Tag Archives: milk pricing

My thoughts on the ABC’s of PA’s state-mandated OOP

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, published in Farmshine, May 5, 2023

The purpose of Pennsylvania’s 1930s Milk Marketing Law was to regulate and support the Commonwealth’s dairy industry. Today, it continues to set a retail minimum price for milk through the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (PMMB) while most other states have zero protection against supermarkets using milk as a loss-leader to attract shoppers. 

To me, that’s the real problem. Nationwide, consumers don’t know or appreciate the true value of milk after years of rampant and extreme loss-leading. I’m not talking about random sales to clear inventory, I’m talking about day-in-day-out well-below-cost prices as a retail business model.

Supermarkets chains have gotten into doing their own milk bottling or refuse to pay for services or quality as a way to avoid eating all of the cost of their own decisions to knock the price of milk back several dollars per gallon. They know milk is in 95% of shopping baskets. It’s a staple. If their store brand is the cheapest around, they’ll get your business and sell other high margin items at the same time.

Dairy farmers and milk bottlers, quite frankly, should not be on the hook for that. Period. But indirectly they are.

At the federal level, no one wants to address this because USDA also benefits when it comes to buying cheap (skimmed) milk for food programs like school lunch, where they also reimburse Impossible not-burger, nacho chips and pop-tarts — but not whole milk, only skimmed.

Is it any wonder consumers balk at spending $5 for a gallon of milk in Pennsylvania but will pay $1.50 for a cup of water, even more for a cup of water with artificial additives? 

Is it any wonder consumers don’t think of milk’s nutritional value next to other protein and vitamin drinks? Intrinsically, the higher margin drinks are perceived as more valuable because the price is higher. Milk is perceived as worth less than water!

This makes Pennsylvania a sitting duck in a national, no, a global market. Why? Because Pennsylvania sets a minimum retail and wholesale milk price each month.

Pennsylvania’s Milk Marketing Law prevents supermarkets from selling milk under the monthly announced state-minimum price. The over-order premium (OOP) portion of this price was intended to help Pennsylvania farmers. The Milk Marketing Law already gives the retailers and bottlers a 2.5 to 3.5% profit margin over average industry costs within that set minimum-price buildup.

The OOP is currently set by the PMMB at $1.00 per hundred pounds of milk plus a 44-cent per hundredweight fuel adjuster. This come out to 13 cents per gallon paid within the state minimum retail price that is meant to be the farmer’s over-order premium (OOP).

A variety of loopholes have diminished how much of the state-mandated OOP gets back to Pennsylvania dairy farmers as intended by the law. It has encouraged interesting business models that involve more out-of-state milk coming in to displace Pennsylvania milk in some Pennsylvania stores (and some creative accounting for sure).

Whether in tankers or packages, more out-of-state milk is competing with an unfair advantage when the built-in OOP is either collected and not paid to farmers or remains completely undocumented — floating around and up for grabs by the supply chain.

Senate Ag Minority Chair Judy Schwank had an interesting exchange with Chuck Turner of Turner Dairy near Pittsburgh during the recent Senate Ag hearing on the matter. She asked whether or not the aseptically processed, shelf-stable milk, which she buys, has the OOP built into its price.

Good question.

Turner explained that for the members of the Pennsylvania Association of Milk Dealers, the OOP is factored in as a cost that they incur when they procure milk within the state and then return this OOP to their Pennsylvania farmers based on their sales of Class I fluid milk products within the state.

On the other hand, when a Nestle or some other company, like fairlife, makes a shelf-stable flavored milk that ends up in a retail dairy case in Pennsylvania, the OOP doesn’t enter into their thought process on these products coming most likely from Indiana (and New York), he said. To his mind, that means it does not “collect” OOP.

In reality, such out-of-state packaged fluid milk products that fall into the Class I fluid milk category are ‘collecting’ the OOP — even ultrafiltered and aseptically packaged milk. These products compete for Pennsylvania consumer dollars. Whether out-of-state fluid milk products are unflavored or flavored, fresh or shelf-stable, they are part of the unknown number Schwank said the Senate Ag Committee needs to know.

It doesn’t matter if the milk is sold above state-minimum price, the OOP is in there.

Take for example the fresh fluid milk brands that are bottled in Pennsylvania — that are not shelf-stable – but are priced on supermarket shelves above the state minimum retail price.

This happens when stores like Walmart and Costco want to differentiate their private label store brands as the lowest-price. What do they do? They put other brands higher.

Since supermarkets in Pennsylvania cannot go below the state’s minimum price to “loss-lead” with their in-house private label, they bump-up the price on competing name brands instead.

In some cases, this pressures sales volume even lower for name brands that are produced, processed and sold in Pennsylvania, reducing the OOP that goes back to the Pennsylvania farms. At the same time, some of the private-label store brands sold at state-minimum fall into the category of breaking the chain of produced, processed and sold in Pennsylvania, which affords them the ability to keep the farmer’s OOP.

Here’s my bottom line from the recent Pennsylvania Senate Ag hearing on the OOP:

For 15 years grassroots dairy producer groups have been grappling with the concerns shared at the hearing, and how the OOP may be affecting the use of Pennsylvania-produced milk in Pennsylvania consumer markets. The embarrassment of not knowing definitively how much fluid milk is sold in the state and how much premium is stranded off-record or on-record has been the subject of meetings, hearings, estimates, emotion, stonewalling and bickering for over 15 years!

Attempts have been made by lawmakers like former State Senator Mike Brubaker and current State Representative John Lawrence repeatedly putting forward bills that would have penetrated the armor surrounding this issue.

Now, in the past 12 to 18 months, we have the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau on high-alert, the Department of Agriculture now is involved and has come up with a plan. 

The CDE and PDMP are studying the issues around the premium and the obstacles to processing investment with the help of a Cornell economist. 

And the Senate Ag Chairman and Minority Chair offered their data-driven bills last session and will offer them again, because, of course, they are paralyzed by still needing that data they’ve been needing for 15 years!

Now, as the fluid milk market is in steep decline over the past 15 years (ironically the same 15 years in which whole milk and 2% milk have been federally prohibited as choices in schools and daycares)…

Now as most of the milk bottling assets, nationally, are owned by cooperatives and most of the rest by retailers…

Now as fluid milk plants are closing to the south and the west, while Pennsylvania has managed to hold on to a core of independent bottlers…

Now as the state courts the favor of Coca-Cola / fairlife or other new processors to invest in Pennsylvania … (Coca-Cola announced May 9 that New York will get the new plant).

Now as everyone is sitting up noticing that the tens of millions of Pennsylvania-paid ‘stranded’ OOP annually over the past 15-plus years may have been fueling growth beyond Pennsylvania’s borders while Pennsylvania’s own farms have been stagnated by more stringent supply management programs due to lack of processing capacity…

Here we are, back to the question of needing the data. Senators were interested in doing something, but Chairman Elder Vogel, said threading the needle will be difficult, and Minority Chair Schwank said “we have to have the data.”

Pennsylvania is enduring erosion on one hand in part because of the OOP and/or the minimum pricing, while on the other hand, these structures are believed by some to provide a stabilizing effect for the Class I bottlers that remain.

And so, the cats keep chasing their tails around the milk bowl!

Meanwhile, more producers have strived to get some of their milk outside of this game by selling it raw – an entirely separate market. The PMMB reached out to a number of them last year telling them they had to be licensed and do monthly reports, then backed off a bit for the time being. They are not the problem. Their milk is not pasteurized, and it is not part of the system in Federal Milk Marketing Orders either.

My biggest questions after the recent hearing, after 15 years of following this and for a time helping farmers who were involved in seeking changes more than a decade ago: Where would we be today if in any of the prior legislative bills, meetings, hearings, plans, would have moved forward in some fashion? 

And yes, this too is related: Where would we be today if whole milk had not been removed from schools?

One thing is clear on the first question, we would by now have solved the math equation of A + B = C instead of estimating, stonewalling, bickering…

On the second question? We might be selling more milk.

Read Part One and Part Two of the PA Senate Ag Hearing about the ABC’s of the OOP here and here

-30-

Part Two: Digging into the PA Senate Ag hearing on the PMMB over-order premium

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, May 5, 2023

HARRISBURG, Pa. — As reported in Part One, published in Farmshine’s April 28th edition, the Pennsylvania Senate Agriculture Committee held a three-hour hearing on April 25 about the state’s mandated Class I milk over-order premium (OOP), which is part of the state’s minimum milk price per gallon set by the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (PMMB).

Agriculture Secretary Russell Redding offered this equation to describe what is known and unknown about the estimated $30 million or more in annual OOP paid by Pennsylvania consumers: A+B=C.

‘A’ was confirmed by PMMB auditor supervisor Gary Golsovich to be $23.6 million collected by processors in 2022. But, he said, only $14.5 million of this collected OOP was documented as paid to Pennsylvania farms for milk that could demonstrate all three criteria: produced, processed and sold in Pennsylvania.

Golsovich gave an example: A processor sourcing 50% of its milk from Pennsylvania farms with 50% of its sales being consummated in Pennsylvania only has the obligation to pay 25% of the OOP to the Pennsylvania farms. This was something the PMMB tried to change 10 years ago, seeking to require processors to pay up to the percentage of in-state sales that matched in-state sources, but a constitutional interstate commerce challenge in the courts caused the state to back down.

‘B’, said Redding, is the additional $5 to $10 million in OOP that is paid by Pennsylvania consumers but is presently unaccounted for. Examples are packaged milk from out-of-state and other cross-border transactions. Legislation such as Senate Bills 840 and 841 from last session would capture this information, and Senate Ag Chairman Elder Vogel Jr. and Minority Chair Judy Schwank said they intend to re-introduce these bills in the current legislative session.

