As the U.S. nears a potential recession, dairy producers are finding themselves impacted by both inflation and severe weather.

“There’s certainly been a lot of talk about the inflation at the shelf and food prices,” Tillamook County Creamery Association CEO Patrick Criteser told Yahoo Finance Live (video above). “And there should be because that’s an 8-12% — even higher in some categories — increase in costs year-over-year that’s impacting families.”

Although inflation in the U.S. has shown signs of easing, it still remains relatively elevated at 6.5%, according to the latest Consumer Price Index (CPI) print.

The price of household staples like eggs, butter, and milk are still up substantially over the past year. The latest CPI report indicated that egg prices rose just under 60% year-over-year and 11.1% month-over-month, largely due to an outbreak of avian flu. Butter prices, meanwhile, rose by 35.3% annually while milk prices rose by 12.5%.

These higher costs not only weigh on consumers — they also affect dairy producers and companies like Tillamook, an Oregon-based dairy co-op that relies on obtaining dairy products at an affordable price. (The price of ice cream, which is made with products such as milk and eggs, rose by 15% annually in the latest CPI print.)

“It’s also important to remember what the current economic conditions are, the impact they’re having on the nation’s farmers,” Criteser said. “Input costs at the farm level are up substantially.”

According to the Purdue University/CME Group Ag Economy Barometer from November 2022, 42% of farmers cited high input costs as their top concern for 2023 while 21% chose rising interest rates.

“Farmers are price takers, not price setters,” Criteser explained. “So this cycle of cost increases and then price increases, it rolls through other supply chains. It gets stopped at the farm level in the supply chain to the extent that farmers are having to bear the impact of high input costs without the ability to necessarily pass on higher prices.”

 

Another factor driving uncertainty and higher prices for farmers has been variable weather conditions, which Criteser described as “challenging.”

California’s bomb cyclone earlier this month led to more than 10 inches of rain, which can destroy animal feeds for farmers. The floods are the latest in a pattern of severe weather events that bog down the agriculture sector.

“Weather conditions have a big impact on farming and the environment within which farming is taking place,” Criteser said. “Just a month or so ago, in a 10-day period, we had an ice storm and then a wind storm that caused power outages. And we’re moving generators all around to different farms and trying to keep farms operating.”

Consequently, he added, “many farmers across various sectors and regions in the West are faced with a choice about eating into sometimes multi-generational equity, multiple years of losses, just to keep the farm operating.”

The group that represents dairy farmers in the EU has said that reforms to agriculture policy are “urgently needed” to make sure that agriculture will be sustainable in the future.

This week, the European Milk Board (EMB), an umbrella group of which the Irish Creamery Milk Suppliers’ Association (ICMSA) is a part, said that Europe’s farming system does not have a “healthy production structure.”

Instead, the board thinks that EU farming is getting worse, which has led to a huge drop in the number of farms in Europe, from 15 million in 2003 to less than 10 million now. This is a trend that the EMB said will continue.

This trend will mostly affect small and medium-sized farms, which will have to close because of lower profit margins and income.

Kjartan Poulsen, the chairman of the EMB and a Danish dairy farmer, said, “Even though the milk price is higher than usual and costs are covered for the first time in some regions, this does not make up for the huge losses farmers have had over the past ten years.”

Poulsen added, “On top of that, costs are going up at an exponential rate, and the possibility of prices going down soon means that their incomes will be put under a lot of pressure again.”

Some of the measures and changes that the EMB wants are:

A ban on selling goods for less than they cost to make;
Farmers should be involved in coming up with ideas for implementing the European Green Deal;
Tools for dealing with crises in the EU’s agriculture system;
Strong producer organisations that can bring together a lot of producers to get a better deal;
Taking agriculture out of free-trade deals with the EU.

The EMB says that a ban on selling below cost would stabilise farmers’ incomes and the structure of production in the EU.

The EMB also thinks that the EU Green Deal’s goals are told to farmers and that farmers are expected to pay for these strategies’ extra costs.

Elmar Hannen, the German vice-chairman of the EMB, said, “The EU can come up with goals that are good for the current agricultural policy.

“But when these goals are changed because the wrong course was set or because the right course wasn’t set, neither farmers nor consumers will benefit.”

According to Dairy Australia’s In Focus report, issued late last year, dairy is one of Australia’s most significant rural businesses, ranking third after cattle and wheat in 2021/22.

The authoritative source on all things dairy, According to In Focus, Australia’s national milk output fell marginally from the previous year to 8.6 billion litres, while farmgate production grew to $4.9 billion.

Milk consumption in Australia is among the highest in the developed world, with 90% of families purchasing milk. Cheese, yoghurt, and butter are also purchased on a daily basis.

In 2021/22, 36% of milk production was exported. Because to rising commodity prices, Australia’s exports grew to $3.8 billion, up from $3.2 billion.

Despite relatively high milk prices, the number of dairy farms has decreased. Increased company diversification and farm departures have resulted from high land and meat prices.

Significant labour issues have been encountered in all dairying regions.

“Just over 34,700 people are directly engaged in the business, either on farms or with processing firms,” said Dairy Australia industry analyst Eliza Redfern.

“The analysis demonstrates that industry-related jobs, such as transport, distribution, and agricultural services, as well as research and development activities, provide considerable economic activity and employment in regional Australia.”

In Focus provides comprehensive information about Australia’s milk production, its place in the worldwide market, domestic sales and consumption, and dairy product manufacturing using impartial statistics from across the dairy supply chain.

For more information and to subscribe to In Focus, visit Dairy Australia

As chair of both the House Agriculture Committee for 16 years and the Senate Agriculture Committee from 2013 to the present, Starr has worked hard for a long list of plans to give money from people who buy dairy products to the people who make them.

Starr and his lawyer, Dan Smith, came up with the idea for the Northeast Interstate Dairy Compact in 1990. This was a plan by a group of states to force dairy handlers to pay farmers more for their milk than the market price (and as always, pass the cost on to consumers, at the rate of 12 cents per gallon). This milk regional government was approved by Congress in 1996, but it ended in 2001.

In 2008, Starr and Smith gave the Milk Commission a draught order that would tax milk handlers 38 to 50 cents per gallon. Milk would cost more at grocery stores, general stores, and quick-stop shops because of the tax. Every dairy farm in Vermont would get some of the money. Most of the nine people on the Commission were not willing to agree. Farm Bureau and the dairy cooperatives were not either.

