Milk Map MATH…

map-1.jpgAuthor’s note: Since Milk Map Math was published April 6, I came across another interesting piece in April 11 Tank Transport Trader, where Dr. Mark Stephenson talks of the surpluses in the Midwest and West and states the 8 bil. lbs. Northeast milk deficit and 41 bil. lbs. Southeast deficit, and how the challenge is getting milk from the surplus areas to deficient areas. Read on, for Milk Map Math – 2017 data.

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, April 6, 2018

BROWNSTOWN, Pa. – Dairy consolidation away from the eastern U.S. continued in 2017, aided by further losses in basis revealed in the average net mailbox milk prices.

As the state and regional variations in mailbox milk prices move closer to a national price, the losers on the map are the states encompassed by the Federal Orders with highest Class I utilization: Northeast, Mideast, Appalachian, Southeast and Florida.

Not only is fluid milk the shrinking piece of the expanding pie, it is also the segment of the market with a legacy tied to local farms, family farms, farms that are getting dropped by bottlers as the milk bottling industry is also consolidating into wider spheres of milk sourcing.

The only way to slow this trend is to work directly with consumers and retailers because they have already told the dairy industry they want: local milk. Trouble is, the industry, and the checkoff dollars paid by these significant farms in the diminishing eastern region, are not listening to consumers. They’ve got eyes set across the seas on exports hitting 20% by 2025, while leaving the domestic market for nature’s most perfect food — milk — vulnerable and neglected.

Meanwhile, the milksheds on both the East and West Coasts had production levels in 2017 that were lower or unchanged, while big gains in production in the Western Plains milkshed overtook all milkshed production for the first time.

ChartWhile U.S. production was 215 bil. lbs., up 1.4% over 2016, the traditional Northeast milkshed, at 36.88 bil. lbs. added just 0.6%. Anchored by New York (up 0.9%), Pennsylvania (up 1.1%), Ohio (up 0.8%) and Vermont (unchanged), this milkshed includes other New England states that lost 3 to 5% and Maryland down 0.4%.
National-footprint cooperatives, like DFA and Land O’Lakes talk of the flood of milk in the Northeast.

Land O’Lakes is shrinking the Eastern base from 9 mil. lbs. per day to triggering penalties above 8.6 mil. lbs. per day, according to letters received by members. At the same time, different rules are applied in the Upper Midwest where demand will be affected by expansion of the Agropur plant driving expansion in the I-29 corridor.

DFA has placed a base program on members in parts of the Southeast, despite the Southeast deficit and virtually unchanged milk production in the milkshed, while different rules are applied elsewhere on the map, even in states that ship milk to the eastern states throughout the year and have a new powder facility in Kansas to balance that.

When the industry refers to the eastern markets being oversupplied, they are really talking about the ability of expansion areas of the U.S. to serve the markets and consumers of the East.

In particular, they are including in the description of a Northeast supply, the Mideast states of Michigan (up 3.3%) and Indiana (up 2.7%). Even when we figure in these states, the combined Northeast and Mideast milksheds produced 52.37 bil lbs in 2017, up 1.3%.

The Midwest milkshed — from Wisconsin and Illinois to the Dakotas, including the rapidly growing I-29 corridor of Iowa, Minn. and South Dakota — made 50.25 bil. lbs, up 1.3%.

The sea of green in milk production, however, can be found in the Western Plains milkshed from Texas, New Mexico, Arizona in the south to Nevada, Utah, Idaho to the north, including rapidly growing Colorado, Kansas, Nebraska and Oklahoma. This milkshed grew by 5% to 53.12 bil. lbs.

Texas, alone, produced over 12 bil. lbs., up virtually 12% on the strength of output per cow and 7% more cows — leapfrogging both Pennsylvania and Michigan for the No. 5 spot — pushing Pennsylvania to 7th.