He estimates the total ‘C’ would be around $30 million, or more, but last year less than half that amount was paid to the intended beneficiaries: Pennsylvania farms.

The only way to fix the leakage, said the Secretary, is to “break the chain,” to remove the OOP from the minimum price and make it a fee collected at retail and remitted to the Department of Revenue into a designated fund. This would also require legislation.

“Pennsylvania has a system that is like no other,” said PMMB Chairman Rob Barley, a farmer in Lancaster and York counties. “The system worked well when people were drinking a lot of milk produced by Pennsylvania dairy producers. That’s changing. The system needs an adjustment.”

When the Senate Ag Chairman pressed the PMMB Chairman for specific ideas, Barley said the Secretary’s proposal, “while not ideal, is probably the only way to do it.”

He mentioned the potential for a tiered or scaled system where smaller farms could receive more and larger farms less, much like the federal Dairy Margin Coverage has a tiered program based on annual milk production history. 

“We want to work with the legislature on this — to benefit everyone,” said Barley.

The consumer member of the PMMB board, Kristi Kassimer Harper from Fayette County, noted examples in her area of western Pennsylvania, where the OOP works among a variety of independent bottlers that buy Pennsylvania milk, process it in Pennsylvania and sell most of it in Pennsylvania.

She cited studies by St. Joseph’s University indicating consumers don’t give much thought to where their milk comes from, but a survey of Pennsylvania consumers showed that two-thirds would pay a 10-cent premium if the premium gets back to the farmers. (They are already paying a 13-cent OOP plus fuel adjuster embedded in the milk price, but less than half of it is getting back Pennsylvania farms.)

In his back-and-forth discussion with Vogel, Barley said a formula could be developed that would prioritize producers that are currently serving the Class I fluid milk market, using a graduated scale. This idea turned Chairman Vogel’s head. He said it’s the first time he’s heard this approach mentioned.

Something like this would address the concerns of milk dealers who are currently upholding the spirit of the law and the testimony from the State Grange, urging caution about diluting the meaningful amount of OOP 15 to 20% of Pennsylvania farms currently receive.

“Consumers are already paying this, it’s not a tax, but if we collected it from Pennsylvania retailers as a fee and put it in a restricted fund, we can avoid the constitutional issues with interstate commerce,” said Senator Gene Yaw. “We do this all the time, collect funds and put it toward programs we want to support. In this case, the people are already paying it, and if the money is in one place, we can audit it.”

The “mechanics” of how to distribute it, he said, can be worked out with the Board and the industry. But at the same time, Yaw and other Senators said they want to help more of the state’s farmers access what was intended for them, without harming those already receiving some.

Meanwhile, the Department of Agriculture’s plan mentions ‘uniform distribution,’ as do the policy points endorsed by Pennsylvania Farm Bureau.

PMMB board member Jim Van Blarcom, a farmer from Bradford County, stated that in his nine years on the Board, he has heard the concerns of producers across the state. He noted the geographic and generational diversity of the PMMB Board, and their ability to understand how different parts of the state have different experiences with the OOP. 

“The OOP was put in place to help dairymen recoup some costs,” said Van Blarcom, explaining to lawmakers that the Milk Marketing Law already has built into it a 2.5 to 3.5% profit margin for bottlers and retailers. “Since then, the industry has changed, making it outdated and less effective. As a board member, it is getting more difficult to weigh the benefits for the farmers who receive a useful OOP vs. farmers who receive very little to none. When consumers pay a mandated 8 to 12 cents on every gallon of milk sold, this becomes a large sum of money, of which some is unaccounted for.

“During my time on the Board, I have heard over and over about the tanker loads of New York milk coming in and displacing Pennsylvania farmers’ milk. The primary reason these companies do this is they can take advantage of the OOP… We are essentially encouraging this to happen,” he explained.

Recounting testimony at a Board hearing from a dairy farmer milking 90 cows, he said the amount of OOP that farm received wass equivalent to one bag of milk replacer a month.

“I don’t believe one bag of calf feed keeps that farmer in business, but rather his tenacity and commitment to the family farm,” said Van Blarcom.

He also recounted testimony at a Board hearing from Pennsylvania Representative John Lawrence, who cited the accurate accounting on mandated fees for alcohol and fuel.

“This is not happening with the mandated milk OOP. It will continue to become more difficult to defend as a program with funds that are not accurately accounted for and not fairly distributed,” Van Blarcom asserted, adding that consumers will also “become more aware of the unfairness to themselves.”

Meanwhile, when laying out the Department of Agriculture’s plan, the Secretary talked about “a collective investment in PA Dairy,” such as using some of these funds to invest in processing.

Andy Bollinger, a Lancaster County dairy farmer testifying for PDMP said the organization has not taken a position on reforming the OOP because they want to see the facts and the results of a study they are working on with a third-party economist.

Zach Myers from the Center for Dairy Excellence also mentioned a study CDE is involved in to understand the obstacles to processing investment within the state. He cited the impact on farms from supply management programs placed on them based on processing capacity.

“We come to you and ask for investments,” Secretary Redding told lawmakers. “Here’s one that’s already done in the marketplace, and we’re failing to bring those dollars back specifically to reinvest in PA Dairy.”

-30-

Little bit new, little bit Dé-jà vu – PA Senate Ag hearing digs into ABC’s of milk OOP

Posted on by
Reply

Data and reform needed, but is Secretary eyeing portion of estimated $30 million-plus for ‘dairy reinvestment’?

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, April 27, 2023

HARRISBURG, Pa. – Little bit new, little bit Dé·jà vu. (That’s French for ‘the feeling of having experienced this situation before.’) 

Those first thoughts came to mind listening to the Pennsylvania Senate Ag Committee’s hearing Tuesday (April 25) on reforming the state’s mandated over-order premium (OOP) that is part of the state’s minimum wholesale and retail milk prices, set by the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Board (PMMB).

Ag Secretary Russell Redding laid out for state lawmakers the Department of Agriculture’s plan to seek reforms that: 1) uniformly and fairly distribute the OOP, 2) ensure the amounts charged to Pennsylvania consumers substantially equal amounts distributed back to farmers, and 3) uses a distribution system that does not have incentives to avoid paying Pennsylvania producers by selling milk from across state lines.

He said the Department is a “reluctant participant” but sees the need to make the “collective case” for the “composite of Pennsylvania Dairy.”

“We believe there are inequities, and we see division and growing farmer mistrust,” said Redding. “We knew there were data gaps in our petition last year… Think about the OOP as an equation: A + B = C.

“What we know today is that of the $23.6 million in OOP collected by processors in 2022, $14 million was required to go back to farmers. That’s A. 

“B is generated in the marketplace but not collected,” he explained. “Our belief is that this is another $5 to $10 million (annually). 

“C is the total that we believe is in the neighborhood of $28.6 to $33 million. The question is, what do we do about it?” he asked.

He answered to say the only way to fix this is to change the system and begin removing the OOP from the minimum price buildup and instead have the PMMB establish a retail-based premium, collected at that point of sale and remitted to the Department of Revenue into a designated fund.

This would require the legislation.

“The General Assembly could then appropriate direct payments to producers and to reinvestment in dairy processing,” said Redding.

The Secretary called it an “embarrassment that we don’t have this number (B)” to complete the A + B = C equation, but as he talked about the PDA’s plan, we heard articulated for the first time this idea that once numbers can be put to the equation and legislative authority for the Board to devise a formula, the OOP could become a “milk tax.” 

The difference being that many consumers don’t know they are already paying the OOP, but when pulled out of the minimum price buildup, it becomes a known quantity.

“We trust the state to do this with liquor, cigarettes and liquid fuel. The legislature could decide how these funds would be used, and a portion could be used to help processors invest or reinvest,” said Redding.

In fact, Zach Myers for the Center for Dairy Excellence said a study is underway to assess the obstacles that are preventing processing investment and reinvestment in Pennsylvania.

PMMB Chairman Rob Barley noted that, “It’s certainly time to evaluate how the OOP dollars get back to farmers and not pick winners and losers. The over $800 million that has gone back to dairy farmers since 1988, especially when the majority of it did, no doubt made a positive difference, but that is changing,” he said. “Fluid milk sales have dropped in half (since then), and it is difficult to account for the dollars with the current tools that we as a Board have.”

Barley noted that if the process moves forward to reform the structure, perhaps other products could be eventually added.

“Right now we don’t have the authority to do any of this. Going back to the 1988 testimony, the primary reason the over-order premium was added (to Class I) is that was the practical point, that was the mechanism already in place for fluid milk. There is no such system for other classes, and Class I is also more of a localized product, which I think is still true today,” Barley explained.

Going forward, he said, the choices for the Board are “to get rid of what we have, which is a choice many are not in favor of, or to have legislation to change the OOP without violating interstate commerce, or to develop a new system that strengthens the Pennsylvania dairy industry to benefit all sectors.”

Redding stressed the point that, “This is all about the dairy farmer, how do we incentivize what we need? Keeping our eye on the farmer and understanding we can do something extraordinary here, we have this opportunity to extract this premium from the marketplace and get (the OOP) back to farmers and for the purposes of reinvestment…”

That’s the New. Now for the Dé·jà vu…

The next thought to emerge in this reporter’s mind after hearing the new twist on OOP as ‘milk tax’ and a portion for ‘reinvestment’ was this: Everyone is at the table now, sitting up, alert, paying attention, and offering solutions after 15-plus years of meetings, hearings and discussions. But the same bottomline emerges: everyone still wants a dip of the farmer’s elusive cream.

Not 15 minutes later, after PMMB board member Jim Van Blarcom testified, his Senator Gene Yaw of the northern tier counties shared a similar thought about how this may be already happening within the minimum price buildup in a rapidly changing industry.

