Tag Archives: dairy markets

Editorial: What was really behind ‘rockier road’ this summer? USDA revisions show fewer cows, less milk June-August

Posted on by
4

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, October 27, 2023

EAST EARL, Pa. — In the June 30 and July 7 editions of Farmshine, we covered the milk market conditions behind the drama that sent farm-level milk prices spiraling lower. The two-part “rockier road for milk prices” series explored factors and asked questions about a situation that was not making sense.

Farmshine readers will recall that we questioned dubious math on the huge milk price losses in farm milk checks – far beyond the predictions for modest declines – in the April through August period. 

We questioned the accuracy of government milk production reports and the USDA’s World Ag Supply and Demand Estimates that kept telling us there would be more milk cows on farms and that milk production would continue higher for the year because of… more cows.

We doubted this was possible given the semiannual cattle inventory reports over the past year showing static to shrinking milk cow numbers and major shrinkage in the number of dairy heifer replacements (down 2% in Jan. 1 inventory, down 3% in mid-year inventory, a drop of over 100,000 head!). We have reported the escalating dairy replacement cattle prices setting multi-year record highs that are bearing these inventory numbers out.

We asked: Where are all these cattle coming from?

The June and July two-part series also indicated the 51% increase in the volume of Whole Milk Powder (WMP) imports coming into the U.S. compared with a year earlier in the January through May period — the highest volume for that 5-month period since 2016. (WMP is basically dehydrated milk for use in making any product or reconstitution.)

We also consulted Calvin Covington for his read of the situation. He reported to us that his calculations showed a 15% cumulative increase in total milk solids imported January through April, and that this extra volume was equal to 63% of the year over year increase in ending stocks on a total solids basis.

Well, what do you know! On Thursday, October 19, USDA issued its monthly milk production report for September. The report also went back and revised downward the previously reported totals for milk production and cow numbers for April through August.

Lo, and behold, in June and July while markets crashed, U.S. farms milked 13,000 and 34,000, respectively, fewer cows than a year ago. The September Milk Production report has now gone back to shave around 0.1% off of several months of previously reported milk production, and it has revised milk cow numbers lower than previously reported as follows: The May revision added 1000 head vs. prior report, the June revision shaved 4000 head off the prior report, July’s revision shaved 11,000 head, and August 14,000 head.

How convenient that while the Milwaukee Sentinel and area news stations were reporting five weeks of milk dumping in the sewers during June and July, and USDA Dairy Market News was reporting six to eight weeks of spot milk loads selling at $10 to $11 under the abysmal Class III price as it hit multi-year lows, the USDA reports had been telling us we were milking more cows than a year earlier, and those cows were making more milk.

Prices had plunged by more than 37%, and no one was talking about the scale-back of mozzarella cheese production and the ramp up of whole milk powder imports.

Sure, they were talking about the softening of dairy exports, and maybe that’s the point. The industry had to get the U.S. price levels below global levels in a hurry to honor the global goals set by the national dairy checkoff under previous USDEC president Tom Vilsack to keep growing exports on a Net-Zero pathway to get to 20% of milk production on a solids basis.

We wrote with concern in June and July about how even those prior numbers did not make sense at those previously incorrect levels, how a tiny change such as milking 7000 more cows in May vs. year ago and a little more milk per cow through the period could result in prices falling this hard in June and July. We have even more questions as even those small supply-margin factors have now been edited by USDA to be lower than previously reported for the April through August period.

Cow numbers have always been a driver for milk prices. Now we know there was an average of 21,000 fewer cows milked in the June-July period. And, by July, there were actually 34,000 fewer cows on U.S. farms vs. year ago.

For the Q-3 July through September period, the revisions show an average of 33,000 fewer cows nationwide compared with the third-quarter of 2022. Maybe this will also be revised lower in the future — as it includes the number of milk cows on U.S. farms in September that is now said to be 9.37 million as a preliminary figure.

In the space of six months, U.S. total milk production has gone from running 1% above year ago in Q-1 to nearly 1% (0.7%) below year ago in Q-3. But within that difference lies a revision that begs big questions about what was really going on while prices were plunging.

According to the tables in the September milk production report, the reality of the situation in June and July — while milk prices hit rock bottom and milk was being dumped and sold for $10 to $11 under class — we were already milking 13,000 fewer cows in June compared with a year ago and a whopping 34,000 fewer cows in July vs. year ago, according to these revised numbers. Now, in September, we’re milking 36,000 fewer cows in the U.S. vs. year ago.

In fact, these revised reports show that milk cow numbers have fallen by 74,000 head from the March 2023 high-tide – an unrevised and supposed 9.444 million head — to the August revised number of 9.376 million head and the September preliminary 9.37 million.

Think about this for a moment. We had unprecedented sets of proposals for milk pricing formula changes flowing into USDA in April and May with USDA announcing in June that a hearing of 21 proposals in five categories of formula changes would begin August 23rd.

While this was staging, we saw milk pricing drama unfold.

How useful this drama was for processors during the first eight weeks of the USDA Federal Milk Marketing Order hearing that has now been postponed due to “scheduling conflicts” to pick up where it left off on Nov. 27. 

How convenient it was for processor representatives to be able to point to dumped milk, below-class spot milk prices and negative premiums as justification for their proposals to increase make allowances while attempting to block farm-friendly formula changes — all in the name of investments needed in capacity to handle “so much more milk!”

(A year earlier, Leprino CEO Mike Durkin warned Congress in a June 2022 Farm Bill hearing that, “The costs in the formula dramatically understate today’s cost of manufacturing and have resulted in distortions to the dairy manufacturing sector, which have constrained capacity to process producer milk,” he said, calling the situation “extremely urgent” and warning that immediate steps needed to be taken to “ensure adequate processing capacity remains.”)

Fast forward to the first eight weeks of the USDA FMMO hearing in Carmel, Indiana in August, September and October. We listened as large global processing representatives (especially Leprino) pontificated about how the make allowances are set too low, saying USDA is setting the milk prices too high. They pointed to all of the drama this summer as proof that farmers are suffering because processors can’t afford to invest or retain capacity to handle “all this extra milk.”

Now here we are, September milk production nationwide is down 0.2% from a year ago, product inventories are tight to adequate, prices have improved… but along the way the industry managed to shake out hundreds of dairy farms — large and small — that have liquidated during the steep downhill slide this summer that so few were prepared for, as no one had a clue it would be this bad given the tight number of milk cows and replacements steadily reported in inventory.

What was really behind the dairy cliff we just experienced, where even USDA Dairy Market News recently reported a significant number of herds milking 200 cows or less have recently liquidated in the Upper Midwest?

With record WMP imports, a pull-back in fresh Italian cheese production, and other elements behind the scenes… was the fall-out of a so-called milk surplus manufactured to prove a point? (Remember, Leprino’s Durkin warned that if make allowances aren’t raised, sufficient processing capacity may not remain. And take note that other Leprino representatives warned during the USDA FMMO hearing last month that they may not invest in U.S. processing capacity in the future, if make allowances are not raised and FMMO minimum prices lowered.)

Or was the fall-out this summer manufactured to fulfill the dairy checkoff’s goals for exports? You see, we are told there was excess product in Europe and New Zealand, and our overseas sales were softening, but still well above 2020 and about even with 2021. The industry is driven to get the deals to secure more global market each and every year, even if the means to those ends are detrimental to how we serve our domestic market in the future.

Given the pullback in mozzarella production during this “rockier road for milk prices”, we have to wonder about the testimony of Leprino representatives in the FMMO hearings. They have been doing the loudest complaining.

Leprino is also a major strategic partner with DMI and the organizations under that umbrella: USDEC, Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, Net Zero Initiative, and on and on.

They want FMMO milk prices lowered, they said, so they can pay premiums again (?), and they believe you, the farmers, should help pay for their sustainability pledges within the make allowance formulas as a cost of doing business.

They likely want to free up capital out of the FMMO pricing levels to pay for Scope 3 emissions insets from RNG-project dairies to compete with other industries that can buy those renewable clean fuel credits as offsets.

They likely want to use your milk money to pay for concentrated manure-driven expansion in the Net Zero wheel-of-fortune pathway that has been constructed with your checkoff money.

They want FMMO make allowances high enough to cash flow plant capacity investments based on byproduct whey, while they make mozzarella cheese that is not surveyed, is not price-reported, and is not included in the end product pricing formulas for dairy farm milk checks.

-30-

Dairy farmers speak out about fair pricing, fear of retribution as FMMO hearing continues

Posted on by
1

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, October 13, 2023

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-30-

Hearing looks at fluid milk pricing differences for fresh vs. ESL

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, October 6, 2023

CARMEL, Ind. – USDA’s federal milk pricing hearing continued into its 7th week on Wednesday, Oct. 4, and USDA announced another virtual farmer testimony session for Friday for Oct. 6, with the signup notice and link posted at the hearing website with just three days notice on Oct. 3.

Farmer testimony was heard virtually also on Friday, Sept. 29, including from two Pennsylvania producers and a third from the Keystone State testified in person on Tues., Oct. 3. More on their testimonies in a future edition.

Here are some observations as I’ve listened on and off over the past several weeks as the testimony and cross-examinations dug into this issue of the Class I mover formula.

As one can imagine, daily testimony from 8 to 5 with exhibits and cross-examination add up to a lot of material for USDA to parse through.

This is particularly daunting with the introduction of significant testimony about the CME futures, hedging, risk management and other such business management by farms and processors and how FMMO changes affect these practices.

Last week, Pittsburgh milk bottler Chuck Turner of Turner Dairy Farms testified in support of the Milk Innovation Group’s concept of modifying the current ‘average of’ method for calculating Class I to create a floor under which the add-on adjuster cannot fall below.

The fairlife CEO also testified about the MIG proposal for the Class I mover last week, explaining that fairlife relies on hedging so the company can offer 9 to 12 month pricing of extended shelf life fluid milk products to foodservice, institutional food buyers and convenience stores that purchase plant-based alternatives and other beverages with annual contracts.

He explained that if the Class I price goes back to the ‘higher of’, companies like fairlife and Nestle (also testified), and others will not be able to hedge that annual price without introducing increasingly volatile price risk to their businesses.

The Nestle rep noted that Nesquick sales increased since late 2019. That’s when they started offering buyers longer-term pricing because the Class I mover was changed to the averaging formula in 2019.