Then Smith came up with a way to fix a big problem: the fact that consumers had to pay more for milk because prices had gone up. Let’s put a tax on milk handlers and price controls on grocery stores together. So, the farmers would get more money, the handlers’ “surplus profit premium” would be taken away by the government, and consumers wouldn’t have to pay more. Brilliant! Even the Commission wouldn’t agree with that.

The next year, Starr and Senator Peter Shumlin, who was running for Governor at the time, introduced a bill that, strangely, did nothing to help farmers. It gave the Legislature the power to control how much retailers could charge for milk. Shumlin said that this bill “takes a step toward helping Vermonters with their economic problems.”

The Starr/Shumlin bill to control prices was finally passed, but its price control parts were taken out. Instead, the bill gave the Milk Commission, which didn’t have to answer to anyone, the power to charge families with young children a hidden milk tax and give the money to members of Bobby Starr’s special interest group. Again, the Commission turned down the offer.

In 2021 Gov. Phil Scott created a Commission on the Future of Vermont Agriculture. Its report had some good ideas for improving the dairy industry, but nothing about Starr and Smith’s long-awaited dairy pricing programme. So, they came up with the idea of a “Task Force to Revitalize the Vermont Dairy Industry” and took turns leading it.

In its 20-page bill, the Task Force says that the current federal milk market order “threatens the State’s dairy industry, which is a threat to the health, welfare, and reasonable comfort of the State’s residents.”

The bill says that it will “clarify the Milk Commission’s discretionary power to set a fair minimum price that milk handlers must pay to milk producers for milk that is processed and made in the state.” The minimum price has to “provide a reasonable economic return to dairy producers,” who have very different costs of production.

Most of the draught bill describes the steps the Commission must take to get the required over-order premiums from the handlers. The handlers will, of course, add the cost to the price of the milk they sell to retailers, which the retailers will then pass on to their customers. The over-order price should not give Vermont’s 583 remaining milk producers a reason to make more milk.

It is against the law to sell milk from another state for less than the minimum price set by Vermont. Any handler who deals in discount-priced milk will pay a “administrative penalty” of $10,000 for each violation and not to exceed $50,000 per day for multiple violations.

So that’s it. The Commission has the power to say what price handlers must pay producers above the market price. This is a hidden tax on milk. The price hike will eventually be passed on to consumers, and anyone selling milk for less than the new price will be hit with “administrative penalties.” This is nothing less than taking over the Vermont dairy industry and setting prices.

Over the past 30 years, the same people have been asking the government to force people to pay more money for dairy products. If they finally get what they want, their milk tax and price controls will turn dairy farming into a public utility where the government controls production, prices, and farm income. All of it will be paid for by raising the prices of dairy products for families who will never get the message.

At the same time, the Legislature is passing the wrongly named “Affordable Heating Act,” which is based on the same hidden tax method: a price increase for heating oil that will be paid by people who will never figure it out.

Open Country Dairy (OCD), which is the second largest milk processor in the country, is trying to get more suppliers.

In order to get suppliers away from Fonterra, OCD is also giving new and existing Waikato suppliers a new milk payment option that is similar to the co-but op’s better.

Its new “milk price plus” programme guarantees farmers 5c/kgMS more than they would have made with Fonterra’s farmgate model and a better advance rate.

Steve Koekemoer, the CEO of OCD, says that the company is giving Waikato farmers two payment options because some farmers are used to working with traditional farmgate milk price models that are based on the markets.

“Right now, we pay our farmers in full every three months. This keeps up with the market prices and gets cash back to the farmers faster. We’ve always thought that farmers should get their money back more quickly,” he says.

OCD’s Waharoa plant just got a new cheese capacity upgrade and a lactose plant, but it needs more milk to fill it.

Yashili, another Waikato milk processor, is also looking for new cow, goat, and sheep milk suppliers. The Chinese company runs a factory in Pokeno that makes milk powders and cream, most of which are sent to China.

On its website, the company tells Waikato farmers that they can join “one of the world’s leading producers of premium products” if they are interested.

Yashili had a site at the National Fieldays for the first time.

Olam, a Singaporean company, is on track to start processing milk at its new plant in Tokoroa in August of next year. The company is working hard to get farmer suppliers on board.

Happy Valley Milk is trying to raise money in Otorohanga to build a new plant.

Andrew McGiven, who used to be president of Federated Farmers, told Rural News that it seems like competition is heating up again in Waikato.

McGiven, who works with Fonterra, says that competition can be good for farmers if they live in the right areas. But he is worried that Fonterra will lose too much milk to competitors.

“I think that if Fonterra’s milk supply gets too scattered, we may lose a co-op that can set the national milk price. If this role/responsibility falls to a corporate processor, milk premiums for farmers may go down, just like in the Australian dairy industry.

“But I also think we have a long way to go before we have to think about that possibility.”

McGiven says that no processor has reached out to him yet, but he has heard radio ads for Open Country.

I’m not providing you any health advise, but as a friend, I want you to know that there’s something fishy going on with practically every part of what “experts” say about a balanced diet, including milk.

I’m no dairy expert, but I am a concerned citizen committed to becoming a more aware consumer in this crazy world where politicians, government bureaucrats, elites, and large businesses all work together to earn money with little regard for our actual well-being.

What drew my attention to the ban and demonization of raw milk in America was that it avoided the main problem (unsanitary conditions, rotting feed for dairy cows, resulting in harmful milk, and more), while also causing a new problem: depriving drinking milk of nearly all nutritional value and health benefits.

I recommend that all students and concerned individuals affiliated with Turning Point USA check into the following sites for their own good:

Step One: Listen to the Old Fashioned On Purpose audio episode “Why We Milk a Cow & Drink Raw Milk” with Jill Winger.

Step two: Be inspired by the family milk cow at Ballerina Farm. Hannah, her husband, and their seven children bring mason jars of maple syrup and cinnamon to the field, milk their dairy cow directly into the mason jar, and drink it right away.

Step Three: Learn about the benefits of raw milk from Carnivore MD, one of my favourite health sites!

During such a turbulent moment in our society, I feel the habits and decisions we make every day at home with our families are becoming increasingly influential, particularly in terms of what we consume. Raw milk should be embraced by Patriots.

As has been the case every year since the 1930s, the number of dairy cows in Wisconsin decreased in 2022. Down from 6,533 a year earlier, the 417 herd losses this year were around average.

