About Agmoos

I am a journalist writing primarily about agriculture for various newspapers over the past 30 years...and before that, I milked cows and tended calves and heifers. I am also a mother and grandmother with three grown children: A teacher, restaurateur and homemaker. Our two sons and one daughter all like to cook and they are food conscious... not paranoid. My "foodographic" Agmoos blog is a place to find stories and photos of the people and places behind the food we eat and for commentary and analysis on food, farm and marketing issues facing producers and consumers.

Change is constant. Innovation is great. But please respect The Milk.

Kroger_milk_9395

By Sherry Bunting, Market Moos, Farmshine, Friday, February 28, 2020

Winter dairy conferences have been replete with talk of a changing dairy industry along with optimism about the future of innovation in dairy foods and beverages. If you’ve read the food and grocer trade magazines or watched the dairy case at supermarkets, the name of the game is new-new-new, everyone wants to put out something new. Some new products fly off the shelves, others not so much.

The big new non-dairy competitor in the milk case these days, for example, is oat beverage — and as the trade journals state, it’s a virtual explosion.

But dairy beverages are getting a makeover too in some quarters.

Meanwhile, we have retailers telling us that 95% of shoppers put a gallon or half gallon of real dairy milk in the cart.When asked what can be done to put more of those attention-getting nutrition tidbits on fancier milk labels, the answer inevitably is “there’s only so much real estate to work with on a gallon milk label,” or “we don’t change our gallon milk labels very often,” or “there are a lot of regulations about what we can and can’t put on a gallon milk label.”

Of course dairy producer audiences are always reminded that that The Milk is a low-margin product.

Put simply, this means the industry doesn’t want to do much with low-margin commoditized milk, they’d rather put their effort into high-margin products, which means new, different, adjusted, blended, extended, ultrafiltered and differentiated products for which they can charge more — all the while loss-leading The Milk right into low-margin or no-margin territory because 95% of shoppers put in their cart. Something is wrong with this picture.

When asking a retailer who spoke at a dairy conference recently in the Southeast if there’s anything that can be done to stop the ridiculous levels of loss-leading we see at stores (outside of Pennsylvania of course), his answer was a question: “How does that sell more milk?”

Explaining that the extreme loss-leading for real dairy milk ($1.50, $1.25, 99 cents/gal) pushes stress back through the supply-chain and conditions consumers to disrespect the most nutritious option — that admittedly most shoppers still put in their cart — my explanation was met with a shrug, and this reminder: “It’s got to be moved, and we eat the loss, and the only thing more expensive than selling milk cheap is throwing it away.”

Hmmmmm. Doesn’t the decision to do extreme loss-leading make The Milk an even lower-margin product?

36957951_10155789942963182_5608066376095760384_n

By the looks of the whole milk shelves in supermarkets and convenience stores — more often than not these days — they’re understocked, hardly in danger of being overstocked, even in Pennsylvania where loss-leading is prohibited.

With all of these new and “high-margin” dairy case beverages and foods and blends and mixtures and substitutes competing for space, at least one retailer revealed that shelf space will begin becoming an issue.

There are opportunities for real whole dairy milk within this strange set of marketing circumstances. It is a curious fact that sectors with more variety — like today’s dairy case — do more in sales overall, but where is the respect for The Milk?

It becomes apparent why the gallon jug is both loved by retailers as the “get you in the store loss-leading staple with a high turnover (but shorter shelf life) ” and at the same time ignored precisely because it is the low-margin high-turnover product they say they don’t make money on taking up all of that space that could be used for high-margin products with longer shelf life and better return.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle of this scenario, and maybe it begins with a simple request of retailers and the dairy industy: please respect The Milk. If we don’t respect it, how can we expect consumers to respect it, desire it and want to pay what it is worth?

unnamed (80)Single-serve 16 ouncers with pretty packaging, that’s one way to differentiate that so-called low-margin whole milk. Experiential flavors is another. Flavored milk is hot, growing by double digits year over year.

But gallons? For families? They are the shopper-draw that doesn’t “capture growth” … just captures customers through the doors where they can buy it cheap.

Processors and cooperatives that are innovating in the real fluid milk space have their work cut out for them when store-brands continue to loss-lead The Milk into a space of disrespect within a dairy case that is literally bursting at the seams with high-margin new products seeking to capture growth… after taking it away from The Milk that got the shoppers in the door.

_DSC0830

-30-

While Dean negotiated with DFA, other interests requested documents they never received

Dean-DFA-plants3Antitrust issues at core of motion to form equity holders committee

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Friday, March 6, 2020

HOUSTON, Tex. – Ahead of next week’s hearings on the Dean Foods Company (Southern Foods Group LLC) bankruptcy and sale, it is illustrative to review the motions hearing of Feb. 19. On tap for March 12 is the hearing to consider DFA as “stalking horse bidder” with the asset purchase agreement DFA and Dean agreed to on Feb. 17 involving 44 plants at a $425 million bid as reported Feb. 21 in Farmshine.

Also on tap next week is a hearing set for March 10 on the motion presented by Joshua Haar to form an adhoc committee of shareholders.

During the Feb. 19 motions hearing, there was extensive discussion about professional bonus payments to keep top staff on board during the bankruptcy. An attorney representing the Teamsters Union challenged these retention bonuses in the face of knowing union contracts will be renegotiated by new buyers, especially if the buyer is DFA.

