milk checks that are embedded within the pricing formulas. The industry does not yet have mandatory, audited cost surveys, and there is no connection between increased processor credits and a transparent, adequate price paid to farmers,” she said in an ADC news release, adding that these two elements have been key policy priorities for ADC since January of 2022.

4) Class I differentials: USDA recommends updating Class I differential values to reflect the increased cost of servicing the Class I market. The base differential for all counties stays at $1.60, and the county-specific Class I differentials are specified in the decision at levels higher than they are currently, but by less than the increases that had been proposed by NMPF.

5) Base Class I Skim Milk Price: USDA recommends going back to the higher-of the advanced Class III or Class IV skim milk prices to set the Class I mover each month. However, the Department did not go with Farm Bureau’s request to do this on an emergency expedited basis.

And, here’s where it gets tricky, the higher-of method would only apply to fresh fluid milk, while adopting a rolling monthly adjuster that incorporates the average-of for milk that is used to make extended shelf life (ESL) fluid products, including shelf-stable milk.

This means ESL milk would be priced differently from conventional fresh fluid milk within the same Class I category. A simple averaging method would be used as part of this special ESL adjuster, which would incorporate a 24-month rolling average (with a 12-month lag) of the difference between the higher-of minus the average-of, which is added to the current month simple average-of, and then the current month higher-of is subtracted from that sum. This adjuster could be either a positive or negative number.

In fact, we’ve learned that this ESL adjuster, using months 13 through 36 counting backward from the implementation date, would allow milk for ESL products to recoup, over time, some of the very large prior losses experienced by all dairy farmers during the average-of method that has been in place since May 2019. Because a simple average is used for the adjuster calculation, without the 74 cents, more would be recouped than the actual loss difference experienced under the years of the average plus 74 cents method. On the other hand, the rolling adjuster look back will include months in which a smaller make allowance was in effect than could be the case in the future if USDA’s make allowance recommendation becomes final.

Meanwhile, producers of milk bottled as ‘regular’ fresh fluid milk would start right out of the implementation gate at the higher-of and recoup zero prior loss endured under the current form of average-of, and be subjected to the higher make allowance, which is built into the advance pricing factors. (More on this feature of the USDA recommended decision in a future article.)

In its ‘notice to trade,’ USDA states that the ESL adjuster was developed to “provide for better price equity for ESL products whose marketing characteristics are distinct from other Class I products.”

Meanwhile, in his July 3rd CEO’s Corner, NMPF’s Gregg Doud appears to embrace what is essentially a fifth milk class given the different pricing methods proposed in the recommended decision for Class I — depending on shelf-life classification.

Doud writes: “Recognizing the need to restore orderly milk marketing, USDA decided to go back to the higher-of, with an accommodation for extended shelf-life milk, thus granting NMPF’s request for the vast majority of U.S. fluid milk. USDA’s solution is, frankly, as innovative as it is fair – a classic case of two sides not getting all that everyone wanted, but everyone getting what they most needed.”

Splitting the baby was not part of any hearing proposal that we could find; apparently processors made their case with USDA as to needing the average-of method (with calculated adjuster) to sell ESL milk products deemed the new milk beverage platform.

During the national hearing in Carmel, Indiana, representatives from Nestle, a major maker of ESL fluid milk products, said their sales increased once the average-of method was implemented in May 2019 through legislative language in the 2018 farm bill. They testified that they could manage risk when providing 9 to 12 month future pricing on shelf-stable fluid products to foodservice and convenience stores. They lamented that losing the average-of would hurt their sales.

Representatives for fairlife testified that forward pricing of their ESL products was critical to their ability to grow sales and that losing the average-of would impact future plans, including the size of the new plant being planned for New York State and other expansions elsewhere in the future.

However, since this bifurcation of Class I was not a proposal subject to vetting, no one had the opportunity to present evidence on future impacts.

Public comments on the recommended proposals will be accepted for 60 calendar days after the decision is published in the Federal Register. Comments should be submitted at the Federal eRulemaking portal: http://www.regulations.gov or the Office of the Hearing Clerk, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Stop 9203, Room 1031, Washington, DC 20250-9203; Fax: (844) 325-6940.

OTHER MOOS — July 3, 2024

Milk futures swap trends: Cl. IV up, III down

Class III milk futures moved lower this week especially on August and Sept. 2024 contracts; while Class IV milk futures were higher on 2024 contracts, steady to firm for 2025. On Tues., July 2, Class III milk futures for the next 12 months averaged $19.28, down 24 cents from the previous Wednesday. The 12-month lass IV milk futures average was $21.19, up 14 cents. This put the spread between Class IV over III at nearly $2.00 per cwt.

Block cheese, whey higher

Pre-holiday trade was firm to higher with little volume moved on most products. But nonfat dry milk lost ground, and the 500-lb barrel cheese trade was active at lower prices.
The 40-lb block Cheddar price was pegged at $1.90/lb on Tues., July 2, up 2 cents from the previous Wednesday, with just 2 loads trading the first 2 days. The 500-lb barrel cheese market lost 2 cents, pegged at $1.88/lb Tuesday with 12 loads trading the first two days. (Update gained it back July 3 at $1.9025/lb with 2 loads trading). Dry whey gained a half-penny on the week at 49 cents/lb; one load traded.

Butter higher, powder weak

The butter market saw no trades the first two days this week. By Tues., July 2, the daily CME spot price was pegged nearly a nickel higher at $3.1375/lb. Grade A nonfat dry milk lost a penny and a half at $1.17/lb Tuesday with 4 loads changing hands. (Update, NFDM up July 3 at $1.18/lb, 2 loads traded)

May All-Milk $22.00, DMC margin $10.52

USDA announced the All-Milk price for May at $22.00, up $1.50 from April and $2.90 higher than a year ago. The national average fat test was 4.17, up 0.02 from the previous month and up 0.11 from a year ago. The Pennsylvania All-Milk price for May, at $22.50, was just 70 cents higher than for April, and fat test fell by 0.10 from April to May.

USDA announced the May Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) margin at $10.52/cwt, up 92 cents from April and up a whopping $5.69 per cwt from the May margin a year ago. This is the third consecutive month in which no DMC margin payments were triggered as the margin remains above the highest coverage level of $9.50/cwt. The $1.50/cwt gain in the national average All-Milk price in May outpaced the 58 cents/cwt increase in feed cost.

H5N1 detections fall to 57 in just 7 states

As of July 2, 2024, the confirmed cases of H5N1 in dairy cows decreased to 57 herds in now just 7 states as South Dakota moved past the 30-day window and off the active map. Colorado has the most detections at 23 in the past 30 days, 27 cumulatively since April 25. This has created some questions as it represents 20 to 25% of the 110 herds in the 13th largest milk-producing state. Colorado is followed by Iowa (12), Idaho (9), Minnesota (6), Texas (5), while Michigan’s previously high numbers over 25 have dropped to one, and Wyoming still has just one. Michigan and Wyoming will be past their 30 days on July 7 and 12, respectively, if no new detections are confirmed.