“We made this so complicated and there are too many fingers in this pie, frankly,” said Yaw, asking whether processors get any of this money, now.

PMMB auditor supervisor Gary Gojsovich answered that the OOP is currently collected by processors through their sales, and they pay it back to Pennsylvania producers only when the milk is produced, processed and sold in Pennsylvania, all three must apply.

“In the simplest terms, it sounds like we need to change how the premium is collected and the point of where it is collected,” Senator Yaw responded.

Senator Judy Schwank representing parts of Berks County said: “We need the data. We have to have the data.”

So, we are back to the data. 

The Secretary called it an “embarrassment that we don’t have this number.”

Chairman Elder Vogel and ranking member Schwank said they plan to reintroduce their bills that did not move forward in the last legislative session that would give PMMB authority to license distributors, a move that would account for all packaged milk sales coming into Pennsylvania from out-of-state and other cross-border transactions, which ‘strand premiums.’

A quick history

For decades, there have been meetings and hearings and discussions about the future of the Pennsylvania Milk Marketing Law and the PMMB that sets minimum wholesale and retail milk prices. The law dates back to the 1930s, but the mandated OOP was introduced to the existing structure during a year of drought and high feed prices in 1988.

At that time, the state’s OOP was set by the Board at $1.05 per hundredweight (9 cents per gallon). Today it is $1.00 plus a 50-cents per hundredweight fuel adjuster (combined is 13 cents per gallon). 

At intervals before 2018, the OOP was as high as $3.00 plus a fuel adjuster (over 26 cents per gallon). In 2017, it was nearly $2.00 (17 cents per gallon), but was abruptly cut in half in December of 2017 due to the pressure of out-of-state milk — a harbinger of things to come just four months before Dean Foods announced it was ending contracts with 130 dairy farms in 8 states, 42 of them in Pennsylvania and five months before the startup of the Walmart bottling plant in Indiana.

Also included in the minimum resale and retail milk price buildups are the Federal Order price benchmarks, which vary geographically because Pennsylvania is split between two different Federal Orders. To this minimum federal benchmark price, the OOP is added, translating now to about 13 cents per gallon. 

Also added are the average cost recovery amounts for bottlers and retailers as determined by annual hearings for each area of the state, along with adding the 2.5 to 3.5% profit margin the Milk Marketing Law guarantees milk bottlers and retailers on top of the average cost recovery.

What has come under fire, especially since 2009, is the producer OOP, how it is collected and passed back to farmers, how some of it is stranded and how the changing dairy industry has impacted the real and perceived equity of the distribution of these funds.

Lawmakers made it clear that they look at this as two distinctly separate things, the collection is one issue, and the distribution quite another.

Among those testifying, the amount of the current OOP at $1.50 including fuel adjuster that is received on their farms ranged from 6 cents to 50 cents.

The bottomline is for all of the PMMB’s efforts to expand communication and transparency with the tools available, even board member Van Blarcom conceded that it is becoming more difficult to justify the OOP to his peers.

For his part, Matt Espenshade, a Lancaster County dairy farmer representing the State Grange, told lawmakers that producers and cooperatives that are ‘in’ the Class I market take risks and have requirements other class markets do not experience. 

He cautioned against reforms that would dilute the premium for the 15 to 20% of state farmers currently receiving a meaningful amount because they have costs and risks associated with that reward.

Johnny Painter, a Tioga County dairy farmer testifying for the Pennsylvania Farm Bureau advocated for a uniform distribution of the OOP in reforms that would have the state collect it all. He said farmers in all classes of milk have the same quality standards to meet. 

When pressed by Senator Schwank on why PFB made policy to end the OOP, Painter said it was a tactic to get the dialog started.

Troye Cooper for the Pennsylvania Association of Dairy Cooperatives and a member services director for Maryland and Virginia Cooperative said those receiving very little OOP are part of the 3500 Pennsylvania dairy farms shipping milk through cooperatives that perform essential “balancing” services for the fluid milk market. As coop members, they share in the cost of that.

However, what remained unspoken in his testimony is that the current minimum wholesale and retail milk price buildups now include a roughly 25-cent ‘co-op procurement cost’ for these balancing services along with the requirement that cooperatives list on member milk checks how much of the producer OOP was included. 

Representing the Pennsylvania Association of Milk Dealers, Chuck Turner of Turner Dairy near Pittsburgh, pointed out that fluid milk sales are declining, and other class products are increasing. He asked how bottlers can continue cutting checks to the Federal Orders to bring up the payments for other class milk while reducing the payments to their own shippers when their own fluid milk market volumes are shrinking.

“The fluid milk business is in tough shape. Sales volume has trended downward for 13 years by more than 20%. That’s 1 gallon in 5 lost, 1 plant in 5 closed. It can’t bear the burden for the other classes. It seems particularly unfair with sales growing in the other categories,” said Turner, noting that plants outside of Pennsylvania have been closing “at an astonishing rate.” 

He said the number of independent milk processors in the U.S. fell from 69% to 44% in 2020, whereas in Pennsylvania, independent bottlers still represent 62% of the fluid milk, and he credited the PMMB system for that difference.

Myers noted that Pennsylvania is the state with the second most dairy farms and the fourth smallest average herd size, with production costs that are higher than in some neighboring states. 

He cited loss of market premiums, including quality premiums, the impacts of other price erosion such as Federal Order make allowances that a potential hearing could further degrade. 

Compared to the U.S. All-Milk price published monthly by USDA, Myers noted the Pennsylvania All-Milk price used to be higher than the U.S. average, but this gap has narrowed significantly in the past 15 years.

“It was $1.73 per hundredweight from 2008 to 2012, averaged $1.29 from 2013 to 2017, and in the last five years, it has narrowed to just 49 cents, on average,” said Myers.

In fact, during the pandemic in 2020-21, the Pennsylvania All-Milk price averaged 18 cents less than the U.S. All-Milk price, according to Myers.

“There are several factors for this narrowing, but it’s safe to say it can’t be fixed by increasing the premiums,” said Myers, noting that 80% of the milk produced in Pennsylvania is marketed through cooperatives, and there are cooperative base programs limiting expansion on Pennsylvania farms.

These coop base programs and penalties affect the dairy farms and are in part tied to the limits in processing capacity.

Meanwhile, there were several references by testifiers citing milk coming from New York into Central Pennsylvania for processing and sale and displacing milk produced in that area. The OOP, of course, stays with that retailer, processor and/or cooperative as part of their business model to expand their state’s markets into Pennsylvania so their producers can grow.

“When that premium goes back to New York, that’s exactly what is playing out, and it feels like an injustice to be asking our consumers to pay it without regard to that investment,” said Redding. “We want to capture that premium and put it back into our Pennsylvania dairy farmers.”

The problem, said Barley, is the PMMB can’t just “grab that money and give it to Pennsylvania farmers if the milk is not produced, processed and sold in-state without being challenged in court as in the past on the grounds of violating the interstate commerce clause.”

Senator Yaw interjected that, “If the milk is sold here, we should give the premium back to our farmers. If the milk came from New York, those farmers should not benefit from what we are doing to support Pennsylvania farmers.”

Redding said lawmakers “do not have to wait for the data. The bill on licensing distributors could go forward along with a bill to set up a structured system, assuming the amount to be around $30 million, and we believe it to be higher, to decide how to distribute that revenue.”

Redding said his fear is that as the frustration undertow grows, Pennsylvania will lose this premium without action.

He pointed out that his committee “kept its promise” to get everyone around the table to hear ideas, but that it will be “difficult to thread this needle and it will require collaboration.”

Ranking member Schwank said everything hinges on getting the data that is needed to know how to proceed.

Click to read Part Two.

-30-

AFBF milk pricing forum draws 200 stakeholders to KC, some consensus gained, high priority given to return Class I ‘mover’ to ‘higher of’ formula

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, October 21, 2022

KANSAS CITY, Mo. — It was intense, productive, enlightening, and at times a bit emotional. And, yes, there was consensus on some key points during the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) Forum in Kansas City last weekend (Oct. 14-16).

The event was a first of its kind meeting of the minds from across the dairy landscape, involving mostly dairy farmers, but also other industry stakeholders. It was planned by a 12-member committee representing state Farm Bureaus from coast-to-coast, working with AFBF economist Danny Munch.

Farm Bureau president Zippy Duvall kicked things off Friday afternoon, urging attendees to get something done for the future of the dairy industry, to stay cool, leave friendly, and set a pattern for continuing conversations.

“We have the people in this room who I hope can come up with guiding principles,” said Duvall, noting that a meeting like this is something he has dreamed about for years, even prayed for. He talked about his background as a former dairy farmer and assured attendees that milk pricing is a topic he is very interested in.

He challenged the group to come at it with “an open mind. The answers are sitting in this room, not on Capitol Hill. There are some geniuses in this room, people who really understand this system,” said Duvall.

“We all have ideas, and we can lend an ear to other ideas. We learn a lot if we listen to each other,” he said, noting a few of the existing Farm Bureau dairy policy principles: that FMMOs should be market oriented, with better price discovery. They should be fair and transparent, and farmers should be able to understand and compare milk checks.

Hearings not legislation

Duvall noted AFBF agrees with NMPF that future FMMO changes should go through the normal USDA hearing process, not through Congressional legislation. By Sunday, this seemed to be a point of consensus, along with the recognition that FMMOs need updating, but they are still vital for farmers and the industry. 

On the Class I ‘mover,’ specifically, Munch noted Farm Bureau already adopted the recommendation through its county, state and national grassroots process to return to the ‘higher of’ — plus 74 cents. The addition of the 74 cents is to make up for the unlimited losses incurred over the past four years.