The bottom line in that exchange was summed up by Judge David Jones’ comment that he is guided by his own interpretation of the numbers, trusts his own bankruptcy experience and skill sets and has clear concern that all parties should work together to see that the assets of Dean Foods continue to operate. Period.

In fact, Judge Jones often chided attorneys to talk in terms of the “practicality” of the situation above their own “strategically” motivated interests.

“I need what’s left of this company to be comfortable and stay in place,” said Jones. “We need to get to a sale process and have people see the opportunity for future jobs to stay in place.”

He showed low tolerance for any party expecting to get 100% of what they have gotten in the past (except for retaining the “critical institutional knowledge” provided by professional staff receiving bonuses), and he indicated that the retention bonus payments are necessary in that regard, giving him “some comfort that we may actually make the end of this because good people will stay in place.”

The Teamsters’ concerns were for financial awards and windfall profits to “talent at the top” while their member employees become creditors owed vacation and so forth.

To understand how Judge Jones views the national fluid milk model of Dean Foods, he said: “This is a business model that worked in the 60s and doesn’t work in 2020,” he said. “I could give a first-year business student this business model and they would look at me and say this is a model that doesn’t work.”

Judge Jones asked during motions, “Why not be hand-in-hand on this issue? I do not want to be responsible for school children not getting their milk, that means a lot to me.”

Saying that the Unions have overstepped in trying to prevent the payment of retention bonuses to professionals that constitute “institutional knowledge,” Judge Jones granted the debtor’s (Dean’s) motion to approve the “key employee retention plan” consisting of a schedule for paying these bonuses.

This exchange about “working together” — with the goal of keeping Dean assets operating — set the stage for Judge Jones to hear a motion by Joshua Haar to form an ad hoc committee of equity holders (shareholders). Haar is the attorney son of Jonathan and Claudia Haar, the New York dairy farmers who were part of the original representatives of the dairy farmer class in the previously settled Northeast Class Action Antitrust Lawsuit against DFA and Dean Foods.

Before hearing Haar’s motion, Judge Jones said he is “getting a sense of urgency,” in regard to seeing an end point and that he did not want to entertain motions that “extend the case on the backs of the vendors, including the farmers supplying the milk.”

In other words, he did not want to see the timeline of this case extended for an “exercise” that did not materially provide a practical solution.

Judge Jones offered to hear Haar’s motion the very next day, for which Haar said he would not be ready. Asking Haar if one hour is sufficient, Judge Jones set hearing on the appointment of an equity committee at 3 p.m. March 10 – two days before the March 12 hearing on the DFA “stalking horse” bid.

As part of this discussion, it was noted that the ad hoc committee of bondholders wanted time to put a plan forward, that they are “actively working on the financing and need time for equity holder involvement,” said Haar.

“On this equity committee request, there will never be an equity recovery here,” said the Judge. In fact, he added later that equity or share holders in Dean Foods, a publicly traded company “are in the worst possible place. If the debtor’s numbers are right, their money was lost years ago, and this is an event that recognizes history.”

Haar’s lengthy motion described milk supply chain and potential antitrust issues inherent in a DFA purchase, seeking time for other options to surface.

Judge Jones said he read the motion, but added: “I want you to understand the standard that is required for an equity committee. I’ll always give you the opportunity to talk and give the shareholder’s view of the world, but if you are looking for a committee, that’s a tough burden, and I expect you not to waste everyone’s time.”

He warned against a prepared speech of “just words… Telling me all the things you might do that are eloquent, I tend to be more blunt… especially when I tell people what’s coming and they choose to ignore it. I want you to represent your people. This is about people. But that’s what I expect.”

He expects an equity holders committee to be able to contribute to the process of the Dean Foods reorganization and sale, not to use one group of stakeholder for the sake of others.

Haar indicated that among the equity holders are persons and entities “connected to 15% of the U.S. milk supply” so in that sense this motion was not trying the milk supply antitrust concerns but rather what could be a legitimate consideration of a better way to move forward with offers that could potentially allow equity holders to participate in value recovery.

It was apparent that Judge Jones needs to be convinced with numbers and math and actual bids that can be consummated in the next few months, not the eloquence of ideas about what can or should or could be some time in the future.

Harr said of the motion that, “We can add significant value to the estate.”

With that, the hearing for Haar’s motion was set for March 10 with response motions due March 3.

Next up in the vein of “other options” was the existing creditors committee. Their attorney indicated concern as to how the asset purchase agreement negotiations with DFA took place.

“They got bid materials. We issued requests for these materials. The debtor (Dean Foods) wanted to share these materials but were unable to share them with us because DFA put a confidentiality clause on it,” said the attorney for the Dean creditors. “We did a letter writing campaign. DFA would not agree. We did file an emergency form to compel the bid materials, and an hour before the bid deadline, the documents flowed to the advisors for the committee.”

In other words, too late to analyze the issues.

As the negotiations between Dean Foods and DFA continued, the creditors committee apparently repeated its requests for information and were told “no.”

 

Finally, a week before the Feb. 19 motions hearing, they received a two-page slide packet from DFA that “gave very little information and did not give the information about what Dean plants were included and excluded in that asset purchase agreement until it was announced publicly.

“The creditors committee’s initial impression is negative,” said the attorney representing the committee, indicating it will be heavily contested. “First and foremost, we are concerned about aggregate consideration… it is not clear that there is enough (in the bid) to pay-in-full the creditors.”

She mentioned that DFA, in addition to seeking stalking horse bidder status, is also a large creditor of Dean Foods with significant payables and that their bid could represent a “dollar-for-dollar deduction in value of assets to cover their claims.”