I noted a decline from 71,000 dairy farms in our state in 1968 to 23,000 in 1998 in an article I penned back in those days. In 30 years, that’s a decrease of 48,000, or 1,600 year, or 4.3 herds every day. Wow!”
So, to recap

An article from around the same period cited a research by the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) that stated “a stiffer, harsher economic climate was blamed for many of the losses.”

Hold on a second…is it really a tougher, harsher business environment to go from milking cows twice a day with a bucket-style milker in an old wooden stanchion barn with small, narrow dairy stalls to a modern dairy operation, where you don’t have to climb a silo every day and where you don’t have to lift every bale of hay? For many farmers in the dairy industry, investing in themselves financially was like buying freedom.
Not out of the ordinary

The Oncken dairy herd’s decline was fairly typical of the era (and what is still happening today). When I was in high school, my father would periodically bring up the idea of expanding the farm by purchasing the next property, expanding the barn, and increasing the number of cattle by 50%. As a high school athlete, I too don’t recall being very enthusiastic about the prospect. I always simply figured it would work out that way and that I’d be the one to purchase the property someday. When first presented with this concept, I didn’t give it much attention.
Not that I attempted to hide the fact that I

After I had finished high school in the month of August, I approached my father with my question regarding the farm’s future expansion. He finally decided against it after much deliberation, he explained. He said that he had been in debt for the better part of his agricultural career, and that he didn’t feel like taking on any more debt now that his farm was paid off.

I didn’t disagree with his choice but understood that my destiny was out of his hands. Fortunately, I had a scholarship from the University of Wisconsin–Madison that would cover my education costs for a number of years and help me get a foot in the door professionally.
Calculating the odds

Dairy herds decreased by 48 thousand during the 30 years between 1968 and 1998, or by an average of 1,600 year, or by an average of 4.3 herds every day. Only 6,116 herds remain, down about 17,000 since 1998 (1.5 herds each day over the past year), and more, smaller decreases are virtually certainly inevitable in the years to follow.
Three generations of the Meinholz family have taken what began as a small barn with dirt floors and a handful of cows and expanded it into three successful Blue Star Dairies.

Many of the 300 mega dairies started when dads and sons merged their modest farms or grew their existing farms to include new generations of farmers. One piece of labor-saving technology replaced numerous sets of antiquated, outmoded, labor-intensive rubbish, resulting in a larger farm.

“Many farms that couldn’t compete ended up as (failed) farm statistics,” the NMPF stated. Hold on a second! When they say you “couldn’t compete,” what do they mean? None of the farmers I know have given up the trade because they felt they couldn’t “compete” with others in the industry. Many farmers I know have given up the lifestyle because they wanted to retire and, thankfully, a family member or friend offered them the means (money) to do so.

Many farmers give up the profession because they can’t make a living on the land they formerly farmed. However, the most likely competitors for their property are not other farmers, but rather real estate developers, industrialists, city planners, highway construction crews, and wealthy city dwellers.

Like electricians, plumbers, attorneys, authors, computer professionals, and even physicians, some dairy farmers inevitably fail. Divorce, illness, family strife, bad weather, and…incompetence un one’s chosen field are just few of the numerous factors that can lead to financial ruin. Simply put, most dairies do not collapse, but the cows have been sold and the business has closed.
Small dairies, if well run, have a long future.

The fact that two or three cousins succeeded where one had previously failed by opening a new dairy and shutting down three older ones is not indicative of failure on their part. It’s an affront to the forward-thinking farmers who put in the time, effort, and resources to create successful dairy businesses. There is a good chance that the new, state-of-the-art facility will be a huge success, both in terms of improved quality of life and profits.

Many dairy farmers’ offspring went on to further education and flourish as professors, business executives, and other professionals. They made the decision not to farm, and eventually sold the homestead to a new farming family or even the city next door. An additional notation in the “farm loss” statistics.

Dairy farming today is founded on technology, business planning, and lifestyle choices that result in larger farms, and successful farmers realise this. However, it’s not a picnic: there’s a lot of hard work and long hours involved, a lot of money is required (as in many enterprises), not everyone is cut out for it, mother nature still has the final say, success is seldom guaranteed, and failures occur despite the best of intentions.

True, it pains me to see the abandoned barns and farmhouses where I once sipped coffee and reminisced with farmer friends who are no longer working the land.

Before we go to battle over the worrying news of shrinking dairy herds, I’d like to know how many dairy farms Wisconsin needs and who should be in charge of them. That is something both I personally and a whole sector of the economy would benefit from knowing.

The world, including New Zealand, is getting hotter, and as it does, weather patterns are changing.

The Earth’s temperature is rising at a rate that has never been seen before in its history, and New Zealand farmers must act now to avoid the worst effects.

At the NZ Institute of Primary Industry Management (NZIPIM) Climate Change Seminar for Rural Professionals in November, this was the message.

“Some people say that New Zealand doesn’t care about climate change, but that’s not true. It will have effects around the world and on us. Sinead Leahy, Principal Science Advisor at the New Zealand Agricultural Greenhouse Gas Research Centre (NZAGRC), said at the seminar, “It will cost us to mitigate, but it will cost us a lot more if we don’t.”

“There are still many different ideas about climate change, such as the idea that the climate isn’t getting warmer and we shouldn’t worry.

“However, it’s hard to argue against the data that shows temperatures have been rising since the 1950s and are rising at a rate that has never been seen before on Earth. “It is now clear that people are changing the climate, and everyone on Earth needs to be very worried about it,” Sinead said.

Phil Journeaux, an agriculture economist with AgFirst and a fellow presenter, said that as New Zealand’s climate changes, we might not be able to farm the same way we do now.

“A couple of degrees of warming might not seem like much, but it can have a big effect on pasture and crop growth, as well as on pests, diseases, and animal welfare. If it’s warmer than 25 degrees, ryegrass won’t grow.

“The climate of the upper North Island could change from subtropical to semi-monsoon, with rainy winters and hot, dry summers. In this case, Friesian, Hereford, and Angus cattle would have been gone for a long time.

“Farming will be very different, and we need to figure out water policies because irrigation will be important in many places.”

The all-day seminar brought together 25 rural professionals from all over the country to learn more about climate change, why agricultural greenhouse gas emissions are important in NZ, how they can be estimated within the farm system, and how they can be reduced on different farms. Since the middle of 2019, more than 670 people have gone to nearly 40 of these seminars.

The seminar tried to answer some of the questions about animal emissions, methane, and carbon sequestration that people who work in rural areas hear most often from farmers.

People often said that there have always been a lot of ruminant animals on Earth, which give off greenhouse gases.

