By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, October 13, 2023

CARMEL, Ind. — “Fear of retribution” has been mentioned by some of the dairy farmers who have testified at the federal milk pricing hearings over the past seven weeks in Carmel, Indiana.

“I cannot believe predatory milk pricing is happening in America,” said Brenda Cochran, a Tioga County, Pennsylvania dairy farmer.

Cochran was among the producers testifying Friday, Sept. 29. She, like others, stated they are speaking for thousands of other farmers who are “unrepresented and voiceless” because “they fear losing their milk market for speaking out.”

She said she dedicated her time to speak for them and to speak for “the memory of those farmers who have already lost their farms, their families, and, some of them, their lives because of this decades-long catastrophe of low milk prices.”

Cochran noted the “blindingly abstruse complexities” of federal milk pricing and the hearing process that “seem to presume the impacted farmers possess economics credentials at the PhD level.”

The room full of administrators, accountants, economists, and lawyers listened as she spoke virtually from home, saying that as an average dairy farmer, she finds it “impossible to comprehend the ‘dairy industry’ language.” She noted that “the ‘dairy industry’ is all anyone focuses on.

“There are some dairy farmers who believe milk pricing is deliberately made complicated to keep dairy farmers in the dark about how their milk is priced,” said Cochran. “Others believe the low milk prices are part of an effort to displace farmers from their land.”

She asked USDA to truly look at what this hearing can do “to fix broken milk-pricing formulas for the farmers.

“When was the last time U.S. dairy farmers were given a ‘cost of living’ adjustment?” she asked. “How are dairy farmers supposed to dig out from debt and cover basic farm and family living expenses if ‘make allowance increases’ for processors take more money away from the paltry milk checks that are also being drained by higher transportation charges and the incessant monetary hemorrhage of capricious ‘market adjustment fees’ that are never included in Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) payments?”

Like others who have testified, Cochran pointed out: What is done to dairy farmers also decimates the rural communities that have been “laid waste by over 40 years of degrading milk prices.”

Last Friday, Oct. 6, John Painter, also of Tioga County, Pennsylvania, testified for Farm Bureau’s positions. He cited the loss of dairy farms and cow numbers in Pennsylvania. 

“While there are multiple factors leading dairy farmers to sell their herds, one of the main reasons is pricing. In Pennsylvania, our milk pricing is twice as complicated… but the outdated FMMOs certainly do not help,” said Painter.

“I can attest that farmers are leaving the dairy industry, especially Class I producers, simply because the money and labor just is not there. We have a chance to change that narrative by amending the FMMO system to meet the economic needs of our farmers,” he explained.

Painter noted that both the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau and the AFBF support NMPF’s proposal (13) to return to the ‘higher of’ calculation for the Class I ‘mover’ and to raise the Class I differentials as outlined by NMPF in proposal 19.

AFBF also does not want to see any increase in make allowances to processors without a mandatory and audited cost survey. The NMPF proposal would raise all four product make allowances to net a roughly 50 cents per hundredweight loss to farmers; whereas IDFA’s proposal would raise make allowances to net a roughly $1.25/cwt. loss to farmers. 

NMPF and IDFA reportedly support AFBF’s request that Congress in the farm bill authorize USDA to do mandatory audited FMMO cost surveys.

NMPF also includes yield composition factors and other pieces of their package of proposals to both ‘give’ and ‘take’ to get pricing alignments to better perform the FMMO pooling functions without negatively impacting farmers.

NMPF’s economist Peter Vitaliano admitted earlier in the hearing — with regard to the Class I change made legislatively to the averaging formula — they had previously supported it, but, he said: “The market taught us a very severe lesson.”

Painter noted the Class I mover change is top of mind for producers. Furthermore, he noted the Class I differentials under NMPF’s proposal 19, would add more positivity in all locations.

This stands in direct conflict with the Milk Innovation Group’s proposal to subtract $1.60 per hundredweight from the base Class I differential, to negatively affect every dairy farmer in every area. 

The Milk Innovation Group is made up of fluid processors that market value-added milk or milk-based beverages, including ultrafiltered, organic, aseptic and ESL.

This is the group that put several company CEOs on the stand to support keeping the “average of” method for calculating the Class I mover, but use a rolling adjuster or “adder” that is floored. 