For his part, even Turner said hedging on the CME butter, powder and cheese markets might work to build a protected price for selling fresh fluid milk to schools and other buyers that want longer term pricing.

He was asked several questions about the role of the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board in his payment of farmers and competition in the state and region.

Here’s the problem: Grocery stores still largely receive fresh milk a few times a week direct-ship to stores.

On the other hand, the extended shelf life milk, aseptically packaged (shelf stable) milk, and various milk based innovations are shipped to a warehouse. They are not treated the same as fresh fluid milk from a pricing and supply standpoint.

Additionally, the foodservice, institutional, convenience stores, and schools want to know a price for 6 months, 9 months, one year. Bottlers say they can’t offer that if they can’t protect their risk.

So, to minimize risk for processors, the ‘average of’ formula for the Class I mover was put into legislative language in the 2018 Farm Bill with the acknowledgment that it could be changed in two years by a USDA hearing process like the one in Indiana the past six weeks.

That change ended up introducing significant risk to dairy farmers, who found their ability to hedge THEIR risk was jeopardized.

Just as there are two classes of Class I processors — fresh milk and ESL fluid products, there are two classes of dairy farmers. On the one hand, producers whose milk routinely goes to Class I fluid milk plants or pool distributing manufacturing plants cannot be depooled, but milk routinely going to manufactured dairy products can be depooled.

When manufacturing class prices are higher than the Class I mover, a ripple effect occurs that disrupts the class pricing alignments. When higher priced milk is depooled, the processors can keep that money, or pass it on to their own shippers — disrupting one of the functions of the FMMOs to have orderly marketing and uniform pricing.

As one market analyst noted in her testimony last week, it’s like the story of Goldilocks and the Three Bears. These alternate Class I mover proposals are complicated with rolling adjusters to be added to the averaging formula.

For the function of the FMMOs, the ‘just-right’ porridge is the ‘higher of’ for the Class I mover, many have testified.

Trouble is, some regions may see more processors leave the FMMOs if they can’t make it work for them, and the bifurcation in the Class I fluid milk market will leave some processors unable to adapt to long-term pricing for large institutional buyers.

Which way is fluid milk consumption heading? That may be the question to answer first.

In the Eastern U.S., one thing’s for sure, the current flat milk production is being soaked up by strong bottling demand, and the market is paying above class prices right now to get milk for other uses.

The Class I pricing question, along with the other proposals in the lengthy USDA hearing, are being looked at by USDA through the lens of the FMMO’s purpose, especially “orderly marketing.”

However, USDA has no concrete definition for orderly marketing. Will we see that intuitive definition change? What do farmers have to say about it?

For its part American Farm Bureau Federation has been orderly in its presentation of testimony. Economists Roger Cryan and Danny Munch have testified. Farm Bureau members have testified.

This week, Cryan testified on removing the “advance pricing” from the Class I and II formula as this function of using two weeks of product prices to determine four weeks of pricing the following month is another piece of the puzzle bringing more volatility into the equation that can lead to depooling.

However, processors say they want advance pricing, and they want long-term hedging too! They want it all!

According to AFBF data presented at the hearing, advanced pricing has disrupted the orderly marketing of milk and led to unfair marketing conditions for dairy farmers. This disruption is caused when the price of other classes of milk rises above the announced advanced price of Class I and Class II milk. A full explanation of advanced pricing is available via AFBF’s Market Intel.

AFBF supports several proposals by the National Milk Producers Federation, which would increase Class I prices, drop barrel cheese from the Class III price formula, and return to the “higher-of” Class I formula. AFBF also supported in testimony its proposals to add salted butter and 640-lb block cheese to the pricing survey.

The hearing website posts updates at https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/dairy/hearings/national-fmmo-pricing-hearing

FMMO hearing update: ‘We made it to the moon, we can figure out this little equation’

Posted on by
1

Milk pricing formulas and ‘make allowances’ can feel like rocket science, farmers point out the pitfalls in ignoring the impact of mozzarella and the rising costs on dairy farms. Georgia and California producers among those testifying on make allowances, along with economists, including Dr. Mark Stephenson

Previous FMMO hearing updates can be found here and here

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, September 15, 2023

CARMEL, Ind. — “It’s really simple. We made it to the moon back in the late 60s… if you tell me that we can’t figure this little (mozzarella) equation out, we got something wrong,” said Joaquin Contente, the son of Portugese immigrants and a lifelong dairy farmer near Hanford, California as he gave virtual testimony Friday, Sept. 8 during the ongoing USDA Federal Milk Market Order (FMMO) hearing in Carmel, Indiana.

Contente serves on the California Dairy Campaign (CDC) board, which is a member of California Farmers Union (CFU) and National Farmers Union (NFU) as well as Organization for Competitive Markets (OCM). His son and daughter today run the 1100-cow multi-generational dairy farm in California’s San Joaquin Valley.

“Mozzarella should no longer be ignored. This issue was raised in 2000, and the volume and demand have grown dramatically since then,” he said, referencing CDC’s proposal and citing USDA data showing mozzarella production last year was nearly 5 billion pounds while cheddar was short of 4 billion pounds, and all cheeses totaled just over 14 billion pounds.

“I represent myself and many other producers who are reluctant to step up and speak out in opposition to what is being said by milk handlers, out of fear of retribution,” he reported. “It is essential to include the largest cheese category – mozzarella. The volume has significantly exceeded cheddar, and the Class III price should be modified to reflect these market conditions.”

Contente noted comments about the change in the Class I base price from ‘higher of’ to ‘average of’ costing farmers $1 billion over four years’ time.

“This mozzarella issue, if you understand the formulas and yield factors, is costing dairy farmers more, annually, well over $1 billion — and that’s a conservative number I am using,” he said.

“We have situations where the milk price drops dramatically, 30 or 38%, so you have to look at this discrepancy going on over a couple of decades. Nobody is talking about it… you’ve got to be a little bit quiet about mozzarella because you don’t want to upset ‘the mozzarella people,’” said Contente, noting that mozzarella production is 12% larger than cheddar with very high yields. 

“There is information that needs to be collected, and that is the roadblock right now. It’s the largest category, and yet there is no reference to it, and the yields are so high that these cheesemakers are making product that they’re not getting charged for. It’s for free — off our backs,” he said. “We are in a system that requires price discovery of the uses of milk, and here we have the highest (volume of cheese) use in mozzarella, and we just turn the other way… why?”

The past two weeks of the daily 8 to 5 hearing sessions have been quagmired in the nuts and bolts of multiple proposals on what’s included or excluded from the pricing surveys as well as the corresponding make allowances as the hearing moved into its fourth week Wednesday (Sept. 13).

Like other producers testifying so far, Contente detailed the loss of dairy farms around him and the discrepancy between milk prices and cost of production leading to mass exodus of dairy farms currently. 

Economists from academia and from cooperatives later showed numbers revealing the hard reality that the farm-well for pulling out more processor investment money is running dry.

In fact, Contente pointed out that the processor make allowance cost surveys include “return on investment,” something he said is lacking for dairy farmers in their milk prices. This was corroborated in later testimony by Cornell’s Dr. Chris Wolf and DFA’s Ed Gallagher.

During Dr. Mark Stephenson’s testimony Tuesday (Sept. 12), we learned that the current voluntary make allowance cost surveys include “opportunity cost” for plant assets used to make the products included in the survey.

“As farmers, we don’t get a return on investment,” said Contente. (And the numbers put up by expert witnesses show farmers don’t get ‘opportunity cost’ either.)

In fact, Gallagher said it’s important for USDA to consider the impact of its hearing decisions on farmers because if they can’t reinvest in their operations, it affects the infrastructure, the lending and the farmers’ access to capital — putting the milk supply at risk.

While Contente’s testimony focused on the mozzarella proposal supported by CDC, CFU, NFU and OCM, he also voiced their opposition to any increase in make allowances for processors.

On the latter, American Farm Bureau Federation agrees. AFBF also opposes any increase in make allowances based on voluntary surveys without first seeing results of a mandatory and audited processing cost survey. 

AFBF’s chief economist Roger Cryan on cross-examination asked Contente if NFU opposes the make allowance increases due to the voluntary and unaudited nature of the cost surveys. “Yes,” was his response. “Very good,” said Cryan.

The IDFA make allowance proposal would reduce farm milk prices by $1.25 per hundredweight initially and even more down the road.

For Class I producers, the net result is an embedded make allowance deduct as large as $3.60/cwt at current make allowance levels, which could rise above $5.00 in a few years if the IDFA proposal is approved. 

This producer loss is embedded in the Class I price even though Class I processors are not even asked by USDA to provide their cost data. 

Georgia milk producer Matt Johnson testified in support of NMPF’s various proposals, which include returning to the ‘higher-of’ Class I base price and increasing the differentials. On the issue of make allowances, he said the NMPF proposal is preferred because it makes smaller adjustments.

“I understand that make allowances are an important aspect in determining Federal Order class prices, and from time to time, there is a regulatory need to adjust them,” said Johnson; however, “my milk price will go down when make allowances go up. I ask that when increasing make allowances, the Secretary consider the impact on dairy farm milk prices… and profitability. NMPF has proposed more modest changes to the make allowances, which are projected to lower farm milk prices by about $0.50 per hundredweight (not $1.25).”

During cross-examination, Johnson was specifically asked by USDA AMS administrator Erin Taylor to explain how the make allowances affect him as his farm’s milk goes mainly to Class I markets in Florida and the Southeast, not to manufacturing.

“It’s all negative,” he replied. “The make allowances are used in the prices used to figure the base Class I milk price. I don’t know who gets that draw, but for me, it’s all negative.”

In addition to CDC’s proposal to add mozzarella, American Farm Bureau defended its proposal to add 640-lb block cheddar and bulk unsalted butter, and NMPF defended its proposal to remove 500-lb barrel cheddar.

Several days of detailed accounting testimony were heard, and the kicker was when representatives for Leprino and IDFA stated that barrels should be kept in the survey as a ‘market clearing’ product that is ‘storable’, but that bulk mozzarella should not be added because it’s a higher moisture, fresh cheese, not storable like cheddar, making it a product that is not a ‘market clearing’ product. (This idea of ‘what is market clearing’ was further explored this week as needing a new definition now that there is no dairy price support program or government storage of dairy products).