“There have never been more ruminants in the world than there are right now. Phil said, “There used to be about 70 million bison in North America, but now there are more than 200 million cattle there.”

“There were no ruminant animals in New Zealand a few hundred years ago. Today, there are about 40 million people in New Zealand, and this kind of growth is happening all over the world.”
This map shows average temperatures and shows in black the places where it is too hot for people to live right now. Crossed-out black shows where it will be too hot for people to live by the year 2070. Some of the most populated parts of the world are in this category. “Future of the human climate niche,” by Xu et al., published in PNAS 2020.

Another point of view was that methane doesn’t matter or that methane and nitrous oxide don’t make a big difference and shouldn’t be the focus of any national plan to cut emissions.

Sinead said that even though methane (CH4) is a gas that doesn’t last long, it does matter if we want to stop global warming from getting worse.

“Methane can be a very important part of the solution to climate change. New Zealand is the first country in the world to admit that not all greenhouse gases are the same. New Zealand has different goals for different gases because different gases have different effects on how much the atmosphere warms.

The government has set long-term goals to reduce New Zealand’s greenhouse gas emissions. For example, by 2050, carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, which are called “long-lived” gases, must be at net zero. By 2030, methane emissions will be 10% less than they were in 2017, and by 2050, they will be 24–47% less than they were in 2017.

But in the plans to reach the goal of keeping warming well below 2°C, carbon dioxide emissions do not play a role, while methane emissions do.

not need to go to zero. Methane comes from places like wetlands, garbage dumps, forest fires, farming, and the extraction of fossil fuels. In New Zealand, about 95% of all methane comes from animals that burp and fart. This kind of gas is called “enteric methane.”

The average dairy cow makes about 98 kg of methane a year, while the average beef cow makes about 61 kg, the average deer makes about 25 kg, and the average sheep makes about 13 kg.

Nitrous oxide is released into the air when naturally occurring microbes break down nitrogen that has been added to the soil through manure, urine, and fertiliser. In 2020, 11% of all greenhouse gas emissions in New Zealand came from nitrous oxide. Livestock urine and dung were the main sources of this gas.

Sinead said that New Zealand dairy farmers had become very good at increasing milksolids per cow by doing things like improving genetics and managing pastures.

“We do know that if farmers still farmed the same way as they did in 1990, our total agricultural emissions would have gone up by about 40% instead of 17%. Farmers have made a lot of changes that help their bottom line but have nothing to do with climate change. “Improving efficiency is still important for lowering total emissions,” she said.

Overall, New Zealand’s emissions are small, making up only 0.17 % of the world’s gross emissions (22nd among developed countries). But per person, we have the sixth most pollution in the world.

Sinead said that some people say it’s crazy to try to cut New Zealand’s emissions.

“They say that if we reduce production here by putting a price on greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, other, less efficient producers will increase their production, and the total amount of greenhouse gas emissions around the world will go up. But things aren’t quite that easy.”

Many of NZ’s competitors produce the same amount of pollution per unit of product and have to meet national goals for reducing pollution. If they grow more crops, they must cut emissions in some other part of their economy. Even competitors in the developed world are limited in how much they can make. There are ways to keep making things and cut down on greenhouse gas emissions.

“We are a country that trades and makes more food than the 5 million people who live here need. We export almost all of the food we grow, so we have to make sure that our customers are happy. Big clients like McDonald’s, Nestle, Danone, and Tesco all have to follow rules about the environment.

Many of NZ’s customers will get a big chunk of their greenhouse gas emissions from the farmers they buy from, so it’s likely that they will give those farmers goals to meet to cut their emissions.

Phil said that some farmers asked why they couldn’t use the grass they grew to get carbon credits.

“As grass grows, it takes carbon dioxide out of the air, but when it’s cut and used, it puts carbon dioxide back into the air,” he said.

Trees do the same thing. But grass grows and is harvested in a matter of weeks, while trees may not be harvested for decades or even centuries. At the beginning and end of each year, grass stores the same amount of carbon. As a tree grows, the amount of carbon it has increases from year to year.

The seminar made it clear that New Zealand’s gross emissions are going up and why it’s important to take steps to cut them.

In 2020, New Zealand’s gross emissions were 78,778 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (Mt CO2-e), which were made up of 44% carbon dioxide, 44% methane, 11% nitrous oxide, and 2% fluorinated gases. This means that emissions have gone up by 21% since 1990. (which is when international reporting obligations for greenhouse gas emissions began).

In 2020, enteric methane from ruminant animals made up 73.1% of New Zealand’s agricultural emissions. Nitrous oxide made up another 20% of agricultural emissions. Most of it came from nitrogen in animal urine and dung, but a smaller amount came from using synthetic fertilisers. In 2020, most of the rest of the emissions from agriculture came from methane (4.4% of the total) and carbon dioxide from fertiliser, lime, and dolomite.

See www.agmatters.nz for more information about the things that were talked about at this seminar.
Forecasts for New Zealand’s climate change

By 2100, many places will have more than 80 days a year with temperatures above 25C. This will have a big effect on how well ryegrass grows (it likes temperatures between 5 and 18C) and how well animals do.

During winter and spring, it is likely to rain more in the western parts of the North and South Islands and less in the eastern parts.

In the summer, it is likely to rain more in the east of both islands and less in the west and centre of the North Island.

All areas are likely to get more extreme rain, especially shorter, stronger storms.

Many parts of New Zealand are experiencing more droughts, and farmers in dry areas can expect up to 10% more drought days by 2040.

One Murraylands family has to sell their dairy cows and farm because their whole property flooded because a levee broke.

The Smart family spent almost 40 years building up their dairy business, but it was gone in just a few days.

David Smart, his three sons, and his son-in-law run the Mypolonga farm. All of them are now looking for new jobs and a new way of life.

At nearby Mannum, floodwaters have just reached their highest point, and SES satellite data shows that more than 3,400 properties have been flooded by the River Murray.

Katrina Moore, David Smart’s daughter, said that even though her family worked hard to protect their farm, things changed faster than anyone expected.

“We thought we had a few days, but one night we got a phone call saying the levee bank had broken and water was coming in fast,” she said.

“From that point on, everyone had to work together to get the cows to higher ground.”
Farm was completely flooded.

As the hole in the levee got bigger, Mrs. Moore said that her family had to play “a waiting game” to see how much higher the water would get.

As a safety measure, the family started to clean out the milking robots and office on the dairy farm.

But soon, the water would cover the whole property.

