Milk Market Moos: Could farmers be PAYING processors to take milk’s ‘other solids’ like in 2009 after the last ‘make allowance’ raise?

Posted on August 2, 2024 by Agmoos

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, August 2, 2024

No ‘snubber’ on USDA’s higher whey make allowance proposal

The whey market is the one to watch right now as the daily CME spot market sped higher again this week, and the dry whey spot price is now above the 60-cents-per-poind mark!

No ‘snubber’ on new whey make allowance means farmers would have PAID processors to take the ‘other solids’ in their milk last summer.

One thing for the industry and USDA to keep in mind regarding the proposed rule announced July 1 is that the higher make allowances, if implemented, include a nearly 7-cents-per-pound raise in the dry whey processor credit. That can be a real bully when markets go south — considering there is no ‘snubber’ to keep farmers from having to give away these ‘other solids’ or to PAY processors to take them as though worthless.

USDA is proposing to increase the dry whey make allowance from $0.1991/lb to $0.2653/lb — a nearly 7 cents per pound jump.

Farmers would have PAID processors to take other solids last summer

Guess what? If we were having this conversation a year ago, looking at July 2023 Class and Component price announcements, we would be writing in this column that your ‘other solids’ price would be essentially zero, meaning processors would get the lactose and whey free, and last August, if the proposed new whey make allowance was in effect, farmers would have paid processors $0.003 to take these components as if they are worthless.

If the proposed 7-cents-per-pound increase in the dry whey make allowance were in effect in July and August 2023, the new $0.2653/lb make allowance would have been at or slightly higher than the dry whey price for those two months.

When the make allowances were raised in 2008, we saw months in 2009 when farmers literally paid their milk buyers to take the other solids in their milk because the dry whey price had fallen below the then-new make allowance, and there was no snubber to stop the bleeding at zero.

July Butterfat up at $3.57, Protein slips to $1.95

USDA announced mixed trends on July 31 for the Class and Component prices used in Federal Milk Marketing Orders for July milk. Class II and IV at $21.82 and $21.31, respectively, were around 20 cents per cwt higher than a month ago and 20 to 70 cents higher than the July Class I base price ‘mover.’

Class III milk, at $19.79, slipped 8 cents from June and continues to be the lowest of the four classes as it has been for most of the past two and a half years.

All components were higher, except for protein, which slipped 10 cents per pound back under the $2 mark at $1.95/lb. Butterfat gained 3 cents at $3.57 for July. Solids nonfat also gained, valued at just over $1.00 per pound for July.

Other solids also gained, at 26 cents/lb. This is derived from the dry whey price vs. make allowance.

June All-Milk price up 80 cents at $22.80, fully $5/cwt above year ago

USDA announced the All-Milk price for June at $22.80, up 80 cents from May and fully $5 higher than a year ago. The national average butterfat test moved down 0.07 at 4.10, but was still 0.09 above year ago. The Pennsylvania All-Milk price for June, at $23.30, was also 80 cents higher than the previous month, and fat test fell by 0.06, reported at 4.01, just 0.01 above year ago. The June DMC margin was not published or available by press-time, but with a higher All-Milk price for June announced at 3 p.m. July 31st, and moderating feed costs, the June DMC margin is likely to be well above the $9.50 trigger margin at around $11.50/cwt. (Update, June DMC margin was announced Aug. 2 at $11.66).

Milk futures mostly higher, especially Class IV

Class III milk futures were mostly higher this week, except near-term September and October were down a few cents per hundredweight. Class IV futures were steady to higher across the board. On Wed., July 31, Class III milk futures for the next 12 months (Aug24-Jul25) averaged $19.44, down 2 cents from the Jul24-Jun25 average on the previous Wednesday. The 12-month Class IV average at $20.92 for the 12 months Aug24-Jul25, also 2 cents below the Jul24-Jun25 average a week ago.

Whey and powder skyrocket, but formula price survey lags

Trade was active with high volume movement on Class IV products, butter and nonfat dry milk powder. Trade was light for Class III products cheese and whey.

The whey market is again the big story as the daily CME spot market continues trading at price levels well above the weekly National Dairy Product Sales Report (NDPSR). The NDPSR prices are the ones that USDA collects in mandatory processor pricing surveys to use in the Federal Milk Marketing Order end-product pricing formulas. The NDPSR whey price is the one USDA AMS plugs into the FMMO pricing formula for Class III and ‘other solids.’

While spot bids for dry whey rallied to a whopping 62 cents per pound Wednesday, July 31, with 3 loads trading the first three days this week, and the weekly average price at 60 cents… the NDPSR for week ending July 27 is still back at 46 cents/lb — a 14-cent per pound deficit vs. the spot market, and 9 cents lower than the previous week’s spot market.

The CME spot market for cheese was mixed with the barrel premium over blocks widening to 7 cents per pound this week as barrels traded firm while blocks moved lower. In the weekly NDPSR, barrels are a scant half-penny higher than blocks.

The CME daily spot market for 40-lb block Cheddar was pegged at $1.9150/lb Wed., July 31 ($1.93/lb average for the week). This is 2 1/2 cents lower than the prior Wednesday with 3 loads trading the first three days this week. The 500-lb barrel cheese price, pegged at $1.9750/lb was unchanged compared with a week ago; 3 loads traded Monday through Wednesday.

The NDPSR for week ending July 27 pegs block cheese at $1.9482/lb and barrels at $1.9533/lb.

In the Class IV product complex, butter firmed up to move higher this week, shrugging off the Cold Storage Report indicating inventories were running 7% above year ago at the end of June. A whopping 26 loads of butter were traded on the CME cash market Monday through Wednesday this week. On Wed., July 31, the spot price was $3.1275/lb — up nearly 4 cents from the previous Wednesday with the weighted average for the week just over $3.10/lb — right where the NDPSR butter price landed for the week ending July 27.

Grade A nonfat dry milk trade was active again this week on the CME spot market, advancing to $1.2450/lb by Wed., July 31, up another penny from a week ago with a whopping 20 loads changing hands the first three days.

Contrary to historical patterns, the NDPSR moved the opposite direction. Again, this is the price used in FMMO pricing formulas. Nonfat dry milk for the week ending July 27 hung back at the $1.18 mark, declining a penny from the prior week despite the 7-cent spot market advance last week. CME spot prices are now at a 6-cents-per-pound premium over the NDPSR.

Total packaged fluid milk sales in May continue outpacing year ago

U.S. fluid milk sales continued outpacing year ago in May, according to the USDA’s Estimated Total Packaged Fluid Milk Sales Report released last Friday, July 19.

The report showed May sales were up 0.3% compared with a year ago, following the big 5.9% jump in April. In fact, fluid milk sales have been higher year-over-year (YOY) for six of the past eight months.

Year-to-date (YTD) sales continue to beat year ago, up 1.3% for the Jan-May period, and when adjusted for Leap Year, YTD 2024 sales are up 0.6% vs. 2023.