The CEO of fairlife said the models show the MIG proposal on the Class I mover would benefit farmers longterm by $1.43/cwt. What wasn’t mentioned was the MIG proposal to subtract $1.60 from differentials at the same time.

Also not mentioned is the fact that when wide swings occur, they produce severe losses that lead to dairy farm exits, depooling of milk from FMMOs due to misaligned pricing, and disorderly marketing that disproportionately affects pooled producer that serve the Class I market, creating both individual and geographic impacts.

Another farmer testifying Friday, Oct. 6 was Mark McAfee, of Fresno County, California. As vice president of both the California Dairy Campaign and California Farmers Union, he has heard from organizations that few if any dairy farmers want to volunteer to testify due to “fear of retaliation by processors.

“Dairy farmers are scared and live in fear of processors and loss of contracts,” said McAfee.

Supporting the prior testimony of CDC’s Lynn McBride and Joaquin Contente on the addition of mozzarella cheese to the FMMO Class III pricing survey, McAfee explained why this is vital and why producers are so afraid to speak out on it.

Mozzarella (4.49 billion pounds produced and sold) is now much larger than cheddar cheese (3.96 billion pounds) in the U.S., but it is not used in the Class III formula, he explained.

“The moisture levels are much higher. If added to the pricing formula, farmers would be paid a much higher price. This is being ignored and overlooked,” said McAfee.

He said that adding mozzarella to the pricing survey could be a key to “structural price change (that) will return a substantial amount of value to farmers that are currently being paid $15/cwt., when breakeven is at least $23 to $27/cwt.”

Processors are dead-set against this, as was apparent in the testimony and cross examination of representatives for Leprino a few weeks ago. They bemoaned USDA whey make allowances as “too low.” They blamed USDA for upsetting the supply and demand scenario by setting farm milk class minimum prices “too high.”

They said they might not build any more plants (after the Lubbock plant that is currently under construction) nor invest in capacity in the U.S. in the future if this is not remedied.

USDA AMS’s Erin Taylor had questioned Leprino reps, asking if they build cheese plants to make whey or to make mozzarella cheese? She also asked if there are other factors that might lead to increased milk production — other than the processors’ contention that USDA has minimum prices set “too high.”

It’s clear from such exchanges that the largest global processors, like Leprino, want to cash flow plants on the make allowance of byproduct whey, leaving their unsurveyed mozzarella cheese as an area of unaccountable profit that another testifying farmer – Joaquine Contente also of California – said is made on the backs of farmers.

In an attempt to respond, Leprino reps said the whey and the cheese come out of the same hundredweight of milk. This seems to make clear the model of cash-flowing a plant on the whey make allowance, while the mozzarella remains unreported gravy, and none of its value translates back to the milk.

On the “too high” FMMO minimum milk prices provoking “too much production,” processor reps acknowledged there are other factors, which they would not name, but they kept pointing out the dumping of milk and the negative premiums, and sales of loads at $10 under Class III minimum this summer as “proof” that USDA sets FMMO minimum prices too high.

In essence, they walked right into the CDC point that milk pricing should match profitable growth with profitable demand.

(In a two-part series in June and July 2023, Farmshine reported that the record whole milk powder imports in the first half of 2023, and the proliferation of new manure-methane-driven dairy expansions together produced what was seen as a regional glut of milk this summer that drove everyone’s prices lower. Now, magically, there’s not enough milk and spot loads sell above minimum as global dairy supplies recede, and in the U.S. imports decline and whole herds have been sold to high beef and dairy replacement prices. An update of that report can be found at https://wp.me/p329u7-2N2)

McAfee launched into some root causes for where we are today. (More on that in the future.) 

He cited how processors are moving to more heavily processed milk beverages, but consumer research shows the public wants milk that is unfooled-around-with.

The availability and orderly marketing of fresh, unfooled-around-with milk is essentially why FMMOs exist. However, as a product, its benefits are not being promoted, nor are they naturally innovated, said McAfee.

The dairy innovation solution is always to do more processing, and this has created a bifurcation in how milk is priced. The more processed the milk, the more longterm the pricing; whereas fresh milk remains a month to month pass-through sale.

The checkoff push to ‘think beyond the jug’ or break the ‘jug habit’ has now created a pricing dilemma for the FMMOs.

-30-