The Judge was un-moved. “If integration fixes the problem, then we ought to be working on integration,” he said, telling the DFA lawyer to work with the lawyer for the creditor committee. “Get her at your table,” he said.

The response from counsel for the creditors was that they want a seat at the table and would “engage in good faith, but there could still be a contested hearing on March 12.”

Attorneys for DFA and Dean indicated engaging in dialog with the DOJ on antitrust issues.

A potential bondholder bid was also referenced. The attorney for the creditors said the bondholders have done a “tremendous amount of work looking into financial investment into the company. We are hopeful the process can get there before March 12 with a more value-maximizing offer than the one on the table now.”

But again, it was mentioned that a “critical piece of information is still missing. There is some information that the ad hoc bondholder committee needs that the debtor is not willing to provide and we implore the debtor to turn it over now so the bondholders have the information. The next two weeks are critical.”

One item needed is “milk payables. We need to see, or the financiers need to see that, and it has been difficult getting it provided to us for third-party financing.”

Judge Jones offered his office as mediator for emergency hearings to get that flow of documents moving in the event that having the information allows other bid processes to go forward.

In short, the creditors committee, ad hoc bondholders committee and lenders were “left out of the information flow” during the Dean negotiations with DFA on their asset purchase agreement. They all read it at the same time (when it became public on Feb. 17) and are looking for a bid with more value to come in.

Judge Jones turned to the Dean Foods attorney and said “you took this in and you know what to do. I am trying to convey my sense of urgency here. Let’s figure out how to move the process forward. We all have the same goal.”

(Facilities in South Dakota, North Dakota and Minnesota — where Dean bottles under the Land O’Lakes brand — are excluded from the DFA-Dean asset purchase agreement. The licensing of the Land O’Lakes brand elsewhere is also excluded.)

plants in deal

-30-

DFA-Dean reach initial $425 mil. bid agreement, starting point in court-supervised sale

deanfoodsBy Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Friday, February 21, 2020

HOUSTON, Tex. — Dean Foods Company announced Monday, Feb. 17 that it has reached an initial agreement with Dairy Farmers of America (DFA) regarding sale of a substantial portion of Dean’s assets. The two parties have entered into an asset purchase agreement that was filed in the Southern Food Group bankruptcy case with the Court for the Southern District of Texas in Houston this week, along with other motions.

This is just a first-step in a legal process that will unfold over the next several months and begins with Dean’s motion seeking court approval of DFA as the “stalking horse bidder” with an initial bid of $425 million at a hearing set for March 12.

A “stalking horse bidder” is the low-bid that can be accepted by the debtor in a court-supervised sale, and with certain bid protections for that bidder if other bids are offered.

The agreement includes 44 of Dean’s 57 currently operating plants and other of Dean’s assets as well as certain liabilities related to these assets. But, as learned in an email interview with a Dean Foods spokesperson and a review of court documents, this is not an all-inclusive price for the 44 locations as certain real property connected to these assets is named as for additional purchase.

Furthermore, 14 of Dean’s operating plants and 13 closed plants and/or distribution depots are listed as excluded from the DFA-Dean agreement.

This agreement still requires the approval of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Texas.

Anne Divjak, Dean Foods vice president for government relations and external communications, indicates that the company is cooperating with DOJ’s probe of antitrust concerns by providing requested information and answering questions.

Timeline and competing bids

A timeline for court hearings has been set beginning with the March 12 hearing to approve DFA as “stalking horse bidder.”

Interested parties with competing bids for the assets included in the DFA-Dean agreement as well as bidders for assets excluded from that agreement have until March 31 to provide the court with information in order to be considered as qualified potential bidders.

Those qualified bidders will then have until April 13 to submit bids.

A court-supervised auction would then be conducted sometime in April with an approval hearing set for April 27.

Negotiations continue

Divjak confirmed that Dean is speaking with other parties interested in acquiring assets – including some that are interested in assets excluded from the DFA-Dean agreement. Court documents also confirm that Dean is speaking with advisors and creditor committees about other restructuring options, though no details are provided.

Court documents reveal further that Dean Foods and investment banker Evercore Group, hired in February 2019 to evaluate potential strategies for the future, began negotiations with DFA in October 2019 — believing DFA to be the entity “likely to contribute significant value to the debtor’s businesses,” but they failed to reach agreement prior to the bankruptcy petition date of November 12.

After November 12, Evercore began communicating with additional potential strategic and financial buyers while continuing to engage with DFA, according to court documents.

These documents described the past three months in which Evercore received incoming interest from nearly 100 entities, including 55 potential strategic buyers (18 of them regional dairy companies) and 44 potential financial buyers. Of that number, 38 parties were provided with confidential information regarding Dean’s business. Several of those, including DFA, expressed interest in considering a transaction with Deans and were granted access to a data room containing additional confidential information on the bid assets.

Court documents also show Dean’s explanation that it continued to follow a “competitive process and arm’s length negotiations… to secure a bid from DFA,” which now pertains to the motion filed with the court on Monday seeking approval of DFA as the “stalking horse bidder.”

According to a Dean press release at the Dean Foods restructuring website (https://deanfoodsrestructuring.com/), president and CEO Eric Beringause states that, “We have had a relationship with DFA over the past 20 years, and we are confident in their ability to succeed in the current market and serve our customers with the same commitment to quality and service they have come to expect.”