Interestingly, in cross examination, we learned that barrel cheese — which Leprino and IDFA want to keep in the survey — is also a relatively fresh cheese, not all that different from bulk mozzarella, as only 4- to 30-day-old barrel cheddar is reported. 

At one point, cheese industry representatives suggested the spread between blocks and barrels is used to price ‘basis’ and to price exported products, while block cheddar is mostly used to price other cheeses. Witnesses indicated some processors use barrel movement to price cheeses, such as mozzarella.

Some expert witnesses contended that other products can’t be added to the FMMO pricing formula because they are not traded on the CME. AFBF’s Cryan retorted that the CME should not be running this show, and he noted that dry whey wasn’t traded on the CME until after it was added to the FMMO formulas.

In fact, CME futures hedging, CME cash spot markets and the risk management tools that use these exchanges were a contentious point. Some witnesses said USDA formula changes will ‘disturb’ risk management contracts, and must be delayed 15 additional months after a USDA final decision to avoid such disturbance. 

On a similar note, economist Dr. Stephenson, while providing academic processor cost survey information this week, was cross-examined by economist Dr. Marin Bozic for Edge cooperative. Bozic asked Stephenson if the disturbance of risk management practices would ‘fit’ his understanding of ‘disorderly marketing’.

Stephenson replied: “No… I am not sure hedgers or speculators should be first or foremost in the minds of FMMO personnel. That’s not what we are here to do.”

-30-

Part Two: What drove rockier road for 2023 milk prices? Manure. Imports. Concentration.

Posted on by
2

— Along with more imports and shifts in cheese production, major manure-driven expansion in cheese-heavy Central U.S. put pressure on region’s ‘disrupted’ processing capacity

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Updated in reflection from original publication in July 7, 2023 Farmshine

EAST EARL, Pa. — What has driven the rockier road for 2023 milk prices? Many things, and manure may be top on the list.

In fact, we’ll cover the ‘manure effect’ in a future article. But are we beginning to see the methane wheel-of-fortune behave with the ‘cobra effect’? (The British government, concerned about the number of venomous cobras in Delhi, offered a bounty for every dead cobra. Eventually, however, enterprising locals bred cobras for the income.)

This happened with greenhouse gases in the past. It happened with a byproduct gas of making refrigeration coolant. In 2005, when the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change began an incentive scheme. Companies disposing of gases were rewarded with carbon credits, which could eventually get converted into cash. The program set prices according to how serious the environmental damage was of the pollutant. (Like making cow methane seem like new methane when it’s not). As a result, companies began to produce more of the coolant in order to destroy more of the byproduct gas, and collect millions of dollars in credits. This increased production also caused the price of the refrigerant to decrease significantly.

With this prelude, let’s look back in retrospect on what I reported in the July 7, 2023 Farmshine when milk markets were in a tailspin hitting their low for the year — just 10 days before the gradual turnaround began.

As losses in the CME spot cheese markets and Class III milk futures markets continued through July 6, the Federal Order benchmark Class III price for June was pushed down to $14.91 per cwt. and protein down to $1.51/lb, July and August futures went well below the $15 mark, with Class III below $14.

Let’s look at the supply side of the January through June 2023 supply and demand equation.

Looking at the May Milk Production Report that was released in June, it’s hard to believe the bearish response we saw in milk futures and spot cheese markets that occurred based on a mere 13,000 more cows nationwide that month. It was a paltry 0.1% increase over a flat 2022, along with 11 more pounds of milk output per cow for the month (up 0.5% over flat 2022).

This flipped the switch from a gradually lower-than-2022 market to one that plunged sharply and suddently into the dumps – and all the analysts said: ‘We’ve got too much milk for demand.’ (In fact, two months later, processors are pointing to June and July milk dumping and $10 under class spot milk price as proof that USDA is setting Federal Milk Marketing Order minimum prices too high! — I digress).

As noted in Part One of this series that was published in the june 30 edition of Farmshine, other converging supply-and-demand factors plagued cheese markets that month until July 17 — despite basic fundamentals of these milk production reports not being all that bad. 

USDA Dairy Market News said spot loads of milk were being discounted in June by as much as $11 below the already abysmal FMMO Class III price in the Midwest. The milk dumping that reportedly began in May in Minnesota moved into Wisconsin through June and into July. The July 5th Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported “Truckloads of fresh farm milk have been flushed down the drain into Milwaukee’s sewer system recently as dairy plants, filled to the brim, couldn’t accept more.” The story notes this had gone on for weeks, and the amount has declined to 5 trailer loads per week by the time The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel published its report.

For the price and milk dumping fallout, economists and analysts blamed the higher milk production (though it was modest on a national basis but huge in the Central U.S.). They blamed the higher cheddar cheese production (not accompanied by higher inventory), and they blamed the lower volume of exports (modestly below year ago on a year-to-date solids basis). 

Globally, milk production was up (it is declining this fall), they said, suggesting U.S. prices needed to get below the falling global prices in order to recover more export volume (instead of dumping in the sewer). Well, they got what they wanted as the U.S. prices dropped like a rock through June until the turnaround on July 17.

Of course, no one (but Farmshine) mentioned the rising imports that were reported in Part One of this series.

Looking for context on the imports, we reached out to retired cooperative executive Calvin Covington, who follows these things on a total solids basis and has been watching the whey market as a leading milk market indicator. We learned that his calculations on a total solids basis, pegged January through April 2023 imports of dairy products into the U.S. at levels 15% higher than a year ago!

“The 15% equals 39.3 million lbs. more solids,” Covington wrote in an email response to a Farmshine question. “Most of the imports are coming from Europe. Dairy demand is very weak in Europe, consumers have less money to spend. Those milk solids are moving out of Europe.”

Noted Covington in June: “On a total solids basis, ending dairy stocks as of April 30th are 3% higher than last April. The 3% equals 61.5 million lbs. more solids.”

This means the 15% increase in January through April dairy product imports — on a total solids basis — were equal to more than half (63%) of the 3% increase that was reported in April domestic ending stocks of all dairy product inventories on a total solids basis.

Think about that for a minute. Product came in and was inventoried while domestic milk was dumped, and producer prices were crushed so that the domestic price could fall below the global price so then the U.S. dairy exports could increase? It makes the head spin.

Class I sales were down during this time, especially in the Midwest where some fluid plants have closed. Fresh Italian cheese production was down, and that’s a big one for Wisconsin. Together these factors pushed more milk to make more American cheese at that time, some of it delivered to consumers in smaller packages (rationing). 

A wrinkle in the market-fabric comes from the dairy foods complex importing higher volumes, and there are the fake bioengineered microorganisms from which excrement is harvested and described as ‘dairy casein or whey protein without the cow.’ These analogs are being heavily marketed to large food manufacturers making dairy and bakery products as carbon-footprint-lowering dairy protein ‘extenders.’

So much so, that National Milk Producers Federation recently sent a letter to FDA asking the agency not to make the same mistake with these fake products as has been made with plant-based frauds.

However, as we look at the modest milk production increase for the first half of 2023, overall, and compare it to 2022, the total comparison was flattish then and it is declining now as we move toward Q3.

But there’s another major twist to this supply-demand equation:

The location and purpose of dairy expansion is undergoing accelerated transformation on a geographic and structural basis. This transformation is part of the “U.S. Dairy transformation” that the national dairy checkoff has promoted in its Pathways to Net Zero Initiative… and it is affecting the milk pricing for all U.S. dairy farmers, everywhere.

Here’s the problem: Milk production in the Central U.S. has expanded by much more than the national average. 

Even University of Wisconsin economics professor emeritus Bob Cropp noted in his writing after the May report that growth in the Midwest — where cheese rules the milk check — was outpacing processing capacity, and the existing capacity to process all this milk was being reduced by labor and transportation challenges.

The concentrated expansion of milk production in the Central U.S. has been accelerating since 2018, but a new paradigm is now in effect: New concrete is being poured in the targeted growth areas driven more by manure, than by milk, and new dairy processing plant construction that is completed and in the works is targeting the same areas.

This is creating a production bubble that is a flood within calmer seas.

Some are calling it the California RNG gold-rush as developers construct Renewable Natural Gas (RNG) projects — especially on new large dairies — for the California RNG market and to collect the low-carbon-fuel credits for the California exchange and other exchanges that are and will be emerging, thanks to the USDA Climate Smart wheel-of-fortune.

We’ve heard the national dairy checkoff managers from DMI talk about profitable sustainability, markets for manure, promotion of other revenue streams for dairy farms as part of the mantra the checkoff has assumed for itself as speaker for all-things-dairy for all-dairy-farmers on what is “sustainable” for the industry.

When the Net-Zero Initiative was launched — along with DMI’s industry transformation plan — it was something that had been in the works since 2008 and emerged more prominently in the 2017-21 period when the former and current U.S. Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack did his stint as top-paid DMI executive, presiding over the U.S. Dairy Export Center (USDEC) under DMI’s umbrella and as a top-talker on the Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy, also under DMI’s umbrella. 

All three: DMI, USDEC, and Innovation Center for U.S. Dairy are 501c6 non-profit organizations contracted to spend checkoff dollars. A 501c6 is essentially a non-profit that can lobby policymakers, whereas the 501c3 National Dairy Board cannot.

In 2020 and 2021, the Innovation Center — filing tax returns under the name Dairy Center for Strategic Innovation and Collaboration Inc. — doubled its revenue from around $100 to $150 million annually to $300 to $350 million.

We all heard it, read it, thought about it – maybe – that the checkoff was morphing into a facilitator for the transformation of the dairy industry led by manure-promotion, not necessarily milk promotion, with the mantra of feeding the world, being top-dog internationally, and meeting international climate targets with a Net Zero greenhouse gas pledge. (That pledge and the methane calculation are another story Farmshine readers are aware of, but we’ll leave that big driver off the table for this discussion.)

Here we are, now seeing an industry being created from within the broader dairy industry with new production driven by manure, in regions where new or expanding cheese, whey and ingredient plants are being located and potentially displacing production from plants and farms elsewhere that are not tied-into this manure-to-methane wheel-of-fortune using dubious science and math to overpeg a cow’s global warming impact.

While that production bubble is building in targeted growth regions with cheese-heavy milk checks, driven in part by manure-focused expansion, it bursted at the seams this summer due to a processing capacity bottleneck, compounded by supply chain disruptions and a sudden decrease in the production of fresh cheese at other plants and a sudden 18% decline in the amount of milk processed for Class I fluid use in the Upper Midwest.