For NMPF’s part, chief economist Peter Vitaliano and consultant Jim Sleper laid out a series of updates the economic committee’s task force is recommending to the NMPF board, which will vote at the annual meeting at the end of October.

These recommendations include going back to the simple ‘higher of’ for the Class I ‘mover,’ updating make allowances and yield factors, doing a pricing-surface study to update Class I differentials, making changes in the end-product pricing survey to allow dry whey price reporting of sales up to 45 days earlier, not 30 days, and eliminating the 500-pound barrel cheese sales from the Class III cheese price formula to base it only on the block cheese.

Intense, informative, valuable

The three days were intense, covering a lot of information, and were shepherded by expert panels and ‘cat herder in chief’ Roger Cryan, AFBF’s chief economist since October 2021.

Munch served as the emcee — akin to the ghost of milk pricing Past (Friday), Present (Saturday) and Future (Sunday). He introduced the various panels and provided economic snapshots and questions for the 25 breakout tables to discuss, decide and deliver.

Meeting organizers reshuffled the deck of 200 attendees from 36 states and representing nearly 150 state and national producer organizations, Farm Bureau chapters, regulatory agencies, farms, co-ops, processors, financial and risk management firms, and university extension educators.

Attendees were assigned tables with a number on the back of each name tag. The goal was to mix the table-groupings for varied geographic and industry perspectives. Each table was equipped with its own large flip tablet mounted on an easel. 

According to Munch, Farm Bureau will scan and collate the information from all of the large tablets and issue a preliminary report to attendees followed by a public report later this year.

On Sunday, the open microphone was lively and most tables reported from their flip tablets. Overwhelmingly, attendees said they found value in the meeting and appreciated the platform. They reported a desire to keep the conversations going, to do this again, not just every 20 years, and not just in response to a problem, but to be forward-looking with the many challenges on the dairy horizon.

Platform for next big issue

For example, Gretl Schlatter, an Ohio dairy producer on the board of American Dairy Coalition (ADC) noted that only Class I milk is mandated to participate in FMMOs, and that today, the FMMOs are weakened with only 60% of U.S. milk production participating in the revenue-sharing pools.

“Where will we be in five years? We do not want to give up on fluid milk – our nutrition powerhouse,” she said. “The issue now is federal milk pricing but the next one coming — fast — is the sustainability benchmarks, the climate scores. We need to keep meeting like this as an industry, keep talking to each other, and get ready for the next big thing affecting our farms and family businesses.”

This was touched upon by Duvall and others, but Cryan reminded everyone that, “Federal Orders are complicated enough without adding the sustainability discussion to it.”

Duvall reminded attendees that this meeting was Farm Bureau’s response to the words of Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack last year, when he said there would be no USDA hearing until the dairy industry reaches some “consensus” on solutions.

This set into motion an already dairy-active Farm Bureau that had formed its own task force, responding to grassroots dairy policy coming up from the county and state levels to national through AFBF’s grassroots process.

In fact, NMPF’s Vitaliano, noted that, “having Roger Cryan at Farm Bureau makes it easier to do this,” to partner on formulating dairy policy because of his background. Prior to coming to Farm Bureau a year ago, Cryan was an economist for NMPF and then for USDA AMS Dairy Programs.

The first hour of the first day included a recorded message from Secretary Vilsack and an in-person presentation by Gloria Montano Green, USDA deputy undersecretary for Farm Production and Conservation.

They encouraged attendees to work together and told them what the Biden-Harris administration has done and is doing for dairy. Primarily, they went through a list of funding and assistance, including the improved Dairy Margin Coverage, the PMVAP payments, Dairy Revenue Protection, Livestock Gross Margin, dairy innovation hub grants and the recent funding for conservation and climate projects that includes 17 funded pilots involving dairy. 

They told attendees that the dairy industry is “far ahead” on climate and conservation because it has been involved in these discussions and is already mapping that landscape.

Dana Coale, deputy administrator of USDA AMS Dairy Programs, took attendees through the FMMO parameters. She engaged with the largely dairy farmer crowd in a frank discussion of what Federal Orders can and cannot do. The headline here is that this current time period before a hearing is a time when she and her staff can talk freely and give opinions. Once a hearing process begins, she and her staff are subject to restrictions on ex parte communications.

Consensus to go back to ‘higher of’ formula

If there was one FMMO “fix” that achieved a clear consensus and was given priority, it was support for going back to the Class I ‘mover’ formula using the ‘higher of’ Class III or IV skim price instead of the current average plus 74 cents method that was changed in the 2018 farm bill.

Since implementation in May 2019 through October 2022, the new method will have cost dairy farmers $868 million in net reduced Class I revenue, which further erodes the mandatory Class I contribution to the uniform pricing among the 11 Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO), setting off a domino effect that has led to massive de-pooling of milk from FMMOs and decreased Federal Order participation.

Pa. Farm Bureau presiden Rick Ebert (left), moderated the first panel Friday afternoon (l-r) Dana Coale, deputy administrator USDA AMS Dairy Programs; Calvin Covington, CEO emeritus, Southeast Milk; Anja Raudabaugh, CEO Western United Dairies. After this panel, during the first open-microphone and roundtable breakout, attendees were urged not to leave their flip tablets blank. “Groups with blank boards will have to drink the almond juice in the back,” said AFBF economist Danny Munch, taking note of the hotel offering and to have real milk on-site — provided Saturday and Sunday by Hiland Dairy.

During his presentation Friday, retired Southeast Milk CEO, Calvin Covington, said dairy farmers lost $69 million in revenue for the first 8 months of post-Covid 2022, alone. That figure will rise to an estimated $200 million when September and October Class I milk pounds are tallied. 

Noting NMPF’s task force recommends the board approve petitioning USDA to go back to the ‘higher of,’ Vitaliano cited “asymmetric risk” as the reason.

This risk scenario was also explained by others. ADC’s Schlatter, for example, noted the current averaging formula “caps the upside at 74 cents, but the downside is unlimited.”

Vitaliano noted that whenever there is a ‘black swan’ event or new and different market factors, this downside risk becomes unacceptable for farmers, and he indicated these market events that create wide spreads in manufacturing classes are likely to continue into the future.

Dr. Marin Bozic, University of Minnesota assistant professor of applied economics, observed the way this downside ‘basis’ risk becomes unmanageable via new and traditional risk management tools. In his futuristic talk on Sunday, producers asked questions, to which he responded that, “Yes, farmers show me that they can’t use the Dairy Revenue Protection because of this basis risk.”

Bozic is also founder and CEO of Bozic LLC developing and maintaining the intellectual property for risk management programs like DRP. 

He also spoke about the concerns of the Midwest as FMMO participation declines. 

Presenting his own ideas and separately the ideas of Edge Dairy Farmer Cooperativ, Bozic said Edge is seeking a consensus to support two or three lines in the upcoming farm bill to simply “enable” FMMO hearings to introduce flexibility on an Order by Order basis, so that uniform benefits can be shared instead of a uniform price. Flexibility, they believe, would enable new ‘uniform benefits’ discussion that can help maintain or encourage FMMO participation in marketing areas with low Class I utilization.

Early in the Class I formula loss scenario of 2020-21, Edge had suggested a new Class III-plus formula to determine the ‘mover.’ Bozic said that “the idea of returning to the ‘higher of’ is not a deal breaker for Edge in the short-term.”

Even Mike Brown, senior supply chain manager for Kroger, unofficially indicated IDFA “could be open to the idea” of reverting back to that previous ‘higher of’ formula. As dairy supply chain manager on everything from Kroger’s milk plants to its new dairy beverages, cheese procurement, and so forth, Brown was asked if the averaging formula allowed him to ‘hedge’ fluid milk to manage risk as a processor.

The answer? Not really. Brown said there are ways for processors to manage risk under the ‘higher of’ formula also, but that they haven’t done any hedging under the averaging formula with fresh fluid milk – and very little risk management with their new aseptically packaged, shelf-stable milks and high protein drinks.

Incidentally, he said, the aseptic, ultrafiltered, shelf-stable dairy beverage category “is growing faster than plant-based” in their retail sales.

This exchange and other discussions suggested the averaging formula may have been geared more toward price stability that would encourage processors to invest in expensive aseptic, ultrafiltered and shelf-stable milk-based beverage technologies that result in a storable product needing risk management. 

Fresh fluid milk is already advance-priced and quite perishable with a fast turnaround. Aseptic, ultrafiltered and shelf-stable products, on the other hand, can be packaged under one set of raw milk pricing conditions and sold to retail or consumers up to nine months later under another set of raw milk pricing conditions.

Frankly, it appears that the consumer-packaged goods companies (CPGs) may be driving such shifts, just as we heard from Phil Plourde of Blimling/Ever.Ag that CPGs are “all-in” on the climate scoring — the next big thing on the dairy challenge list.

Tacking de-pooling – regional or national?

Attendees came back to the specific concern about de-pooling, which Vitaliano and Cryan both described as an issue to be handled regionally and not through a national hearing.

This did not seem to satisfy some who raised the concern. Toward the conclusion Sunday, Cryan explained it this way: 

“De-pooling is a national issue in principle but a regional issue in detail. Every region will have different ideas, needs and situations. If there is consensus (on pooling rules) in a region, then changes could move forward quickly,” he said.

Make allowances are sticky wicket

Attendees appeared to agree that make allowances should be addressed or evaluated through a hearing, but ideas on how to handle this sticky-wicket varied.

Attendees questioned panelists, pointing out that if a farmer’s profit margin on milk is only around $1.00 per hundredweight, then raising make allowances an estimated $1.00 per hundredweight is going to be a tough pill to swallow.

Vitaliano said NMPF is commissioning an economic study with their go-to third-party economist Scott Brown at University of Missouri to show the actual milk check impact of raising make allowances that are embedded into the end-product pricing formulas for the four main products: cheddar, butter, nonfat dry milk and dry whey. 