At a Northeast Dairy Leadership meeting in Syracuse, New York right after the Dean bankruptcy filing in November, DFA CEO Rick Smith was quoted in a Berry on Dairy blog post to say:  “Everybody’s been telling me for years that we are the logical owner of Dean’s. And I’ve already gotten phone calls about people who want to partner with us. We will be interested in some assets, undoubtedly. And not interested in some, undoubtedly. Some (assets) should be closed. Some will require partners.”

Of the assets excluded from the DFA-Dean agreement, half are currently operating plants and half are plants that are closed. Of the 13 closed plants Dean is looking to sell, eight were closed 15 to 20 years ago, several of them in 2001; and five were closed more recently in 2018 when over 130 dairy producers in eight states lost their Dean contracts after Walmart’s first milk bottling plant opened.

What’s included in the DFA-Dean agreement?

Included in the DFA-Dean agreement are all four currently-operating Dean plants in Pennsylvania – Lansdale, Lebanon, Schuylkill Haven and Sharpsville — along with the Florence, New Jersey plant.

Also included are one plant in New York, two in Massachusetts, two in North Carolina, one in South Carolina, two in Florida, two locations (three plants) in Tennessee, five in Texas, two in Ohio, two in Michigan, two in Indiana, three in Illinois, one in Iowa, one in Wisconsin, one in Idaho, two in Utah, one in Nevada, one in New Mexico, two in Montana, two in Colorado, one in California. The Barber Pure plant in Birmingham, Alabama is split with only the ice cream business being included in the Dean-DFA agreement while the fluid milk business has been excluded.

Brand assets that are part of the agreement include DairyPure, TruMoo and Steve’s Ice Cream.

Subsidiaries in Mexico are also mentioned in the agreement. Furthermore, Dean holds an ownership interest with Organic Valley in Organic Valley Fresh, and this distribution joint-venture is included in the DFA-Dean agreement.

Dean’s motions filed this week also seek certain “relief” items in the final auction process, including provisions that DFA would assume certain contracts and leases referred to as “proposed assumed contracts” that are connected to the sale transaction.

How this affects Dean Dairy Direct milk suppliers is unclear in terms of protection under the transfer of these milk supply contracts under the sale of related assets.

On Wednesday (Feb. 19), a hearing was conducted to handle a motion filed by a dairy farmer in Tennessee to end his milk supply contract with Dean to pursue a new contract with another milk buyer out of concern about potentially losing his Dean contract after the sale of assets is approved. Under bankruptcy court-supervised sale and reorganization, critical vendor contracts cannot be terminated or changed by either the debtor (Dean Foods) or the vendor (dairy producer) without court-approval. The outcome of the hearing was not yet available.

What’s excluded from the DFA-Dean agreement?

Among the 13 closed plants that are excluded from the DFA-Dean agreement are the recent closures of Meadow Gold in Erie, Pennsylvania, a Garelick plant in Lynn, Mass., and the Dean plants in Braselton, Georgia, Louisville, Kentucky, Florence, South Carolina and Livonia, Michigan.

They are all for sale, according to Divjak, who indicated Dean was “actively looking for buyers for these facilities before the asset purchase agreement was announced.”

Among the 14 operating plants that are excluded from the DFA-Dean agreement are notably the Land O’Lakes plants in Sioux Falls, South Dakota and Bismark, North Dakota, and several other Minnesota plant locations.

According to Divjak, the Land O’Lakes brand is not part of the DFA-Dean agreement. Dean has a long-term licensing contract with Land O’Lakes cooperative to use the brand name and Indian Maiden logo for fluid milk and soft products sold from Dean plants. That licensing agreement, which Divjak said could be negotiated by potential buyers, also applies to other Dean plants as whipping cream, half-and-half and other products sold under the Land O’Lakes brand name are found at supermarkets nationwide, while the Land O’Lakes line of whole milk, 2% reduced-fat, 1% low-fat and fat-free milk is a well-known brand with a following in the western Minnesota, South Dakota and greater Central Plains region.

Dean Foods’ minority interest in Good Karma, a flaxseed alternative non-dairy beverage, is not part of the agreement and is separate from the bankruptcy proceeding.

Before the November 12 Chapter 11 bankruptcy petition, Dean Foods had secured special financing of $850 million to underpin its position as debtor-in-possession as well as gaining court approval to use operational cash flow to continue operations and payments to critical vendors during bankruptcy and sale. The special financing was previously expected to keep operations going for about nine months — through July or August.

——————————————————————————————-

ADDENDUM PUBLISHED IN MARKET MOOS COLUMN:

Revealing details in Dean deal

A conference hearing Wed., Feb. 19 in the Dean Foods bankruptcy and court-supervised sale case in Houston, Texas, available by teleconference, revealed many details as motions were heard. Attorneys representing the creditors committee, lenders committee, bondholders committees, Dean Foods, DFA, and a growing list of interested parties covered some sale transition concerns and concerns of creditors about the the low bid of $425 million by DFA that Dean is asking Judge David Jones to approve as a “stalking horse bid” at a hearing set for March 12.

Attorneys argued that the flow of necessary proprietary information from Dean Foods to other parties interested in offering bids has been stalled and delayed to the point where other interested parties were learning about what plants are included and excluded in the DFA-Dean agreement for the first time on Monday — the same day as the rest of the world found out via press release from Dean Foods.

For example, the adhoc bondholders committee is still waiting on a critical piece of information related to milk payables. In that regard, an attorney representing the creditors committee revealed that DFA — as a large creditor of Dean Foods with significant payables — could have a $1 for $1 deduction in its bid offer to secure its claims that other creditors do not share because DFA is also a critical vendor.