Here’s the sticky wicket. A review of the 2022 end-of-year milk production report along with reports issued in the first half of 2023, revealed that, indeed, the Central U.S. was “awash in milk.” 

Zooming in on the milk production reports, we see South Dakota continuing its fast and uninterrupted growth — up 15.5% for 2022 vs. 2021, and up 7.4% Jan-May 2023 vs. 2022 — having leapfrogged Vermont, Oregon and Kansas and closing in on Indiana in the state rankings. 

Neighboring Iowa leapfrogged Ohio in 2022 with a 4.7% gain in milk production Jan-May 2023 vs. 2022. Number 7 Minnesota grew again after taking a breather with a 0.6% decline in 2022, then increasing 2% in production Jan-May 2023. 

The tristate I-29 corridor, where cheese processing capacity has been expanding, was up 3.3% in milk production collectively with 19,000 more cows Jan-May 2023. Add to this the 1.3% increase in number 2 Wisconsin’s May milk production, and we saw the quad-state’s collective increase was 203 million pounds of additional milk in the region vs. year ago in May, although Wisconsin’s contribution came from 3000 fewer cows, according to USDA.

Just west in number 3 Idaho, production jumped 3.1% with 7,000 more cows Jan-May 2023.

To the east in the Michigan-Indiana-Ohio tri-state region — where the large new cheese plant in St. John’s, Michigan is fully operational — collective milk output was up 2% over year ago with 11,000 more cows. In 2022, this tri-state region was down 2 to 3% for the year compared with 2021.

Number 5 New York made 2.1% more milk with 7,000 more cows in May vs. year ago, with most of this expansion in the western lake region. 

Number 1 California shrank milk production by 0.7% in May with 2000 fewer cows, and number 4 Texas flattened out its multi-year accelerated growth curve to make just 0.8% more milk in May than a year ago with just 1000 more cows, largely affected by the devastating Texas barn April fire resulting in the loss of around 20,000 cows. 

Neighboring New Mexico continued its multi-year downward slide, ranked number 9 behind a flat-to-slightly-lower milk output in number 8, Pennsylvania. 

Milk production in New Mexico fell 3.8% in May vs. year ago with 10,000 fewer cows. This followed an 8.4% decline in milk production and a 30,000-head cut in cow numbers for the year in 2022. Producers there cite well-access limitations, severe drought, high feed costs with reduced feed availability, as well as receiving the rock-bottom milk price as the reasons dairies in New Mexico are closing or relocating. 

With all of these factors in play, the production reports show a clear paradigm shift in how the dairy industry expands via transformation. It is being driven to where feed is available and milk output per cow is higher, and it’s now being driven by a non-milk-related factor: MANURE for the RNG ‘goldrush’

A saving grace is cattle are in short supply, with replacements bringing high prices. This fact is slowing the bubble, production is declining now, and prices are recovering from those unanticipated lows.

-30-

Fluid milk processors say they can’t recoup higher protein value

Posted on by
1

NMPF, NAJ say higher solids worth more nutritionally, Seek FMMO updates to avoid misalignments and disorderly marketing

Calvin Covington (left) for Southeast Milk and Peter Vitaliano for National Milk Producers Federation testified on what the outdated skim milk component standards mean in terms of underpaying farmers and eroding producer price differentials (PPD), leading to disorderly marketing. This occurs because the skim portion of the milk that is utilized in manufactured products (Class III and IV) is paid per pound of actual protein, solids nonfat and other solids; whereas the skim portion of the milk bottled for fluid use (Class I) is paid on a per hundredweight basis using the outdated standard skim solids levels. The fat portion is not an issue because it is already paid per pound in milk class uses. Screen captures, hearing livestream

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Sept. 8, 2023

CARMEL, Ind. – The national Federal Milk Marketing Order hearing completed two weeks of proceedings, so far, in Carmel, Indiana. The entire hearing is expected to last six to eight weeks, covering 21 proposals in five categories.

Picking up the livestream online, when possible, gives valuable insight into a changing dairy industry and how federal pricing proposals could update key pricing factors.

The first week dug into several proposals to update standard skim milk components to reflect today’s national averages in the skim portion of the Class I price. 

Here is a bite-sized piece of that multi-day tackle.

National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) put forward several witnesses to show what the outdated component levels mean in terms of underpaying farmers, and how paying for the skim portion based on outdated component levels has eroded producer price differentials (PPD), leading to disorderly marketing.

IDFA’s attorney Steven Rosenbaum grilled NMPF economist Peter Vitaliano on this. He tried on seven attempts to establish that the fat/skim orders in the Southeast don’t have component levels as high as the national average, suggesting this change would “overpay” producers in some markets.

In his questioning, Rosenbaum stressed that fluid milk processors can’t recoup the updated skim component values if those components do not “fill more jugs.”

Vitaliano responded to say that protein beverages are a big deal to consumers, and some milk marketing is being done on a protein basis. Rosenbaum asked for a study showing how many fluid processors are actually doing this.

Attorneys for opposing parties kept going back to this theme that the skim solids should not be updated because the FMMOs are based on “minimum” pricing. They contend that processors can pay “premiums” for the extra value if they have a way of recouping the extra value by making more product or marketing what they make as more valuable.

Vitaliano disagreed, saying that even though many processors do not choose to market protein on the fluid milk label, “more protein makes fluid milk more valuable to consumers.”

Attorney Chip English went so far as to ask Calvin Covington on the stand: Why should my clients (Milk Innovation Group) have to pay more for the additional solids in the milk when they are removing some of those solids by removing the lactose?

“Consumers don’t want lactose,” English declared.

Covington, representing Southeast Milk and NMPF, responded to say: “I don’t know that to be true. It is unfair to suggest all.”

Bottomline, said Covington, raising standard skim solids to reflect the composition of milk today vs. 25 years ago adds money to the pool to assist with the PPD erosion so that Federal Orders can function as they were intended and so producers are paid for the value.

As English further questioned whether consumers even care about the higher skim solids and protein levels of milk today, Covington replied: “Skim milk solids have a value in Class I, or fluid milk. People don’t buy milk for colored water. The solids give it the nutritional value. That’s the reason they buy milk. That’s why FDA set minimum standards in some states. Why would you drink milk if not for the nutritional value?”

He also pointed out that the increase in solids nonfat over the past 20-plus years has improved the consistency of lower fat milk options. As noted previously, the milkfat is a separate discussion and is not included in this proposal because farmers are already paid per pound for their actual production of butterfat in all classes, including Class I.

Under cross examination, Covington explained that the Class I price in all Federal Orders pays for skim on a standardized per hundredweight basis and pays for fat on actual per pound basis. Meanwhile, the manufacturing classes pay for both skim and fat on a per pound of actual components basis. 

As skim component levels have risen in the milk, the alignment of Class I to the manufacturing classes narrows because of the differences in how the skim is paid for. When this happens, it becomes more difficult to attract milk to Class I markets. That’s one example of disorderly marketing. PPD erosion and depooling of more valuable manufacturing class milk is another example. 

Covington explained the impact of this misalignment on moving milk from surplus markets to deficit Class I markets, that the lower skim value becomes a disincentive.

Vitaliano explained the depooling issue as “creating disorderly marketing conditions also, and great unhappiness when one farm is paid a certain price and another handler pays a different price (in the same marketing area). That’s disorderly unhappiness for the Federal Order program,” he said.

He noted that the fundamental reason for pooling is to take the uses in a given area with different values to achieve marketwide pooling where producers in that Federal Milk Marketing Area are paid similarly, regardless of what class of product their milk goes into.

“This removes the incentive for any one group to undercut the marketwide price to get that higher price (for themselves),” he said. “The Orders create orderly marketing with a uniform price. Depooling undermines that fundamental purpose that is designed to create orderly marketing.”

Either way, whether indirectly paying to bring supplemental milk into Class I markets from markets with higher manufacturing use, or in the case of depooling, the dairy farmers end up paying for the fallout from this erosion of the PPD.

Since the beginning, even before 2000 Order Reform, figuring the Class I base milk price had to begin somewhere, according to Covington. Federal pricing has always used the manufacturing class values in determining that base fluid milk price.

The trouble today is that Class III and IV handlers pay farmers per pound of actual skim components in the milk they receive, while the Class I handlers pay per hundredweight based on an arbitrary outdated national average skim component standard. Thus, the “opportunity cost” of moving this now higher component milk to manufacturing classes that pay by the actual pound of protein, for example, instead of by the old standard average protein levels is not accounted for in the Class I price that still uses the old standard average levels.

Pressed again on how it makes sense to raise Class I prices by raising the component level of the skim to more adequately reflect the national average today, Covington said: “It adds to the nutrition, and I stand by that. In proposal one, the price will go up (estimated 63 cents per cwt or a nickel per gallon). I am comfortable charging that extra price to Class I processors.”

Attorney English, representing MIG, retorted that, “The handlers who buy milk and then by adding a neutralizing agent remove the lactose, they’re going to pay more for the milk that they then have to process to subtract the lactose.”

Covington responded that, “There are consumers who think about lactose. There are consumers who buy lactose-free products, yes, because it is on the shelf, but it’s not all consumers.”

On the higher protein, English asked Covington how Class I processors are supposed to monetize that protein in a label-less commodity, a commodity that is declining in its share of total milk utilization?

“We are still selling 45 billion pounds of packaged fluid milk (annually) in this country,” said Covington. “Consumers wouldn’t buy that 45 billion pounds if it wouldn’t have some nutrition.”

English argued that milk is sold as whole, 2%, 1% and non-fat. It is not sold by its protein, so isn’t it “so highly regulated in ways that alternatives are not that any increase in price hinders sales of fluid milk?”

Covington acknowledged that, “yes, it is regulated, but I’m not convinced that this proposal will hinder fluid milk sales. Again, (higher components) add to the nutrition and I stand by that.”

Opponents kept coming back to these value questions, while proponents focused on the price alignment issue and orderly marketing.