Leading the charge again is the largest volume category: conventional whole milk sales, up 1.8% YOY in May, plus organic whole milk sales, up 28% YOY in May.

Conventional whole flavored milk sales were down 13% from a year ago in May — a function of what fat percentage is offered, not necessarily what consumers may have selected — as the reduced fat (2%) flavored milk sales rose 3.5% in May. By contrast, organic whole flavored milk sales were up 31% YOY in May.

Total Organic fluid milk sales of all fat levels were up 6.3% in May YOY and up 7.8% (Leap Year Adjusted) for the first five months of 2024 vs. year ago. They represent 7% of the YTD total of all fluid milk sales.

The ‘other fluid milk products’ category continues to make double-digit percentage gains, up 45% YOY in May and up 37% (Leap Year Adjusted) YTD vs. year ago. This category represents 2.2% of total fluid milk sales. The report does not separate out the ESL products in each fat percentage; however, lactose-free milk brands are included in the ‘other products’ category.

Year-to-date milk production down 1%

U.S. milk production fell 0.8% in June compared with a year ago, despite the national herd reportedly having 2000 more milk cows than a year ago, according to USDA’s monthly milk report this week. The report also revised the May total lower by another 0.2% or 30 million pounds.

Year-to-date milk production for the first half of 2024 is down 0.3% compared with the first half of 2023 even with an extra day of production in 2024! When adjusted for Leap Year, first half 2024 milk production trailed year ago by 1%. It would not be surprising to see USDA come back and trim the June tally lower, later.

In the Northeast and Midatlantic Milkshed, Pennsylvania’s production fell 2.2%, Vermont down 2.8%, and New York down 1.2%.

In the Southeast, Florida gained 4.9% with 4000 more cows while Georgia dropped 8.1%, losing 8,000 cows, and Virginia saw a 4.3% drop in production vs. year ago.

The Mideast Milkshed declined with Michigan down 0.9%, Ohio 0.6%, and Indiana 1.6%, with just a 1000-head loss in cow numbers across the three states.

In the Upper Midwest and Central Plains, Iowa grew production by 1.2%, despite being hit with bird flu in June, Minnesota was down 1%, South Dakota up 8.3%, and Wisconsin up 0.9%.

Western States saw production declines, except for Texas up 3.1% with 13,000 more milk cows than a year ago.

DMI / NMPF talk supply and demand

Fluid milk, yogurt, butter and other than American-type cheese all posted positive annual growth in domestic commercial use during the March-May 2024 period, according to the July edition of the joint DMI and NMPF market report released July 23rd. The report cites significant export growth for all types of cheese and whey protein concentrate and isolate. However, when looking at domestic and export sales of all products combined, the usage is described as “relatively flat to lower” in the March through May period.

The DMI / NMPF report observes that U.S. milk production has nearly had a year’s worth of volumes charting below prior year levels, but “continued increases in average component composition of producer milk has enabled U.S. dairy farmers to supply available demand for dairy products while keeping inventories of key products relatively stable,” the report stated.

Overall supply-and-demand balance in the industry has been good enough to move dairy product and dairy farm prices and margins higher in recent months, without significantly reversing the gradual reduction trend in retail dairy product prices that has occurred over the past year, according to the report.

While dry skim milk usage is down 48% in the March-May period, this is a function of the lower production of skim milk powder (down 24.5%) and nonfat dry milk (down 12.5%). Inventories at the end of May trailed year ago by 4%. Domestic and export markets can only ‘use’ what is ‘produced’ and available in a commodity category in the first place.

But the DMI / NMPF market report did not even mention imports… So here’s the deal:

The U.S. imported 41% more Whole Milk Powder in first-half 2024 vs. 2023,
up 150% vs. 2022!

While U.S. milk production has trailed year-ago levels for the past 10 consecutive months, U.S. food manufacturers have been quietly ramping up imports of whole milk powder (WMP), which is essentially whole milk, dried.

WMP imports were running 170% above year ago, cumulatively, for the first four months of 2024. May and June totals have slowed down from the huge front-loaded volumes January through April. Still, the cumulative year-to-date WMP import volume at 5.5 million pounds for the first six months of 2024 is 41% greater on a volume basis compared with a year ago.

This is a stunning increase because the Jan-June 2023 WMP import volume was already 77% greater than the first six months of 2022. This means Jan-June Whole Milk Powder (WMP) imports have grown 150% in two years. That’s a volume increase of 1.49 million kgs or 3.29 million pounds. WMP is basically farm milk from another country, in bulk dried form, not a specialized product. It can be used in processing virtually any dairy product, containing all of the milk components — both fat and skim solids.

Total non cheese imports at 10.4 million kgs (21 million pounds) for the first half of 2024 are up 5.9% vs. 2023 and up 41.4% vs. 2022.

Cheese imports, on the other hand are up slightly from a year ago (1.4%) and down 6.27% from 2022.

On the export side of the ledger, the U.S. sold 2% less total milk solids volume overseas in May, which is mainly because skim milk powder, whole milk powder, and other milk protein powder exports were down 8 to 12% from a year ago. Butterfat exports were down 16%.

Cheese exports, on the other hand, were up 27% in May and dry whey product exporter were up 6%. Fluid milk and cream exports were up 2%.

This makes sense because the U.S. dairy processing paradigm has shifted. The U.S. is making less butter and powder (Class IV) and more cheese and dry whey (Class III).
The U.S. is consequently exporting less milk powder and butterfat (Class IV) and exporting more cheese and dry whey products (Class III); while at the same time importing more whole milk powder and non cheese products, while cheese import volumes remain stable.

30-day H5N1 detections drop to 33 in 6 states, hot spot Colo. requires milk testing

As of July 31, 2024, the current confirmed cases of H5N1 in dairy cows within the past 30 days decreased to 33 herds in 6 states. Of these, 24 are in Colorado, the hot spot by a long shot. The state issued an order July 22nd to require mandatory bulk tank milk testing, except raw milk dairies, which are encouraged to do so voluntarily.

Other states with confirmed cases within the past 30 days are: Minnesota (3), Idaho (2), Texas (1), Iowa (1), and Michigan (1). Cumulatively, since the beginning of the outbreak on March 25, 2024, there have been 173 detections in 13 states.

Enrollments in the national voluntary dairy herd status bulk tank testing include 21 herds: Michigan (7), New Mexico (4), Pennsylvania (3), and 1 herd each in Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas.

Will we see PA milk bills moove?

The Pennsylvania State Assembly has a few dairy bills waiting to moove on through both chambers again towards the end of a two-year legislative session. We’ve seen this movie before, where the House votes to allow Pennsylvania whole milk produced on Pennsylvania dairy farms to be served in Pennsylvania schools, and where the House votes to allow the state-mandated Pa. Over Order Premium (OOP) to be collected and distributed to farms by the state instead of leaving it open to loopholes that strand the dollars through creative cross-border deals.

