Tag Archives: milk markets

Market fundamentals suggest favorable forecast, yet uncertainty jars milk futures markets

Posted on by
2

Editorial Analysis: Tumultuous 2024 spills over into 2025 – Part Two

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, January 17, 2025

EAST EARL, Pa. – Year 2024 was tumultuous, and 2025 is shaping up to be equally, if not more so. Here’s a look at how supply, demand, and other market factors are shaping up for milk prices and dairy margins heading into 2025. This is part two of a four part series, see part one here and part three here.

We are a few weeks away from a few key yearend reports that will give us a better handle on production and cattle inventories, but the current market fundamentals favor a forecast for higher milk prices into 2025.

Better prices

In fact, the Jan. 10th World Agriculture Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) just raised by 50 cents per cwt the estimated 2025 All-Milk price average at $23.05 after having lowered it the month before.

Based on 11 months of official data, however, the January WASDE shaved another nickel off the 2024 average All-Milk price, now estimated at $22.60, which would be $2.20 higher than the average All-Milk price of $20.40 for 2023 but $2.80 lower than the decade’s high point of $25.40 in 2022.

At an estimated $22.60, the average All-Milk price for 2024 would be the fourth time in the past decade and the third consecutive year that the annual average All-Milk price was above the $20 mark. (Fig. 1).

Strong demand

Positive supply and demand fundamentals for 2025 include the reported strong domestic and international demand for cheese and butter; tighter than expected milk supplies; tight to adequate dairy product inventories; growth in year over year (YOY) sales of fluid milk; and strong domestic demand for skim solids in the form of nonfat dry milk, dry whey and whey protein concentrate coupled with reduced production of these products limiting the availability for export.

A sustained price rally in the CME spot market-clearing price for the market indicator product dry whey reached a multi-year high of 75 cents per pound by the end of the 2024 and is holding at near 74 cents per pound into mid-January. Trouble is, this market-clearing price has been tardy all year in translating to sales reported on the USDA weekly price survey used in the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) price formulas.

Despite the positive supply and demand fundamentals, we saw fourth quarter 2024 milk prices decline $1 to $1.50 from the year’s high point at $25.50 in September, and even though dairy products are holding steady on the CME spot cash markets, the CME milk futures markets took a tumble into below-$20 territory across the board this third week of the New Year. 

So what’s the deal? Uncertainty.

Fewer cattle?

Uncertainty prevails about future cattle inventories after Sec. Vilsack canceled the mid-year 2024 Cattle Report last summer. The Jan. 1 Cattle Inventory Report comes out Jan. 31st. It’s unlikely to show any big surprises in the two-year trend toward reduced cattle numbers, including dairy replacement heifers. USDA says this report will give the trade an indication of producers retaining dairy heifers for their milk herds. 

With prices skyrocketing $800 to $1200 per head above year ago levels for fresh cows and springing, bred, and open heifers, a sudden rise in replacement heifer numbers is unlikely. 

Meanwhile, beef-on-dairy calves continue to give dairies an immediate $800 to $1000 check on a 3-day-old bull calf requiring very little input cost. That’s $900 in income per cow for dropping a calf, even before she starts her lactation.

The tug-of-war on breeding decisions for future dairy farm calf crops continues as the total U.S. beef and dairy calf crop, by the way, has already declined 1.6 million head in the two year period from Jan. 1, 2022 to Jan. 1, 2024. On Jan. 31st, we’ll see what the Jan. 1, 2025 numbers say.

Global trade

Uncertainty also exists around global trade amid ‘tariff talk’ against the backdrop of YOY growth in export volume, that is tempered by YOY growth in import volume. The January WASDE expects the trend of export volume growth to continue, but also expects the larger import volumes to continue. While the report specifically mentions cheese and butter, USDA FAS data show growth in the imported volume of skim milk powder, and especially YOY growth in whole milk powder (WMP) imports in each of the past four years.

FMMO changes

Uncertainty about the implementation of USDA Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) price formula changes in the second half of 2025 that will impact risk management. The updated make allowances will trim class and component index prices by 75 cents to $1.00 against a CME milk futures markets that bases contracts on the FMMO formulas. That changeover will have to be dealt with.

Uncertainty about how new, efficient expansions of cheese and ingredient production capacity may be tied into sourcing from multi-site dairy farms that have planned expansions with internal heifer replacement models. What will be the impact on the rest of the industry when they start cranking out tons more cheese on the new and higher make allowance margin.

H5N1 impacts

Uncertainty about milk production trends after the impact of the bird flu outbreak in California dragged down total U.S. milk output well below expectations. The next report for December milk output will be released on Jan. 24th.

The January WASDE reduced its total milk production forecasts for 2024 and 2025, driven by “lower milk cow inventories and lower expected milk output per cow.”

This came on the heels of the November milk production report released in late December, showing California’s 9.3% drop in state-wide milk output, attributed to HPAI H5N1 hitting at that point half of the state’s dairy herds. This drove the total U.S. output down an unexpected 1% YOY.

The WASDE also forecasts “slower growth in output per cow” in its rationale for reducing the milk production estimate for 2025. This means what producers have been reporting is now showing up in the USDA data. Producers in areas hit by H5N1, especially California, report an initial 30 to 40% herd level production loss that only comes back about half-way, six to eight weeks later.

Producers also indicate a 2% increase in herd-level mortality and increased culling. Both veterinarians and producers in previously affected areas are now reporting impacts on dry cows and springing heifers, aborted calves, shaved production peaks, and emerging questions about milking performance in the following lactation.

According to APHIS data, as of Jan. 10, the virus was detected in 708 dairy herds in California since the outbreak was first reported there in September. That’s nearly 75% of the state’s dairies affected to-date. In the past 30 days, 66 California herds have been affected, with the most recent detection on Jan. 10.

Apart from the California outbreak, the only other detections of H5N1 on U.S. dairies in the past 30 days is one herd in Michigan on Dec. 30. This is good news, considering that 13 states have now been fully brought into the National Bulk Milk Testing Program announced on December 6th as a mandatory program for all 48 continental states. 

Those initial states include California, Colorado, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Washington.

Better margins

For 2024, the milk over feed cost margin only fell below the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program’s highest payment trigger level of $9.50/cwt in the first two months of the year. In fact, Sept. 2024 saw the highest DMC margin on record at $15.57 with an All-Milk price of $25.50 and a feed cost at $9.93. Since then, Q4 margins have declined to $14.50 as the All-Milk price fell and feed cost remained fairly constant.

This measure does not account for the higher fuel and energy costs, higher labor costs, rising cost of insurances, higher interest rates on capital, and generally higher costs for other inputs that keep a dairy farm going.

Labeling games

Other market factors may increasingly play a sidebar role. On the demand side, FDA’s new draft rule on Jan. 14 requires front-of-package labeling (Fig. 2 example above), which in addition to listing grams of saturated fat and percent of total recommended daily value, will now use a rating system to mark the saturated fat content of foods and beverages as high, medium, or low as the outgoing Administration attempts to further push consumers into the low-fat Dietary Guidelines regime.

Despite the noise around low-fat and anti-animal, USDA reports strong demand for real beef and dairy, with whole milk the top volume growth category in the fluid milk market.

FDA also issued new draft guidance on Jan. 14 for ‘best practices’ in naming and labeling of fake plant-based foods that are marketed and sold as alternatives for animal-derived foods. This guidance applies to fake meat, eggs, seafood, and dairy products, but does not include the labeling of fake beverage milk. FDA reminded the trade of its 2023 draft rule for plant-based fake milk.

his follows the same pattern as the previous fake milk guidance – recommending that the plant-based food be “qualified by type of plant source” when using the name of a standardized animal product such as cheese or beef. (Fig. 3 above)

This is how FDA has treated fake milk for the past 15 years, by allowing for example, the ‘almond’ qualifier in front of the word ‘milk.’ The FDA’s 2023 guidance on milk, specifically, recommends, but does not require, additional nutrition statements to clarify nutritional differences.

Frankenfoods

Likewise, on the supply side, fake Frankenfood is emerging as FDA continues mulling a draft rule on what to call the products of lab-creation seeking to replace real animal-derived foods.

For dairy, this comes in the form of microbes bioengineered with bovine DNA to excrete fake dairy protein and fat analogs that USDA refers to as “precision fermentation protein products” while lab-created gene-edited cells growing into blobs of fake meat, egg, seafood, even dairy analogs are referred to as “cell-cultured” chicken, seafood, beef, dairy etc.

In late December, the USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) released its first ever report on “The Economics of Cellular Agriculture.” This means the Department has now recognized Frankenfood as part of the Agriculture domain. Yes, we’re talking about fake food from a factory, not a farm.

The 45-page ERS report notes that for 25 years, scientists in the public and private sectors have been “actively researching methods for producing food products that are physically and chemically equivalent to livestock- and poultry-produced foods (i.e., meat, dairy, eggs) but that minimally rely (if at all) on animals.”

By 2023, more than 200 private firms existed worldwide, and cumulative invested capital in the cell-culture and precision fermentation industries exceeded $5 billion. As of 2024, more than 100 patents have been filed. U.S. food agencies (FDA, USDA and FSIS) have been developing regulatory frameworks to accommodate and ensure the safety of these products, according to the report.

To-date cell-cultured fake chicken meat has been commercialized in Singapore and the U.S., largely through unique restaurant chains. This led to states like Florida banning the stuff.

Meanwhile, “precision fermentation-derived fake dairy protein analogs have been commer­cially available more broadly,” according to the ERS report.

These Frankenfoods tout smaller carbon footprints, less land and water usage, but ERS authors observe that, “Open questions remain concerning the design of bioreactors and important elements of the production process, including cell source, growth medium, and energy requirements, as well as the optimal size and configuration of production-processing plants.”