“Everything.” “Everything is under,” Mrs. Moore said, pointing to the ground.
After their farm in Mypolonga flooded, a family is in a lot of trouble.
After their farm in Mypolonga flooded, a family is in a lot of trouble.
(Supplied: Katrina Moore)

After the flood, the Smart family had to make the hard decision to sell their dairy farm.

Mrs. Moore said, “No one really wanted to sell the farm.”

“It’s what we have to do to stay alive, because we can’t keep going the way we are.

“Dad always told us kids that he was improving the farm for our future.

“Once the [milking] robots came, we thought our kids would be fine in the future… It’s hard for all of that to just go away.”
Finding work elsewhere

The Smart family doesn’t know what the future holds as they deal with the loss of their dairy farm and their way of life.

“My husband and all of my brothers will have to look for work elsewhere,” Mrs. Moore said.

“No one knows what they want to do or where they want to go for sure.

“We’ve lived on the farm together for our whole lives, but now it’s all over and we have to go our separate ways.”
The flood, says the Smart family, has forced them to sell their home.
The flood, says the Smart family, has forced them to sell their home.
(Supplied: Katrina Moore)

The family will slowly start to sell their dairy cows, milking robots, and any other equipment from their dairy business while they wait for the water to go down, which could take years.

Mrs. Moore said, “We can’t sell the paddocks yet, but we can sell everything else.”

“It’s terrible that this is now the case.

“Most people out there probably think it’s just some swaps, but it’s more than that to us.”
Getting 500 cows to safety on foot

David Smart, Katrina’s dad, has lived in Mypologna for 43 years.

He said that the loss of his family’s dairy farm was very sad.

Mr. Smart said that when the levee broke, his family needed help from the community to walk more than 500 of his dairy cows 3.5 kilometres to a higher paddock on another farm where they would be safe.

“Every time we made a plan, water closed another road, so we kept having to change it,” he said.
More than 500 dairy cows from Mypolonga were walked to higher ground.
More than 500 dairy cows from Mypolonga were walked to higher ground. (Supplied: Katrina Moore)

“We are on a neighbouring farm a little further up the road, and milking is taking forever and is very hard work.

“That was one of the main reasons why we decided [to sell the farm].”

Once, the cows would walk themselves into the dairy shed to be milked by a robot. Now, the Smart family is having trouble milking the animals with a rotary system, and there are problems with infection.

Mr. Smart said that the main goal right now was to get the cows milked and healthy enough to sell.

“I’d hate for them to go to meatworks after 40 years of breeding, but it might be the only choice,” he said.
“a nothing figure” for aid money

In areas of South Australia that were hit by floods, the federal and state governments have teamed up to offer an extra $126 million in relief funds. Primary producers can get up to $75,000 in recovery grants.

But Mr. Smart said that money wouldn’t make a difference.
The Smart family’s dairy farm was mostly flooded because a levee broke.
The Smart family’s dairy farm was mostly flooded because a levee broke.
(Supplied: Katrina Moore)

He said, “It’s not much of a number at all. Our day-to-day costs have quadrupled, and $75,000 won’t even last us a week.”

“It won’t bring back my farm.

“Trying to keep the family together was one of the main reasons we decided to sell the farm. If we had kept going the way we were, we might have broken up the family.

“I’m just not able to keep going like this.”
“Everyone came out and helped”

During the whole thing, Mr. Smart said, the local community came together to help.

“When we needed help moving the cows, everyone just showed up,” he said.

“I have relief milkers coming in tomorrow morning to give two of us a morning off… Even though they are small, they are very important.

“One of the hardest things is that when we built our house, we made sure it had a view. Every time I walk out the door, I see water, and it breaks my heart.”

Primary producers who were hurt by the floods can get recovery grants by calling 1800 931 314 or going to the website of the South Australian Department of Primary Industries and Regions.

Fluid cow’s milk has long been a grocery staple for most U.S. households. However, as dietary habits change, individuals are drinking less milk on average. The USDA, Economic Research Service (ERS) Food Availability (Per Capita) Data System shows that U.S. daily per capita consumption of fluid milk decreased over each of the past seven decades. Between 1990 and 2000, it fell from 0.78 cup to 0.69 cup (an 11.5-percent decline). By 2010, it was down to 0.62 cup (10.1 percent lower than it had been in 2000). Compared with each of the previous six decades, U.S. daily per person fluid milk consumption fell at its fastest rate in the 2010s. In 2019, it was 0.49 cup (20.7 percent lower than in 2010).

The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2020–2025, recommend individuals consume 2- to 3 cup-equivalents of dairy products per day depending on their age, gender, and level of physical activity. One cup of fluid cow’s milk, 1 cup of yogurt, 1.5 ounces of natural cheese, or 2 ounces of processed cheese each contribute 1 cup-equivalent toward meeting daily dairy recommendations. One cup of fortified soy beverage also counts as 1 cup-equivalent of dairy product. Other plant-based products bearing two-part names (almond milk, rice milk, coconut milk, oat milk, hemp milk, and others) are not included as part of the dairy group because their overall nutritional content is not similar to that of dairy milk.

Despite Government and industry efforts, about 90 percent of the U.S. population does not meet the Dietary Guidelines’ dairy recommendations. Although U.S. per capita cheese and yogurt consumption has more than tripled since 1970, U.S. per capita consumption of all dairy products peaked in 1987 at 1.57 cup-equivalents per day. People drank less milk during the 1990s and 2000s, more or less offsetting increases in consumption of other dairy products. In 2009, consumption of U.S. dairy products was 1.55 cup-equivalents per person per day. By 2019, it was 1.49 cup-equivalents, weighed down by the faster rate of declines in milk consumption.

The future of U.S. fluid milk consumption depends not just on the overall trend but also on which consumers are reducing their consumption most and how they do so. To investigate U.S. fluid milk consumption trends among age groups, ERS researchers recently examined dietary intake surveys cooperatively planned and conducted by USDA and the National Center for Health Statistics (part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) between 2003 and 2018. In these surveys, participants reported their food and beverage intake during a 24-hour period. They recorded what and how much they ate and drank and whether they consumed foods and beverages as standalone items or in combination with other foods. ERS researchers also studied scanner data collected between 2013 and 2018 with detailed information about which products a panel of households bought over that time period at retail stores. This study helped to better understand the evolving relationship between households’ purchases of fluid dairy milk, plant-based milk alternatives, and other potentially competing beverages.