In prior years, such milk bills would move through Committee and even get passed by the House, only to be stuck in a chairman’s desk drawer in the Senate. If we look back far enough in the history of milk bills in the Pennsylvania legislature, we see on other occasions a long awaited milk bill passed the Senate only to be stalled out in the House. Will this year be any different? Who knows? Election years are funny-seasons.

Earlier this month, Senators Elder Vogel and Judy Schwank, the chair and ranking member, respectively, of the Senate Ag Committee introduced legislation to allow the state to collect the state-mandated OOP and distribute it to farmers. A similar bill had been introduced in the past two legislative sessions on the House side by Rep. John Lawrence, but Vogel and Schwank were unconvinced to move it in the Senate.

This time, Vogel and Schwank are introducing the measure after many years of multiple hearings, task forces, and other such discussions of what on earth to do about the state-mandated OOP to make sure all of it — 100% — gets into the pockets of Pennsylvania dairy farmers, as intended.

The Vogel-Schwank rendition would “empower” the Pennsylvania Milk Board (formerly known as the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board) to administrate the process of collecting and distributing the premium with involvement of the Pa. Dept. of Revenue. The state would distribute the funds to farmers, milk handlers and dealers using a formula that includes cost of production, price received, and other measures.

The current method of distribution only follows the $1 premium for milk that is produced, processed, and sold in Pennsylvania, but consumers pay this $1.00/cwt premium within the minimum retail price set by the Pa. Milk Board for ALL milk sold at retail in Pennsylvania — no matter where it comes from.

For decades the debate over the Pa. OOP has had its moments where farmers thought a change would come to prevent significant gamesmanship stranding millions of dollars in premiums intended for the dairy farmers.

Yes, I am cynical. We are five months away from the end of a 2-year legislative session and four months away from an election / re-election. Forgive my gut reaction: Ho-hum…. here we go again… time and money spent on spinning this wheel of fortune. Not buying it. Stay tuned.

In June, the Senate Ag Committee passed SB 1229, which would allow the Pa. Dept. of Agriculture to provide financial assistance to dairy farmers who enroll in the federal dairy margin coverage (DMC) program.

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

Posted on July 29, 2024 by Agmoos

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-

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

Posted on July 4, 2024 by Agmoos

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 July 4, 2024 by Agmoos

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.

Pray for rain, or pray it stops, depending on where you are: Grain markets continue shrugging off weather woes

Posted on June 28, 2024 by Agmoos

An Iowa State University IEM data graph is the picture that speaks 1000 words about the “tale of two halves”. It shows precipitation highs and lows vs.132 years of records. An April / May data capture looked about the same in the Upper Midwest and Northern Plains, but the drought in the East had not yet become as widespread into the Ohio Valley until June. Some areas are seeing the driest June on record.

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, June 28, 2024

EAST EARL, Pa. – Pray for rain. Pray it stops. The contrast could not be starker.

The Mid-Atlantic and Ohio Valley is in the throes of one of the driest growing seasons on record. Meanwhile, the season was already one of the wettest on record throughout the Upper Midwest and Northern Plains before the 8 to 15 inches June 21-23 led to historic catastrophic flooding in northwest Iowa, southeast South Dakota, and southern Minnesota.

The June 24^th USDA Crop Progress Report showed a 3 point decline in good-to-excellent corn condition, nationally, falling to 69%. But, sticking in the market’s crawl is the earlier-projected corn crop estimates and the mere 50% good-to-excellent corn crop condition reported for this same week a year ago.

Soybean condition fell 5 points to 67% this week. Again, this beats the 51% good-to-excellent condition reported this same week a year ago.

The impacts on damaged crops and potentially lower yields from floods have yet to be assessed in a region that had already delayed planting, drained and replanted.

Grain markets are shrugging off the weather woes, appearing to be focused primarily on the demand side of the equation looking toward the upcoming end-of-month Grain Stocks report.

Some analysts are expecting an overall bearish mode to hold through at least month-end or longer, despite news emerging of untold acres of corn and soybeans under water along rivers and lakes in Iowa, Minnesota and South Dakota.

Governors of the three states declared statewide emergencies and named scores of counties under disaster declarations. President Biden has announced a federal disaster declaration in Iowa, opening up federal funding there. Other areas may not be far behind.

Lakes and rivers in the region reached levels reportedly higher than in 1993. Towns are under water, nobody in and nobody out, with boat rescues off rooftops and rescues via National Guard helicopters.

As the Big Sioux and Des Moines Rivers reached levels as much as 7 feet above previous records, a 100-year-old Minnesota dam failed, and two railway bridges collapsed that transported ag commodities.

Grain markets did not care. Early this week (June 24-25), “the markets tanked,” said Eric Relph with Commstock Investments in a Marin Bohling interview on the Commstock Channel Tuesday morning (June 25). No market strength emerged yet by Friday. Instead, more red.

“We are still fighting the mentality that rain makes grain,” said Relph.

Much of the Midatlantic region and into the Southeast and Ohio Valley are near record dry for June.

“The concern grows when we have other big chunks of other major growing regions very dry in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio, having had no rain in three weeks, with cracks in the ground, and plants curling and temperatures up at 75 overnight.”

Analysts are looking back at reactions to the summer flooding of 1993. But as farm broadcaster Max Armstrong observed in a tweet on X (formerly Twitter) Wednesday morning (June 26): “The South America behemoth makes tragic, sickening U.S. flooding far less consequential to the world than it did three decades ago.”

Farmers have taken to social media showing aerial footage of flooded fields, updating ever-increasing rainfall totals while walking the sprayer tracks that have become rivers in a swamp, along with images of busted corn bins and piles of flood-soaked corn in rural towns of northwest Iowa, like Spencer and Rock Valley, all within the targeted dairy growth area of the I-29 Corridor.

The problem, according to Relph, is the region had full moisture profiles coming into the Spring, then more rain constantly through April and May. This was before this 8 to 15 inches of rain that inundated the region.

Aerial photos show flooding in northwest Iowa as an already wetter than normal year was inundated by more rain and storms producing historic flooding.

Relph lives and works there. He described the geographic impact as substantial:

“At the western front of this area that is receiving this kind of rain, we move straight east through Iowa, with as much as 40% of Iowa affected, and it’s up into South Dakota and even North Dakota to a degree, and into central, the southern quarter of Minnesota, over into central Wisconsin and down along the Mississippi, missing Illinois, but including eastern Iowa,” he reported.

Iowa Ag Secretary Mike Naig said state officials won’t have a full sense of the crop damage or number of livestock lost in the region until the flood waters recede.

“This was already a wet part of the state, where there were some challenges around planting and replanting. They’ve just been inundated with rain throughout the spring. We’re hearing about damaged and destroyed equipment. There are livestock facilities that folks are having trouble getting feed to because of washed-out roads, and there are power outages and water outages. These are just some of the things that are really challenging,” Sec. Naig reported.

Farmers are resilient, and they are helping each other get through the most damaging elements and waiting to see how many fields will bounce back, if not under water more than two or three days. Some analysts say growers are not likely to pour management dollars into fields, depending on what the yield losses are predicted to be. It’s virtually too late to replant, even if conditions allow.