The report states so-called “precision-fermented dairy products are already on the market in the U.S., and, like their plant-based counterparts, sell for a premium over animal-based. For example, the company Perfect Day partners with other companies that sell products like ice cream and milk featuring their precision fermen­tation animal-free whey protein.”

In this way the fake dairy protein analogs are marketed as an ingredient in a business-to-business vs. business-to-consumer model. 

According to the ERS, precision fermented protein products (fake dairy analogs) are increasingly available in U.S. markets, while cell-cultured products (fake meat and seafood analogs) are not.

Short run profitability, according to ERS, will rely on consumer willingness to pay for these products with current consumer attitudes described as “mixed.” But the labeling guidance remains unclear as the fake dairy protein analogs are actually the harvested excrement of the bioengineered microbes, not the DNA-altered microbes themselves. Consumers need to know what they are buying.

The ERS report also states that despite some of these companies and investors releasing bold lifecycle ecosystem claims, the “environmental impacts are largely unknown.”

Part III in a future Farmshine will look at the yearend reports due later this month.

-30-

USDA to complete producer vote before new administration comes to town

Posted on by
Reply

Final FMMO rule adds more to make allowances, shortens delay on composition updates, restores higher-of, keeps controversial ESL adjuster.

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Nov. 15, 2024

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The USDA released on Nov. 12 the Secretary’s nearly 400-page final decision on the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) price formula changes, with a few changes from the July ruling.

USDA rejected comments seeking to forestall the make allowance increases or to reduce their size. All make allowances are further raised in the final rule vs. preliminary rule by a fraction of a penny for marketing costs. Also, USDA has added more than a penny per pound to its earlier decision on the nonfat dry milk make allowance. These are milk check deductions that are embedded in the class and component formulas.

USDA also plans to stick with its earlier decision to introduce a rolling adjuster for extended shelf life (ESL) milk, which creates essentially two-movers for Class I that was not part of the hearing scope. The Department further defined ESL milk by processing method to be all milk using ultra-pasteurization, not just relying on the shelf life designation of 60 days or more.

The broad range of changes in the proposed final rule are the result of the national hearing and rulemaking process that began in 2023. It will be made final for implementation after dairy producers vote to approve these changes in the Order-by-Order referendum that will be completed before the new administration takes office on January 20th.

USDA AMS will mail voting ballots to eligible producers and qualified cooperative associations — which may bloc-vote on behalf of their eligible members — after the final rule is published soon in the Federal Register. Ballots must be returned with a postmark of December 31, 2024 or earlier and be received by the Department by January 15, 2025 in order to be counted.

Not all producers in a Federal Order will be eligible to vote. Only producers with milk pooled on a Federal Order in the month of January 2024 are eligible to vote in that Federal Order.

A ‘yes’ vote accepts all parts of the final rule. A ‘no’ vote rejects the changes but also rejects the continuation of that Order. Any of the 11 Federal Orders that does not meet the two-thirds majority requirement for acceptance of these changes will be terminated. The two-thirds majority is calculated among eligible producers in the Order who return a ballot.

USDA AMS will host three public webinars to further inform stakeholders of the changes and referendum process on Nov. 19 and Nov. 25 at 11:00 a.m. ET and Nov. 21 at 3:00 p.m. ET. A link to access the webinars will be provided at the AMS hearing website along with supplementary educational documents. 

Using its backward-looking analysis of applying the changes to actual 2019-23 pool test data, the combined net benefit for all 11 Federal Orders of all the changes in the final rule is estimated at +$0.26 per hundredweight. However, an average does not tell the full story, and it does not include the positive orderly marketing impact of restoring the higher-of method for calculating the Class I base price mover.

USDA’s Table 5 above is the backward-looking static analysis of the weighted Statistical Uniform Price (SUP) – at actual pool component test – showing net benefits for the following Orders: Appalachian +$1.90 per hundredweight, Southeast +$1.80, Florida +$1.43, Central U.S. +$0.52, Mideast +$0.50, Northeast +$0.35, Southwest +$0.07. 

Table 5 shows net-negative impact for California -$0.27, Upper Midwest -$0.13, Arizona -$0.11, and Pacific Northwest -$0.05.

However, this analysis does not factor-in the positive impact of restoring the higher-of method for calculating Class I. The Orders showing net negative impacts above have more liberal policies for jumping in and out of FMMO pools. Since USDA did not quantify the benefit of its restoration of the higher-of method for the Class I mover, it’s important to note that this can soften the blow. 

According to experts consulted by Farmshine on this matter, the potential average benefit for the same 2019-23 period of orderly marketing under the higher-of method in a low-Class-I FMMO like the Upper Midwest is 7 to 10 cents per hundredweight.

More importantly, the orderly marketing restored by this part of the final rule has a protective effect on the month-to-month hits taken by pooled producers from opportunistic depooling and negative PPDs. Why? Because the higher-of method — used for two decades, before the legislative change in 2019 — encourages functional class price relationships that promote orderly marketing.

In short, producers should realize that the restoration of the higher-of reduces the prevalence of very large negative PPDs that can disrupt performance of their risk management tools and treat pooled producers inequitably during black swan events and times of major market imbalances — like have been experienced over the past five years under the average-of method. This is a benefit that is difficult to quantify, but is contained in this decision nonetheless.

On the positive side for dairy farmers, the USDA will also shorten the delay from 12 months to six months for implementing the updated skim milk composition factors. These updates are shown above, which witnesses testified would raise Class I prices in all Federal Orders by an estimated 70 cents per hundredweight (based on 2022 data), while also increasing the manufacturing class prices in the four fat/skim Orders.

Raising the skim component standards helps bring the Class I, III, and IV in alignment, reduces the frequency of negative PPDs, and reduces the incentives for depooling that undermine orderly marketing.

The manufacturing class prices in the other seven Orders that use multiple component pricing are already paid on actual components, not by standardized levels.

Standardized butterfat composition at 3.5% will not be updated in this decision because this is a paper number that does not affect how producers are actually paid. Each pooled producer’s individual minimum price in all Federal Orders is already based on their actual butterfat test for pounds shipped.

The updates to county-by-county Class I location differentials were also tweaked in places, compared with the July preliminary decision, and the base differential for all counties at $1.60 per hundredweight remains in place.

Butterfat recovery within class and component formulas will be updated from 90% to 91%. Several proposals had requested a larger increase.

The Secretary’s final decision on the Class I base price mover remains unchanged from July.

USDA will restore the higher-of formula, which had been changed to an average-of formula in the 2018 farm bill. USDA is also sticking with the ESL adjuster, creating what is essentially a two-mover system for fluid milk.

Processors will separately report sales of conventionally processed (HTST) and ultra-pasteurized (ESL) fluid milk product sales each month. The higher-of method will set the base price mover, and USDA will apply the new ESL adjuster to the sales of ultra-pasteurized milk to determine their final pool obligation.

The ESL adjuster represents the difference between the higher-of vs. the average-of the Class III and IV advance pricing factors over a 24-month period with a 12-month lag. USDA states that it sees this adjuster “stabilizing” the difference between HTST and ESL over time.

USDA also rejected comments that had raised competitive concerns, stating: “The record does not contain evidence to support the implication that manufacturers of dairy products, the majority of which do not manufacture ESL products, would make business decisions to gain an advantage in the fluid market where they do compete.”

On the negative side for dairy farmers, the large increases in processor make allowance credits were made a bit larger, not reduced, after the 60-day public comment period.

USDA relied on the voluntary surveys of processor costs that were presented at the hearing as customary data sources from past make allowance adjustments. While USDA did not fully meet the requests of International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA) and Wisconsin Cheesemakers Association (WCMA), it does recommend much larger make allowances than what National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) had proposed.

Make allowances represent the costs of converting raw milk into the four manufactured dairy products surveyed by USDA. They are embedded in the pricing formulas, not line items on a milk check, and they aggregate to an impact of 75 cents to $1.00 per hundredweight — depending on product mix and Class utilization.

USDA responded to processor comments about marketing costs, adding $0.0015/lb to its previously proposed processor make allowance credits for cheese, butter, nonfat dry milk, and dry whey. USDA also responded favorably to the processors’ request to adjust the nonfat dry milk make allowance to be more than a penny per pound higher than previously proposed.

The final decision will raise the make allowances on the four products used in class and component pricing – per pound — as follows:

Cheddar cheese will be increased from the current make allowance of $0.2003 to $0.2519 per pound; dry whey from $0.1991 to $0.2668; butter from $0.1715 to $0.2272, and nonfat dry milk from $0.1678 to $0.2393.

In its rationale, USDA stated that NMPF member-cooperative-processors supported the NMPF proposal as “a more balanced approach” to consider impacts on producers and processors. However, they also testified that the smaller increases proposed by NMPF “did not cover their costs.”

This put USDA in the position of having to rely only on the cost data provided by IDFA and WCMA because NMPF offered no cost data to support their smaller proposal. USDA said it rejected consideration of the impact on dairy farmers because the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act does not include producer profitability as a factor for the Secretary’s consideration on this matter.

USDA chose not to wait for the mandatory and audited cost of processing survey that Congress is expected to authorize and require USDA to utilize in the future. This language is included in all versions of the new farm bill and is reportedly supported by NMPF, IDFA and American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF).

The final rule also removes 500-pound barrel cheese prices from the protein and Class III formulas, meaning only 40-pound block Cheddar price surveys will be used going forward. USDA rejected proposals that sought to add 640-pound block Cheddar, bulk mozzarella cheese, and unsalted butter to the pricing survey.

-30-

Why the proposed 33.3% raise in the whey make allowance is way too big without a ‘snubber’

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Milk Market Moos in Farmshine, Aug. 9, 2024

USDA’s weekly National Dairy Product Sales Report (NDPSR) is out of whack on whey. The NDPSR is the mandatory processor survey of prices on the four commodities used in Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) end-product pricing formulas.