Judge Jones had earlier commented that the business model of the company “worked great in the 1960s but not 2020.” As a self-proclaimed “numbers guy,” the judge said he has looked at the numbers and done the math, and his assessment was hinted at when he commented that there is a sense of urgency to get this deal done so that the bankruptcy proceedings do not fall on the backs of vendors, including farmers and communities.

He said he did not want to be responsible for schoolchildren not getting their milk if the process is protracted for too long and the company fails.

He also stated that, “If integration fixes the problem, we ought to be working on integration.”

Toward that end he asked the entities to work together to see to it that the information needed flows to where it needs to go, but responsibly, and that he will give hearings and listen to all qualified interests, but that he did not want motions and proposals that simply waste the court’s time.

Also, a dairy farmer seeking permission to end his milk supply contract with Dean in February was granted permission as he asserted concerns about ultimately losing the contract after the company is sold and had another option for his milk.

 

Smiles for young and old during opportunity to ‘Milk-A-Cow’

Milk-A-Cow-2441

Jill Dice of Fredericksburg, co-founder of Spot On Agrimarketing, talks about how she and Stacy Anderson of Lebanon began the Milk-A-Cow Experience three years ago at the Pennsylvania Farm Show. They are grateful to volunteers who either provided cows or helped with the first-time milkers, including Lexi Findley, Katelyn Teaman, Brad Walker, Deidra Bollinger, Michele Reasner, John Brodzina, Olivia Lesher and Seth and Erica Miller. State dairy royalty Paige Peiffer, Denae Hershberger and Vannika Rice also helped provide information to visitors.

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, January 31, 2020

HARRISBURG, Pa. – It may be the Farm Show’s “best kept secret,” and in its third year at the 104th Pennsylvania Farm Show, the Milk-A-Cow exhibit drew 500 people over a two-hour window on Friday, January 10.

Those wanting to see what it is like to milk a cow came in all ages from young children who were excited just to be touching a cow to senior citizens claiming the experience of milking a cow was on their “bucket list.”

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

“People just love it,” says Jill Dice of the exhibit she started three years ago with her friend and Spot On AgriMarketing co-founder Stacy Anderson. “The questions we get are really good, and people are so thankful to be able to bring their questions to real dairy farmers.”

(Jill had her hands full that day as the Dice family’s Jersey cow was supreme championof the 2020 Pennsylvania Farm Show!)

Of course, the Milk-A-Cow opportunity would not be possible without the producers and volunteers who bring the cows and work with the public to help them quickly learn how cows are milked so they can try their hand at the chore right there on the spot.

In addition, Jill and Stacy appreciate the volunteers helping answer the public’s questions as they come into the equine arena and get in line for the experience. And they appreciate the dairy princesses who engaged the crowd with milk facts in a fun and entertaining manner while they waited in line or sat in the stands to watch.

Milk-A-Cow-2390

Stacy Anderson, co-founder of Spot On Agrimarketing, started the Milk-A-Cow Experience with Jill Dice. Children like this third-grader from the Harrisburg area lined up for photos with a heifer before moving on to the milk cows.

Jill and Stacy tag-teamed the crowd, with Jill involved in the milking experience area, which is set up in the equine arena after the celebrity milking contest on ‘dairy day’ at the Farm Show. Meanwhile, Stacy trots a heifer out into the hallway to lure-in visitors who are walking through the show so they are aware of the event. Children can come in and pet the heifer and pose for photos before moving on to the milking area.

WGAL sent a television crew for a Farm Show news spot this year and the camera-man, himself, wanted to give it a try.

New this year was the table manned by 97 Milk volunteers, handing out information about whole milk and getting signatures for the “bring whole milk back to schools” petition.

Also new was the increase from four to six cows ready for milking.

In general, the activity is low-key and comfortable. It’s meant to make learning fun, and organizers take every opportunity to use the experience to help the public understand how farmers take care of their cows, the attention they pay to food safety and milk quality and freshness, as well as the nutrition that milk and dairy products provide.

As one local third grader said after his turn “milking” for the first time: “That was really cool!”

He paused and reflected for a moment to say, “Well, actually, it was warm.” He then proceeded to repeat, with authority, what he learned from his helper, Seth Miller of Tulpehocken FFA, that milk comes out of the cow at her body temperature and “goes through pipes to get cool in a huge refrigerator.”

Adults were even more wide-eyed and curious than the children about the whole experience. Some thought the milk would come out faster, others thought it would be easy to do and were surprised to learn it’s not so easy.

One woman who had been wanting to do this since she was a child, was relieved to learn that the cows were milked earlier so it’s not like they were full of milk like at a normal milking time.

“That’s a relief,” she said. “But the farmer had no problem getting the milk to flow, I could only get a little bit. I guess I have renewed respect for what it takes to milk a cow.”

She was also impressed by how calm the cows were: “It’s obvious they really  don’t mind this at all!” the first-time milker said, smiling.

To see the smiles on faces young and old and to share knowledge in such a hands-on and individual way was rewarding for everyone involved.

The event is organized by Spot On AgriMarketing and supported by the Friends of the Pennsylvania Farm Show Foundation.

Milk-A-Cow-2449-2

Revealing look at what’s behind the curtain

unnamed (79)

Having attended urban food conferences and working with people influencing the locally produced discussions, I have found that the quest by rank and file consumers is for real, local, minimally processed foods. By kowtowing to the global scheme for sustainability, we miss what is behind that curtain: the billionaire food system takeover agenda and the vegan activists who propel it and will quite simply never be satisfied.