As one set of problems affects one region and another set of problems confronts another, Relph said: “It’s a tale of two halves. Without a shift in the weather pattern, it will be detrimental.”

Other analysts interviewed on Rural Radio Wednesday morning point to U.S. and European weather models that show more rain to come in the flooded region, but also going all the way East, keeping the bears in charge of the grain markets, with corn June 25 trading under February lows.

Meanwhile, the concerns now shift as the already flooding rivers flow into the Missouri and Mississippi.

In addition, sources indicate transportation has been affected by I-29 closures in spots from Sioux City, Iowa to Sioux Falls, South Dakota, affecting movement of supplies in and milk out. Trips take four times longer via back roads, and even there, washed out roads are encountered leaving some farms in a tough spot, while suppliers in affected nearby towns face difficulty getting out.

Some roads and portions of I-29 were reopening or partially reopening late June 25 into June 26, but new areas are bracing for the Missouri and Mississippi that are forecast to crest at major levels June 26 and into the first week of July.

Meanwhile, the NOAA Weather Prediction Center map shows rain and strong storms continuing in the Upper Midwest while overspreading the Ohio Valley and into the Mid-Atlantic by June 28.

As for the Midwest, The Weather Channel warns of severe flood risk returns as meteorologists are watching a new system ejecting from the Rockieswith the potential to bring a continued risk of flooding and severe weather in already impacted areas into July.

-30-

Dairy biosecurity risks highlighted in two H5N1 data briefs

Posted on June 25, 2024 by Agmoos

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, June 21, 2024

WASHINGTON – While 30-day detections of ‘bird flu’ in dairy have dropped to 59 herds in just 8 states (down from 116 in 12 states cumulatively), two epidemiologic studies published recently shed more light on dairy biosecurity risks.

Nationally, epidemiologic data were available for slightly more than half of the dairy herd premises affected by highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), known as Bovine Influenza A / H5N1 in dairy cattle. These data reveal linkages reported June 8th in a National Brief, which reported “no genomic or epidemiologic evidence that wild birds are spreading H5N1 to cattle, but it cannot be ruled out.”

In fact, the key takeaway is that H5N1 spread in dairy cows — between states — is linked to cattle movements, not to independent wild bird introductions, with further local spread between dairy farms occurring in some states.

A similar epidemiologic investigation looked at Michigan data, alone. Published June 13, this report also showed that migratory waterfowl were not culprits in independently spreading H5N1 to cattle in Michigan.

Both Briefs note the disease spread between dairy cattle herds is likely multi-faceted with both direct and indirect transmission. Biosecurity remains the key to mitigation.

The National Brief reveals more than 20% of farms with HPAI detections in the data set had moved cattle into the herd within 30 days of clinical signs, and 60% of those farms continued to move cattle after the onset of clinical signs.

The linkages revealed by the Michigan report show it began via movement of infected cattle from a Texas herd, before H5N1 had been detected in that herd. It is then believed to have spread to other herds through cattle movement and other direct and indirect transmission.

Other linkages were discussed, such as visitors, shared vehicles and equipment and shared workers. (Fig. 4 below)

Employees working at more than one dairy farm or working at both dairy and poultry farms, and employees from one dairy or poultry farm sharing housing with employees working on a different dairy or poultry farm have also been noted in the epidemiologic linkages.

Operations sharing equipment and livestock trailers (62% of affected premises) have also been implicated in disease transmission as only 12% of those operations reported cleaning trailers between uses.

The National Brief reports more than 20% of the affected dairies have chickens or poultry present with nearly all of those farms observing sick or dead poultry.

In the national investigation, researchers report that more than 80% of affected farms have cats present, with over 50% of these farms observing sick or dead cats. However, the Brief provided no data — one way or the other — on whether the HPAI H5N1 genotype B3.13 was detected in cats on these premises.

The Michigan study, on the other hand, confirmed the HPAI H5N1 genotype B3.13 in wildlife and other somewhat domestic species on affected dairies.

Despite collecting a large number of samples from wild birds and animals on these dairies (such as cats, racoons, opossums, foxes, pigeons and starling), the number of individual animals and species detected was small. Whether they were affected by their access to cattle or are fomites in transmission to cattle is hard to say, particularly since the large sampling yielded only a small number of confirmed findings in comparison to the larger numbers of cows confirmed on these affected farms.

Both Briefs indicate risk from manure appears to be low, but more research is needed.

-30-

Pennsylvania announces voluntary bulk tank monitoring program as ‘bird flu’ spreads to Iowa, Minnesota

Posted on June 25, 2024 by Agmoos

Status of H5N1 in dairy herds (cumulative with last date of detection noted) as of June 12, 2024

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, June 14, 2024

WASHINGTON – Bovine Influenza A / H5N1, known in birds and domestic poultry as highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), has spread to dairy herds in three more states — Iowa, Minnesota, and Wyoming.

As part of emergency response plans, as many as 16 states, including Pennsylvania, are rolling out voluntary bulk tank monitoring programs as supported by USDA’s May 31 announcement for a federal pilot program.

As of June 12, 2024 (updated to June 21), there are no detections of H5N1 in dairy herds and no active HPAI in poultry flocks in Pennsylvania.

The USDA APHIS website confirmed 93 detections in dairy herds in 12 states since March 25, of which 47 have been confirmed in the past 30 days (as of June 12) in just 8 states (in order of most recent detection): Idaho, Minnesota, Iowa, Wyoming, Texas, Michigan, South Dakota, and Colorado.

Of the other four states, Ohio and North Carolina are beyond 60 days since detection. Kansas and New Mexico reached 60 days on June 16.

During the monthly Center for Dairy Excellence call on June 12, Pennsylvania State Veterinarian Dr. Alex Hamberg said herd detections in other states have come primarily from “either sick cows or through epidemiologic tracing from positive farms.”

“It appears this is still a single bird to cow spillover that occurred in late 2023 and was not found until early 2024, so it spread out from there, and we’re now trying to catch up,” he said.

“Equipment, people, and cattle — that’s how this spreads. I can’t stress this strongly enough,” said Dr. Hamberg. Iowa is testing cattle close to positive poultry operations to provide data on species transfer risk.

Hamberg announced a Pennsylvania bulk tank monitoring program, supported by USDA. “This will be voluntary. The goal is to provide data of the status of the virus in Pennsylvania, or more likely the lack of it,” he said.

“We also need this data for quicker response time, and to protect nearby poultry farms. Even more important, is to provide a platform to engage concerned consumers and stakeholders to show we are addressing this proactively, that we are looking for it, that we have a plan, have it under control, and that pasteurized dairy products continue to be safe and wholesome,” he explained.

The status-enrollment period is three weeks, during which bulk tank and other samples will be taken. After three consecutive weeks of negative results, the dairy farm would achieve enrolled monitored herd status and continue weekly bulk tank samples thereafter to maintain that status.

An enrolled monitored herd with negative status would be able to move cattle without pre-movement testing, according to Dr. Hamberg.