He said the discussions about make allowances as a cost to farmers are “purely arithmetic” but that the “true impact” is not a straight math calculation. Instead, he said, when make allowances are set appropriately, dairy producers ultimately benefit, so in his opinion, it’s not a penny for penny subtraction.

Several other panelists and attendees observed that processors and cooperatives have been creating their own ‘make allowances’ through assessments, loss of premiums, and other milk check adjustments.

The Saturday afternoon panel of (l-r) Kevin Krentz, Peter Vitaliano, Chris Herlache, and Roger Cryan dove into Class III and IV pricing topics including make allowance formulations and structures.

Vitaliano stressed that when make allowances are set properly, the industry is stronger and better able to compensate producers. Initially, he said, raising make allowances would have a negative impact on expansion, which in turn would have a positive impact on producer prices.

When asked if raising make allowances would mean lost premiums would return to farmer milk checks, he responded by saying “that depends, and it won’t happen right away.”

In other words, raising make allowances will be painful in the short term, but in the long-term (to paraphrase) that pain leads to gain. 

Some panelists and attendees referenced an idea of “phasing in” a future raise in make allowances.

Others wondered why it is necessary with the amount of innovation happening in the 15 years since they were last raised as processors make a wider variety of dairy products – not just those bulk items that are surveyed for end-product pricing formulas.

One idea suggested by a Wisconsin dairy producer was to tie make allowance increases to plant size — much the same way that dairy farmers are only assisted up to a production cap of 5 million annual milk pounds. Cryan said he heard a similar proposal previously to use a graduated scale for make allowance increases according to plant size and presumably age.

This is the crux of the make allowance issue because the new state of the art plants produce many types of products, both commodity and value-added; whereas some of the smaller and older plants that are still vital to the dairy industry are more apt to specialize in producing a bulk commodity with a more limited foray into value-added non-surveyed products.

Modified bloc voting?

While there appeared to be consensus that changes to the FMMOs should be done by USDA petition through the administrative hearing process, not through Congressional legislation, some of the discussion at tables and the open-microphone noted the importance of a producer vote after hearings and USDA final decisions. Many felt farmers should have an individual vote on FMMO changes. 

Currently, cooperatives bloc vote for their members to assure that FMMOs are not ended inadvertently by lack of producer interest in following-through on a vote. 

One compromise suggested by Bozic was to have a preliminary non-binding vote by individual producers, followed by the binding vote done in its usual way.

This, he said, would at least increase accountability and transparency in the FMMO voting process and bring producer engagement into the FMMO hearing process. To be continued

-30-

From DMC to FMMOs, from price ‘movers’ to ‘make allowances’: House Ag hearing reviews farm bill dairy provisions

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, June 24, 2022

WASHINGTON — It was a lot to wade through, but after two panels and nearly four hours, many cards were on the table, even if the full deck was not counted. 

The U.S. House Agriculture Committee hearing Wednesday, June 22 was a 2022 review of the current farm bill’s dairy provisions. Chairman David Scott (D-Ga.) set the stage with his opening remarks, noting a significant part of the hearing would be devoted to the dairy safety net, namely the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC), but also to talk about the Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO) to learn if this system is “the best fit for today’s world.

“We want to continue to listen to farmers and navigate the issue for the best approaches to any changes,” he said, setting the next stage for listening sessions.

Those testifying talked about building consensus for FMMO changes, a charge handed down from Ag Secretary Tom Vilsack last December, and again more recently, when he said a consensus agreement by stakeholders on one plan was needed before a national hearing on milk pricing could be held.

On the Class I ‘mover’ change in the last farm bill, USDA AMS Deputy Administrator Dana Coale noted that the change was authorized by Congress after an agreement was reached between NMPF and IDFA to change the ‘higher of’ to a simple average plus 74 cents. This was designed to be revenue neutral, she said, but the pandemic showed how an unforeseen market shock can create price inversions that significantly change this neutrality. (testimony)

Coale noted that “market abnormalities” brought on a situation where Class I was below Class III, which doesn’t typically happen, and this created losses.

“In the 2018 farm bill Congress authorized a change to the Class I price mover. We implemented that in the department in May 2019. This change was a consensus agreement reached between NMPF and IDFA to benefit the entire industry. Implementation in the farm bill was designed to be revenue neutral. However, nobody foresaw a pandemic occurring, and no one could have projected the implications that pandemic would have on (prices), particularly within the dairy sector. What we saw occur from mid-2020 through mid-2021 was a significant change in that revenue neutrality. As you look at the Class I mover before the pandemic and moving out of the pandemic, it is maintaining pretty much a revenue neutral position compared to the prior mover. However, due to the (class) price inversions that occurred, we had some major losses incurred by the dairy sector.”

Dana Coale, Deputy Administrator, USDA AMS Dairy Programs

On the primary dairy safety net, Farm Service Agency Deputy Administrator Scott Marlow went over the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) and explained the beneficial changes that have been implemented since the 2018 farm bill. (testimony)

He noted that supplemental DMC would have to be made permanent in the next farm bill in order for that additional production history between the 2011-13 figure and the 5 million pound cap to be covered in future years.

“In 2021, DMC payments were triggered for 11 months totaling $1.2 billion paid to producers who enrolled for that year, with an average payment of $60,275 per operation. At 15 cents per cwt at the $9.50 level of coverage, DMC is a very cost-effective risk management tool for dairy producers. Ahead of the 2022 DMC signup, FSA made several improvements. The program was expanded to allow producers to enroll supplemental production (up to the 5 million pound cap). In addition FSA updated the feed cost formula to better reflect the actual cost dairy farmers pay for alfalfa hay. FSA now calculates payments using 100% premium alfalfa hay, rather than 50% of the premium alfalfa hay price and 50% of the conventional alfalfa hay price. This change is retroactive to January 2020 and provided additional payments of $42.8 million for 2020 and 2021. We are very concerned about the margins. It is very important the way DMC focuses on the margin. Farmers are facing inflation of costs beyond the feed that is part of this calculation. This margin based coverage has proven to a model and is something we need to look at for other costs and commodities.”

Scott Marlow, Deputy administrator usda fsa farm programs

Dr. Marin Bozic, Assistant Professor Applied Economics at the University of Minnesota gave some long range trends and observed the factors that are decreasing participation in Federal Milk Marketing Orders. (testimony)

He mentioned that a consideration not to be ignored is the status of vibrancy and competition as seen in transparency and price discovery. When asked about proposals to improve this, Bozic said the proposals need to come forward from the industry, the stakeholders, and that the role of academia is to provide numbers, trends, and analysis of proposals, not to decide and determine these marketing structures.

“Farm gate milk price discovery is challenged by this lack of competition,” he said. “If a corn producer wishes to know how different local elevators would pay for corn, all he needs to do is go online or tune in to his local radio station. Dairy producers used to be able to ‘shop around’ and ask various processors what they would pay for their milk.”

Bozic was quick to point out that, “We should not rush to generalize from such anecdotal evidence, but in my opinion, it would also be prudent not to ignore it.”

“FMMOs start from a set of farmer-friendly ideas… They have somewhat lost luster due to declining sales of beverage milk. In regions other than Northeast and Southeast, fluid milk sales no longer provide strong enough incentives for manufacturers to choose to stay consistently regulated under FMMOs. My estimates are that the share of U.S. milk production in beverage milk products is likely to fall from 18.3% in 2022 to 14.5% by 2032. Do Federal Orders suffice to deliver fair market prices to dairy producers? The critical missing ingredient is vibrant competition for farm milk. Whereas just six or seven years ago, many producers had a choice where to ship their milk, today it is difficult. When some dairy producers have asked for milk price benchmarking information from their educators or consultants, those service providers have in multiple instances faced tacit disapproval or even aggressive legal threats from some dairy processors. Further research and an honest debate on competition in dairy is merited.”

Marin bozic, ph.d., department of applied economics, university of minnesota

Where FMMO changes are concerned, Bozic noted some of the broader issues to come out of the Class I pricing change that was made legislatively in the last farm bill. For example in future reforms, when there is lack of wide public debate on proposals, he said: “It increases odds of a fragile or flawed policy design, and lack of grassroots support for the mechanism in changing markets. FMMOs have a comprehensive protocol for instituting changes through an industry hearing process. The Class I milk price formula can be modified through a hearing process.”

From Bernville, Pennsylvania, representing National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) and DFA, Lolly Lesher of Way-Har Farms shared the benefits of the Dairy Margin Coverage (DMC) program through FSA and other risk management tools through RMA. She said they purchase the coverage at the highest level each year as a safety net for their 240-cow dairy farm. (testimony)

DMC is intended for smaller farms producing up to 5 million pounds of milk annually, but other farms can layer it in with other available tools at the tier one level on the first 5 million pounds or choose to pay the tier two premium to cover more of their milk through that program, but other tools like DRP are also available, Marlow explained.

Turning to the Class I pricing change in the last farm bill, Lesher said the change was an effort to “accommodate a request for improved price risk management for processors, while maintaining revenue neutrality for farmers… but the (pandemic) dramatically undercut the revenue neutrality that formed its foundation.”

“As valuable as the (DMC) program has been, many farmers have not been able to fully benefit because the underlying production history calculation is outdated. It is critical that the (supplemental DMC) production history adjustment be carried over into the 2023 farm bill… The events of the last two years have shined a spotlight on the need for an overall update to the FMMO system. Class I skim milk prices averaged $3.56/cwt lower than they would have under the previous ‘mover’. This undermined orderly marketing and represented net loss to producers of more than $750 million, including over $141 million in the Northeast Order. The current Class I mover saddles dairy farmers with asymmetric risk because it includes an upper limit on how much more Class I skim revenue it can generate… but no lower limit on how much less… those losses become effectively permanent.”

lolly lesher, way-har farm, bernville, pennsylvania, representing nmpf and dfa

According to Lesher’s testimony: “The dairy industry through the National Milk Producers Federation is treating this matter with urgency and is seeking consensus on not only the Class I mover, but also a range of improvements to the FMMO system that we can take to USDA for consideration via a national order hearing.”