The NDPSR price for dry whey for the week ending Aug. 3 was $0.4672/lb, a modest improvement of a half penny over the previous week’s NDPSR, but still 10 to 14 cents lower than the past three weeks of weighted average spot prices, and a nickel lower today than even at the start of the spot market rally six weeks ago.

The NDPSR should have caught up closer to the spot market by now, considering that only sales that are forward priced within 30 days can be reported.

The CME spot market is what processors touted during FMMO hearing testimony as the ‘market clearing’ price that they use as a baseline to price commodities for export and non-formula, non-reported ‘value added’ products.

They also lamented — at length — that USDA is setting producer minimum prices too high, some threatening to modify future expansion plans if they don’t get to ‘market clearing levels’ with higher make allowances deducted for their rising costs — including ‘sustainability costs’, they want covered.

If these dry whey ‘market clearing’ CME spot values we have been seeing of late are not translating to the NDPSR used in FMMO class and component price formulas over a three to six week period, then maybe we should all be questioning the 33.3% raise the processors will be getting from dairy farmers’ milk checks in the dry whey make allowance that USDA proposes to increase from the current $0.1991/lb to $0.2653/lb. That is, if the proposed rule announced July 1st survives the 60-day comment period, 60-day review, and producer referendum early next year.

I wonder if USDA underestimates how fed-up the farmers are in the Upper Midwest with being the worst-paid in the nation seeing the biggest make allowance bite coming right at them in this proposal — and very little Class I benefit to offset it. After 5 years of disrupted pooling by the ‘average of’ method, Order 30 has developed some bad pool-jumping habits that could linger in that region — even when fluid milk pricing returns to the higher of. Who knows?

If a two-thirds ‘yes’ vote is not achieved in Order 30, or any Order for that matter, the Market Administrator’s office there closes, immediately.

There is so much value in whey today, and it’s a byproduct of the cheesemaking process to begin with. It’s hard for this observer to resolve conflicts of logic in the size of this raise that USDA justifies based on voluntary surveys in which only a fraction of the plants that price report would offer their cost of processing data to determine.

In fact, even Dr. Mark Stephenson said it was more challenging this time to separate-out the costs for other products that are not price reported, but made in the same plants. He said today’s plants are more complex than in 2006 when the model was used on voluntary data to set the current make allowances that were implemented in 2008, the last time they were raised.

But folks, there’s no snubber, and for dry whey, that’s a problem. When farmers were losing their shirts last summer, they would have been giving away the ‘other solids’ in their milk for free — or paying processors a small fee to take them as though worthless — because the dry whey price at that time was equal to or fractionally less than what the new proposed dry whey make allowance would be!

It happened the last time make allowances were raised in 2008, just ahead of the 2009 dairy crisis. I’ll not soon forget farmers asking me if there is some way to avoid sending the ‘other solids’. Of course, that’s silly, but we get the point, and it’s sharp.

This is significant in the Upper Midwest, where it impacts over 90% of the milk because it’s a Class III market. But this also affects all Orders to some degree, depending on pool composition. With new processing capacity coming online, much of it cheese, in the next 12 to 24 months, other milk marketing areas will see Class III growth change their blend prices too.

The other thing to think about is USDA proposes to implement the new make allowances for all four commodities right away after the referendum in early 2025, but some of the other parts of the proposed rule will be delayed because of risk management impacts. Yet make allowances also impact risk management. They are also part of the formula for the Class III and IV milk prices — so this change also would immediately affect the futures board. In fact, that’s part of what happened in 2008.

Can you imagine an immediate $0.75 to $1.00 drop on the futures board due to higher processor credits? What’s the calculus there? The make allowance for dry whey affects the ‘other solids’ value as well as the Class III price.

And then we have the added insult of ‘pizza cheese’ being billed as ‘like mozzarella’ just moister because it’s a second process of the whey and water to congeal some secondary curd. It is essentially whey cheese with a different melting texture (I notice it browns cardboard-flaky on frozen pizza before the dough is done, but keeps some moisture. I don’t buy my once favorite frozen pizza brands anymore suspecting that’s the problem). It’s also used as a crust filler.

So, how much real mozzarella is being displaced, and how much near-mozz value are they selling this whey product for? That’s a price that never gets reported because it’s — well — not dry whey. It’s a proprietary value-added product.

The ubiquitous whey protein concentrates and isolates found in so many high protein drink and snack preparations are another hot ticket not getting price reported. And yet, here’s dry whey at 50 to 60 cents/lb for 6 weeks on the market-clearing CME, and the price going into the FMMO formulas is hanging back at 43 to 47 cents/lb over the same 6 week period.

Spot market red, not as bad as it looks

The whey market traded 6 loads on the CME spot sessions this week with a penny loss at 59 cents/lb Wed., Aug. 7 vs. the prior Wednesday. The weighted average for the week is still at just about 60 cents/lb.

The CME spot cheese market was mostly quiet again this week, but prices for blocks moved higher Wed., Aug. 7, when 40-lb block Cheddar was pegged at $1.9650 — up 4 cents from the prior Wednesday, with 4 loads trading the first three days. The 500-lb barrel cheese price, pegged at $1.95/lb was down 2 1/2 cents compared with a week ago; 3 loads traded. The NDPSR for week ending Aug. 3 was reported in reverse with a 4-cent barrel over block advantage at $1.9788/lb and $1.9390/lb, respectively.

Butter melted off 2 cents after last week’s 39-load haul came to a grinding halt Aug. 1st. Nothing traded from Aug. 2 through 7, and the spot butter price remained at $3.1025/lb Wed., Aug. 7. The weighted average was steady at just over $3.10/lb, off 3 cents from the NDPSR price of $3.1315/lb for week ending Aug. 3.

Grade A nonfat dry milk trade remained active the first three days this week with a whopping 23 loads changing hands, and the spot price pegged at $1.23/lb Wed., Aug. 7, down a penny and a half from the prior Wednesday. The weighted average for stood at $1.2317, and the NDPSR price continued to lag the past few weeks of spot market levels by three cents.

We see these headlines that the recent gains in farm milk prices are taking away the U.S. competitive advantage on the world market. Don’t believe them, folks. While it is true that nonfat dry milk is running above the global skim milk powder price, the reason is because we are not making nearly as much milk powder in the U.S. because milk is tight, cheese capacity has expanded, and cheese-vats are pulling in the available milk. Fluid milk sales are also up year over year. We are also not building powder inventory, so of course this means we’ll export less.

On the cheese and whey, there’s plenty of wiggle room between U.S. and global prices, judging by the recent Global Dairy Trade auction.

Global Dairy Trade index up 0.5%

The GDT biweekly internet auction on Tues., Aug. 6 added value to the mid-July gain — up 0.5% vs, July 16.

Here’s the kicker. The cheese index for Sept. 2024 through Feb. 2025 delivery was higher than the current U.S. market-clearing block and barrel prices. Meanwhile, lactose outpaced the current NDPSR drag on whey.

The big story is bulk mozzarella was up a record 8.4% with all sales contracted for delivery October 2024. The bulk mozzarella contracts are new. They have only been trading on the GDT since December 2023. Tuesday’s sales — all for Oct. 2024 delivery — are, by far, the highest yet of the 15 sessions in which bulk mozzarella was offered. The CME does not have a U.S. ‘clearing market’ for mozzarella. Furthermore, USDA does not include bulk mozzarella in the mandatory NDPSR weekly survey because mozzarella prices are not used in the FMMO milk pricing formulas. A proposal to add this was rejected by USDA in its recommended decision July 1st.

The GDT Industrial bulk cheddar index was up 1.3% compared with three weeks ago at an average $1.94/lb — 2 cents higher than the weighted weekly average on CME barrels and 4 cents over CME blocks. September delivery cheddar averaged $1.90/lb and October dipped to $1.89/lb, but product for delivery Nov. through Feb. moved toward $1.98/lb.

Meanwhile, USDA agreed with NMPF’s proposal to remove the 500-lb barrel cheese price from the weighted average used in the FMMO formulas. This will mean only the 40-lb block cheddar price will be used in the future to calculate the protein and Class III milk prices. Barrels have been trading over blocks recently, and during the FMMO hearing, IDFA witnesses (opposing the change) said they use the barrel price and dry whey price as the basis for pricing U.S. mozzarella for export sales.

Higher GDT indexes were also achieved Tuesday on the following products: Whole milk powder up 2.4%, averaging $1.48/lb; Anhydrous milkfat powder (AMF) up 1.2%, averaging $3.14; Lactose up a whopping 16%, at 42 cents/lb. Lower indexes were reported on Skim Milk Powder (SMP) down 2.7%, averaging $1.15/lb; and Butter down 2.4%, averaging $2.99/lb.

Milk futures mixed

Class III milk futures were generally steady this week, except near-term September took a 45-cent hit and 2025 contracts were mostly firm to a nickel higher, spots up 15 cents. Class IV futures were steady through 2024, but 10 to 30 cents lower on 2025 contracts. On Wed., Aug. 7, Class III milk futures for the next 12 months (Aug24-Jul25) averaged $19.41, down 3 cents from the same 12 months averaged on the previous Wednesday. The 12-month Class IV average at $20.82 was down a dime.

June DMC margin $11.66, up $8.00 above year ago program lows

As expected, the June DMC margin came in at $11.66, which is $2.16 above the highest tier one coverage level of $9.50/cwt. Announced August 2nd, the June margin was based on an 80-cent higher All-Milk price at $22.80/cwt and a 34-cent drop in feed cost at $11.14/cwt for a DMC margin that was deemed $1.14 higher than May and up by a whopping $8.00/cwt above year-ago program lows set in June and July 2023 at $3.65 and $3.52.