“We are flying the plane while building it,” he said, noting early enrollment in the voluntary bulk tank testing program has already begun, so the testing can begin during the week ending June 21.

Those interested in enrolling can email RA-Ag_StateVet@pa.gov or call 717-307-3258. Or, to complete a web form for enrollment, go directly to this link

The Center for Dairy Excellence has posted a downloadable enrollment form.

“We will then get back to you with an enrollment packet,” said Hamberg.

Hamberg said the May Exhibition Quarantine Order does not go into effect unless HPAI reaches dairies in Pennsylvania. However, effective now: Dairies within 3 kilometers (1.7 miles) of an HPAI-infected poultry flock cannot show dairy cows at fairs and shows. Currently, there are no active poultry infections in Pennsylvania.

Dr. Ernest Hovingh, director of the PADLS said testing is currently well under capacity and prepared to handle bulk tank monitoring.

For PADLS updates, visit http://padls.agriculture.pa.gov/InnerPages/HPAICattle.html

For details from the CDE call, to hear a recording, and see links to resources, visit https://www.centerfordairyexcellence.org/hpai-industry-call/

-30-

USDA announces $824 million for H5N1, dairy herd monitoring pilot program launched as alternative to pre-movement testing

Posted on June 25, 2024 by Agmoos

Status of H5N1 in dairy herds (cumulative with last date of detection noted) as of June 4, 2024

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, June 7, 2024

USDA announced new actions and $824 million in emergency funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) to focus on highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) known as Bovine Influenza A in dairy cattle, which is the H5N1 virus.

Call it what you will, these funds target HPAI in dairy cattle through data collection, surveillance, diagnostics, as well as vaccine research, and food safety studies to better understand and mitigate outbreak risk.

In the May 31 announcement, USDA also launched a new Voluntary H5N1 Dairy Herd Status Pilot Program to monitor the health of dairy herds and allow enrolled farms to move cows more quickly, while providing on-going testing that would expand USDA’s herd surveillance capabilities.

Dairy farms that enroll in the recently announced voluntary monitoring program would sign Herd Monitoring Plan Agreements to do weekly bulk tank testing, enabling them to move dairy cows across state lines without doing the individual pre-movement testing – as long as their weekly bulk tank tests show three consecutive weeks of negative results, and as long as they agree to continue the tests weekly going forward.

As of June 5, 2024, the APHIS website shows 82 total HPAI detections in dairy herds in 9 states since the first detection in Texas on March 25.

Topping the list is Michigan with 24 detections, the most recent on May 31. Idaho saw a slew of new detections over the past 10 days with 19 total, the most recent on June 3. Texas has had 16 detections, the most recent on June 3; followed by South Dakota with 5 detections, the most recent May 31; and Colorado with 4, the most recent May 22.

States that have seen no new detections since April include New Mexico (8) and Kansas (4) with their last new detections on April 17; Ohio and North Carolina each only had one dairy herd detection on April 2 and April 9, respectively.

According to USDA, the new voluntary monitoring program will enable the Department to increase its monitoring and surveillance of herds that are currently not known to be infected.

APHIS is working with state animal health officials to identify states that want to participate in a pilot phase of the program. Producers from participating states can start enrolling this week (June 3), by contacting their State Veterinarian and signing a Herd Monitoring Plan Agreement.

USDA says high participation will help them establish state and/or regional “disease-free statuses” that could further ease compliance with the current Federal Order.

Those herds not enrolled in the pilot program would continue to follow the interstate testing and movement requirements published in the Federal Order. More specific guidance on the new voluntary monitoring program, including how to enroll and how to obtain and maintain a herd status, will be made available on the APHIS website in the future or by contacting state animal health officials.

USDA expects to see increased testing, yielding increased positive detections, through this voluntary monitoring, which they will analyze to learn how HPAI may spread between herds.

To-date, three people who worked with infected cows (two in Michigan and one in Texas) have tested positive with the H5N1 influenza. The symptoms were similar to pinkeye, and they recovered in a few days.

Meanwhile, the Federal Government has already put $200 million in additional funds into surveillance, testing, PPE, and vaccine development with indications they will ask Congress for more ‘bird flu’ funding.

Authorities still deem the risk to the general public as very low because pasteurization deactivates the virus, and no detections have been found in any retail meat samples. In addition, milk from sick cows is discarded and cattle at beef plants are inspected.

The $824 million will also support anticipated diagnostics, field response, other necessary surveillance and control, surveillance in wildlife (APHIS), work by the Agricultural Research Service’s (ARS) in developing vaccines for HPAI in cattle, turkeys, pigs, and goats, and food safety studies conducted by ARS and the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS).

The Secretary is authorized to transfer funding from available resources including the CCC to address emergency outbreaks of animal and plant pests and diseases. The new $824 million is focused primarily on dairy cattle in addition to previously approved $1.3 billion in emergency funding to address nationwide HPAI detections in wild birds and commercial poultry operations.

More information is available at the designated APHIS page at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock

States are moving to issue their own additional emergency response plans. In Pennsylvania, for example, the Department of Agriculture recently issued its General Quarantine Order for the Exhibition of Dairy Cattle, which would apply to all dairy cows traveling to shows and exhibitions. This would ONLY take effect IF a detection is confirmed anywhere in the state. It would apply to all dairy cows traveling to shows and exhibitions.

If that happens, the Order would require testing through the PADLS system within 7 days of the date of arrival at any animal exhibition grounds. Prior to arrival those dairy cows would have to be part of a biosecure assembled group for 30 days prior to testing with no new cattle added to that assembly.

Other quarantine measures are also detailed in the Pennsylvania Order, but again, would only be implemented IF HPAI is detected in dairy cattle in Pennsylvania.

The Center for Dairy Excellence will have its monthly conference call on the subject June 12 at 1:00 p.m. For information, go to the special events page at https://www.centerfordairyexcellence.org/about-the-center/upcoming-events/event/weekly-hpai-calls/

Thompson pushes effective, transformational farm bill. Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act included!

Posted on May 16, 2024 by Agmoos

Representative GT Thompson of Pennsylvania once told a group of farmers gathered for a 97 Milk meeting that he has gone by a lot of titles and been called a lot of things over the years, and while it’s an honor to be the Chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, his favorite title is ‘Representative’ because, he said “that’s what we do. We are representing The People.” True to form, GT led the House 2023-24 farm bill process with representation in mind by making the bipartisan endeavor ‘tripartisan’ — going to great lengths to bring grassroots farmers into the process. One thing he heard repeatedly at the 85 listening sessions in 40 states was ‘bring whole milk choice back to schools,’ even though school meal rules fall under the childhood nutrition reauthorization led by the Education Committee, not the farm bill. But now he’s done that too. Bolstered by the overwhelmingly bipartisan 330 to 99 passage of H.R. 1147 on Dec. 13, 2023, he found a way to make Whole Milk for Healthy Kids part of his proposed farm bill that heads to House Ag Committee markup next week. He says he is intent on getting the whole milk legislation through the Senate blockade and “over the finish line.” File photo by Sherry Bunting

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, May 17, 2024

WASHINGTON – House Ag Committee Chairman Glenn ‘GT’ Thompson (R-Pa.) says the bipartisan farm bill has reached a milestone and holds the potential for being transformational.