To link up with the hearing livestream 8 to 5 weekdays, to read testimony and exhibits, and to respond to the virtual farmer testimony invitations made every Monday for the following Friday, visit the Hearing Website at https://www.ams.usda.gov/rules-regulations/moa/dairy/hearings/national-fmmo-pricing-hearing

-30-

USDA will hear 21 milk pricing proposals beginning Aug. 23; Front-and-center: May 2019 change in Class I (without a hearing) costing farmers $1 bil. over 52 mos.

Posted on by
1

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine

WASHINGTON –- USDA officially announced Monday (July 24) the national public hearing to consider proposals seeking to amend the uniform pricing formulas across all 11 Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO). The hearing begins Wednesday, August 23, 2023 at 9:00 a.m. at the 502 East Event Centre, 502 East Carmel Drive, Carmel, Indiana.

Farmers will be able to testify in person at any time, or virtually on Fridays by pre-registering.

Approximately 40 proposals were submitted by 12 organizations and were explained during a webinar in mid-June. Of those, 21 will be considered within the uniform pricing scope of the hearing, according to the USDA notice. Copies of the notice, a list of proposals being considered, guidelines for how to participate, the hearing schedule, and corresponding hearing record can be found and followed on the Hearing Website.

The Class I mover formula will be addressed in the national hearing’s scope, including the proposals from National Milk Producers Federation and American Farm Bureau to go back to the ‘higher of’ method. The change from ‘higher of’ to ‘average of’ was made legislatively in the 2018 farm bill without a hearing.

Since USDA implemented the ‘average of’ method in May 2019, net losses from this change are projected to exceed $1 billion after August 2023 milk is paid for in September.

On July 19, USDA announced the August advance Class I price mover at $16.62. If the previous ‘higher of’ method had been used, the Class I base price would have been $18.29. That’s a $1.67 per hundredweight loss on all Class I milk next month. July’s Class I mover was also calculated substantially lower (by $1.02) using the ‘average of’ vs. the ‘higher of.’ These losses will impact August and September milk checks for July and August milk.

Around 28% of all milk produced in the U.S. is Class I fluid use, so farmers stand to lose an additional 47 cents per hundredweight on all of the milk they market in August and 29 cents on all the milk they market in July — just from this formula change. This is on top of the market declines in the class and component prices. The loss to blended prices will be greater in some Federal Orders and less in others, and this does not include the impacts from de-pooling of higher-value Class IV milk.

The impact of the two-week Class I advance pricing factors is compounded by the ‘average of’ method, which is quite notable for July and August. Cheese and whey were in a tailspin lower; however, on the very next day after the August Class I base price mover had been averaged and locked-in on July 1-15 pricing factors, the dairy product markets began a huge rally, with cheese gaining nearly 40 cents in 8 trading sessions. This boosts the other class and component values much higher for the latter half of the month.

Over the 52 months of its implementation, the ‘average of’ formula has effectively removed an estimated 55 cents per hundredweight from farmer payment for all Class I milk, according to USDA data. On a blended uniform price, this comes out to a national average loss of 16-cents on every hundredweight of all milk used in all classes of products shipped from May 2019 through August 2023. That is like paying another checkoff for 52 months.

Among the other proposals included in the national hearing is the American Farm Bureau (AFBF) Class I and II proposal that seeks return to the ‘higher of’ with additional adjustments such as eliminating the two-week ‘advanced’ pricing.

IDFA’s Class I proposal seeks to keep the ‘average of’ and use either the current 74-cent-adjuster or a ‘rolling adjuster’ based on a calculated difference over 24 months, whichever is higher.

Milk Innovation Group’s (MIG) proposal seeks to keep the ‘average of’ but change the ‘adjuster’ monthly via a 24-month look-back with a 12-month lag.

Two Edge Cooperative proposals are included, one being a Class III-plus formula. The other would use the ‘higher of,’ but would base it on end-of-month four-week announced class and component prices instead of the two-week prior month advance pricing.

The hearing docket also contains four proposals on Class I differentials, including NMPF’s proposal to increase them in all locations by varying amounts as well as MIG’s proposal to lower them across the board by $1.60.

Two proposals from NMPF and National All Jersey will be heard to update milk component factors.

Six proposals will be heard on Class III and IV pricing formulas. Three are separate proposals from NMPF, IDFA and Wisconsin Cheesemakers to update processor credits, known as ‘make allowances,’ as well as three from Select Milk Producers on butterfat recovery, farm to plant shrink and nonfat solids yield.

In addition, the hearing scope includes four proposals on how dairy commodity products are surveyed, including NMPF’s proposal to remove 500-lb barrel cheese from the weekly survey, AFBF’s proposal to add bulk 640-lb block cheese and unsalted bulk butter, while California Dairy Campaign’s proposal would add mozzarella.

Dairy farmers can testify in-person at any time during the hearing, or virtually on Fridays. Beginning Fri., Sept. 1 and for each Friday thereafter until the hearing concludes, dairy farmers may testify virtually in 15-minute time slots beginning at Noon ET. There will be 10 slots for virtual testimony each Friday.

To be included, farmers must pre-register. The pre-registration for each Friday’s time slots will be available starting Monday of the same week at the USDA Hearing Website. For example, the link to testify on Fri., Sept. 1 will be available on Mon., Aug. 28. To submit exhibits for the record, email them to FMMOHearing@usda.gov by 8:00 a.m. ET on the day of testimony.

Those participating in the hearing in person should notify a USDA official upon arrival at the hearing. For additional information, contact Erin Taylor, Director, Order Formulation and Enforcement Division, USDA/AMS/Dairy Program at Erin.Taylor@usda.gov.

Part One: What’s driving rocky road for milk prices?

Posted on by
3
The stunner in the USDA FAS data is the U.S. imported 51% more Whole Milk Powder (WMP) in the January through May 2023 period vs. year ago. Looking at import volumes vs. All Milk prices, Fig. 1 shows the pattern: From 2008 to today, whenever there is a period of high farm milk prices, WMP imports increase, and farm milk prices fall. While cheese imports are down 3% YTD, non-cheese dairy exports are up 80% for a 9.2% total increase based on straight volume. Retired co-op executive Calvin Covington recently figured the January through April imports up 15% on a total solids basis. Graphic by Sherry Bunting compiled from USDA FAS and NASS data

— WMP and other imports accelerate, cow-less lab-protein analogs become ‘extenders,’

— Class I sales keep declining, fresh Italian cheese production down, inflation drives CPGs to reduce unit-sizes,

— RNG-driven dairy construction accelerates concentrated growth in cheese-heavy Central U.S.

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine June 30, 2023

EAST EARL, Pa. — Current milk futures and dairy commodity markets have turned sharply lower and signal a rocky road ahead for farm level milk prices. Because of the lag times built into federal milk pricing, the most recent steep losses in spot cheese markets will hit the Class III price and create more Class I mover losses via the ‘average of’ method to hit milk checks in July, August and September. 

Factors driving this include: declining Class I sales and fresh Italian cheese production, inflation-driven unit-size shrinkage, two months of reduced dairy exports and five months of increased dairy imports, and the advertising of cow-less lab-protein analogs as ‘extenders’ for food processing.

The May Milk Production Report confirmed that the Central U.S. is, indeed, “awash in milk.” Part two of this series will zoom into the geographic shifts in the concentration of milk growth, driven largely by Renewable Natural Gas digester projects for the California RNG gold rush. Much of the new dairy construction in the cheese-heavy Central U.S. is focused on manure to energy, not necessarily on milk and cheese to consumers.

The Production Report was released after the futures closed on June 21. In the next four trading sessions from June 22 through 27, Class III contracts for July through September lost $1.50 per cwt, on top of previous losses of more than $2. 

By June 28, the expiring June Class III milk futures contract was at $14.92, and at $14.91 in the June USDA announced.

The ‘market’ has simply ignored USDA’s May 30 announcement that the government will bring in a ‘game changer’ to purchase 47 million pounds of cheese for food banks and schools as block and barrel cheese plunged to $1.31 and $1.39 per pound, respectively, by Tues., June 27.

USDA confirmed last week that the first round of its bid solicitations for the first phase of the 47 million pound cheese purchase won’t open until October. Bids and deliveries will come in stages from fourth quarter 2023 through mid-2024. 

This means cheap milk will make cheap cheese, which could get even cheaper if inventories build in anticipation of selling that cheese at a tidy profit into the seasonal demand increases that begin in October, along with these announced government cheese purchases. (Who needs a make-allowance raise with this game in town?)

For the past several weeks, USDA Dairy Market News has been reporting spot loads of milk in the Central U.S. selling as much as $11 per cwt below the Class III price. DMN also reports milk from the Central U.S. growth region is moving farther to find a home. We are also hearing from readers about substantial milk being dumped in the Midwest, while a few independent dairies in Minnesota, one milking over 1000 cows, have been told by their creamery that their milk is not needed after schools close.

May milk production, nationwide, was up only 0.6% from a year ago. The 24 major monthly states were up by 0.8%. Milk cow numbers did not grow from April to May and are running just 13,000 head above year ago. This modest increase comes on the heels of no net gain in milk production for 2022.

All year, the monthly USDA World Ag Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) kept increasing the 2023 U.S. milk production forecasts, based on what it said are ‘more milk cows and less output per cow.’ The most recent WASDE walked that production forecast back a bit, but still expects U.S. dairies will milk an average of 9.415 million cows in 2023. 

Then, somehow, the May Production Report pegged the number of milk cows on farms at 9.424 million head, even after the loss of 18,000 milk cows in a fire in west Texas in April. This is how tight the figuring has become on what we are told today is a surplus of milk and a lackluster demand.

The idea of a milk surplus that is big enough to drive these current price losses does not line up with USDA’s Jan. 1 cattle inventory report. So, in May, the WASDE began to walk it back, noting higher feed costs, reduced milk margins and higher beef cattle prices will slow the flow of milk.

Where are the cattle coming from? The Jan. 2023 inventory showed milk cow numbers were virtually unchanged from Jan. 2022 at 9.4 million head. The number of dairy heifers over 500 pounds was down 2% at 4.337 million head — the lowest number since 2006. Within that heifer number, expected calvings from Jan. 1, 2023 to Jan. 1, 2024 were also 2% lower than for Jan. 2022 to Jan. 2023. The next semi-annual cattle inventory report will be released in three weeks on July 21.

The Report’s smaller dairy replacement inventory is believable given the fact that offerings have been selling $300 to $500 per head above year ago levels, and the few weekly dairy cattle auctions throughout the U.S. have seen offerings down 30% below year ago… until June, when prices came under pressure on a suddenly increased offering at auctions over the past two weeks. 