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, May, 2019

Getting into a social media conversation with anti-animal activists is a truly educational experience. I’ve occasionally been in these back-and-forth discussions before, and didn’t have much tolerance for them.

Over the weekend, however, a simple ‘tweet’ on Twitter thanking farmers, ranchers and veterinarians for everything they do to deal with the tough decisions and situations on the real biological side of agriculture turned into a flurry of vegan responses that took me down a road I did not enjoy traveling.

They were mean, nasty, ridiculing and extreme. Instead of returning their insults, I came back with logic, reality, explanations that would satisfy most people. Instead, it fueled their attacks, and soon they were crawling out of the woodwork to do a pile-on tackle upon every tenet of animal care and agriculture many of us hold dear.

They posted links to flawed studies, talked about doctors telling patients to ditch dairy for causing a host of diseases. They harped on climate change, land and water resources, detailing how they believe cattle are ruining “the ecosystem.”

Quite often I found myself telling them that I respect their freedom to choose their dietary path, but cannot respect their attempts to push this on others or demean and degrade my choices.

Each time I provided a scientific piece of information or a link, they either ignored it and went on to some other seemingly crazy rationale or they called me an animal agriculture ‘shill.’

That word ‘shill’ was used over and over again. It’s their favorite insult. A shill is defined by Webster’s Dictionary as “an accomplice of a hawker, gambler or swindler who acts as an enthusiastic customer to entice or encourage others.”

They accused me of profiting off the misery of animals, of being selfish in destroying THEIR planet (as if it only belongs to them). They wrongly described so much about dairy and livestock farming that it was difficult to hold my figurative tongue and respond in 134 characters or less per tweet another side to the story they were portraying.

In fact, they were against pastured cattle, saying the grasslands should be re-forested and re-wilded. Their agenda became crystal clear in every detail.

What I am explaining here is just the tip of the iceberg, so I sat back and read their tweets, their links, their self-congratulatory tweets to each other as they presumed they had gotten the best of me.

What they didn’t know is that I was studying their game. I chose to respond only to tweets that I felt other ‘watchers’ could benefit in hearing a logical response. I avoided the insult name-game and did not go back repeatedly on one thought for more abuse, but kept my tweets to a minimum, refusing to be goaded.

So, by now you’re reading this wondering, what’s my point? We already know the 3% of the population that are truly vegan anti-animal activists are crazy, why ‘entertain’ them?

Here’s the point. The entire dialog began with a tweet of gratefulness for the less than 2% of our population taking care of food animals, and the veterinarians that are part of that deal. Simple. Gratefulness. There must have been a buzz word in that tweet that sent me to them through social media algorithms, who knows?

But here’s the larger point. They are armed with pseudo-science being published in even some of the more respected and mainstream news, financial and scientific journals.

They have a world view that is increasingly making its way a few steps at a time into U.S. and global dietary policy, environmental policy, regulations and the like.

But here’s an eye-opener. They will never be satisfied. Nothing, I mean nothing, we can do will appease this fringe in its march to infiltrate our institutions. Their less aggressive counterparts – HSUS, World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and others – are already internally working within government and industry.

It goes like this: “Work with us, take the steps we want you to take, and we’ll support you and hold you up as an acceptable animal ag industry.”

Baloney. The old adage of give them an inch and they’ll take a mile pertains here.

This is why I am concerned about the direction of our industry organizations, including the dairy checkoff with its multitude of new initiatives on diet and sustainability and animal care aimed at working with the enemy to somehow get a pass – a social license to exist.

But it’s not the non-governmental organizations, the NGOs, that give us the pass to exist, it is the consumer. Our consumers are being swayed bit by bit by the radical fringe only because we allow them to be. When we validate these NGOs with our internal strategies to “work together with external organizations” we endanger our ability to stand up for truth.

Should we be doing all we can to improve animal care and environmental practices? Sure!

Should we be talking about these improvements? Definitely.

But should we be aligning with the polished and refined versions of this fringe believing they offer us passage with their stamp of approval? No.

Why? Because they will never be satisfied. Not until we stop breeding dairy and beef cows. Not until we stop eating meat and drinking milk. Not until every farm produces plant-based diet alternatives and every pasture is re-wilded to its un-managed natural state.

They will not be satisfied.

Instead, we should be educating the other 97% of the population about the realities of animal biology. A Pennsylvania veterinarian on facebook is doing that. She gets real with her facebook posts and school presentations, and it’s refreshing.

The more we sugar-coat what we do to appease people who will never be satisfied, the more of our mile they will take because we have given them that inch.

This brings me to my next point. Dig below the surface of these fringe folks on Twitter and the organizations our industry is partnering with to build so-called consumer trust, what they advocate for, ultimately, is the world view of billionaires like Bill Gates, founder of Microsoft and the other Silicon Valley investors in fake meat and fake dairy.

Their view of the world is one that relies on their food technology to replace what farmers, ranchers and veterinarians do every day. It’s not that they don’t trust farmers and ranchers, it’s that they believe the world should have fewer cattle, rely more on plant and lab-created proteins, and yes, surprise, they will profit on their patient capital investment to provide that alternative.