The chairman’s mark, released ahead of committee markup set for May 23, demonstrates the listening that went on in his busy schedule traveling to 40 states and one territory for 85 listening sessions over the past two years.

“We are hopeful that the House Ag Committee markup of this chairman’s mark legislation helps feed the momentum to get this farm bill done,” said Chairman Thompson in a May 14 Farmshine phone interview.

There are important highlights here, including reforms to the Dietary Guidelines process for greater transparency and accountability with new checks and balances, as well as language to expand the reach, funding and impact of the dairy incentive and school meal programs by including full fat fluid milk, flavored and unflavored, as seen in H.R. 5099 and H.R. 1147 (Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act).

“I was able to work with Dr. Virginia Foxx (chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee), and they will be providing a waiver after we mark this bill up, so we will be able to include Whole Milk for Healthy Kids in the farm bill,” Thompson shared.

He has previously stressed that, “This is about our kids and the outdated and harmful demonization of milkfat.”

“When we get to conference (with the Senate), it could be an issue, but Whole Milk for Healthy Kids passed the House by a 330 vote. I am intent on getting this provision over the finish line.

“It may be the most important thing we do out of many things in this farm bill for dairy farmers,” he said.

Other dairy subtitle provisions

The dairy subtitle includes language to return the Class I ‘mover’ price to the ‘higher of’ calculation instead of the ‘average plus 74 cents’ that was implemented in May 2019.

“We obviously recognize that USDA has now gone through an extensive hearing process, and will honor what USDA comes up with, which will supersede what we’re doing,” Thompson reported. “But it was the Ag Committees in the Congress through the 2018 farm bill that eliminated the ‘higher of’ language, which has been followed by significant unanticipated losses.”

Language has also been included to mandate biennial cost of processing surveys. This also appears in the Senate farm bill.

Processors making products used in Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) formulas would participate in processing cost surveys every two years. In addition to reporting costs for those products, the Dairy Pricing Opportunities Act language that is rolled into the farm bill proposal states that the cost and yield information for all products processed in the same facility be included. (Note: This would ensure accurate allocation of plant costs that apply just to the products that are actually used in the FMMO pricing formulas so that the costs to process other value-added products that are not included in FMMO pricing, but are made in the same plant, do not influence future ‘make allowance’ hearings.)

These cost surveys would be published for the purposes of informing the regulatory or administrative (hearing) process for the establishment of pricing rules (such as determining how to use that published information to set ‘make allowance’ levels that are embedded in FMMO pricing formulas).

The dairy subtitle also expands the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) tier one cap on annual milk production history from 5 million pounds to 6 million pounds, similar to the Senate bill.

It also includes language for updating DMC production history and provides a 25% discount in premium costs for any producer signing up for all five years of DMC coverage.

“That’s quite a savings,” Thompson observed.

IRA funds included without ‘climate sideboards’

In the Conservation Title, the chairman’s mark brings Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) conservation funds into the farm bill baseline without the ‘climate sideboards’ and arbitrary measures that ride along in the Senate version.

“All conservation programs, as long as they are locally-led and voluntary, contribute to climate and carbon sequestration. What the IRA legislation did is make it overly prescriptive with a lot of practices we know are successful not being eligible for these conservation dollars.

“We believe that the principles of locally-led and voluntary are a huge part of what has made conservation programs so successful. Agriculture sequesters 6.1 gigatons of carbon annually, over 10% more than we emit,” said Thompson.

Timelines matter

There are a couple reasons timelines matter in getting this farm bill done. The IRA funding is one of them.

“Number one is the American farmer is struggling right now. The chairman’s mark, as we prepared it in the House Committee, will be of great service to them as producers of food, and to struggling families as consumers of food, quite frankly,” said Thompson.

“The other reason timelines matter is these IRA dollars. As the Secretary of Agriculture continues to push those dollars forward, the original $19 billion – between what he already spent and what the CBO projects he will not be able to spend – that number is now down to $14 billion,” Thompson explained. “That’s opportunity lost for the future, unless and until we pass and reauthorize the farm bill and roll those dollars into its baseline.”

Thompson continued, explaining that, “Every dollar in IRA conservation funds spent between now and the passage of the farm bill is a dollar lost to the baseline for the future. One of the flaws of the IRA is these conservation dollars expire in 2031. Whatever we bring into the farm bill – into the baseline – is there for perpetuity. It will be there for the 2050 and 2055 farm bills. That’s smart, and it’s good for agriculture and great for conservation.”

The Senate proposal also brings IRA conservation funds into the farm bill baseline, but puts climate requirements on these funds, especially in regard to methane.

Tripartisan effort produces nutrition cost-savings, not cuts

“My chairman’s mark is built on solid tripartisan input from Republicans and Democrats and the hardworking people of American agriculture,” Thompson affirmed. “The Senate proposal is a partisan proposal. They did not bring Senate Republicans to the table.”

In his May 10 open letter, Chairman Thompson stated that his door is always open.

“There exists a few, loud armchair critics that want to divide the Committee and break the process. A farm bill has long been an example of consensus, where both sides must take a step off the soapbox and have tough conversations,” he wrote. “The 2024 farm bill was written for these precarious times and is reflective of the diverse constituency and narrow margins of the 118th Congress. Each title takes into consideration the varying opinions of all who produce as much as those who consume. It is not one-sided, it does not favor a fringe agenda, and it certainly does no harm to the programs and policies that feed, fuel, and clothe our nation.”

Case in point, the CBO has scored the House farm bill chairman’s mark to save $28 to $29 billion in the Nutrition Title.

“Some would have you believe we are cutting $28 to $29 billion from feeding struggling families, but we are not,” Thompson declared. “There are no cuts to individual SNAP benefits in this bill. My Democratic colleagues say we are cutting by that much, but the CBO score on my proposal reflects cost savings from increased efficiencies, reduced fraud, and things that better meet the needs of families struggling in poverty.”

Justifiably proud of the intense work he and his committee have done on the nutrition programs lightning rod that makes up more than 80% of the farm bill baseline, Thompson said his proposal actually “creates a fire wall so that a future right-leaning administration would not be able to arbitrarily cut benefits either. It exercises our Article I prerogative on how we do market basket analysis, keeps the variables and the cost of living. These things are significant factors.”

His proposal also expands access to a couple populations not eligible for SNAP in the past, including families with adult children in school up to age 21 (not 18). In the past, their part-time jobs affected family eligibility.

Putting the farm back in the farm bill

The Commodities and Crop Insurance Titles also engaged input from farmers, farm groups and industry. On reference prices, Thompson said the Senate bill picks three crops and puts in a 5% increase for base acreage.