Meanwhile, dairy cow slaughter rates are also increasing, according to USDA, especially in the Midwest and Southwest, up 31 and 47% above year ago, respectively.

While the WASDE has forecast per-cow output to fall by 55 pounds per cow per month in 2023, the May Production Report pegged an 11-pound per-cow per month increase.

This means, it took just 13,000 more cows nationwide, and just 11 more pounds of milk output per cow per month to flip the switch to sharply lower milk prices based on – suddenly — too much milk? (Geographic concentration of milk growth plays into this equation, and we’ll discuss that in Part Two.)

In Part One, we look at the other supply and demand factors that are having a direct impact on where farm level milk prices are headed. These factors fill in the gaps left by the perplexing and contradictory sets of USDA dairy data.

I.               Fresh fluid milk sales and fresh Italian cheese production both declined, pushing more available spring-flush milk into storable products.

Fluid milk sales January through April were down 2.8% from a year ago, and as bottlers slowed school packaging ahead of summer recess, the June 5th Dairy Products Report showed April production of fresh (made to order) Italian cheeses also declined 2.6% vs. year ago.

Meanwhile, butter production was down 4.9% while nonfat dry milk production increased just 1.9%, and skim milk powder production was down 22.4%. This put more of the available ‘spring flush’ milk into production of American cheese, up 2.3% vs. year ago in April, and the accompanying dry whey and whey protein concentrate production up 1.7 and 7.2%, respectively. 

Record volumes of dry whey and cheese have been coming to the daily CME spot auction, driving down the spot prices that drive the National Dairy Product Sales Report prices that are then used in federal class and component pricing formulas.

II.            Inflation pressures consumer demand, but inventories are not burdensome.

The May Cold Storage Report released on June 23 was a head-scratcher. Despite the ramped up American cheese production in the Dairy Products Report, the Cold Storage Report showed both the total amount of cheese in inventory, and the amount of American cheese in inventory, are both actually down 1% from a year ago at the end of May, while butter inventory was up 14% against last year’s higher-price-driving short supply.

Meanwhile, producers in the Midwest are being told that milk co-ops and buyers are facing cheese sales declines and that there’s not enough capacity to process all the milk now being produced in the region, with the existing capacity also experiencing labor and transport disruptions.

Dairy demand has stagnated, the analysts say, after months of high inflation. The May dairy consumer price index (CPI) was more bearish than the overall CPI. Dairy CPI was up 4.6%, with cheese up 3.6%, ice cream up 8% and other dairy products up 9.3% while whole milk decreased 3.4% and other non-whole milk increased 0.6%.

Inflationary pressure is driving some consumer packaged goods companies (CPGs) to trim unit-sizes for an appearance of stable consumer pricing. For example, we see unit-size shrinkage in cheese packages and slices. Not all American cheese slices today are 8 ounces, some are 6. Such moves effectively ration demand. 

III.            The stunner is dairy imports, up 9.2% with Whole Milk Powder imports up 51% year-to-date.

Looking at import volumes vs. All Milk prices, the pattern is clear (Fig.1). From 2008 to today, whenever there is a period of high farm milk prices, Whole Milk Powder (WMP) imports increase, and farm milk prices fall. 

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.

From December 2022 through April 2023, the U.S. imported the highest percentage of dairy production equivalent since 2016. And there is more milk equivalent comparison today than in 2016. The National Milk Producers Federation’s monthly market report confirmed this. 

Then May imports worsened this trend. 

Digging into the June 12 USDA Foreign Ag Service (FAS) Import Circular, the U.S. imported 80% more non-cheese dairy products from January through May vs. year ago. At the same time, cheese imports were down 3.3%. Combined, the total cheese and non-cheese imports were up 9.2% vs. year ago.

But the stunner in the data is the U.S. imported 51% more WMP in the January through May 2023 period vs. year ago. 

It’s no wonder that the USDA Dairy Market News reported on June 15 that, “Dry whole milk processing (in the U.S.) is limited, despite hearty milk volumes.” 

The report went on to say that even as seasonal milk output recedes “market contacts suggest dry WMP market tones may remain steady (at the current lower price levels) due to lighter demand.”

Not surprising, given the U.S. imported more WMP in May (550,000 kg) than for any month since April of 2020. WMP was imported at a record-setting pace during the pandemic while milk was being dumped in the U.S. and production-base-programs were tightened on U.S. dairy farms by milk cooperatives and buyers. 

As the cumulative 2023 WMP imports accelerated in May, milk prices are set to take the sharp turn lower.

The year-to-date imports of butter, butterfat and butter oil are also well above year ago as part of that 80% increase in non-cheese imports January through May 2023 vs. year ago.

The June WASDE raised dairy import forecasts, yet again, especially on a fat basis, and it again lowered dairy export forecasts. The Report sees butter and nonfat dry milk (Class IV) continuing to sell stronger on better demand, while demand and prices for cheese and whey (Class III) are further reduced. 

This combination reduced the WASDE forecast for the 2023 All Milk price to $19.95, down 55 cents from the May forecast. Part of this is the Class IV over III divergence that is substantially lowering the Class I fluid milk price under the ‘average of’ method, which took more than $1.00 off the advance Class I price mover for July, announced last week at $17.32. It would have been $18.34 using the previous ‘higher of’ method.

IV.          Lab-created dairy protein analogs are advertised to processors as ‘extenders.’

Another emerging factor is the lab-created dairy protein analogs, which are the excrement of microorganisms that have been bioengineered with bovine DNA. These proteins are advertised in dairy food and manufacturing magazines as carbon-footprint-lowering, interchangeable ‘extenders’ for production of cheese, ice cream and other dairy foods.

The companies that are ramping up this fermentation-vat-lab-protein are doing limited consumer marketing. Mainly, they pursue a B2B model (business to business, not business to consumer) and try to capitalize on ESG scoring benefits based on who-knows-what-calculations that large processors are seeking as they navigate the investment, credit, and retail shelf-space ESG decisions up and down the supply chain.

No one knows how much lab-dairy-protein is being used at this time — or in what brands of dairy products — because these proteins do not have to be labeled, and they are not part of any dairy market or production report.

The Bioengineered Food Disclosure Law was passed by Congress in July 2016, and USDA established the national mandatory standard for disclosing foods that are, or may be, bioengineered in December of 2018. This Standard was implemented on Jan. 1, 2020 with mandatory compliance for all food manufacturers by Jan. 1, 2022.

According to USDA, the Standard defines bioengineered foods as “those that contain detectable genetic material that has been modified through certain lab techniques and cannot be created through conventional breeding or found in nature.”

The lab-dairy-protein-analogs are the harvested excrement of fermentation-vat-grown bioengineered yeast, fungi and bacteria, so BE labeling is not required due to the ‘detectable genetic material’ loophole. The modified genetic material is in the microorganisms, not their excrement.

-30-

USDA inches closer to a national FMMO hearing

Posted on by
2

Consensus evident on some key proposals, such as returning the Class I mover formula to the ‘higher of’; but 10 packages contain over 30 variations and a few new biggies.

New to the party are:

  • AFBF wants to end ‘advance’ pricing of Class I;
  • NAJ wants uniform component-based pricing of Class I in all Orders;
  • MIG, made up of 7 fluid processors want organic exemptions, an assortment of new credits, and they want to knock $1.60 off the Class I differentials, forgetting they already get over $3.00 in ‘make allowance’ credits while not incurring those costs
  • California Dairy Campaign seeks an extension to consider alternative pricing formulas
  • Some proposals want to drop products (500-lb barrel cheese) from the FMMO formulas and price surveys, others want to add products (ie. 640-lb block cheese, mozzarella, unsalted butter)
Dana Coale, Deputy Administrator (top, left) and Erin Taylor, Director (top, right) and their USDA Dairy Division staff engaged with leads for 30 hearing proposals contained in packages submitted by 10 organizations in the pre-hearing information session Friday, June 16. Tim Doelman (bottom), CEO of Fairlife, a Coca-Cola subsidiary, explains one of the Milk Innovation Group’s (MIG) proposals that bucks the consensus on going back to the ‘higher of’ in setting the Class I mover. MIG wants to keep the averaging method with their ‘Floored Adjuster” proposal. He said returning to the ‘higher of’ prevents processors from forward-pricing their milk like soda and other beverage companies do for other ingredients. MIG also wants to knock $1.60/cwt off the current Class I differentials, and they want an assortment of new credits (obviously forgetting that fluid milk processors already get more than $3/cwt in various Class III and IV product manufacturing credits. These so-called ‘make allowances’, are built in as credits on the Class I and II prices also, for costs that fluid processors do not incur.) Zoom screen capture

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, June 23, 2023

WASHINGTON – In preparation for a potential national Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) hearing, the Dairy Division of USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service had a pre-hearing information session Friday, June 16. During the day-long session, held virtually through zoom, Deputy Administrator Dana Coale, Director Erin Taylor and others heard presentations of the more than 30 pieces contained in proposals submitted by 10 organizations, and they engaged in questions for clarification as well as accepting requests for data before the 10 proposals were to be modified for final submission June 20.

While the Secretary of Agriculture has not yet declared a hearing, the AMS Dairy Division has publicized the timelines and action plan.

Coale stated that mandated time frames by Congress, govern the amount of time from the point at which a proposal is received to the end of a hearing 120 days later. “All of our proposed time frames are based on keeping us focused to meet the 120-day mandate,” she said.

“Once submitted, USDA will further evaluate them, and the Secretary will make the determination,” said Coale. “If the Secretary intiates rulemaking, you will see a hearing notice containing all proposals to be heard. This will be mid- to late-July, and we would expect to move forward – if a hearing is initiated – on Aug 23 as the start of that hearing.”

The location will be Carmel, Indiana, and because of the new time constraints, new procedures will be put in place, she said.

“Expect to see a very different process than customarily done to create a very efficient process while maintaining transparency and a robust evidentiary record,” she explained, noting this includes a process for submitting testimony in advance, and a naming vs. numbering convention for exhibits.

After the hearing is noticed, there will be another information session, said Coale.