30-day H5N1 detections at 36 in 6 states, Colorado continues to be a breaking hot-spot, Iowa drops from the list, South Dakota returns

As of August 9, 2024, the current confirmed cases of H5N1 in dairy cows within the past 30 days stand at 36 herds in 6 states. Of these, 28 are in Colorado, where the most recent slew of 12 detections were reported for Aug. 5 and 6. Colorado remains the hot spot by a long shot. The state issued an order July 22nd to require mandatory bulk tank milk testing.

Iowa dropped from the 30-day list this week, but South Dakota returned to the list with 2 detections. Other states with confirmed cases within the past 30 days are: Minnesota (1), Idaho (1), Texas (2), and Michigan (1). Cumulatively, since the beginning of the outbreak on March 25, 2024, there have been 190 detections in 13 states.

Enrollments in the national voluntary dairy herd status bulk tank testing include 24 herds: Michigan (10), New Mexico (4), Pennsylvania (3), and 1 herd each in Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Ohio, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Texas. Colorado herds (110) are now all being bulk-tank tested due to the state’s mandatory ruling on July 22.

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

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, August 2, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

Farmers would have PAID processors to take other solids last summer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Milk futures mostly higher, especially Class IV

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

Whey and powder skyrocket, but formula price survey lags

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Total packaged fluid milk sales in May continue outpacing year ago

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Year-to-date milk production down 1%

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DMI / NMPF talk supply and demand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will we see PA milk bills moove?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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-

Coca-Cola gives New York the nod for new fairlife milk plant

Posted on by
1

Officials say it will be Northeast’s largest milk plant, using 5 million pounds of ‘locally sourced’ milk per day

By Sherry Bunting, published in Farmshine, May 12, 2023

WEBSTER, N.Y. – New York got the nod this week as the “preferred location” where The Coca-Cola Company will build its new fairlife ultrafiltered milk processing plant in the Northeast.

New York State Governor Kathy Hochul made the announcement Tuesday (May 9) that the company selected a site in Webster, Monroe County, New York for the $650 million project, expected to break ground this fall and be operational by the fourth quarter of 2025, pending final due diligence and appropriate approvals.

The 745,000 square-foot facility is expected to create up to 250 new jobs and “utilize an estimated 5 million pounds of locally sourced milk per day, making it the largest dairy plant in the Northeast,” the NYS Governor’s announcement stated.

Founded in 2012 through a “strategic partnership” between Select Milk Producers cooperative and Coca-Cola, with early grants from Dairy Management Inc (checkoff), fairlife is now wholly-owned by Coca-Cola since 2020.

Calling the fairlife project a “major opportunity for New York,” Gov. Hochul said it will “drive economic impact, particularly in the Finger Lakes,” and it will “position New York to regain its spot as the 3rd largest producer of milk in the U.S.”

“The Town of Webster is well situated between high-quality dairy cooperatives in the Rochester and Niagara regions, with a surrounding workforce that has the relevant manufacturing and food and beverage experience, making it the ideal location for fairlife’s expansion,” said fairlife CEO Tim Doelman in a statement at the company’s website.

He noted the new facility will allow the company to “significantly increase capacity and deliver fairlife to more households.”

Empire State Development (ESD) is providing up to $21 million in assistance for the fairlife project through the performance-based Excelsior Jobs Tax Credit Program in exchange for the job creation commitments.

Monroe County Industrial Development Authority (IDA) is expected to apply to the ESD for a separate $20 million Capital Grant, to provide adequate power and infrastructure services to the site. Also collaborating on the project are the Town of Webster, Rochester Gas and Electric and Greater Rochester Enterprise, and NYS Ag and Markets.

ESD Commissioner Hope Knight highlighted Upstate New York’s farm and dairy infrastructure, and Assemblyman Brian Manktelow observed the increased demand for local dairy production and transportation would be additional economic benefits on top of the creation of in-facility jobs.

NYS Ag Commissioner Richard Ball said the decision “highlights the excellence of our dairy community whose farmers will be supplying the milk.”

New York Farm Bureau president David Fisher, a dairy farmer, said the news “is needed for the long-term success of our dairy farms.” He noted the state has 3500 dairy farms, milking 620,000 cows and producing over 15 billion pounds of milk annually with “abundant resources, good land, access to water, and innovative farmers.”

“We were in tough competition with other states,” said New York Gov. Hochul, noting her own heritage coming from a family of dairy farmers in Ireland.

One of the states competing for selection was Pennsylvania.

“While the outcome of this selection is not what we hoped, the Shapiro Administration remains strongly committed to supporting Pennsylvania’s dairy industry and attracting processors to grow here,” said Pennsylvania Ag Secretary Russell Redding in an email response to Farmshine questions Wednesday (May 10).

Redding noted that Gov. Shapiro and teams across agencies were engaged in this project “allowing us to meet fairlife’s criteria for tax climate, resources, utilities, permitting, and incentives.” He reported that Pennsylvania currently makes $15 million in tax credits available annually for dairy manufacturing companies to expand processing in the Commonwealth.

“Just as we were nationally competitive for this project, we plan to be in the running for other selections of this type,” Redding added, thanking all industry and government entities who work on these coordinated efforts to welcome businesses and support agriculture.

When asked specifically about the whether or not Pennsylvania’s state-mandated Class I fluid milk over-order premium (OOP) played any role in the outcome, Redding stated: “The OOP was not a factor.”

The fairlife line includes Class I fluid milk products as well as dairy beverages that fall outside of the Class I criteria into manufacturing milk classes. The company offers a range of products including fairlife ultrafiltered milk, Core Power protein shakes, and fairlife Nutrition Plan  meal replacement shakes.

The fairlife products are made through an ultrafiltration process that removes lactose and condenses other solids to raise the protein content while lowering the natural sugar (lactose) content. For flavored beverages, this means more sugar and other sweeteners can be added because the natural sugar content is lower.

According to the New York Governor’s press announcement, this ultrafiltration process “gives milk a longer shelf life.” 

All fairlife products carry the UHT mark for ultra high temperature pasteurization, which also increases shelf-life. Some of the flavored fairlife products, such as YUP and CorePower are already offered as shelf-stable beverages in supermarkets and online, so it is unclear whether aseptic packaging will extend to all fairlife milk and beverage products in the future.

Other leaders from the collaborating New York State agencies and organizations highlighted the project expands their goal of positioning New York as a hub for attracting technology and innovation in food and beverage manufacturing.

In fact, the Governor’s press announcement stated that, “The research for fairlife’s branded milk process (ultrafiltration) originated at Cornell University over a decade ago.”

However, the story told by fairlife co-founders Mike and Sue McCloskey, as recently as the 2020 Pennsylvania Dairy Summit, and in earlier meetings, presentations, and published interviews, is that they discovered the reverse osmosis and membrane filtration process when dealing with a well issue on their former dairy in New Mexico.

After seeing what this filtration did for separating minerals in the water to make it more palatable to the cows, they started tinkering with filtration for milk, the story goes.

Select Milk Producers (SMP), also founded by the McCloskeys, then began using reverse osmosis and ultrafiltration as early as 1995 to reduce the water when moving loads of milk to cheese plants. At the same time, they began their high protein, low sugar milk proposition by partnering first with H-E-B supermarkets across the Southwest under the Mootopia brand in 1996 – a precursor to what is fairlife today.

Sue McCloskey explained to Pennsylvania producers at the 2020 Summit that they saw other protein drinks in the market they could compete with by concentrating the protein in the milk. 

She said this means that the raw milk going into the ultrafiltration process must be very low in somatic cell counts because the process separates some solids, like lactose, while concentrating other solids.

Products in the fairlife line are currently made at the original SMP ultrafiltration plants in Dexter, New Mexico and Coopersville, Michigan. Newer plants opened in Goodyear, Arizona in 2021 and Petersborough, Ontatio, Canada in late 2020. The latter sources all of its milk from Canadian farms for the Canadian consumer market.

Ultrafiltration is employed by other dairy companies, such as Cayuga Milk Ingredients (CMI) using proprietary European technology to produce unique liquid and dry milk and dairy ingredients for sale in the U.S. and internationally. 

Also located in the Finger Lakes Region of New York in the town of Auburn, CMI announced its own expansion last year to break ground this spring on a second facility that will have aseptic packaging capabilities for manufacturing a range of shelf-stable fluid milk, filtered milk, and dairy-based beverage products.

-30-

Future of Federal Milk Pricing Forum got ‘wheels turning’

Posted on by
1

‘We need to figure out a way to get farmers’ voices incorporated into this discussion’

Table I reflects a decade of change in FMMO participation as total U.S. milk production grew 13.3% from 2011 to 2021, and the percentage of milk pooled on FMMOs fell from 82% in 2011 to 60.5% in 2021. California became an FMMO in 2018 after previously being a state order, so California’s production is not included in the 2011 pooling comparison so the pooling percentages are relative to production in FMMO and unregulated regions. Class I pounds as a percent of total production fell from 28.7% in 2011 to 18.6% in 2021. Figures for 2021 are shown both ways, including and excluding California to compare to 10 years ago when the number one dairy state had its own state order with different pooling and classification rules and incomplete data, but the percent of change is nonetheless eye-opening. Chart compiled by S. Bunting 

By Sherry Bunting, published in Farmshine, Feb. 18 and 25, 2022

GREEN BAY, Wis. — Do dairy farmers want to save the baby, save the bathwater, change the flow of the bathwater, or tighten the plug on the drain before the bathwater drains to the point of taking baby with it?

That’s a brutal take after 90 minutes and a lot of information, starting with the basics and hearing perspectives and questions during the American Dairy Coalition’s Future of Federal Milk Pricing Forum on Feb. 15.

It was a first step in what ADC sees as a continuing conversation and effort to engage dairy farmers to lead the process. They said the next forum will be in March.