Lesher serves on DFA’s policy resolutions committee and she noted that DFA, as a member of NMPF “is actively participating in its process (for FMMO improvements), which involves careful examination of key issues to the dairy sector nationwide… We look forward to working with the broader dairy industry and members of this committee as our efforts advance.”

Representing International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), Mike Durkin, President and CEO of Leprino Foods Company stressed the “extreme urgency” of updating the “make allowances” in the FMMO pricing formulas. These are processor credits deducted from the wholesale value of the four base commodities (cheddar, butter, nonfat dry milk and dry whey) used in FMMO class and component pricing as well as within the advance pricing for fluid milk. (Leprino is the largest maker of mozzarella cheese in the U.S. and the world. Mozzarella cheese is not reported on the USDA AMS price survey used in the FMMO class and component pricing.) (testimony)

Durkin also noted the importance of making the Dairy Forward Pricing Program that expires September 2023 a permanent fixture in the next farm bill for milk. This program allows forward pricing of milk used to make products in Classes II, III and IV so that longer-duration contracts can be used by this milk when also pooled under FMMO regulation without fear of the authority expiring in terms of the FMMO minimum pricing. (Milk that is used to make products in Classes II, III and IV is already not obligated to participate in or be regulated by FMMOs.)

“The costs in the (make allowance) formula dramatically understate today’s cost of manufacturing and have resulted in distortions to the dairy manufacturing sector, which have constrained capacity to process producer milk. Congress can improve the current situation by directing USDA to conduct regular cost of processing studies to enable regular make allowance updates. The need to address this lag is now extremely urgent. While our proposal to authorize USDA to conduct regular cost surveys will eventually provide data to address this in the longer term, steps must be taken now to ensure adequate processing capacity remains. Updating make allowances to reflect current costs will enable producer milk to have a home. Making the (Dairy Forward Pricing Program for Class II, III and IV) permanent could also facilitate additional industry use of this risk management tool for longer durations without concern about the program expiring.”

Mike Durkin, president and ceo, leprino foods, representing idfa

Lesher also thanked House Ag Ranking Member G.T. Thompson for his Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, seeking to bring the choice of whole and 2% milk back to schools. The bill currently has 94 additional cosponsors from 32 states, including the House Ag Chair David Scott and other members of the Agriculture Committee. The bill was referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.

Other key dairy provisions were reported and questions answered, including a witness representing organic dairy farmers. There’s more to report, so stay tuned for additional rumination in Farmshine and here at Agmoos.com

Recorded hearing proceedings available at this link

Written testimony is available at this link


-30-

New ‘cost of processing’ report could boost make allowances by almost $1.00 per cwt

Posted on by
1

By Sherry Bunting

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The USDA released the long-anticipated study on milk price ‘make allowances’ recently. These are embedded in the end-product pricing formulas.

Make allowances are processor credits for transforming raw milk into the four base commodities – cheddar, butter, nonfat dry milk and dry whey that are used in end-product pricing formulas for Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) Class and Component prices as well as the Class I Mover price.

During ADC’s Future of Federal Milk Pricing Forum Feb. 15, set make allowances were cited by panelist Mike McCully as margin guarantees that “encourage commodity production and deter innovation.”

He believes ‘value-added’ products are the path to return more dollars to farmers in the future for all classes, including Class I fluid milk.

“If (FMMO) end-product pricing continues, then the make allowances will have to be raised, and this will come at a cost to producers,” said McCully, referencing the Cost of Processing study commissioned in 2019 by USDA and completed in 2022 by Dr. Mark Stephenson, dairy economics professor at University of Wisconsin-Madison.

In a USDA AMS webinar Feb. 23, Dr. Stephenson talked about the report as well as previous reports in 2006-08 when make allowances were last raised. He observed that today’s plants are more complex with a wider range of products and innovations. Therefore, isolating the costs for the four basic commodities was more difficult this time.

He said 80% of the data came from participation by processing plants owned by cooperatives. Many proprietary plants chose not to participate.

The Class III make allowances for cheese and whey currently total $3.17 per hundredweight, and the Class IV make allowances for butter and nonfat dry milk total $2.17, according to Dr. John Newton, chief economist for the U.S. Senate Agriculture Committee Republicans.

Newton said the new Cost of Processing report shows these make allowances could go up to $4.00 for Class III and $3.12 for Class IV, which represents a nearly $1.00 impact in Federal Order minimum class price reductions if implemented.

“The ultimate result is a reduction in farm milk checks,” said Newton speaking virtually to Kentucky dairy producers at their annual Dairy Partners conference Wed., Feb. 23 in Bowling Green.

“The make allowances are designed to cover the costs of taking raw milk and converting it to these products, where the component value is captured in end-product pricing,” said Newton, observing that they haven’t been raised for more than 10 years, but this hasn’t stopped explosive growth in product production and significant re-blending of farm milk prices in recent years.

“Processors have opportunities to add value in the many other product streams outside of the make allowance and end-product pricing formula, already,” said Newton, noting some of the cumulative numbers and describing this as “effectively a subsidy from farmers to processors to process their milk.”

“This will be a very tough debate, and hopefully farmers are at the table as this debate happens,” he said.

March Class I mover higher, but marks second straight month of value loss under current formula

Posted on by
Reply

Weekly MARKET MOOS, by Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Feb. 18, 2022

March Class I ‘mover’ $22.88 instead of $23.67

The March Class I base price, or ‘mover’, was announced Wed., Feb. 16 at $22.88. This is $1.24 higher than the Feb. Class I ‘mover’ and $7.60 higher than a year ago. This marks the 6th consecutive month of Class I mover gains.

However, for the second consecutive month, the Class I mover is at a level lower than it would have been under the previous ‘higher of’ formula. Announced at $22.88 for March 2022 using the average-plus method, this is 79 cents lower than the $23.67 it would have been under the previous ‘higher of’ formula.

As shown above, the net loss in Class I value since the new formula was implemented in May 2019 is over $738 million. This could continue for the foreseeable future if this week’s futures markets are an indication.

Near term futures diverge by $2 to $3; 12-mo. Cl. III avg. $21.34, IV $23.28

Class III milk contracts came under pressure at midweek while Class IV surged solidly higher. This created more divergence between the two this week — to spreads beyond the $1.48 ‘magic number’ for all but three of the next 12 month contracts. ($1.48 is the point when the Class I price set by the current average-plus method becomes a loss compared to the previous ‘higher of’ method.)

We already saw this occur for the February and March 2022 Class I mover (above).
But the good news is the overall price levels are the highest in 8 years for most of these months — just not as much higher as they would have been using the ‘higher of’ method.

The average spread between the two milk contracts for the next 12 months Feb. 2022 through Jan. 2023 stands at $1.94/cwt this week.

Class III milk futures averaged $21.34 for the next 12 months, 8 cents lower than the average a week ago.

Class IV futures averaged $23.28 for the next 12 months, gaining 47 cents on top of last week’s 67-cent gain, now up fully $2.00 compared with a month ago.

CME spot dairy products all higher, except whey slips a penny

CME spot dairy prices moved higher on all products this week, except whey slipped another penny. Butter made the biggest gains, followed by block cheddar.

On Wed., Feb. 16, butter was pegged at $2.80/lb with 7 loads trading. This is up a whopping 27 cents compared with a week ago but 7 cents below the high for the week at 2.87/lb on the previous day.

Grade A nonfat dry milk (NFDM) hit $1.90 this week, then lost a penny Wed., Feb. 16, pegged at $1.89/lb — still a 2 1/2 cent gain over a week ago with a single load changing hands.

On the Class III side of the ledger Wed., Feb. 16, 40-lb Cheddar blocks were pegged at $1.9825/lb, up 8 cents from the previous Wednesday with 3 loads trading; 500-lb barrels at $1.92 are up 6 cents from a week ago with 3 loads trading.

The spot market for dry whey lost another penny this week, but remains above the 80-cent mark. On Wed., Feb. 16, a single load traded and the price was pegged at 81 cents/lb.

Jan. blend up $1.50-$2.00: Class IV tops Class I in all 7 MCP Orders

January’s uniform prices announced in each of the 11 Federal Milk Marketing Orders (FMMO) over the past several days were $1.50 to $2.00 higher across the board for the third consecutive month. In the 7 multiple component pricing (MCP) FMMOs, the Class IV price topped the Class I minimums (including differentials) and in some FMMOs, the Class I minimums were the lowest class price.

Statistical reports show the spreads incentivized some de-pooling of Class II and IV milk. In the Northeast FMMO for January, Class IV and Class II, combined, accounted for 40% of utilization and Class I accounted for 31%, contributing to a blend price that was $2.36 above the Class III price. PPDs were positive throughout all MCP Orders because Class III was the lowest price. (PPD = blend price minus Class III.)