“It takes an entire village,” she stressed. “Ex parte communication does not begin until a hearing is noticed, so if you have questions or need explanation or discussion on data for submitted proposals, contact us at fmmohearing@usda.gov”

The marquis proposal is the comprehensive package submitted by National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) that set into motion the Secretary’s call for other proposals. The NMPF package has five proposals, previously reported in Farmshine through various articles since the October stakeholders meeting hosted by American Farm Bureau in Kansas City in October 2022.

Retired cooperative executive Calvin Covington is the lead on one of the five NMPF proposals, which seeks to update skim components to more accurately reflect the percentage of protein, nonfat solids and other solids in a hundredweight of milk today.

Covington said he also expects to testify on the NMPF proposal to raise Class I differentials with a new pricing surface map, something that has not been done since 2007-08, and the proposal to return the Class I base price ‘mover’ to the ‘higher of’. The current average plus 74 cents method has been in place since May of 2019, which produced unintended consequences and losses for dairy farmers.

In a phone interview Tuesday, June 20, Covington explained that after more than a year of task force meetings and discussions via NMPF with its members and their farmer members, “We’ve gotten this far, and we have got a consensus,” he said of the NMPF package.

In addition to updating skim components and Class I differentials and changing the Class I ‘mover’ back to the ‘higher of,’ the NMPF package includes a proposal to modestly update make allowances and to discontinue the barrel cheese price in the Class III protein formula while allowing 45-day forward-priced nonfat dry milk and dry whey to be included in the formula price survey instead of the current 30-day forward-price limit.

“It took a year, and that’s pretty good, to have coast-to-coast consensus on five major proposals,” said Covington. “Then you also read the Farm Bureau’s proposal and there’s pretty good consensus there too.” 

Central to both the NMPF package and AFBF package of proposals is strong support for returning the Class I mover formula back to the previous ‘higher of’ method.

(Farmers have had a cumulative net loss of nearly $950 million, equivalent to losing 53 cents on every hundredweight of milk shipped for Class I use for the past 51 months or 15 cents per hundredweight on the FMMO blend price for all milk across all 51 months — since the change to ‘average of’ was made in May 2019 via the 2018 Farm Bill. In fact, the July 2023 Class I mover was announced June 22, 2023 at $17.32, which is a whopping $1.02 below the $18.34 it would have been under the ‘higher of’ method.)

AFBF supports NMPF’s proposal to restore the Class I mover to the ‘higher of’ Class III or IV, to drop the barrel cheese price from the Class III component and price calculation, to update component values into Class III and IV formulas, and to update Class I differentials, but notes this should be done through careful review where changes are based on a transparent record.

AFBF chief economist Roger Cryan stated that AFBF will defer to NMPF for substantiation on the Class I mover change, but if by any chance NMPF would back away from this proposal, Farm Bureau wants it kept on the table and will defend it.

On adjustment to Class III and IV product make allowances, AFBF supports this under the same logic as the NMPF proposal, but states that “such adjustment cannot be fairly undertaken except in using the data from a mandatory and audited USDA survey of, at least, those plants participating in the National Dairy Product Sales Report (NDPSR) survey.” 

The difference is NMPF says it will seek mandatory surveys through legislation, whereas AFBF sees USDA as already having the authority to do this.

AFBF’s package includes some “new” proposals as well. One would add 640-pound block cheese to the Class III component and price formula and the NDPSR survey and another would add unsalted butter to the butterfat and protein calculation and the NDPSR survey.

AFBF includes a proposal to update the Class II differential to $1.56 to account for current drying costs and to adjust formula product yields and include an adjustment to the ‘make allowances’ for cooperatives and plants that “balance the market.”

The AFBF package also cites “universal milk check transparency requirements” regarding clarity to be shared on producer milk checks regarding pooled volume, Order value and actual payment for pooled and nonpooled milk.

AFBF seeks a seasonal Class I differential adjustment to “address seasonal differences in supply and demand.”

The most notably divergent AFBF proposal is one that seeks to eliminate the advanced pricing of Class I milk and components and the advanced pricing of Class II skim milk and components. It would base both on the 4-week “announced” Class III and IV components and prices instead of the 2-week “advanced” pricing factors. The advanced factors are calculated for a given month during the first two weeks of the previous month and have been part of FMMO pricing for decades.

Edge Dairy Farmer Cooperative, representing farmers in nine Midwest states shipping to 34 processors also proposes ending advanced pricing of Class I.

A newsflash proposal came from the Milk Innovation Group, which was formed within the last few years and testified at the recent Southeast FMMO hearings. 

MIG is made up of seven companies — Anderson Erickson Dairy, Aurora Organic Dairy, Danone North America, Fairlife, HP Hood, Organic Valley/ CROPP Cooperative, and Shamrock Foods.

They want to REDUCE Class I differentials, whereas NMPF and AFBF support updates that increase them. 

MIG companies want to establish Class I differentials that remove the “Grade A compensation” portion that has been built into all Class I differentials from the beginning, as well as removing the “market balancing compensation.” 

Together, these removals would account for the $1.60 per hundredweight base differential that all FMMOs receive. As explained in the pre-hearing session, this would have the net effect of reducing Class I differentials (and producer pay prices) by $1.60 per hundredweight across all FMMOs.

In their justification, MIG writes that it is “far past time for the base Class I differential to be reconsidered in light of market changes, including the exploding growth of dairy beverage alternatives… and the exponential growth of non-fluid milk products often sold in the export market.”

(In this reporter’s analysis and opinion, reducing Class I differentials instead of raising them, ignores the fact that every Class I fluid milk processor – including the aseptic, ultrapasteurized, organic, ultrafiltered and other ‘specialty’ fluid milks – are already getting more than $3.00 per hundredweight embedded as a processor credit in the Class I base price mover by virtue of the cumulative sum of all product make allowances on the Class III and/or IV pricing factors used to establish that mover, but since they don’t make Class III and IV product, they don’t incur these costs. Now they want $1.60 more, plus “assembly” and other credits?)

The MIG also proposes exempting processors of Class I organic milk from paying into FMMO pools as long as they show they pay their producers at least the minimum FMMO price. There are a few other guard rails to this. 

They also want to receive “assembly credits,” specialty credits, and a higher shrink credit (forgetting that they already get make allowance credits that don’t even apply to them).

Citing the “unequivocal decline in Class I sales,” the MIG sets the stage with its package of proposals to transition further away from pricing mechanisms that support local fresh milk in favor of aseptic, extended shelf-life milks and specialty products. Some of the companies in the MIG are making dairy beverages that are not even Class I, and several are getting big into plant-based and other non-milk alternatives and blends. (Is that a conflict of interest?)

USDA AMS also accepted further information on the prior petition by the International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association (WCMA) to update make allowances. With this additional information, their petitions are back on the table and are based on voluntary cost surveys.

Additionally, IDFA submitted a proposed alternative method for establishing the Class I mover they call the “Floored Class I Mover proposal.” This is IDFA’s response to NMPF’s proposal to return Class I to the ‘higher of.’

The IDFA alternative is described as using the current simple average of the Class III and IV advance pricing factors to set the base Class I price, and floor the adjuster at the current 74 cents — while allowing that adjuster to increase if a two-year look-back shows it was deficient vs. the higher of. This is a complex two-years back “making producers whole” in the two-years forward with the adjuster always being floored to go no lower than 74 cents even if it turns out that this method benefited farmers vs. the ‘higher of.’

The IDFA Class I proposal contains several pages of justification for the averaging method built around “preserving price hedging and risk management” for processors, particularly those in the ‘value-added’ category,” such as ultrafiltered and aseptic Class I milk products.

But it doesn’t end there…

National All Jersey (NAJ) brought forward its proposal, explained by Erick Metzger. “One mirrors NMPF’s proposal to update skim component factors in the Class III and IV formulas, except we want to see it be a simple annual update based on the previous year’s average, with an appropriate lag time to address risk management tools instead of being based on a three-year average,” he said.

In addition, NAJ proposes that FMMOs 5, 6, 7 and 131 (the Southeastern Orders and Arizona) become multiple component pricing (MCP) Orders instead of pricing on a fat/skim basis.

NAJ also proposes Class I payment requirements to be based on MCP pricing instead of skim / butterfat in all FMMOs, nationally.

“We are proposing uniform pricing across all orders — both on how processors pay for components and how producers are paid for components,” said Metzger. “Extensive updates are needed to Orders 5, 6, 7 and 131, and the needed Order language already exists in the other Orders.”

The NAJ proposal notes that Class I should be paid on actual solids, instead of valuing the skim on a skim basis. “In our proposal, it would be valued or priced on actual skim components,” he said.

What this means is if a dairy farm’s actual components processed (in Class I) were below the standard components in the Class III or IV formulas, the processor obligation would be less; and if the farm’s skim components are greater than the standard, then the obligation of Class I processors to the pool would be more. In short, accounting for actual skim components in the NAJ proposal, would replace the current pricing of Class I skim on a pounds of skim basis.

Select Milk Producers cooperative submitted proposals to update product yields to reflect “actual farm-to-plant shrink,” to update the butterfat recovery factor and to update nonfat solids yields. According to their own limited 5-year-average analysis the three proposals combined would net 13 cents/cwt on the Class III price and 42 cents/cwt on the Class IV price, but they’ve requested more data from USDA AMS to analyze — if their proposals are accepted for a hearing.

For its part, Edge Cooperative states in a cover letter to its proposals that a hearing should occur after the farm bill. “There is no imminent crisis that would present a compelling reason to initiate a hearing before the next farm bill is enacted,” the proposal states.

In the farm bill, Edge seeks a mandatory cost of processing survey before make allowance updates could be heard. Edge also seeks legislative language to expand flexibility to base individual FMMOs around something other than uniform pricing, to be determined on an Order by Order basis. This “flexibility” was explained by Lucas Sjostrom and Marin Bozic at the Farm Bureau stakeholders meeting in Kansas City last October.

However, Farm Bureau’s package of proposals asserts that there is no reason to hold off on a hearing while waiting for a farm bill, and indeed seeks the fastest resolution to the Class I ‘mover’ issue. Furthermore, Congress previously mandated timelines that don’t allow “waiting” once proposals are received by USDA. This process is in motion, unless Secretary Vilsack refuses a hearing on any of the proposals.

AFBF, in fact, cited areas of the Agricultural Agreement Act that give USDA authority to do mandatory cost surveys, without further legislation, because the Secretary has discretion to require any reporting deemed necessary from FMMO participating plants.