Milk as a Beverage

Dietary intake surveys from 2003–2018 confirm that people in the United States primarily consume fluid cow’s milk as a beverage. Even so, during this same period, individuals of all ages significantly decreased their consumption. This includes plain and flavored milk as well as malted milk, eggnog, and hot chocolate, among other milk-based beverages. Per capita daily consumption among children (ages 12 years and under) initially fluctuated over the 2000s. Children’s consumption of milk measured 1.07 cup-equivalents in 2003–04 and 1.10 cup-equivalents in 2009–10. However, during the 2010s, per capita consumption of milk as a beverage declined steadily among children, falling to 0.79 cup-equivalent per day in 2017–18. Steady declines also occurred in per capita consumption among teenagers (ages 13 through 19) and adults (ages 20 and older) after 2011–12.

Milk with Cereal

People also pour fluid cow’s milk on hot and cold cereal. Between 2003 and 2018, U.S. per person consumption of milk in this manner fell, with the steepest drop occurring among children. Among children, it fell from 0.39 cup-equivalent in 2003–04 to 0.25 cup-equivalent in 2017–18. A smaller decrease occurred among adults. Changes in consumption among teenagers were statistically insignificant.

Milk in Other Beverages

A third way people use fluid cow’s milk is by adding it to beverages such as coffee and tea. No statistically significant changes were detected in the amount of milk that individuals use this way over the 2000s and 2010s. In 2017–18, adults consumed an average of about 0.09 cup-equivalent of milk with non-dairy beverages each day, much as they did in 2003–04.

What Has Contributed to the Downward Trend?

Underlying the long-run downward trend in milk drinking are differences in the eating and drinking habits of newer and older generations. A 2013 ERS report shows that newer generations are consuming less fluid milk than preceding generations. Individuals born in the 1970s, for example, drank less milk in their teens, 20s, and 30s than individuals born in the 1960s did at the same age points. Those born in the 1980s and 1990s, in turn, appear likely to consume even less fluid milk in their adulthood than those born in the 1970s. These differences across generations reflect in part their unique eating choices as children. Every decade brings a wider selection of beverage choices at supermarkets, restaurants, and other food outlets.

Nutritionists have pointed out that consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages such as soft drinks and juice drinks increased during the 1980s and 1990s and appeared to be replacing milk. However, in recent years, U.S. per capita consumption of sugar-sweetened beverages also has declined. Using data on households’ beverage choices between 2013 and 2018, ERS researchers examined households’ purchases at retail grocery stores of milk, soft drinks, 100-percent juice and juice drinks, bottled water, and coffee and tea drinks. They found little evidence that consumption of one beverage was offset by consumption of another. That is, competition between milk and these other major beverage categories was found to have little effect on milk purchases over those years.

There was, however, evidence that plant-based milk alternatives, such as almond milk and soy milk, do compete with fluid cow’s milk. ERS research using household scanner data confirms that sales of these beverages are negatively affecting purchases of fluid cow’s milk. Still, the increase in their sales is much smaller than the decrease in sales of fluid cow’s milk, so plant-based milk alternatives can explain only a small share of overall sales trends. Sales of plant-based milk alternatives may be contributing to sales trends for fluid cow’s milk but are not likely to be a primary driver of those trends.

USDA Supports Dairy Consumption

Several USDA programs encourage consumption of fluid cow’s milk and overall dairy consumption, including the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs; the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children, or WIC; and the Special Milk Program. Schools participating in the National School Lunch Program, for example, must offer students 1 cup of milk with each lunch.

When analyzing the 2003–18 dietary records of teenagers and children, ERS researchers found that children aged 6 through 12 years obtained 35 percent of their fluid milk at schools while teenagers aged 13 through 18 years obtained 25 percent of their fluid milk at schools. Consumption of fluid milk was also higher for both groups on weekdays, when schools are generally in session, than on weekends.

Dairy farmers and fluid milk processors also invest in checkoff programs that operate with oversight from USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service. The Fluid Milk Processor Promotion Program, funded by fluid milk processors, was designed to maintain and expand markets and uses for fluid milk products produced in the United States through generic advertising (designed to promote a general product rather than a particular brand). The National Dairy Promotion and Research Board, funded by dairy farmers and dairy product importers, seeks to increase sales of, and demand for, all types of dairy products and ingredients.

ERS research in 2017 found that thousands of new beverage products are introduced in the U.S. market each year, which may compete with fluid milk. This mix of new products includes a variety of milks, carbonated soft drinks, fruit drinks, juices, energy drinks, sports drinks, and waters with fruit flavoring, among others. Competition among these products is based in part on price. Product packaging may also highlight attributes, including flavor or whether the product is USDA Organic certified, is natural in origin, contains probiotics, contains calcium, is lactose-free, is non-GMO, or is without artificial sweeteners. Future milk-drinking trends in the United States may be shaped by the abilities of milk processors and other beverage manufacturers to gauge and anticipate the mix of attributes most appealing to consumers.