January’s uniform prices moved higher for the third straight month — across the board — as follows:

FMMO 1 (Northeast) SUP $22.74 PPD +$2.36
FMMO 33 (Mideast) SUP $20.38 PPD +$0.96
FMMO 32 (Central) SUP $21.09 PPD +$0.71
FMMO 30 (UpperMW) SUP $20.59 PPD +$0.21
FMMO 126 (So. West) SUP $21.63 PPD +$1.25
FMMO 124 (Pacific NW) SUP $21.49 PPD +$1.11
FMMO 51 (California) SUP $21.25 PPD +$0.87
FMMO 5 (Appalachian) uniform price $23.72
FMMO 7 (Southeast) uniform price $22.28
FMMO 6 (Florida) uniform price $25.49
FMMO 131 (Arizona) uniform price $24.17

PA Dairy Summit tackles milk pricing: Bozic digs into Class I, FMMO system

Posted on by
2
Dr. Marin Bozic at the PA Dairy Summit Feb. 2

By Sherry Bunting, published in Farmshine, Feb. 11, 2022

LANCASTER, Pa. — “The Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system is built around Class I fluid milk… if no changes are made, they can just collapse, west of the Mississippi,” said Dr. Marin Bozic, a University of Minnesota associate professor of applied economics speaking to over 300 farm and industry attendees of the Pennsylvania Dairy Summit in Lancaster on Feb. 2.

Dr. Bozic showed how the U.S. is now exporting more milk on a solids basis than is being sold in the domestic beverage category. This development is sending shockwaves through a Federal Milk Marketing Order system in which only Class I fluid milk handlers are required to participate.

Fluid milk sales are declining and being overtaken by the increasing export category — leading processors to lose interest in FMMO participation, he said.

Class I fluid milk handlers are the only ones required to participate in FMMOs. It is voluntary for all others.

As markets shift, Bozic predicts continued reductions in producer price differentials, forecasting the average Northeast PPD to decline by more than 20% over the next eight years. 

He also cited the impact of inefficient milk movement stimulated by FMMO pool access provisions. This could also apply to state-regulated over-order premiums. Location-based Class I premiums can fuel inefficient movement of packaged fluid milk from more distant lower-cost-of-production areas. (When local milk is displaced, hauling costs go up.)

“What can we do to give FMMOs a new lease on life?” Bozic asked, observing that future reforms should prepare them to survive in a time when the U.S. is increasingly exporting more milk on a solids basis than in the beverage category.

Bozic said national hearings on FMMO changes could happen after the midterm elections but may not happen until after the 2023 Farm Bill, and NMPF and IDFA are working on their positions.

He referenced a working paper about modernizing U.S. milk pricing and how pricing is done in other countries. Bozic authored the paper together with Blimling and Associates, and it was released at the IDFA convention in January. It is available and anticipating feedback at https://www.idfa.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Modernizing_US_Milk_Pricing_Working_Paper_012522.pdf

Right now, he said, “Milk is being priced like it’s 1999, but it’s 2022.”

For starters, he said, the standard component test should be raised to reflect current national averages that are higher than in 1999. Butterfat, for example, stands at an average 4.0, but standard test is still 3.5. 

Bozic also predicted that over the next two years, the embedded make allowances in the pricing formulas will be increased. He said processors are already re-blending pay prices to accomplish a higher ‘make allowance’ internally. He cited New Zealand’s system that frequently updates manufacturing costs used to determine producer prices.

He was quick to point out that when make allowances are adjusted, it would be tools like the monthly Milk Check Transparency Report that Bozic is working on — along with some ideas for contract fairness — that would put processors on notice that they can’t just re-blend their pay prices on top of a make allowance adjustment. That would be double-dipping.

Answering questions about producer ‘cost of production’ and ‘cost-plus’ pricing, Bozic explained that in the UK, retailers are starting to use a ‘Fairness for Farmers’ label by doing a cost-plus contract model where they use accountants to measure dairy farm costs of production, along with a consumer price index, to price milk three months at a time. 

One key difference, however, is the interstate commerce clause in the U.S. Constitution makes it impossible to keep milk from areas with a lower cost of production from moving to undercut price structures in areas with a higher cost of production. Feed cost could be used, which is a bit more universal, but still varies by region. 

With dairy farms in the UK similarly sized with similar cost structures to farms in the Class I markets of the eastern U.S., such ideas are worth exploring, he said, noting that fluid milk prices in the UK are more stable.

This slide from a working paper co-authored by Dr. Marin Bozic and Blimling and Associates was discussed at the PA Dairy Summit. Dairy farmer Nelson Troutman noticed the fluid milk consumption graph showed the UK (lighter blue line under gray line) doing much better in per-capita fluid milk trends the past 15 years compared with the U.S. (red line), and he asked about it. Australia (gray line) is also doing better.

Referencing Bozic’s graph showing fluid milk consumption trends for various countries, Berks County dairy farmer Nelson Troutman asked about the notably different trend in the UK compared with the U.S. 

“Why is their fluid milk not going down like here?” Troutman asked. “Over there, they talk about ‘the blue milk’ (a reference to the package color of whole milk in the UK). Is it because their whole milk is higher fat than ours? They don’t take it down to 3.25%, and I think their schools can still serve it. It’s no wonder fluid milk sales are falling here.”

Bozic responded to say he thinks “it’s atrocious that we make school kids drink milk without fat,” going on to mention new technology that can convert the lactose into a dietary fiber. 

“If that is successful,” said Bozic, “Then flavored milk (for schools) can be developed to have no additional calories (even with the full fat).”

In that aspect, Bozic talked about how to stimulate fluid milk brand innovation, promotion, and packaging investment in a regulated Class I pricing environment.

“We cling to the FMMO structure because we think that without it, milk pricing will be like the Wild West,” said Bozic.

“There’s some truth to that,” he acknowledged, noting that farms with fewer than 3000 cows are not sure if processors will want to work with them in the future, and the regulated pricing affords some structure for those small and mid-sized farms “to feel safe.”

In reality, however, Bozic said the Wild West is already happening, and it starts at the retail level, which then pushes losses through the system and milk all over the map.

He explained that the Class I price announcements give retailers a price in advance, and these pricing structures show them the costs of bottling, so they know how hard they can squeeze those bottlers, and they are squeezing them.

It’s within this context that Bozic put forth the idea of a fluid milk innovation premium or credit, where the Class I price could be lifted, maybe $2 per hundredweight, and processors could get this premium back — IF they innovate their brand packaging, marketing and promotion.

A key part of this concept is the cost of innovation would be within the Class I price. It would have to be earned, but would be protected from the retailer price squeeze.

“This could encourage fluid milk bottlers to do brand innovation and promotion, to invest in packaging, while making it not so easy for retailers to squeeze them to where they can’t do it,” said Bozic.

“Consumers would pay a little more for milk, but that’s fine,” he explained, citing research that shows the demand reaction to promotion is much larger than the demand reaction to price.

Outside of Pennsylvania, the 99-cent and $1.25, $1.50 gallons seen in supermarkets reflect Class I value loss that is not being borne solely by those discounting retailers. The losses are pushed back through the system, especially now that there is more cooperative ownership of Class I bottling plants, post-Dean. 

Cooperatives are not required to pay Class I minimums to their milk suppliers the way that private milk buyers must.

One attendee asked about the roughly $2.50 in make allowance equivalents that are, by default, subtracted from the Class I price. Could this money be used for innovation and promotion credits since Class I bottlers are not making cheese, butter, nonfat dry milk and whey that the make allowances pertain to?

Bozic replied that the make allowances aren’t extractable because they are “embedded” in the FMMO formulas that currently determine the value of milk components.

For producers in regulated Class I areas — namely the Northeast and Southeast — Bozic said it will be important for them to “lead the way” in an open debate on how fluid milk prices can be stabilized and how the other benefits of FMMOs in payment timeliness, weights and measures, price benchmarking and such can be preserved.

When asked specifically about going back to the ‘higher of’ for calculating the Class I base price, Bozic said: “In the Northeast and Southeast, Class I is still a big deal. If you want it, and if IDFA can’t make a strong argument against it, then go for it.”

More importantly, he said: “We need to build a grand coalition. Transparency is part of that. If building a broader coalition brings us back to discussion about the ‘higher of’, then maybe that’s part of it.”

But the bigger issue he alluded to is this: Doing nothing, and letting it all just happen, could lead to Federal Orders collapsing in other parts of the country, without enough Class I to keep them together, and the system could begin to unravel, anyway, without producer input as to what functions should be saved and how to save them.

Look for part two next week on other aspects of the milk pricing discussion, and more details about what Bozic is doing on Milk Check Transparency, including how producers can participate by writing to him at marin@bozic.io

Last week’s Farmshine (Feb. 4, 2022) had a brief overview of the discussion. Check it out here

Milk pricing reform preview? Bozic unveils bold ideas, new transparency report at PA Dairy Summit

Posted on by
2

By Sherry Bunting, published in Farmshine, Feb. 4, 2022

LANCASTER, Pa. – “The optimum level of tension is not zero,” said Dr. Marin Bozic. While he is an assistant professor of applied economics at the University of Minnesota, it his independent work that he spoke of during a 90-minute reveal of bold ideas for the future of milk pricing.

Bozic was the keynote speaker for the 2022 Pennsylvania Dairy Summit in Lancaster this week. His first public presentation of what he has been working on for months fueled questions and applause from the over 300 attending dairy producers and industry members.

He laid out three “pillars” of milk pricing reform: milk check transparency, fairness in contracting, and Federal Milk Marketing Order modifications.

The first is something he has already begun bringing to fruition. Receiving milk checks from producers in some parts of the country, so far, his goal is to start publishing a Milk Check Transparency Report that would allow producers in a region, or nationally, to see how they are paid — to make milk checks more comparable, and work toward a way for producers to plug in their volume and components and be able to see how decisions affect their price.

He urged dairy producers to consider providing milk checks for this purpose with the goal to cover all regions and buyers. Only Bozic and his assistant see the milk checks, and they are destroyed once the data is entered.

“Making milk checks more comparable brings accountability,” said Bozic. “Transparency is empowering. It gives perspective, and we can have those meaningful conversations.”