Geared specifically for dairy farmers, the forum attracted 160 participants from across the country, representing every element of the dairy industry — including dairy farmers.

The virtual format was moderated by Dave Natzke, markets and policy editor with Progressive Dairy magazine. Featured presenters were Calvin Covington, retired co-op COO with 45 years of experience in federal and state marketing orders; Frank Doll, a third generation Illinois dairy farmer involved in American Farm Bureau’s dairy policy committee, and Mike McCully, industry consultant on the IDFA dairy ingredients board and economic policy committee.

Included were comments presented by attendees, who pre-registered for three-minute slots. Others typed into the queue.

“This is complicated, and many people say it can’t be fixed, but we have a great amount of expertise and value here. We covered a lot,” said Laurie Fischer, CEO of ADC at the end of the forum. “We can’t just let this drop. We need to continue to move forward.”

“We heard a lot of good information that has everyone’s wheels turning,” added ADC president Walt Moore of Walmoore Holsteins, Chester County, Pa. He encouraged producers to reach out and engage to tackle the hard topics.

The goal of this initial forum was to inform dairy producers on the Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO) and pricing process to become engaged and have a greater voice in guiding future policies.

For its part, American Farm Bureau Federation spent the past couple years going through a similar working group with policy recommendations coming from states to national and back to states. 

Several commenters concurred with the position of ADC, Farm Bureau and other organizations that Class I pricing should return to the ‘higher of’ method until future policies can go through what could be a long hearing process of potential revision for the future.

In fact, one eye opener during the Forum was Doll’s confirmation that Farm Bureau policy now includes support for going back to the ‘higher of’ — plus adding 74 cents — in the calculation of the Class I mover price, while remaining open to other ideas.

Doll said consensus was hard to find in the Farm Bureau working group of 13 members from across the country due to regional differences in the makeup of processing. But general recommendations found agreement, including the reference to Class I as well as modified bloc voting where co-ops can vote for their members on Federal Orders, but farmers can cast their own votes and be encouraged to do so.

Several attendees cited the need for a vehicle for producers to have real input without fear of retribution, that farmers should collectively ask questions of their cooperatives, seek better representation and together, hold their cooperatives accountable to represent their interests. 

“We need to figure out a way to get farmers’ voices incorporated into this discussion. I hear from producers all the time, but there is fear of retribution, the threat that your milk is not going to get picked up. If you are on a board and speak up, you’re not there very long,” said Kim Bremmer, representing Venture Co-op in Wisconsin, a third-party ‘testing co-op’ qualified by USDA.

She addressed bloc voting, saying: “What’s the point of having a hearing if producers can’t vote? We don’t have great representation from some of the groups that say they represent us.”

Bottomline, said Bremmer: “We have to address how to get more of the producer voice and not just the processor voice — because they’re not the same.”

She asked: “Is it a conflict of interest if you’re a processor and you’re marketing milk and you’re also advocating for producers? I think that’s an important question that needs to be answered. We need to stay engaged in this and be able to ask the tough questions and demand some answers.”

ADC’s Fischer said the organization wants to work with farmers and their state and national organizations to provide a vehicle to bring farmers together and compose a list of pricing policy items to explore further with experts.

One clear change in the dairy industry formed the crux of the discussion: The growth of milk production in the U.S. — in concert with growing export sales and declining fluid milk sales — put export sales volume above Class I volume as a percentage of total milk solids in 2021.

McCully described this as “a seismic change.”

Covington confirmed that Class I sales — as a percentage of total milk production — fell below 20% in 2021. The percentage of Class I milk within the 137 billion pounds pooled on 11 FMMOs in 2021 was about 30%.

Contrary to the widely held belief that FMMOs regulate a majority of the milk, they simply do not. Covington confirmed that the 137 billion pounds of milk pooled on 11 FMMOs in 2021 represents only about 60% of U.S. milk production.

The FMMOs aren’t designed for this direction that the dairy industry is going toward global markets, according to McCully.

He said the world will look to the U.S. as the “go-to market,” claiming New Zealand and the EU are maxed out. He described the “white gallon jug” as being the most prime example of a low-margin commodity and predicted ‘value-added’ products will return more dollars to farmers in the future. These are recurrent themes heard from speakers at winter meetings this year.

(Author’s note: In contrast, current industry-wide discussion on the ‘sustainability’ side is for a ‘stable’ U.S. cattle herd to be an indicator of dairy’s climate neutrality. If exports grow, and the U.S. herd remains ‘stable’, then export milk will have to come from growth in output per cow and displacement of Class I production. One can see how geographic camps can set up, since fresh fluid milk sales are vital to the viability of dairy farms in areas outside of the earmarked growth areas for dairy manufacturing in the Central U.S. — the question is how to bridge it.)

At the same time, dragging feet doesn’t seem to be much of an option.

If dairy policy remains ‘status quo,’ leaving the FMMOs ‘as-is,’ they could eventually cover less and less milk and potentially collapse, according to McCully.

Covington also addressed this, noting that FMMOs “were designed for fluid milk, but today, fluid milk is a minority use. People used to drink their milk, now they are eating their milk.”

McCully noted the need for dairy innovation. He said make allowances have facilitated large-scale commodity plant construction supplied by large-scale farms, suggesting it is these built-in make allowance ‘margins’ that favor commodity production and deter innovation. 

“If end-product pricing continues, the make allowances will have to be raised,” he said, citing a new make allowance study “fresh off the press.”

In 2019, USDA commissioned Dr. Mark Stephenson, dairy economist at University of Wisconsin-Madison, to do the study. Stephenson recently announced it is complete and will soon be released by USDA. McCully’s glimpse at the report shows make allowance calculations to be “significantly higher” than the amounts embedded currently in end-product pricing formulas.

Western Pennsylvania dairy nutritionist Harry Stugart offered his concise, data-driven argument that the make allowances be removed from the formula for the ‘advance’ Class I mover price because these make allowances do not pertain to fluid milk. In January 2022, he said they amounted to $2.67 per hundredweight.

Another crucial part of the discussion was how FMMOs actually work and what they do, besides pricing.

Covington gave attendees a primer of key points to think about as discussions move forward. What he shared may be old news to some, but it’s surprising how many people do not know these facts:

— FMMOs are not required by law, they are simply “enabled” to exist by law. This means producers vote to have them (California in 2018) or to terminate them (Idaho 2004).

— Only Class I fluid milk plants are required to be regulated under FMMOs.

— Class II, III and IV plants participate voluntarily, and they tend to do so “when it’s economically feasible.” Rules of participation vary from Order to Order.

— FMMOs establish other things besides minimum pricing for regulated plants. This includes setting payment terms, providing market information and market services such as testing and auditing.

— The last FMMO reform (2000) was complicated and took four years. It was a combination of legislation (1995 Farm Bill) and an administrative rulemaking process.

— Today, there are four classes of milk, but that was not always the case.

— Today, the Class I mover (base price), as well as the Class II, III and IV prices are established to be the same in all FMMOs, but in the past different FMMOs had different mechanisms.

— Cooperatives are not required to pay FMMO minimum prices even if they own regulated Class I plants because cooperatives are viewed by the FMMOs as one big producer and can make their own decisions about distributing the revenue received to their farmer-members.

— Today, over half of the Class I fluid milk plants in the U.S. are either owned by cooperatives or by large retail supermarkets. Over the past 60 years of consolidation, FMMOs have gone from regulating 2250 fluid milk plants in 1960 to just 225 in 2021.

— Cooperatives balance the Class I market at a cost. Excess milk can go to unregulated buyers at a price that is several dollars below the minimum price. Some co-ops run their own balancing plants. These costs can result in paying farmers below minimum price.

“Milk pricing should return a fair cost to producers, processors and retailers. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link,” said Sherry Bunting, speaking on behalf of the Grassroots PA Dairy Advisory Committee. She also highlighted the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, H.R. 1861, explaining how support for this legislation is essential — no matter how milk is priced.

“In the process of working on this legislation, our (Grassroots PA) committee has identified other concerns. It is hard for producers to advocate when even such a simple and good thing as whole milk in schools is rebuked,” said Bunting. “Farmers hear from leaders and inspectors: ‘If we sell whole milk in schools, do you think we can just stop making cheese and other products?’ Or ‘All you are doing is disrupting markets and creating a butterfat shortage.’ Or ‘Be careful what you wish for.’ These are veiled threats.”

Bunting highlighted the need for greater competition, accountability, transparency and timeliness of price reporting. 

“Dairy farmers have farms to run, cows to care for, and they become paralyzed by the complexity and lack of transparency in the system and their milk checks. They become overwhelmed and unconfident, even fearing retribution,” she said.

Bremmer specifically addressed milk check transparency.

“We have members with attorneys that cannot interpret their milk checks. That has to stop,” said Bremmer. “Why wouldn’t processors want to show farmers what they are paying them? What is the reason? To have attorneys and others looking at it and they can’t figure it out, that’s a real problem. We think they’re probably re-blending some things to make another ‘make allowance’. We know these things are happening all across the United States.”

Payment terms are critical in this conversation. Even the best-made plans for risk management mean nothing if farmers don’t receive timely and consistent payments for their milk due to the high capital costs and cash flow needs of running a dairy farm. 

One commenter said farmers want their income to come from consumers, not from the federal government. He wondered why Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMOs) are even needed to guarantee payment.

“Why? So you get paid,” replied panelist Covington. “The FMMOs all establish dates when advance and final payments are made. Having been a co-op manager working with fluid milk plants, I can’t emphasize enough how important this is.”

He also pointed out the important auditing, weights and measures, and market information the FMMOs provide.

McCully said these other services provided by FMMOs are “something we need more of going forward. We need less (price) regulation and more (market) information,” he added. “What’s not working is the milk pricing.”