On the Class I ‘mover, Edge proposes two options, either a Class III-plus option if the ‘advanced pricing’ is retained or if the ‘higher of’ option is used, then to base it on final 4-week announced skim milk prices each month. This option would effectively end the 2-week advanced pricing factors and advance pricing of the Class I ‘mover,’ which has also been proposed by AFBF.

The Edge proposals include a request to align make allowance changes so that they don’t impact ‘risk management tools’ and a proposal to add Order formulation language about the information handlers shall furnish to producers with the intent of “transparency in producer milk checks.”

The California Dairy Campaign’s proposal asks USDA to extend the proposal deadline and to add mozzarella to the Class III component and price formula and the NDPSR survey. They also want consideration of “alternative pricing formulas that guarantee dairy farmers are paid according to current market rates.”

The California proposal includes a National Farmers Union (NFU) Dairy Policy Reform Special Order of Business that was passed at the 2023 NFU Convention in San Francisco. It states opposition to the call for a federal milk marketing order hearing, noting that, “If a hearing is granted, it is essential that any modifications to the federal order minimum pricing formulas take into account the volume and value of all dairy products, particularly high-moisture cheeses such as mozzarella.”

Dairy Pricing Association (DPA) submitted a few proposals explained by Wisconsin dairy farmer Tom Olson. One seeks to pay Grade B milk at FMMO minimums, but without a producer price differential (PPD).

DPA also proposes a supply-balancing feature, whereby milk handlers notify farms at least 7 days prior to milk disposal action, stating the baseline production needs, how much to reduce production, and for how long, with farmers making this reduction by dumping (or not producing) this milk.

In effect, the DPA proposal includes a processor-led supply management program, not a government intervention. But to do it, the FMMOs would be the arbiter, and therefore all Orders would have to be amended to require 100% mandatory participation and pooling of all U.S. milk. Something like that may require legislation since a producer referendum bloc-voted by cooperatives could vote it down, and it’s unclear how unregulated areas would be included since states like Idaho already voted the FMMOs out.

Currently, only Class I milk handlers are required to participate in FMMOs within marketing areas that have FMMOs. Participation is voluntary for most Class II, III and IV processors. Over the past three years, roughly 60% of total U.S. milk production has been pooled on FMMOs.

-30-

Understanding the factors as action on FMMO ‘modernization’ unfolds

Posted on by
Reply
Using the Northeast as an example of a multiple component pricing Federal Milk Marketing Order that still has significant Class I utilization, Dr. Chris Wolf showed how long-term trends and other factors have reduced the Class I utilization and Class I revenue from 50% in 2000 to 34% in 2021 in FMMO 1. The most dramatic part of this decline occurred after 2010 — leaving not enough money to go around with less Class I value in the pool. FMMOs were structured for Class I fluid markets not for the dairy product and export markets where growth is occurring today. Screen capture from Center for Dairy Excellence Protecting Your Profits webinar with CDE’s Zach Myers and his guest Dr. Chris Wolf, Cornell University dairy economist.

By Sherry Bunting

WASHINGTON – There are irons in two fires when it comes to federal milk pricing and dairy policy. One is to do modernization through the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) hearing petition process. The other is to make some adjustments or seek authorizing language through the dairy title of the 2023 Farm Bill.

On the farm bill front, the May 12 CBO baseline score shows this could be the first trillion-dollar farm bill. Food assistance programs, like SNAP, are eating into the capacity to do other things, say top-level staff for the Senate Ag Committee. 

For dairy and livestock, the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) baseline now includes $1 billion in additional outlays projected over the 10-years, while livestock disaster outlays have doubled – even without making any changes in these programs that some are suggesting.

Still, farmers and organizations that represent them are seeking some expansion for the DMC, livestock disaster, and other programs and safety nets, and some are seeking language to instruct the Secretary to do hearings on the Class I ‘mover’, or to expand the flexibility of the scope of a hearing, or to require mandatory reporting germaine to things like raising make allowances. 

The jury is out on whether a farm bill gets done by September 2023 after the May 12 baseline was announced by CBO in the current political environment, but members of the House and Senate Ag Committees and their chairpersons are gathering information in earnest toward that goal.

On the FMMO hearing front, as previously reported in Farmshine, the USDA responded April 28 to the March 30 petitions from two processor organizations by asking for more information instead of granting or denying a hearing on their make allowance update request.

The two petitions from International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association (WCMA) both requested a hearing focused exclusively on updating the ‘make allowances’, which are processor credits that are subtracted from the wholesale end-product prices used to derive farm level milk class and component prices.

Make allowances were last updated in 2008 using 2006 plant cost data.

Four days later on May 2, the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) submitted its petition seeking an FMMO hearing on a range of national amendments.

NMPF is petitioning USDA for a hearing on these five items:

1.     Increase make allowances in the component price formulas to the following levels: Butter   $0.21 per pound, Nonfat dry milk $0.21 per pound, Cheese  $0.24 per pound, Dry Whey $0.23 per pound 

2.     Discontinue use of barrel cheese in the protein component price formula

3.     Return to the “higher-of” Class I mover

4.     Update the milk component factors for protein, other solids, and nonfat solids in the Class III and Class IV skim milk price formulas

5.     Update the Class I differential pricing surface throughout the U.S.

Not noted within this list is a point that NMPF’s board approved on the legislative front, and that is to seek language in the 2023 farm bill directing USDA to do periodic mandatory and audited plant cost surveys instead of voluntary surveys for future hearings on make allowances.

The American Farm Bureau Federation took a positive approach in their response letter to USDA, showing support for the fact that NMPF’s petition is comprehensive and includes areas of strong consensus among farmers such as returning the Class I mover to the ‘higher of.’

However, AFBF president Zippy Duvall also points out in the response letter that the Secretary of Agriculture already has the authority under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act to require processors to provide information relevant to FMMO pricing. This could include mandatory surveys of plant cost data when used to determine the processor credit, or make allowance, in the pricing formulas.

It is Farm Bureau’s position that make allowances should only be updated based on mandatory and audited plant cost surveys.

This leaves a bit of a loophole in the discussion about how to acquire the data to make current or future updates. The Secretary may have the authority to require data from plants that participate in FMMOs. However, it is unclear if the Secretary has this authority to require cost data from plants that do not participate in the FMMOs.

The end-product pricing formulas are based on wholesale prices that are collected mandatorily by USDA AMS on a weekly basis through the Livestock Mandatory Reporting Act on only those products that are used in FMMO formulas. This includes butter, nonfat dry milk, dry whey and 40-lb block and 500-lb barrel cheddar cheese.

The USDA AMS weekly National Dairy Product Sales Report surveys 168 plants for this price data. Therefore, if make allowances are updated as processor credits against those prices, then all 168 plants should have to report their costs, and only the costs that pertain to those specific products, whether or not they participate in FMMOs. In a recent voluntary cost survey, more than 70% of those plants did not report their cost data.

During a Center for Dairy Excellence Protect Your Profits zoom call recently, risk management educator Zach Myers had as his guest Cornell dairy economist Dr. Chris Wolf to talk about the FMMO reform process and background from an economist’s perspective.

Dr. Wolf gave some important and relevant background and statistics.

The FMMOs have been around for 85 years and were created because of disorderly milk marketing conditions. Their primary function is to make markets function “smoothly” with a second stated objective to provide price stability.

“If we were to re-do them today, I would say price adequacy should be addressed,” Wolf opined, noting that “we have times that the milk prices are very stable, but not very adequate.”

Other stated objectives of FMMOs are to assure adequate and wholesome supplies of fluid milk and equitable pricing to farmers.

“These things are still important today,” Wolf suggests, adding that the auditing, certification and a certain level of market information that is provided by the FMMOs benefits all participants and contributes to the public good.

He explained that FMMOs are changing.

“The primary sources of dissatisfaction with FMMOs in recent years arise because there is not enough money to go around, and some of this is related to the longer-term trends (in Class I sales),” Wolf explains.

He showed that while per capita dairy consumption has been increasing roughly three pounds per person per year, the decline in Class I fluid milk is the underlying factor.

“It really is startling how much of that decline (in Class I) in most areas really happened since 2010,” Wolf illustrated with graphs.

Not only did per-capita fluid milk sales decline more rapidly since 2010 than the already long-term decline charted since 1980, but population growth in the U.S. also stalled — so the total Class I sales have been hit with a double-whammy.

“This relates back to where the value is in the Orders, with most of the decline in the past 20 years occurring in that second half, — since 2010,” he explains.

(The Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act of 2010 was the precursor to USDA removing whole and 2% unflavored and flavored milk from schools and requiring flavored milk to be fat-free. Today, USDA has a proposed rule that could eliminate flavored milk until grade 9 as reported previously in Farmshine).

Because Class I has to participate in FMMOs, the FMMOs were “intentionally structured” in a way that the Class I revenue has always tended to be the highest class price because the FMMOs are in place to structure the fluid milk market, and so Class I accounted for at least 50% of the pool revenue – until 2010.

“We finished 2021 at 34% (down from 50%),” Wolf notes. “So there’s not enough money to go around with less (Class I) value in there.”

What changed? Wolf notes some of the long-term trends.

“First, exports are now 18% of U.S. milk solids production when it used to be that the U.S. exported about 5%… Milk beverage consumption is down while cheese, butter and yogurt are all up. We are still importing 4 to 5%, but as a large net-exporter now,” he says, “The U.S. is basing bulk commodity product prices off the world market. This introduces more outlet for milk but brings back the issues that come with international price-setting, overall,” he explains.

Another change, according to Wolf, is the level of consolidation at every level of the supply chain.

Wolf went over some of the make allowance data based on existing voluntary surveys as well as a prior California state order audited survey. He showed there is a wide range in costs between older and smaller plants vs. larger and newer plants. When determining where to set make allowances – as an ‘average’ or at a percentile of this wide range — there are regional impacts to consider, he suggests.

Wolf also took webinar attendees through the steps of a hearing that can take at least a year or more to complete and he dug into the make allowances from an economic perspective and some of the other pieces of potential reform. Over the next few weeks, we’ll continue to examine them in this series.

The Center for Dairy Excellence Protecting Your Profits webinar with Zach Myers and Dr. Chris Wolf can be heard as a podcast at https://www.centerfordairyexcellence.org/pyp/ or viewed on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEMDA4iWyNw