New Mexico grew 6.5% to 8.21 bil. lbs. with 4.3% more cows. Every state in this milkshed grew by more than 5% except for Nevada’s growth of 3.6% and number 4 Idaho’s small loss of 0.3%. The West Coast made 48.85 bil lbs, down 1.7% in 2017 with No. 1 California off by 1.7% and Pacific Northwest off by more.

Shifts in state and regional Mailbox Milk Prices tell the story. Losing the most ground relative to the U.S. average were Pennsylvania and the Southeast states. Both were averaged by USDA at $17.55 for 2017. In fact, the eastern Pennsylvania portion of that price was even lower, at $17.39.

Interestingly, the West Coast gained the most ground on net mailbox prices with California’s mailbox at $16.19, up 9.3% over 2016 and the Northwest at $17.59 up 10.2%.

Florida regained the number one position with a mailbox price of $18.96, up 9%, while the Southeast milkshed was tie for 10th with Pennsylvania at $17.55. This value represented a 7.2% gain over 2016 for Pennsylvania but just a 5.8% gain over 2016 for the Southeast.

New England was second at $18.65 and the Appalachian region regained third with a 2017 mailbox price of $18.09, up 8% over year ago. New York was $17.46.

Wisconsin had the fourth highest mailbox price in the nation at $17.95, up 7.6% while Minnesota was 9th at $17.56, up 6.4%. Iowa and Illinois were up 8 and 9% with mailbox prices of $17.69 and $17.96, respectively.

Ohio was up 9% with a mailbox average of $17.61, while Indiana was up 7.4% at $17.02.

Michigan, up 8.3% at $15.59, and New Mexico, up 5.4% at $15.24, were the states with the lowest mailbox prices. West Texas garnered a mailbox average at $16.77, up 8.6%.

Wisconsin and Pennsylvania remained the top two for the number of licensed dairy farms. Pennsylvania lost 80, down 1.3% at 6570. Wisconsin lost 430 at 9090, down 4.6%.

Overall, the U.S. milk production increase of 1.4% came from 67,000 more cow on 1600 fewer licensed dairy farms. Across the 50 states, the number of licensed dairy farms fell 4% to 40,219 and the number of dairy cows grew 0.7% to 9.3 million head.

Keep in mind, USDA milk production statistics are compiled, in part, using Market Admin. pooling reports for marketings relative to cow numbers. With milk moving in ways it never has before, there could be some gray areas in some of these state and regional tallies.

-30-

Dairy market fluidity

041213FarmshinePage4.inddDairy market fluidity

By Sherry Bunting, Milk Market Moos, Farmshine, February 2, 2018

Picking up from the previous dairy export ‘Jeckyll and Hyde’ discussion… Let’s look at what has happened to the fluid milk market in the U.S.

There is a difference between Class I utilization declining and actual packaged milk sales declines. For example, the 2017 year figures are not yet in, but for the last reported month of November, USDA reports that packaged conventional fluid milk sales for January through November 2017 are down 2.1% from year ago and organic fluid milk sales are off by 0.2%.

While consumers are drinking less dairy milk on a per capita basis, Class I — as a percentage of all milk sold — is declining faster because the processing of milk into other growing dairy product sectors is increasing.

Some of the increase in these product sales reflects domestic growth, but the kicker is that as exports increase as a percentage of total milk production, Class I utilization as a percentage of total raw milk sales is pushed lower — even if consumers drink more milk.

Let’s identify how the markets are changing and how to value them back to the raw milk producer rather than laying blame for over production that leaves the farmers in the position of “deserving the price they get.”

Supply management is not the answer, nor is it at this point really possible. It is a distraction. We need to be looking at the dairy trade in a way that both prepares farmers for the future and prepares the industry for dealing fairly with producers.

Case in point. How concerned has the National Dairy Council and the dairy industry  been about the fraudulent use of the word ‘milk’ on plant juice labels? NMPF’s efforts to right this wrong came only within the past two years — and 15 years after these sales of fake milk started eating into the fluid dairy milk sales.