While acknowledging that the conversations could get “loud,” and this could get “messy” for a while, he said again, “The optimum level of tension is not zero.”

This new Milk Check Transparency Report will be a way to introduce accountability and competitiveness into the system, said Bozic.

On the milk contracting side, he laid out several ways that producers can have a more level playing field. Key among them is that milk buyers should not be allowed to limit a farm’s production and require exclusivity at the same time.

“Those are two separate lanes, and when they cross, we have traffic accidents,” said Bozic. In other words, a milk buyer or co-op should not require a patron farm to sell only to them while at the same time having a two-tiered pricing scheme — putting limits on how much they will buy at a non-penalty price.

Bozic talked about tweaking the FMMO system to “reinvigorate” fluid milk. He had ideas for a processor premium — raising the price of fluid milk with a premium that, for example, processors can earn back through innovation of packaging and promotion that improves fluid milk marketing.

He also discussed having an open debate about how to price Class I differently for more stability. So much important ground was covered. Look for details in a future Farmshine.

Part One published in Farmshine, Feb. 11, 2022

Check back for Part Two

-30-

Senate Ag subcommittee hearing on milk pricing: Agreement that Federal Orders need reform, but how? That’s the billion-dollar question

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Federal Milk Marketing Orders, their purpose, performance, problems and solutions — including a recent change in the Class I fluid milk pricing formula — were the focus of a Senate Ag subcommittee hearing on ‘Milk Pricing: Areas of Improvement and Reform” Wednesday, Sept. 15 in the Capitol.

“We are in the midst of a modern dairy crisis, magnified by a Class I pricing change in the 2018 Farm Bill. The pandemic and economic downturn are not the only causes of this problem, but they did exacerbate it. This system cannot adapt to market conditions and thus is not fairly compensating our dairy farmers. The formula change is a symptom of larger problems in a system that is confusing, convoluted and difficult to understand,” said Gillibrand Wednesday.

She recounted the more than $750 million in producer losses when looking at the previous Class I fluid milk ‘mover’ formula that used the higher of Class III or IV manufacturing milk prices and comparing it to the current formula that uses an averaging method plus 74 cents.

The hearing was a first step Sen. Gillibrand had previously indicated in a press conference last June, when the full extent of dairy farmer financial losses was becoming known.

As the hearing got underway, Gillibrand observed that from 2003 to 2020 there has been a 55% decrease in the number of dairy farms in the U.S.

“We are using an almost 100-year-old system with the last reform 20 years ago, where dairy farms are not operating as they were then. We need to put the power back in the farmers’ hands.” said Gillibrand.

The power to make the issues known was in the hands of three dairy farmers making up the first panel — Jim Davenport, Tollgate Farm, Ancramdale, New York; Christina Zuiderveen, Black Soil Dairy, Granville, Iowa, and Mike Ferguson of Ferguson Dairy Farm, Senatobia, Mississippi.

This was followed by a panel with Dr. Chris Wolf, ag economics professor at Cornell University, Dr. Robert Wills, president of Cedar Grove Cheese and Clock Shadow Creamery, Plain, Wisconsin, and Catherine de Ronde, vice president of economics and legislative affairs with Agri-Mark cooperative based in Massachusetts with members in New England and New York.

One thing everyone agreed on, in differing degrees, is that reforms are needed in the Federal Milk Marketing Order System.

Testifiers agreed that a key purpose of the FMMOs is to make blended payments more equitable between producers supplying different classes and uses of milk.

All three producers agreed the FMMO system should continue, although they shared differing ideas about how reforms could improve it.

There was also agreement that the new Class I ‘mover’ formula is not adequate for changing and uncertain markets. They agreed that using the USDA rulemaking process is the way to make such changes to be sure all parties are heard.

However, the current change in the Class I ‘mover’, implemented in May 2019, was made legislatively during the 2018 Farm Bill, not through the USDA hearing process.

Ferguson, a 150-cow dairy producer in Mississippi said he supported bringing back the previous ‘higher of’ method while a longer-term solution can be considered through the USDA hearing process. He noted periodic reviews of the adjuster could also be helpful, and that the situation should be addressed in the short term.

He explained that the Southeast producers across FMMOs 5, 6 and 7, produce about 45% of the annual fluid milk needs of their growing population, and when supplemental milk has to be brought in, those Southeast producers pay the price to get it there. That was very difficult and costly when class pricing inversions happened last year for a prolonged period of time.

Davenport, milking 64 cows in New York observed that the Class I price was aligning better in the past few months, but “we’re not out of the woods yet,” on Covid-19, he said.

“The FMMO system has served farmers well but needs adjusted to reflect current product mixes and market swings,” said Davenport, adding that the fluid market is very important for smaller sized dairies and regional supply systems. He proffered the hope that Class I, long-term, could be stabilized by basing it on something other than the volatility of cheese, butter and powder prices.

“The rulemaking process USDA uses will work, it just takes time,” he said, adding that the Class I price should reflect how hard it is to supply the fluid market.

Zuiderveen, whose family has dairies totaling 15,000 cows in Iowa and South Dakota, said FMMO pricing for milk of the same quality should align and foster innovation and competition instead of consolidation. It should also be transparent and promote a nimble industry that can respond to changes, she said.

“Distortions can cause the system to become unglued,” she said, noting that if producers can’t anticipate which classes will participate in the pool and don’t know how that will drive their milk price, then they can’t manage their price risk effectively, losses become compounded, and this discourages risk management.

Zuiderveen and others noted a variance as wide as $9 per hundredweight was experienced in mailbox milk prices from region to region and neighbor to neighbor at intervals last year.

“That creates a sense of helplessness among producers,” said Zuiderveen.

Dr. Wolf noted multiple reasons for the negative PPDs and milk check losses under the new formula, including declining Class I fluid milk sales and increased milk components, but said the two biggest reasons for milk check losses under the new formula compared with the old formula were the large volumes of de-pooled milk that reduced FMMO pool funds as well as the Class I change itself.

Wolf explained multiple factors in the wide divergence between Class III and IV. A primary one was government purchases being tilted to cheese during that time. “This large divergence in butter and cheese prices meant that the Class I milk prices were lower than they would have been under the former pricing rule,” he said.

Ferguson noted that the government cheese purchases were intended to support dairy producers as well as the public during the pandemic, but it ended up having a “devastating effect on our fluid market,” he said, noting that a more balanced approach may have helped.

Through difficult times in the past, price alignments were more stable in large part because of the ‘higher of’ method keeping the Class I price above the blended price so no matter what was purchased, all farmers, supplying all classes of products, benefited more equitably.

Under the current formula, the pandemic cheese purchases helped support dairy producers, but also led to distortions that contributed to large differences in milk prices at the farm level.

Dr. Wills was the only processor testifying. He said the survival of dairy depends on being able to evolve on these pricing issues. “Farmers are only better off if the premium (shared in the FMMO pools) exceeds the value of other classes, and that’s inefficient,” he said, adding his opinion that FMMOs have outlived their purpose.

“The redistribution makes it appear that all farmers are winners, when the evidence shows pricing equity is being lowered,” said Wills. “I fear for the future of the dairy industry. The federally administrated milk pricing now functions opposite of its intent, resulting in higher prices for consumers and lower prices for farmers. It responds slowly, encourages inefficient trucking and promotes consolidation.”

Wills also mentioned the wave of competition from an array of plant-based and blended products as well as cellular agriculture and bio-engineered analog proteins, none of which are included in the FMMO pricing structure.

Wills brought home the reality for rural communities when small and mid-sized farms are lost. Near the end of the hearing, he responded to a question from Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) asking what are his farmers’ biggest concerns, what do they talk about when he sits down with them for coffee at a restaurant?

“My farmers tend to be smaller producers,” said Wills, president of two Wisconsin cheese companies supplied by 28 dairy farms. “They are concerned about having continued access to markets as the industry continues to consolidate. Even in Wisconsin, where we have more competition than most places, it is hard to find homes for those dairies that are cut loose from big plants.”

As consolidation accelerates, he said, there is a trend toward plants not wanting to make multiple stops. “The impact of losing all of those producers … that 10% per year loss (over time) just hollows out our communities. There’s not a restaurant in town anymore to have coffee at,” said Wills. “We lost our hardware store, our grocery store. A lot of it has to do with our rural communities being hollowed out. The ability to maintain those small farms is also important for our communities.”

On program safety nets and risk management tools, Dr. Wolf noted that the Dairy Margin Coverage program has a very positive impact on small producers vs. large producers, and that the Dairy Revenue Protection and Livestock Gross Margin are aimed at bigger farms. He said farms with those programs in place were “in a better place” last year.

However, elsewhere in his testimony and in that of others, the risk management difficulties during the unusual price inversions were also mentioned, when the Class I pricing change was exacerbated by pandemic disruptions creating those misaligned conditions.

As for simply nationalizing the FMMO pooling rules or making them more rigid, Zuiderveen said this would lead to more processors staying out of the pool, and Wills said de-pooling is the pressure relief valve processors need.

With a nod to pricing delays that affect the transparency in sending market signals through the FMMO system, Wills said he found out that week (Sept. 13) what he will be paying for the milk he bought on August 1, and his producers who sold that milk to him were also just finding out what they would be paid. That’s six weeks after shipping the milk.

Wills said this kind of inefficiency makes it difficult to plan and compete in business.

Another positive to come out of the hearing was when Davenport brought up legalizing whole milk in schools, to which Chairwoman Gillibrand, Senator Marshall, a doctor, and a few other members of the Senate Subcommittee gave hearty verbal support.  

Here is the link to the recorded Senate Ag subcommittee hearing https://www.agriculture.senate.gov/hearings/milk-pricing-areas-for-improvement-and-reform

Look for more in a future Farmshine.

-30-