Here’s where the crux comes into play: The FMMOs are not set up to regulate a global product market, and the industry has set its sights on exporting even more. This is leading the dairy industry to look at how other countries price milk as it relates to the U.S. pricing system and its ability to “be globally competitive.”

As the percentage of Class I sales have declined in relation to growth of U.S. milk production over the past decade, the percentage of milk pooled on FMMOs has also declined from 82% in 2011 to 60% in 2021 (See Table I).

Covington explained how pooling plays out within the FMMO system: “A regulated plant is required to pay its direct shippers and any co-op supplying milk a minimum blend or uniform price. Each Order takes the revenue from each class at the minimum price and pulls it together into one pool to come up with the uniform price.”

He said Class I differentials “have two purposes, to move milk to fluid use and to gain additional revenue for dairy farmers.” They range from $1.60/cwt in the extreme northern U.S. to $6.00/cwt in Miami, Florida and are added to the base Class I mover price. 

The regulated Class I plants pay the difference between the uniform price and the Class I minimum price into the FMMO. Other class plants voluntarily participate to take a draw from the FMMO to add to what they pay their producers. That’s how it has worked most of the time – until now.

Diminished Class I sales as a percentage of total milk flip this switch, and the 2018 Farm Bill change to averaging Class III and IV skim plus 74 cents — instead of the ‘higher of’ — along with the advance pricing element, have increased the de-pooling pressure on this system, especially during times of volatility.

When asked about wide price inversions that occurred in some months over the past two years, both Covington and McCully observed the impact on bottlers paying above minimum prices to attract milk away from then higher-value Class III.

In thinking about the future, Covington reminded attendees of the past. He said at one time some Orders had individual handler pools — not marketwide pools — a nod to the idea of how FMMOs could continue to regulate Class I, if handlers in the other classes lose interest in participation.

Back when California was a state order, virtually all milk was pooled. Plants had to make decisions about pooling annually by January 1. 

McCully contended that this scenario led to dumping of milk and inefficient transport to other areas. According to his analysis, the idea of making the pooling rules more restrictive and uniform across all FMMOs would lead processors to completely leave the system, and they can do that because their participation is voluntary, except for Class I.

Risk management was on the mind of several commenters, including Doll. He pointed out how the ‘holes’ in the Class I pricing change were exposed by the pandemic volatility. (Significant losses to Class I value are occurring again in the February and March 2022 Class I price.)

Joining Doll as a fellow Illinois dairy farmer was Bryan Henrichs. He said the class price inversions during the pandemic left many farmers on the losing end of what they thought were ‘safe’ $18 Class III forward contracts. The up to $9 negative PPDs kept them from achieving that price when the Class III price exceeded the contract level, but the farmer didn’t receive that price in the milk check — a double whammy.

Henrichs and others noted that milk should be priced competitively and simplified. Henrichs mentioned the idea of pricing milk at one price — no matter what it is used for — allowing market participants, including farmers, to manage risk and trade location basis, like for corn.

Arden Tewksbury’s comments from Progressive Agriculture Organization based in Meshoppen, Pennsylvania were presented by Carol Sullivan — highlighting the need for cost of production in the pricing equation, along with a realistic supply management program. 

Annual FMMO pooling decisions (instead of in and out), and his longtime support for whole milk in schools were other key points offered by Tewksbury.

One attendee stated that if processors are looking to raise their ‘make allowances,’ why not add a ‘make allowance’ for producers?

On cost of production, McCully pointed out that the range is wide between a 50,000-cow dairy in western Kansas and a 40-cow dairy in northern Vermont, for example. He said interstate movement of milk and the fact that FMMO participation is voluntary for over 80% of the milk outside of Class I creates issues for using a blanket national average cost of production.

McCully said ‘cost-plus’ contracts are being used today by some processors and producers, but this is only for milk sold outside of the FMMO system.

As confirmed by Covington, 40% of the U.S. milk supply was priced outside of the FMMOs in 2021. He said this could increase as Class I becomes a smaller slice of the growing pie, especially in areas of the country where Class I is already quite small.

-30-

MILK MARKET MOOS: Jan. 2022 milk down 1.6%, licensed herd average falls below 30,000 in 2021, futures higher, spot commodities lower

Posted on by
Reply

Milk Market Moos, by Sherry Bunting, is a weekly feature in Farmshine. Portions are republished below with the prices updated to Fri., Feb. 25 after the print edition went to press Wed. evening, Feb. 23.

Milk production in all U.S. states collectively during January fell by 1.6% vs. year ago. In the 24 major reporting states, the decline was 1.4%. December’s production was also revised lower than the estimate last month.

January’s production decline came from a combination of reduced output per cow and 63,000 fewer cows compared with a year ago. Cow numbers in January are 5000 fewer than December.

This trend could go on for some time, as we noted recently in this column, that the Jan. 1 semi-annual All Cattle and Calf Inventory Report recently showed a 1% decline in milk cow numbers compared with Jan. 1 2021 and a whopping 3% decline in replacement dairy heifer numbers vs. year ago.

The 2021 production total for the U.S. was also released in the Feb. 23 USDA Milk Production Report showing last year’s U.S. milk production total was 1.3% above 2020.

At the same time, the average number of licensed herds in the U.S. during 2021 (not an end-of-year number) was reported at 29,858 — down 1,794 compared with the average number of licensed herds in 2020 and the first time the number fell below 30,000. This is a 5.7% decline in the average number of licensed dairy herds nationwide. In 2020, there was a 7.5% decline as the nation lost 2550 dairy herds that year.

In the Northeast and Midatlantic milkshed, among the major reporting states, Pennsylvania’s production was 2.9% below year ago in January with 6000 fewer milk cows on farms; 2021 production in the Keystone state was 1.6% below 2020 and the average number of cows on PA farms last year was 8000 fewer than in 2020.

January’s production in New York was down 0.6% with 5000 fewer cows; 2021 production in the Empire State was up 1.6% with the average number of cows on NY farms in 2021 numbering 1000 more than in 2020.

Vermont’s cow numbers fell by 1000 head in January 2022 vs. Jan. 2021 and milk production was off by 1.8%; 2021 production in the Green Mountain State was down 1.4% vs. 2020 with 2000 fewer cows as an average for the year.

The average number of licensed herds in Pennsylvania in 2021 was 5200, down 230 from 2020 (4.3% drop); New York 3430, down 220 (6% drop); and Vermont 580, down 60 (a 9.4% drop); Virginia 421, down 54 (11% drop).

In the Southeast milkshed among major milk producing states, Florida’s average number of herds was 75 in 2021, down 10 from 2020 (11.8% drop); Georgia 110, down 20 (15.4% drop). Production and cow numbers were mixed with Georgia growing output by 1.4% in 2021 vs. 2020 with 1000 additional cows; Florida’s production declined 5.1% with 5000 fewer cows, and Virginia’s production was down 3.4% with 2000 fewer cows.

Georgia’s production last month was up a whopping 5.1% as one of only 5 states to show a year over year production increase in January 2022 with 3000 more cows than a year ago even though the number of farms fell by over 15%.

By contrast, January’s production totals in Florida and Virginia were down 3.5% and 3.8% with 4000 and 3000 fewer milk cows, respectively.

Four other states gained production in January vs. year ago, (in addition to Georgia). They were: Iowa, up 1.7% with 3000 more cows vs. year ago; Idaho up 0.6% with 4000 more cows, Texas up 3.5% with 12,000 more cows, and South Dakota up a whopping 18.3% with 28,000 more cows.

The two largest milk production states saw a pullback in January: Wisconsin’s production was off fractionally while California, the largest producing state, saw a 1.9% decline in year over year production in January.

New Mexico’s trend deepened. 2021 production was 4.5% lower than 2020 with 12,000 fewer cows. In January 2022, production was below previous year by 12.1% with 42,000 fewer milk cows. New Mexico’s average number of licensed herds in 2021 came in at 120, down 20 (down 14.3%).

Texas also saw 20 fewer licensed herds last year, at 340 (down 5.6%). However cow numbers grew 27,000 in in the Lone Star State during 2021 with production beating 2020 by 5%.

Texas officially surpassed New York as the 4th largest milk producing state with 15.6 billion pounds of milk vs. New York’s 15.5 billion pounds in 2021. The January 2022 figures show 12,000 more cows and 3.5% more production vs. year ago in Texas.

South Dakota lost 15 herds at an average 165 for 2021 (down 8.4%). However, South Dakota gained 21,000 cows and 15.5% in milk production for 2021 vs. 2020. Neighboring Minnesota, the 7th largest milk producing state gained 13,000 cows and 3.7% in production in 2021 at 10.5 billion pounds — putting more daylight ahead of Pennsylvania, the 8th highest producing state at 10.1 billion pounds in 2021.

Look for more analysis of the yearend report in the next print edition of Farmshine and here at agmoos this week.

Cl. III and IV milk futures mixed,12-mo. Cl. III avg. $21.51, IV $23.25

Class III and IV milk futures were mixed when Farmshine went to press at midweek, Feb. 23 — before global reports showed a shrinking milk supply and before the Russian invasion of Ukraine commenced. Figures in the Farmshine print edition of Milk Market Moos have been updated using milk futures quotes at the close of Friday, Feb. 25 trade below.

Class IV split the trend with first half 2022 steady to lower, second half firm to higher, while Class III was mostly higher, except March and April contracts under downward pressure. In the Class III trading, new contract highs were set for August through December 2022.

The bullish USDA milk production report came out at the close of CME trade on Feb. 23 — prompting after hours trade to tick higher Feb. through Aug. by 25 to 65 cents on Class III, strengthening further at the end of the week on news of global supply deficits tempered by the uncertain impacts of war in Eastern Europe.