“In our proposal, we’ve worked with the stakeholders. We’ve done the math, the financial and risk analysis on what is needed.”

This includes a more commodity-specific update to reference prices and granting the Secretary of Agriculture authority to expand base acres.

“We have been committed to putting the farmer back into the farm bill commodities title,” he said.

This scratches the surface of what is included in the farm bill chairman’s mark. An overview and title by title summary are available at https://agriculture.house.gov/farmbill/

When asked about what other dairy topics could come up during markup, Thompson said he wouldn’t be surprised to see other amendments in committee.

“There are some labeling issues that are not in our purview or jurisdiction but come under the Energy and Commerce Committee. We could get the ball rolling, but we would need them to get on board for that to go forward,” he said.

Reflecting on the milestone this week, Thompson answered our question about what he’s most proud of to this point.

“The fact that this farm bill was built using the input of American farmers, ranchers, and foresters, and it reflects what their priorities are and what their needs are, and the fact that as I look at the chairman’s mark and all 12 titles according to the goal placed early on, two years ago as I started my leadership of this process:

“This will be not only a highly effective farm bill for our producers, processors and all of us who consume food, it will be transformational,” he said.

-30-

MILK MARKET MOOS – Bad news in this week’s mailbox, but better views ahead!

Posted on May 14, 2024 by Agmoos

By Sherry Bunting, Portions reprinted from the May 10, 2024 column with a few preview notes for the May 17 weekly Milk Market Moos, available exclusively in Farmshine Newspaper

This week’s settlement checks for April milk are hard hit by the record-low protein price of $0.83/lb and the $4 to $5 spread of Class IV over III that continues to depress the Class I price via the ‘average of’ method — resulting in depooling of higher value manufacturing milk. But the good news is the cheese markets have sustained a 5-week rally that has been heating up, pushing Class III milk futures higher, while tight supplies of nonfat dry milk moved briskly at higher prices to keep Class IV forging ahead too.

First the bad news: April FO blend prices are mixed with component-pricing lower, Fat/skim-pricing generally higher

The record-low April protein price of 83 cents/lb and second lowest Class III price of the year pushed the Federal Order (FO) blend prices 25 to 45 cents lower in six of the seven FOs that use Multiple Component Pricing (MCP). The Northeast, was off just 9 cents, given the fact that processors still pooled some milk used for higher value Class II and IV products, although not as much. De-pooling of Class II and IV milk was heavier in other MCP FOs due to the whopping $5 spread between Class II and IV ($20.23 and $20.11) over Class III ($15.50) and the fact that Class II and IV were $1.00 higher than the Class I ‘mover.’

The wide spread pushed the Class I ‘mover’ price $1.00 lower using the ‘average of’ calculation than it would have been under the previous ‘higher of’ method. The May Class I mover price is even more disadvantaged — down $1.73 vs. ‘higher of’ — based on the advance pricing factors at the beginning of April before the CME cheese market rally begins filtering its way into USDA weekly surveys and FO formulas.

Three of the four fat/skim priced FOs — Florida, Southeast and Appalachian — have April blends that are mostly 20 cents higher than March. Fat/skim priced FOs benefitted from the butterfat price at $3.33/lb and a solids nonfat (skim) price at 97 cents/lb that was 14 cents higher than the protein price. This is the first time such an inversion has occurred.

Meanwhile, the fat/skim-priced Arizona FO (131) saw its April uniform price fall by 19 cents due to Class II and IV depooling, which increased the negative effect of a higher Class III utilization percentage.

The uniform price in the three southeastern region FOs (5, 6 and 7) would have netted an additional 70 to 80 cents per cwt — if Class I had been priced via the ‘higher of.’ The Mideast (FO 33) would have netted 40 cents per cwt more; the Northeast, Central, and Southwest (FOs 1, 32 and 126) 29 to 30 cents; California and Pacific Northwest (FOs 51 and 124) 20 cents; Upper Midwest (FO 30) 6 cents. All MCP FOs would have benefitted from better alignment keeping more of the higher-valued Class II and IV milk in the FO revenue sharing pools. It’s hard to say whether or how much of the windfall profits of depooling are consequently shared with dairy farmers shipping the milk.

Once again, the Upper Midwest (FO 30) had the rock-bottom uniform price of $15.95 at 3.5% butterfat, with over 92% of the utilization being Class III. If the ‘higher of’ had been used for pricing Class I, the pounds of Class II and IV utilization would likely be greater, which may have contributed to a more positive uniform blend price while yielding a little more than a nickel of additional Class I contribution. Instead, the blend price included less than 2% Class II and IV, and just over 6% Class I.

The FO 30 market administrator saw fit to send a reminder letter to handlers in March that they must show separately how milk payments were calculated for producers having both pooled and depooled milk to ensure the pooled milk was paid at the FO minimum price. Even 100% pooled producers have been seeing ‘milk check gymnastics’ such as underpayment of the FO minimum for ‘other solids’, and then using the producer’s protein premium to make up the difference in order to achieve the regulated gross minimum.

According to USDA AMS, Federal Milk Marketing Orders with multiple component pricing, use individual component values to determine the minimum gross value due to producers. The FMMOs’ primary function is to ensure that the gross payment to the producer is at least equal to the minimum payment for their pooled milk. Enforcement of individual component values may be pursued by FMMOs to prevent handler deception and maintain transparency. In FMMOs where it is common to pool only a portion of a producer’s milk, proprietary handlers are required to send statements to producers indicating the separate amounts paid for pooled and non-pooled milk.

The April 2024 uniform prices and PPDs were announced May 12 through 14 as follow (+/- change from month ago):

Now the good news! What’s UP with Class III?

For 18 months, Class III has been the underdog in milk pricing, especially rough for dairy producers in the Upper Midwest struggling under the brunt of FMMO 30 blend prices built mainly on Class III.

In fact, the April protein price hit a record low, announced May 1st at 83 cents/lb, which is 14 cents below the 97 cents/lb price for solids nonfat. This inversion has never happened before, according to our search of class and component pricing archives.

The butterfat price for April is quadruple the protein price at $3.33, creating additional divergence issues in multiple component pricing orders.

Meanwhile, the Class III milk futures haven’t offered much of a breakeven price to spend money protecting with hedges or DRP…

Until now…

Class III milk futures continued higher — skyrocketing limit-up for nearby contracts Wed., May 8, putting the exclamation point on five straight week of gains that have added $3 per hundredweight to the remaining 2024 contract months, going from the $16s and low $17s to the $19s and $20s, with 2025 contracts well into the $18s. This is the first time the Class III milk futures board has seen a $20 mark in over 18 months.

Class IV futures also made solid 20- to 30-cent gains charting over $20 and $21 across the board.

If the current Class III rally goes too far, too fast in the near-term, we could see negative PPDs in some Federal Orders in June for May’s milk because the May Class I advance base price mover was already announced in mid-April, and includes the much lower advance pricing factors of the (Class III) cheese and whey markets during the first two weeks of April.