There is an organization few know about that I have been researching, called Breakthrough Energy. On their website, they list the ventures and you can see their world view mapped out in great detail. At first blush, it appears to be related to energy, but look deeper, they want to change the food system. The investors and founding members are a who’s who of the rich and famous, including the big tech owners and CEOs of everything from Microsoft, Facebook, Google and Amazon, to big political investors like George Soros and Tom Steyer.

Meanwhile, our consumers live in the real world. And it is the millennials who are changing the consumer quotient as they are funneled into the new planetary lifestyle with the subtle steady drumbeat of fear from our educational institutions.

Animal ag needs strange bedfellows to get their story to be heard; but at the same time, those strange bedfellows are changing our story, leading to programs that will determine who and how to farm.

It’s time for local and regional alliances to be built more strongly than ever. It’s time to partner with rank-and-file consumers, not the big NGOs with billionaire wishes fueling them. It’s time to activate our communities to realize they, too, are being fooled and threatened.

In other words, we need to find other bedfellows – groups and organizations we can rely upon – not the self-proclaimed ‘cool kids’ who say we can be ‘in the club’ if we bend until we break. Because what they want, really, is for us to break.

-30-

WWF school milk waste report ignores the one small step that changes the WHOLE story!

WholeMilkKidsBy the time these two little girls are in school, their happy smiles and enjoyment of milk will be but a memory as the low-fat and fat-free brain-washing will begin and the full-fat brain-building they get at home will come to an end. Milk will become yucky to them, and the one they get with their school lunch and/or breakfast will likely go into the trash. Such is the plight for millions of children in our schools every day over the nine years of government prohibition against whole milk. Meanwhile the weights and waste at U.S. schools are ballooning out of control. 

But never fear, the government (and its NGOs) are here! Dairy checkoff’s “sustainability” partner, the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) — in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) — estimates 45 million gallons of milk are discarded at U.S. schools annually. Here’s the unbelievable part: They recommend schools reduce the size of milk containers, use self-serve dispensers and end the practice of ‘serving’ milk with every meal. Yes, the dairy checkoff’s sustainability partner is recommending less milk as the solution to more waste.

Meanwhile, one school is offering whole milk on a trial basis and gathering data showing how this one small step is changing the whole story — for healthy kids and a healthy planet. We are protecting the identity of this school from the USDA school milk police because if “caught” for doing what’s right, they could lose eligibility for state and federal education funds that are tied to participation in USDA’s low-fat school lunch rules.

By Sherry Bunting

Dairy Checkoff’s “sustainability” partner — the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) — released a 2019 “Food Waste Warriors” student-led audit report a few weeks ago indicating that U.S. schools discard an average of 28.7 containers of milk per student per year.

This amounts to an estimated 45 million gallons of milk discarded from schools annually, the report said.

Of the totals, elementary students discarded 37.6 cartons per student per year while middle schools discarded 19.4 cartons per student per year. The difference is middle and high school students have more alternative beverage options.

A gallon of skimmed milk weighs 8.63 pounds, so 45 million gallons amounts to over 388 million pounds per year and a cumulative estimated 3.5 billion pounds of discarded school lunch skimmed milk over the past nine years since USDA removed whole and 2% milk as choices in the 100,000 schools participating in the National School Lunch Program (95% of U.S. schools).

WWF funded the study, with support from Kroger Co. Foundation and the EPA, analyzing food waste in 46 schools in nine cities across eight states.

The objectives of the WWF project were to engage students in the act of measuring waste, foster an understanding of connections between food and its environmental impacts, and “formalize how we might gather more streamlined data on cafeteria food waste,” the report explained.

In its report, WWF identifies the National School Lunch Program as “one of the most influential programs for educating youth on conservation opportunities linked to our food system.”

Waste-reducing milk strategies used, compared and suggested in the WWF report are: 1) serve smaller containers of milk, 2) educate schools to realize they are actually not required by USDA to force students to take a milk with their lunch or breakfast in the first place, and 3) invest in bulk milk dispensers so students can take only the amount of milk they will drink.

So here we go. Let the WWF / USDA / EPA / DMI ‘sustainability’ propaganda begin. The idea of milk dispensers is a good one. But, what matters more is the fat content of the milk IN the dispensers, bottles or cartons!

Of course, the report does not identify the simplest, tastiest, most nutritious and ‘sustainable’ solution: Waste could be reduced overnight if USDA would simply allow the 100,000 schools enrolled in the National School Lunch Program to put whole milk on the menu! 

That’s right folks: 95% of U.S. schools are ruled by the iron-hand of the USDA milk police.

Not only are school nurses beginning to report to Farmshine that their annual student weight averages have climbed 7 to 9% in the 9 years that whole milk has been forcibly removed from school menus, one school reports it is doing its own study of student preferences and milk waste reduction this year.

We are keeping the names of the reporting schools anonymous to protect their identities from the USDA milk police.

Since September, one anonymous school’s study shows students are choosing whole milk 3 to 1 over 1% low-fat milk at the middle school and high school where the trial is being conducted.

Imagine that! Middle and high school students CHOOSING milk, and actually drinking it!

Oh, and by the way, when whole milk is used to make chocolate milk instead of using skimmed (1% or fat free) milk, less sugar is added!!

And, by the way, the data from this particular anonymous school shows that not only are their secondary students CHOOSING whole milk 3 to 1 over skimmed, the school has reduced its milk waste by 94%… in one year!

They report that their “milk not consumed” totals now average 32 ounces per day as compared with 4 gallons, or 512 ounces, per day the previous year!

Where school lunch is concerned, USDA’s rules are neither practical, nor are they logical, nor are they healthy for our kids or our planet. At the same time, WWF’s suggestions miss the mark completely!