How serious have they been about the milk that our children drink in school? It is interesting that GENYOUth was “founded in 2010 as a partnership between the National Football League and National Dairy Council, convening leaders in a movement to empower America’s youth to create a healthier future.”

One example given at the GENYOUth website recognizes U.S. Dairy Export Council CEO Tom Vilsack for his accomplishments for dairy farmers while serving as Secretary of Agriculture under President Obama. In his current role, Vilsack’s salary is paid by DAIRY FARMERS via the mandatory promotion checkoff.

Specifically a December GENYOUth gala recognized Vilsack for having “legislated to improve the health of America’s kids. Under Sec. Vilsack, USDA partnered with First Lady Michelle Obama’s Let’s Move! initiative alongside GENYOUth to improve the health of America’s children. Sec. Vilsack helped pass and implement the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act to help combat child hunger and obesity by making the most significant improvements to U.S. school meals in 30 years.”

school lunchThat is certainly a mouthful, considering that something else occurred in 2010-11. This was the very same year that schools were forced to offer only 1% or fat-free white milk and flavored milk could only be offered as fat-free!

Unfortunately, this did not improve school lunch meal nutrition, and it has cost dairy farmers plenty in lost milk sales.

In fact, Bob Gray for the Northeast Association of Farm Cooperatives stated recently — during a panel of dairy producers and policy folks at a Congressional viewing of the New England documentary Forgotten Farms I attended in Washington D.C. earlier this month — stated the impact of the school milk issue on milk sales, surpluses and pricing.

ForgottenFarms2web.jpg“For the last six years, we have not been able to sell even 1% (fat) milk in the schools,” said Gray about being forced to sell fat-free. “We have lost 288 million pounds of milk in half-pints that were not consumed by schoolchildren because of this move, alone.”

But maybe this is the point.

If fluid milk consumption erodes as a percentage of milk production, the cost of milk to processors becomes less for the many other products that need to be more competitive globally.

Technology is driving some of these trends. New opportunities and new knowledge are improving efficiencies throughout the supply chain. But marketing direction often leaves more questions than answers when it comes to spending money dairy farmers are forced to pay for it.

Meanwhile, as Dr. David Kohl, Virginia Tech professor emeritus, pointed out as a speaker last week in Lancaster County, Pa., the advances in technology are driving production from an efficiency standpoint. What these advances do for agriculture is to help less productive farms improve yields. “Technology improves the bottom end and that creates surplus, said Kohl. “And that is why we need export markets.”

To my thinking, exports are to be keenly pursued, but pursued with a strategy that does not ignore the market profile of dairy sales here at home, especially when the highest valued product classification under federal price regulation for dairy — fluid milk — is being treated like the Cinderella sister with odds against her, while her sisters get ready for the Prince’s ball.

There are plenty of great innovations in dairy products and distribution — including export markets — that deserve our attention. However, while Cinderella is ignored in plain clothes in the increasingly cluttered dairy case full of fake substitutes, she deserves an invitation to the ball. And a glass slipper or two sure wouldn’t hurt.

Whole milk up, fat-free way down

USDA’s January estimated fluid milk sales report indicates that whole milk sales for the first 11 months of 2017 were up by 2.5% over year ago and November, alone was up 3.5%. Meanwhile lowfat and fat-free losses drove the entire category lower as nearly 12% less fat-free milk was sold compared with year ago, 6.7% less 1% and 2.8% less 2% milk. Similar patterns were revealed among organic milk drinkers with fat-free down almost 20% Jan. through Nov. while whole milk was up 6.2%.

Author’s Note: Re-inventing this Ag Moos blog for the times….  Milk Market Moos is a column I’ve been writing in Farmshine since 2003. Find some of it here, at Ag Moos, along with other dairy and beef market related stories, agriculture news, and, in between, the stories and images of the inspirational people of agriculture… but you can get it first, and you can get it all, in Farmshine Newspaper, just $15/year. Farmshine is a weekly newspaper published in Brownstown, Pennsylvania — now in its 39th year of publishing all-dairy, all-the-time.