Class III milk futures recouped twice as much as was lost last week, averaging $21.63 for the next 12 months on the close of trade Wed., Feb. 25. This is 29 cents higher than the average a week ago,

Class IV futures averaged $23.46 for the next 12 months, generally steady at midweek compared with the previous week’s average, but gaining 22 cents Thursday and Friday on the average.

The average spread between the Class III and IV milk futures contracts for the next 12 months Feb. 2022 through Jan. 2023 stood at $1.83/cwt on Feb. 25 — 10 cents narrower than a week ago with Feb. through August contracts $1.80 to $2 apart and narrowing to right around the $1.48 threshold by September.

CME spot dairy commodities lose ground

CME spot dairy prices moved higher on Class III products (cheese and whey) before turning lower at the end of the week. For Class IV products (butter/NFDM) the trend started lower and continued lower through week’s end.

By Fri., Feb. 25, butter lost two-thirds of last week’s huge gain, pegged at $2.5785/lb with 2 loads trading. This was 20 cents lower than the previous Wednesday, with 8 cents of the loss occurring in a single session Friday.

Grade A nonfat dry milk (NFDM) lost 5 pennies this week then gained one back on Wed., Feb. 23 when the spot price was pegged at $1.86/lb — down 4 cents from a week ago with 12 loads trading. Thursday’s trade saw a penny and a half increase, which was lost Friday, to end the week at $1.86/lb.

On the Class III side of the ledger Wed., Feb. 23, 40-lb Cheddar blocks were firm at $1.99/lb, gained 3 cents Thursday, but lost 7 cents Friday, Feb. 25, when 40-lb blocks were pegged at $1.9450/lb, down 4 1/2 cents from a week ago with a single load changing hands; 500-lb barrels at $1.90/lb were 1 1/2 cents lower than a week ago with 2 loads trading Friday.

The spot market for dry whey gained a penny, at 81-cents on Wed., Feb. 23, with no loads trading, but then lost 3 cents in end of week trading, pegged Fri., Feb. 25 at 78 cents, no loads traded.

Grain market rallied

Corn rallied 10 to mostly 30 cents per bushel higher last Wed., Feb. 23 on the eve of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, most strength near term; soybean meal $10 to $30/ton higher with far off contracts $5 to $10/T higher than a week ago. Those levels followed wheat higher on the news in the wee hours of Thursday morning of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, a global exporter of wheat, corn and other grains and oilseeds, number one crop being sunflowers.

By Friday, Feb. 25, the run-up had tamped down, but with near-term contracts still much higher than a week ago — May corn closed at $6.55 down from highs over $7 the previous day; May soybean meal closed at $442.70 Friday.

Auction prices for market cows, calves, dairy fats backoff a bit after big gains two weeks ago

Market cows, fat dairy steers, and return to farm Holstein bull calves, especially beef crosses, jumped significantly higher two weeks ago and edged off a bit in the Feb. 17 to 22 auction market trade in Lancaster County. Choice and Prime Dairy steers averaged $115.00, Breaking Utility cows $81.10, Boning Utility $74.50, Lean cows $65.75. Holstein bulls 90 to 125 lbs averaged $143.00 with beef crosses bringing more than double, averaging $340.00; 80-100 lb $130.00, beef crosses $280.00.

Ag Secretary says ‘Dairy will change’, economist digs into how, why

Posted on by
Reply
Using a graphic pulled from the September 10, 2021 edition of Farmshine in which a follow up story ran about Danone dropping 89 organic dairy farms from its Horizon brand — all of its Horizon farms in the Northeast — Bozic explained that the ‘social mission’ of cooperatives is to market all of their members’ milk. He said the “primary function of the future” for the Federal Milk Marketing Orders — as an extension of the cooperatives — is to ensure market access for dairy farms. “Market Orders are there to ensure orderly consolidation at a humane pace,” he declared.

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Sept. 24, 2021

HARRISBURG, Pa. – ‘Turning the page’ was the theme for the annual Financial and Risk Management Conference where key takeaways about a changing dairy industry were presented.

The conference was hosted by the Center for Dairy Excellence Sept. 21 in Harrisburg.

Pennsylvania Secretary of Agriculture Russell Redding summarized his own thoughts: “I am still very positive about dairy, but dairy will change. It is changing,” he said.

The Center’s risk management educator Zach Myers set the stage for attending lenders, vendors, producers and industry talking about Dairy Margin Coverage and Dairy Revenue Protection and how these programs have worked (more on that in a separate article.)

Digging into the stress — the ‘change’ — was Marin Bozic, University of Minnesota associate professor of applied economics and dairy foods marketing, who also serves as facilitator for the Midwest Dairy Growth Alliance. He dug right into how and why, discussing some of the Federal Milk Marketing Order complexities, industry trends and pricing relationships. He made the case that more flexibility, competition and innovation are needed in the Federal Orders for a “level playing field” so winners and losers can “self-select.”

Bringing up the 89 organic producers Danone will drop from Horizon next year, Bozic said it is an example that, “One new farm in Indiana replaced 89 or 90 farms in the Northeast, and they can do that. There is nothing illegal about it. They could say they have a fiduciary responsibility to stakeholders and are minding their bottom line, but none of that helps you if 90 producers get dumped in a year.”

He pointed out the “social mission” of the cooperatives is to leave no member behind, so remaining an independent producer carries more risk today than in the past.

Bozic connected the dots to say the “primary function of the future for Federal Milk Marketing Orders — as an extension of the milk cooperatives — is to ensure market access for dairy producers.

“Market orders are there to ensure orderly consolidation at a humane pace,” he declared.

That’s a change from the central promise of the FMMOs today, which Bozic described earlier as “broken.”

“To navigate our businesses over the next year and longer,” said Bozic, “we have to count the passes and see the gorilla” — a nod to the visual exercise he had the audience participate in.

Bozic mentioned a few gorillas in milk. Gorillas in the FMMOs, in risk management, in dairy markets and in the macroeconomic situation – what else is going on in the world.

He showed graphs of what Producer Price Differentials (PPDs) looked like for the Northeast in 2020, the $4 and $5 negatives that represented cash flow bleeding, equity bleeding.

While the futures show the view out to the horizon over the next 6, 12, 15 months that would suggest there won’t be a repeat of that carnage, Bozic cited some of these risks, or gorillas, in the market and in world events that could represent shocks that can make the whole thing “go haywire again.”

Observing that the FMMOs are not the same today as when they were designed many decades ago, Bozic stepped conference attendees through the various long- and short-term impacts that reduce PPD, such as declining Class I utilization compared with increasing Class IV utilization and production.

“Orders were designed around the assumption that there would be plenty of fluid milk usage (as a percentage of total production), and we can just take it and designate it to be the highest and use those funds to make everyone whole,” said Bozic.

“The central promise of the FMMOs is that if your milk is as good as your neighbor’s, you get paid the same, so one farmer does not bid against another for market access and a good price,” he asserted. “That promise is now getting broken, not as much here, the East Coast FMMOs still have Class I.”

The next effect in the Northeast is the rise of protein tests. This impact comes through two channels where higher protein reduces PPD, the economist explained.

“Envision FMMOs as all processors paying into the pool and then taking from the pool. First they pay to the pool with classified pricing based on their respective milk solids. Class I pays on pounds of skim milk as volume, not on protein pounds,” he explained. “Even if sales are the same and the only thing that changes is protein, those (Class I) processors would pay the same amount (on skim) into the pool and take more money out (on protein) so there is less money remaining and a lower PPD.”

The second way higher protein production affects PPD is when the value of protein is lower in the powder than it is in the cheese. The butter/powder plant pays to the pool on nonfat solids price but takes money from the pool on protein price, “so that spread between the value of protein in cheese and powder also leaves less money for PPD,” said Bozic.

He explained the Class III price as an index of butterfat, protein and solids, in a straight formula that equals the class price. “When Class III price is higher than Class IV price, the predicted PPD for the Northeast Order declines,” said Bozic. “It’s almost linear.”

Conversely, when IV is above III, PPD goes up. “This has to do with paying the pool based on protein and nonfat solids, but when handlers take money out of the pool for components, everyone takes protein price leaving less money in the pool for PPD.

Bozic explained the demand shock to this system when the Food Box program “focused on smaller packages of cheese to put in every box. They didn’t take bulk powder and butter. So we went from a record low cheese price on the CME to a record high and no one expected this.”

The pull of 5% of the cheese supply for immediate delivery had everyone scrambling, said Bozic.

The amount of spare cheese available was not as high a volume as the government wanted to buy so cheese went from being long to short, and the price skyrocketed. This translated to an historically higher gap between Class III and IV prices as wide as $10 apart.

So why not just send more milk to make cheese? Bozic maintains that Class IV processing is accustomed to “balancing” fluid milk seasonality so there is extra capacity in that system.

Not so with Class III because those plants already run at capacity. “That’s the only way processors of commodity cheese make margin is to run at capacity, so when the demand shock came, and spare product was used up, there was no spare capacity and the price went higher. That was the main driver of negative PPD in 2020,” said Bozic.

Will it happen again? Bozic doesn’t foresee Food box programs with the same intensity in the future, but, “yes, it can happen, but I would say you need to have a pandemic in an election year. Don’t count on a program like this.”

The industry did ask USDA back in the 2008-09 recession to buy consumer packaged cheese instead of bulk commodities, so it could move instead of being stored to overhang the market later. That wasn’t working either.

“Now we understand that this other method disturbs PPDs so the dairy industry is united behind a more balanced approach,” said Bozic, describing the next iteration of purchases through the Dairy Donation Program will not be as aggressive in moving the markets by three orders of magnitude.”

Bozic said quick rallies and crashes impact PPDs also because of advance pricing on Class I based on the first two weeks of the prior month and announced pricing for the other classes at the end of the month.