Source: ers.usda.gov

Zach Myers, the risk education manager for Pennsylvania’s Center for Dairy Excellence, said that as of October 2022, U.S. dairy exports have gone up for seven months in a row. He said this in a presentation about profitability in December.
Also, for the first time, nonfat dry milk/skim milk powder had a year-over-year increase. This is the most-exported type of dairy. Myers said that exports “continue to be on track to set new records for both volume and value.”
In fact, the USDA’s “Dairy: World Markets and Trade” report from December 2022 said that in 2022, the value of all dairy exports broke records. Strong prices for dairy products around the world are what’s driving these exports.
The report goes on to say, “Through October, the value of dairy exports is up 25%, with strong growth across the major product groups, such as skim milk powder (NDM/SMP), whey, lactose, cheese, and butter. However, the average growth in export volume is only 5%.”
Myers also said that the U.S. made 18.25 billion pounds of milk in November, which was 1.3 percent more than in November 2021. In that year, the number of cows went up by 0.4%, to 9.42 million. Each cow that was lactating made 74.3 pounds of milk per day.
In terms of prices, the CME price for butter in November was $2.93, up from $1.99 the year before. The price for block cheese was $2.18, up from $1.86. The price of nonfat dry milk around the world is $1.41, but it will be $1.56 in 2021.
Myers said that the latest predictions for Class III and Class IV futures milk prices show that Class III has started to go down again after stabilising in the first part of November. As of December 15, the 12-month average for Class III was $19.80 per cwt, which was 79 cents less than it was in mid-November. Class IV, on the other hand, has been going down for months, with a 12-month average price of $20.39.
But Myers said that even though those average milk prices went down, the prices now are still much higher than the average prices for the past five years, which were $17.66 for Class III and $16.78 for Class IV.
In October, the dairy margin coverage of $19.71 per cwt did not cause an indemnity to be paid out. The cost of feed went down by 59 cents to $15.19 per cwt, while the price of all milk went up by $1.50 to $25.90 per cwt.
Myers made a point of saying that the USDA has made the sign-up period for 2023 last until January 31, 2023. He looked at the value of dairy margin coverage as a risk management tool every year since it started in 2019 by giving enrolled dairy farms a net benefit.
Since margins are expected to be much lower in 2023 and indemnities are expected from January to August, dairy managers who have not yet joined the programme may want to do so. Signing up must be done at a Farm Service Agency office near you.
The USDA report on trade summed up the conditions for milk production and several other products so that exports from major countries could be predicted for 2023.
In Argentina, milk production is expected to go back up in 2023 because the weather will be back to normal after a dry summer and cold fall hurt yields in 2022. Also, better access to concentrates, fertilisers, and fuels, as well as investments in technologies that make animals more comfortable and better ways to care for them, should help increase milk production.
Even though record milk, low hay and grain prices, and above-average rainfall are all good signs that could lead to more dairy cows and more milk production, Australia’s milk production is expected to go down.
Due to a lack of workers and rising energy and fertiliser costs, dairy farmers are reducing the number of cows they have and switching to beef cattle production.
In 2022, there was a drought across the European Union. This made it harder to make feed for animals and less milk. Also, higher costs for energy, fertiliser, and feed to make milk cancelled out higher prices at the farm gate. Consumer demand for dairy products like goat cheeses and buffalo mozzarella, as well as local milk production for products with a protected geographical indication, helped the Mediterranean member states do better.
But French and Italian farmers couldn’t meet GI feeding standards because they didn’t have enough feed.
Even though milk production has stayed the same, the number of dairy cows in the EU has gone down, which has hurt EU production. Also, the new Common Agricultural Policy and the Farm to Fork Strategy, which will go along with it, are likely to add more uncertainty to their dairy sector. In 2023, milk production in the EU is expected to go down.
Due to a smaller dairy herd and slightly less milk per cow, New Zealand’s milk production is expected to go down a little bit in 2023. Cow yields are likely to be affected by a third consecutive La Nia weather pattern, a smaller feed base because of a cold and wet winter that slowed spring pasture growth, and a smaller winter forage crop because of long periods of dry weather in the first half of 2022.
The number of cows is also expected to go down, which will continue the trend of their herds getting smaller. Rising costs of inputs and problems in the global supply chain also hurt producers.
In October, the value of U.S. dairy exports rose to $818.7 million. This was due to more shipments of high-value cheese and butter. At the end of the first 10 months of 2022, the value of U.S. dairy exports was a record $8.08 billion, beating the previous record of $7.7 billion set in 2021.
In Myers’s report, he said that U.S. exports from that time until 2022 were still on track to break records for both volume and value.

China’s unpasteurized milk producers are having a hard time because the market is flooded with too much milk because there are too many dairy cows and not enough people want milk. This has caused prices to drop to unprofitable levels while the cost of feed keeps going up, and there doesn’t seem to be an end in sight.

Raw milk is in a cyclical period of oversupply, and prices have been going down since the middle of last year. An independent dairy industry analyst, Song Liang, told Yicai Global that prices will go down even more in 2023. He also said that things will only get better when demand goes up.

A person who works at a large farm in northern Hebei province, which is close to Beijing, told Yicai Global, “The situation is not good.” Even before the Lunar New Year holiday at the end of the month, when many dairy product makers usually stock up on milk, the market continues to cool.

According to the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs, the price of unpasteurized milk in 10 major milk-producing regions, including the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, dropped 4.2% from the same time last year to CNY4.12 (USD0.59) per kilogramme in the last week of December.

The price at large farms was between CNY4.20 and CNY4.30 per kg in the middle of last year. By the end of the year, it had dropped to between CNY3.90 and CNY4 per kg. In fact, prices have gone down to CNY3.80 per kg in the northwest of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, the price of animal feed like soybean meal, corn, and alfalfa has gone up a lot in the past year, cutting into milk producers’ profits. About 70% of what it costs to make milk goes to feed.

Li Shengli, chief scientist at the National Dairy Industry and Technology System, said that the average price of fresh milk should be at least CNY4.30 per kg. This would give producers a basic profit margin of 8%.

The person at the Hebei farm said that producers of cheese, yoghurt, and other dairy products are not able to order more milk. A big farm can make it through hard times, but smaller farms may have to sell their cows, raise beef cattle, or even close down.

And things are so bad that some customers have decided not to renew their contracts to buy in 2023.
Vicious Cycle

Song Huiting, chair of Jiangsu Jiahui Biotechnology, said that the size of dairy herds has grown too much in the past three years, which is also a reason why there is a mismatch between supply and demand right now. According to estimates, the number of dairy cows rose by 37 percent from 2019 to 2020, going from 4.5 million to 6.3 million.

Song Liang said that the market for unpasteurized milk has become stuck in a cycle of “milk shortage, price markup, cattle breeding, oversupply, cattle culling, and milk shortage.” To solve the problem, it needs to look into conglomeration and linking upstream and downstream capacity.

Several insiders told Yicai Global that the raw milk sector will be under even more pressure if the market doesn’t recover during the Spring Festival holiday.

The illness that killed 112 cows on a dairy farm in St. Helier is still being looked into in a BIG way.

More than three-quarters of the 137 Jersey cows at Woodlands Farm on Rue de Maupertuis died after the accident, which sent shock waves through the Island’s farming community.

At first, contaminated feed was thought to be the cause, but Environment Minister Jonathan Renouf said that the investigation would need to look at other things as well.

He said, “It seems like cattle on other farms have had the same feed without any problems, so we’ll have to find out if there are other factors that only affect this group.”

All of the affected cattle at Woodlands were from the high-yielding “group A” herd. The farm also has a separate herd of about 100 cattle called “group B,” which has not been affected.

Deputy Renouf said he had been told that 25 of the affected cattle have survived so far, and it was hoped that the number of deaths would not go up any more.

He said, “I’m glad to hear that no milk from the affected sub-herd has gone into the food chain and that every precaution has been taken to protect human and animal health.”

Samples of some of the dead cattle and the food they ate have been flown to laboratories in the UK.

Deputy Renouf said that because it is a specialised job, analysing samples could take about a week.