Join in with those farmers and consumers asking Congress and USDA to bring back the choice of whole milk in schools. Sign the petition for choice and be part of the WHOLE solution. If you haven’t signed, you have until February 15 to do so online at this link: https://www.change.org/p/bring-whole-milk-back-to-schools

Also, to get signatures in your community, download the printable version of the petition at this link: WHOLE-MILK-IN-SCHOOL_PETITION_011520_

 

-30-

Will FDA change standards to ‘officially’ allow UF milk? Milk Market Moos – Jan. 17, 2020

Coca-Cola now among key companies in global UF milk

As reported last week, Coca-Cola acquired the remaining shares of fairlife LLC from its joint venture partner Select Milk Producers, moving from 42.5% ownership to 100% sole owner of the brand. Select Milk is a 99-member cooperative run and founded by Dr. Mike and Sue McCloskey. Mike McCloskey is also co-founder and chairman of the board of Fair Oaks Farms, and he was chairman of the Sustainability Initiative of DMI’s Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy in 2014, when fairlife ultrafiltered (UF) milk was officially launched.

DMI officials have indicated checkoff funding for promotion exhibits at Fair Oaks Farms’ visitor center in Indiana, an hour south of Chicago. However, DMI indicates that its financial grants to the fairlife milk brand for promotion ended in 2019. To receive funding, companies with approved innovations also spend a comparatively larger amount of their own money.

Available tax forms for 2017 and 2018 list DMI grants to fairlife of $8 million for promotion in each of those years, and prior support was available from affiliated research and development resources in the Chicago suburbs of Rosemont, where DMI and Fonterra are both located.

Ultrafiltration is a process that can vary by dairy product application and is used around the world. A 2018 Transparency Market Research report pegged Coca-Cola among the companies it listed as “key players operating in the global ultrafiltered (UF) milk market, along with HP Hood LLC, Idaho Milk Products Inc., Fonterra Co-operative Group, Kerry Group, Tatura Milk Industries Ltd., Darigold Ingredients Company, Erie Foods International Inc., Enka Sut Company, Grassland Dairy Products and others.”

In 2017, the FDA said it would no longer strictly adhere to its standards of identity regarding types of milk for making standardized cheeses, and now FDA has opened a new public comment period to settle the use and labeling of UF milk in standardized products.

While fairlife ultrafiltered milk is still considered a fresh product with an extended shelf life of 90-days, some products in the brand’s lineup are shelf-stable and aseptically
packaged.

Dr. McCloskey confirmed in a presentation on “the road to innovation” at the 2016 Georgia Dairy Conference that fairlife ultrafiltered milk was at that time designated a Class I fluid milk product; however, some of the other beverages in the lineup are Class II.

FDA reopens UF milk comment period on use in standardized dairy products

According to an FDA statement on Jan. 2, 2020, the agency has reopened the comment period on its 2005 proposed rule that would allow the use of fluid ultra-filtered (UF) milk in the manufacture of certain cheeses and related cheese products.

The 2005 proposed rule was never adopted by FDA. Instead, a non-enforcement posture
was pursued by the agency for 16 years. FDA defines UF milk as “raw or pasteurized milk that is mechanically filtered to concentrate the proteins in milk. In the process, some of the lactose, minerals, and water-soluble vitamins are lost, along with water. The resulting protein concentrate is easier and more cost effective to ship. This same process applies to UF nonfat milk, except that raw or pasteurized nonfat milk is used.”

Formal adoption of the 2005 proposed rule is a move sought by processors since 2000, when milk protein concentrate (MPC) was imported as the dried version of UF milk to increase cheese yields in the manufacture of some types of cheeses. The industry contends that UF milk is used in dairy product manufacturing worldwide and that FDA approval was needed for the U.S. to be competitive without having to import UF milk in the form of MPC and casein from New Zealand and Europe.

The proposed rule was never confirmed by FDA, which simply looked the other way until the GAO called FDA out for not enforcing its own standards on the types of milk used in standardized cheeses. Then, in 2017,

FDA issued official guidance that, “We do not intend to take action against companies that manufacture standardized cheeses and related cheese products that contain fluid ultra-filtered milk or fluid ultra-filtered non-fat milk without declaring them in the ingredient statement.”

This meant the practice was accepted and the UF milk or MPC did not have to be listed
separately on the label. Now, the FDA is specifically requesting industry comments by March 30, 2020 to describe how much UF milk is used to make standardized cheeses and how ingredient labels should be handled when UF milk (or MPC) is included in the production process of these standardized cheeses.

FDA wants to know if labeling changes are needed and what the cost would be to the industry.

In addition, FDA wants information during public comment about how UF milk (or MPC) is used in making other dairy products or as ingredients in other food products, and how this affects consumer buying decisions.

The industry contends that any modification that would restrict the practice of using UF milk in these production processes would mean equipment widely used in plants today would have to be changed or modified.

On the flip side, if FDA moves from its non-enforcement posture to actually adopt the 2005 proposed rule to outright allow UF milk (MPC) in making various standardized cheeses, then this could be a signal of much broader acceptance of UF milk throughout the industry for other dairy and food products with standards of identity about the milk used. The question would then become: How will the labeling be handled if the standards are changed for the future as opposed to being simply ignored over the past 16 years.

Comments will be received until March 30, 2020 at the Federal Register, Docket No. FDA- 2008-P-0086. Here is the link to the online comment portal here.