Bozic explained why the change in Class I pricing was made: “The dairy industry wants to attract new distributors like Starbucks and McDonalds that are used to hedging their input costs. They don’t want to change prices every month. They want it to be what it is for a year, so the industry wants stable, predictable milk price costs to win favor with new distribution channels by making it easier for them to hedge.”

He said the new average plus 74 cents was designed to be revenue neutral. Looking forward, when Classes III and IV have less than $1.48/cwt spread, PPD under the new system is higher than under the old. But the most it can be higher is by 74 cents on Class I, which translates to 20 cents on the blend price.

“The best case scenario is to add 20 cents to the blend price, but when Classes III and IV are far apart “the PPD can go haywire. Bottom line, the upside benefit of the averaging method with 74-cent adjuster is limited but the downside risk is big,” said Bozic.

Proposals, hearing requests, grassroots outreach to lawmakers as Class I ‘mover’ debate heats up

Posted on by
1

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, April 30, 2021

WASHINGTON, D.C. — National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) announced Friday, Apr. 23 a Class I mover reform proposal and intention to request a USDA Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) hearing that would be limited to proposed changes to the Class I mover, after which USDA would have 30 days to issue an action plan that would determine whether the department would act on an emergency basis.

According to NMPF, their proposal would “modify the current Class I mover, which adds $0.74/cwt to the monthly average of Classes III and IV, by adjusting this amount every two years based on conditions over the prior 24 months, with the current mover remaining the floor.”

This adjuster change, if done today for the next two years, would pencil out above the current 74 cents (estimated $1.63).

The NMPF action comes after eight weeks of discussion by grassroots dairy producers and state and national dairy organizations seeking a seat at the table to address lost income and risk management disruptions influenced in part by the Class I mover change that was passed by Congress in the 2018 Farm Bill and implemented by USDA in May 2019.

While NMPF and IDFA have reportedly had conversations on the issue, IDFA has not yet publicly-announced a position.

On Tuesday (April 27), another proposal — called Class III Plus – was announced by a collaboration of state dairy groups in the Midwest. This proposal would also end Class I advance pricing factors.

Seasoned dairy policy analysts and economists suggest more proposals may be forthcoming.

USDA “will do the things it knows it can do to impact the (milk income) concern by providing better market opportunities, new market opportunities,” said U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack answer questions from North American Ag Journalists Monday, calling FMMO reform a “tough issue.”

On the specifics, though, the Secretary said simply that USDA would look to the industry “to work with them on the changes that need to take place.

“It’s a very very complicated issue, and not one that should be easily characterized. Anyone that tries to do that doesn’t understand the complexity of that particular topic. It’s very complex,” Vilsack explained. 

He acknowledged that conversations are occurring within the dairy industry, but said: “Those conversations need to mature a bit more before anybody makes a decision that there’s going to be a significant change.”

However, in contrast to the Secretary’s observations, a “significant change” has already been made across all FMMO’s, legislatively, and it was done without hearings, without comment, without a producer referendum, without much conversation and without the knowledge of many dairy producers.

So here we are. The buck is being passed as the ball is being volleyed between industry, legislative and administrative. The volley started when NMPF and IDFA proposed the mover change in 2017-18. Congress then passed it, thereby replacing the mover that had been set by administrative hearing process 20 years ago, when USDA chose the higher of instead of an averaging method and documented disorderly marketing, negative differentials and depooling, back then.

Now, the volley is open again for what looks to be a toss from legislative to industry to administrative hearing requests.

For its part, NMPF states that the current mover was “intended to be revenue neutral while facilitating increased price risk management by fluid milk bottlers. The new Class I mover contributed to disorderly marketing conditions last year during the height of the pandemic and cost dairy farmers over $725 million in lost income.” 

Analysis by various industry experts, including Farm Bureau’s Market Intel, peg the broader net farm losses at $3 billion when the change influenced a domino-effect of negative producer price differentials (PPDs) and massive depooling.

In the three fat/skim pricing FMMOs of the Southeast U.S. where PPDs are not shown, Calvin Covington calculates dairy farmers in FMMO 5, 6 and 7 collectively had net loss of $1/cwt off the blend price for 23 months due to the mover change from higher of to average-plus.

NMPF’s proposal is described as helping “recoup the lost revenue and ensure that neither farmers nor processors are disproportionately harmed by future significant price disruptions.”

A Penn State Ag Law Center webinar already planned on FMMOs this week, turned into a hot topic. Brook Duer, staff attorney for the center and moderator asked webinar guest Dr. Andrew Novakovic, Cornell professor emeritus about the specifics of the NMPF proposal.

“This proposal would recalculate the adjuster every two years, except the adjuster can never be less than 74 cents,” Novakovic said. “They are not talking about changing the ‘average of’ back to the ‘higher of.’”

In weekly producer conference calls facilitated by American Dairy Coalition after a letter was sent to NMPF and IDFA signed by hundreds of dairy farmers and organizations, a return to the higher of was identified as a short-term option while long-term proposals are vetted. American Dairy Coalition, and the grassroots groups who have been part of the conversation since February, sent emails with talking points, urging producers to contact key lawmakers and talk to them about the situation.

Proponents of a return to the higher of point out it was already vetted by USDA hearings, whereas the current average plus 74 cents was not.

“As the COVID-19 experience has shown, market stresses can shift the mover in ways that affect dairy farmers much more than processors. This was not the intent of the Class I mover formula negotiated within the industry,” noted Randy Mooney, chairman of NMPF’s Board of Directors in a press release. “The current mover was explicitly developed to be a revenue-neutral solution to the concerns of fluid milk processors about hedging their price risk.

“Dairy farmers were pleased with the previous method of determining Class I prices and had no need to change it, but we tried to accommodate the concerns of fluid processors for better risk management,” Mooney stated further. 

“Unfortunately, the severe imbalances we’ve seen in the past year plainly show that a modified approach is necessary. We will urge USDA to adopt our plan to restore equity and create more orderly marketing conditions.”

Modifying the adjuster every two years is backward-looking for forward-adjustments. 

The current mover is already challenged by timing between Class I advance-pricing and Class II, III, IV announced prices as well as the higher protein production on farms in a system that prices protein in manufacturing classes but prices fat and skim solids in the fluid class.

In the Class III Plus proposal jointly announced by Wisconsin Dairy Business Association, Edge Dairy Farmer Cooperative, Minnesota Milk Producers Association and Nebraska State Dairy Association, advance pricing of Class I would also be ended.

The mover would be linked to the Class III announced skim price, not the advance skim pricing factor. The proposal includes an adjuster that would be revised annually in September by USDA for the forthcoming calendar year. It would equal the average of the monthly differences between the higher of Class III and IV skim milk prices, and the Class III skim milk price during the prior 26 months. 

This adjuster would be floored at 36 cents just for the 2021-25 period “to facilitate faster convergence toward revenue-neutrality after COVID-19,” according to the announcement.

For its part, NMPF states that, “The significant gaps between Class III and IV prices that developed during the pandemic exposed dairy farmers to losses that were not experienced by processors, showing the need for a formula that better accounts for disorderly market conditions.”

To be sure, all FMMOs also saw gaps and inversion for three to six months in the pre-pandemic summer and fall of 2019.

When asked about the FMMO purpose and the ‘mover’ being set at the higher of to move milk to Class I use, Novakovic said USDA would have to look at the actual effect of the ‘average of’ on that purpose.

“Do we see any problem getting milk into Class I markets? Are they complaining there is not enough milk going to Class I?” he asks. “Probably the opposite direction is more true.”

Moving milk to Class I may be more of a discussion for the high fluid utilization areas of the Southeast, where producers end up indirectly ‘paying’ to bring milk in during deficient times of the year. This can be costly when there are price gaps and inversions as documented in the fall months of both 2019 and 2020.

When asked what recourse dairy producers may have in this, Novakovic indicated that lobbying the legislature is “theoretically possible” but that a legislative change is not likely apart from the next Farm Bill, which is three years away.

He also speculated that if someone put forward a proposal to return to the higher of for the next two years — and referred to the reasons given by USDA in its 2000 hearing decision – it’s “not inconceivable” that USDA could say they like what they had better than what Congress made them do, and perhaps like it better than changing adjusters or other ‘new’ proposals that would require a more lengthy hearing process if the industry is divided.

Novakovic was also asked how the Class III Plus proposal from the Midwest would affect Pennsylvania, given the state’s mostly Class I and IV utilization.

He responded to say Pennsylvania is part of FMMOs that include Class III (Northeast Order 1 and Mideast Order 33). He did not see any particular effect for the Northeast markets.

“Class IV would still be Class IV and II will be driven by IV values, and III would be unaffected, so the only question is what you would see happening with Class I,” said Novakovic. “The only way I see this proposal being viewed as a surprise is on the occasions when IV is higher than III, and that has occurred with some frequency in the past.”

The Northeast FMMO has seen a decline in Class III percentage relative to increase in Class IV and II over time. Class I sales also declined precipitously over the past decade but stabilized in 2019 and 2020 with rising sales of whole and 2% milk.

Novakovic confirmed that part of the problem in pricing Class I is the lack of beverage milk market indicators to do so.

As mentioned previously in Farmshine, Class I is required to participate in FMMO pooling, other classes are voluntary. Class I also has regulation at some state levels. On the other hand, in most states, beverage milk is used as a loss-leader in supermarkets, especially as large processing retailers dramatically cut the gallon price to compete for shoppers.

Under these factors, there is no way to gauge a ‘market value’ for Class I beverage milk apart from piggy-backing the other classes that value milk’s components in the manufacture of cheddar, butter, nonfat dry milk and dry whey.

The issue at hand is how to do that, now, in hindsight, after a significant surgical change was quietly made, and failed, and in the future within the context of FMMO reform.

-30-