The ‘average of’ method disadvantaged the May Class I mover by $1.73/cwt, which will undoubtedly be a factor for milk pooling / depooling decisions at the end of this month as Class I, at a base price of $18.46, will likely be rock-bottom lowest class for May, except where location differentials are high enough to boost it.

$20 finally appears on Class III futures board (June), Spot cheese hits highest price in over a year.

On Wed., May 8 the Class III milk futures for the next 12 months (May24 through Apr25) averaged $19.04, up 54 cents from the previous Wednesday. Class IV milk futures averaged $20.86, up 22 cents from the prior Wednesday.

The milk futures rally is driven by the upward momentum in CME daily spot cheese markets, reaching levels May 8 that are 50 to 55 cents per pound higher than six weeks ago.

The 40-lb block Cheddar price roared 11 1/2 cents higher to $1.95/lb in a single trading session Wed., May 8, gaining 20 cents/lb on the week, and hitting the highest level since last fall, with a single load trading. For 500-lb barrel cheese, at $1.90/lb, the gain was a dime on the week, and the highest price in over a year, with zero loads trading.

(Spoiler alert, the spot price for 500-lb barrel cheese skyrocketed well north of $2 on Tues., May 14 with a single load trading at $2.06. Conversely, Tuesday’s trading session on 40-lb block Cheddar started out moving a load as high as $2.00/lb, which would have been a 2-cent gain for the day. However, after the dust settled on the brisk trading session that moved a whopping 14 loads of blocks in a few short minutes, the market was pegged at the lowest load price of $1.93/lb — down 5 cents from the day before. A bid came in at $1.92 and was ignored after such an abnormally large clearance of blocks for a single session. More on this in the May 17 Farmshine.)

All other dairy commodity prices were higher Wed., May 8, with no trades changing hands. Dry whey gained a penny at 38 1/2 cents/lb (where it continued trading on Tues., May 14 with 2 loads changing hands). May 8th Butter was up 2 cents at $3.02/lb (but traded 16 loads at $3.00/lb Tues., May 14 and 1 load at $2.99/lb, which was a 3-cent loss since the low price is the peg for the day). Nonfat dry milk (NFDM) was up a penny at $1.13/lb on May 8 (and gained 3 1/2 cents more on May 14 at $1.1650/lb with an incredible 26 loads moving in a single session’s narrow $1.16 to $1.1650/lb range).

Dairy farmers will not see these gains in their milk checks until June, if the trend is sustained.

In the face of lower overall dairy exports, analysts tout the record volume of cheese exports in March, which were no-doubt prompted by the cut-rate January through April pricing that doesn’t pay bills on the dairy farm.

We have to go back to 2019 to find a 4-month Jan-April average Class III milk price that was lower than the first four months of 2024. We have to go back to the Covid shutdown in 2020 to find an April Class III milk price that was lower than April 2024. But even then, protein held up at $2.48/lb, not the 83 cents per pound that USDA announced for April settlement.

The difference this time is that fat is so much higher (quadruple the protein price at $3.33/lb for April). This essentially pulls a credit out of protein as an adjustment in fat values for cheese vs. butter. This is a seldom-discussed and little understood function of FMMO multiple component pricing, and another downfall of the many months of wide Class IV over III divergence.

Better views ahead… Higher Class I sales and record-high made-to-order fresh mozzarella production compete with stored product output for reduced milk supply

While the rear-view mirror shows the rough road traveled, the view ahead is improving for Class III milk and the beleaguered record-low protein price. Milk production is down. Packaged Class I fluid milk sales are UP. Processors are making record amounts of fresh (made to order) mozzarella cheese, causing Cheddar production to slow. Meanwhile, Class IV product supplies are tight. (One reason overall U.S. dairy exports were down is that inventories and production of milk powder is down!)

The most recent USDA Dairy Products Report showed Cheddar cheese production down 3.3% year-over-year (YOY) in March, with all American style cheeses down 2.9%. A positive this year that was missing last spring and summer is the draw for milk to make Italian cheeses.

Mozzarella production set records in March, up 6.8% YOY, but those products are not price-surveyed, nor are they included in the FMMO Class III pricing formula.

In addition to Cheddar cheese, the Class III price is also made up of dry whey sales via the ‘other solids’ component. Whey production for both human and animal use is accelerating as inventories of value-added whey protein concentrate (WPC) and whey protein isolates (WPI) were more than 40% below year ago at the end of March, despite March WPC production being up 1% for human use and up 40% for animal use; WPI up 73% YOY.

Dry whey is the commodity used in the FMMO Class III pricing formula with production up 2.4% for human use and 19.2% for animal use in March.

On the Class IV side, butter production was up 1.5% YOY in March with inventories up 2%.

As for powders: Whole milk powder (WMP) production was down 14.6% with inventory 36.3% lower YOY; Skim milk powder (SMP), typically made for export orders, was down 41.7%; and Nonfat dry milk (NFDM) output was down 7.9% YOY in March with inventories off 20.3%.

On the flip side, milk protein concentrate (MPC) production was the contrarian — up a whopping 38.5% YOY in March. MPCs are often used to bump cheese yields higher per hundredweight of raw milk.

These factors beg questions: Why were Class III milk prices for the first four months of 2024 at 5-year lows and protein at a record-low 83 cents per pound for April? Was it the plan to crush Q-1 2024 spot cheese and Class III milk prices to generate record cheese export volumes in March? Are cheesemakers using some of that big increase in MPC production to make more cheese from each cwt of raw milk? Are bioengineered fermentation yeast proteins that are marketed in trade publications as ‘dairy protein analogs’ diluting the supply and demand equation fractionally?

Global picture improving

The global picture is also improving. New Zealand tallied a lower output for the season, and recent reports show stable to lower milk output in EU countries.

In the Global Dairy Trade (GDT) biweekly internet auction Tues., May 7, the all products index was up 1.8% over the previous auction on April 16. This includes a whopping 8% increase in the GDT price index for bulk Cheddar sales contracted out through November, plus a 2.3% increase in bulk Mozzarella sales for July.

In fact, GDT Cheddar contracts for June were up 6.5% in Tuesday’s auction; July up 3.9%; August and September had no sales. October and November contracts were up 11.2 and 12.5%, respectively, compared with three weeks ago.

Ag Moos

Tag Archives: dairy

Milk Market Moos: Could farmers be PAYING processors to take milk’s ‘other solids’ like in 2009 after the last ‘make allowance’ raise?

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

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

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

Pray for rain, or pray it stops, depending on where you are: Grain markets continue shrugging off weather woes

Dairy biosecurity risks highlighted in two H5N1 data briefs

Pennsylvania announces voluntary bulk tank monitoring program as ‘bird flu’ spreads to Iowa, Minnesota

USDA announces $824 million for H5N1, dairy herd monitoring pilot program launched as alternative to pre-movement testing

Thompson pushes effective, transformational farm bill. Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act included!

MILK MARKET MOOS – Bad news in this week’s mailbox, but better views ahead!

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this

Share this