Eamon Fenlon, the managing director of Jersey Dairy, said the event was a very big deal. He estimated that there were about 2,250 milking cows on Island farms before it happened.
Picture of Woodlands Farm by JON GUEGAN (34899107)

He also said that he was sure the problem had been stopped.

As a safety measure, 33,000 litres of milk from all over the Island, including some from Woodlands, will be thrown away on Friday.

Mr. Fenlon said there was no danger to milk supplies because only about 60% of the milk made was sold locally.

The rest of the milk is used to make export products and soft-scoop ice cream for sales in 2023. If necessary, he said, this production could be temporarily cut back.

Philip Le Maistre, the head of the Milk Marketing Board, said he would keep working with the Le Boutillier family, who have run Woodlands Farm for five generations.

He said, “It’s been a scary time for them, and I think it will take them a while to get over it.”

Mr. Le Maistre said that he had worked in the dairy business for 40 years and had never seen anything like this before.

He said that he hoped the investigation would give some answers.

He said, “Everyone wants to find out what happened, and a lot of people are working hard on the investigation.”

“It will take time, so for now we just have to wait to see what happens, and then we’ll see if anything else needs to be done.”

Staff from a number of government agencies have been involved, including the animal carcass incinerator, which was needed to get rid of the dead cattle.

The JEP thinks that the incinerator can handle about 75 animals per week and has enough cold storage space for the cattle that have been collected.

Jersey Dairy said in a statement, “Everyone at Jersey Dairy is devastated by what happened at Woodlands Farm, and our thoughts are with the Le Boutillier family and all of their team at this very sad time.”

“We can’t even begin to imagine how hard this must be for Charlie Le Boutillier, his family, and everyone at Woodlands. Our hearts hurt for them, and we can’t even imagine how shocked they must be.”

A dairy farmer in southwest Wisconsin says it’s time for raw milk to be sold in America’s Dairyland.

Travis Klinkner milks cows in the western part of Vernon County, close to Romance. After the pandemic, he says, more people want farm-direct marketing, so he tried to get Wisconsin Farm Bureau delegates to support the change. “I think that our policy gives our government relations team a good step toward helping our lawmakers make good laws about selling raw milk in Wisconsin. People can buy what they want, and farmers can sell directly to people what they want.

Klinkner says that at least 26 other states already let people buy raw milk, but safety rules vary from state to state. “We don’t want people to just open a valve on their bulk tank and pour milk into a dirty jar. There will be standards for this, such as the ones we propose today from the Raw Milk Institute. These standards will make sure that the consumer gets a clean, high-quality product.”

People can’t get sick from unpasteurized milk because of the law, but Klinkner says the technology and standards are there to make it safe. He says that farming is not like it was in the 1920s and 1930s. “The standards I’m proposing go above and beyond those for pasteurised milk in a lot of ways, like having lower counts of bacteria and coliforms. This way, we can give consumers who may not know how to drink or handle raw milk a stable shelf life.”

At the most recent Farm Bureau convention, the policy was changed to allow the sale of raw milk.

A Vermont legislative task force working on the state’s dairy industry finished the year by making a list of suggestions that the General Assembly will take up in 2023.

The Task Force to Revitalize the Vermont Dairy Industry came up with a list of suggestions, which will be sent as a report to the state Senate Agriculture Committee in January. From there, the suggestions could go to other parts of the state government.

The recommendations come at a time when Vermont’s dairy industry is struggling because of pressures from the outside. This year, the cost of fertiliser went through the roof because of inflation and the war in Ukraine, which made the situation worse.

Even though the final numbers aren’t in yet, dozens of dairy farms in Vermont have shut down in 2022. At the first meeting of the task force, which took place at the end of August, the number was set at 22.

The Vermont Milk Commission, which is part of the state’s Department of Agriculture, is at the centre of many of the proposed changes.

The task force has suggested a number of changes that would give the commission more freedom to change Vermont’s pricing systems in a way that would be fair to both dairy farmers and consumers.

Michael O’Grady, deputy chief counsel with the Vermont Office of Legislative Counsel, talked about the state’s minimum producer price regulation while the proposed changes were being talked about.

O’Grady said that the language in the list of recommendations is up to the commission. “The rules for setting the price are being changed. It’s not just about making dairy products; it’s also about processing and making them.

The Vermont Milk Commission has been a part of state government for a long time, but there are efforts to give it more tools to help it deal with pressures on the state’s dairy industry.

For example, the commission could be able to hire people to deal with a variety of issues as they come up. This was one of the ideas brought up at the recent meeting, which raised questions about how the task could be overseen.

“You can choose,” O’Grady said. “At the moment, the agency is allowed to use its own staff. If they want to hire someone from outside, they can. Money can be set aside for that by the General Assembly.”

Even though the work of the task force is done, state Sen. Robert Starr, who is also co-chair, said that the process of making changes to help the struggling dairy industry in the state has just been formalised.

Starr, D-Essex, said, “I think it’s very important to remember that what we’re doing is proposed legislation that we would be passing.” “Once the Ag Committee goes over this, the meetings, hearings, and getting people in will start all over again.”

Starr said this about what would happen next: “We’ll be taking testimony. I think we’ve done a pretty good job with this from a legal standpoint.”

Once again, Tillamook Creamery is making Oregon proud. This year, Dairy Foods Magazine gave the coveted “Processor of the Year” award to the Tillamook County Creamery Association.

Dairy Foods talked about how the creamery co-sales op’s have grown, how it cares for its stakeholders, and how it takes care of the environment. The co-op is one of the oldest food brands in the U.S. It has been around for more than 100 years.

Thomas Stillwell set up the town of Tillamook in 1861. Residents quickly realised that it would be hard to find a better place to make dairy products. The land is fertile and gets a lot of rain because it is close to the coast of Oregon. When you add in the relatively flat terrain, it is a great place for cattle to graze.

The Tillamook County Creamery Association was started by a group of local farmers in 1909. They wanted fair rates and better prices for getting their goods to the market.

This isn’t the first time the creamery has won an award in recent memory. The “Target Vendor of the Year” award for food and drinks went to Tillamook.

Just in big box stores, Tillamook’s business has grown by a huge amount. In 2016, the company did business with Target worth $8 million. This year, just at Target, that number has grown quickly to almost $60 million in retail sales.

Tillamook is different from most other American dairies. The co-op has been able to grow for itself and its shareholders while still being sustainable. It gets high marks for being a single source and caring about the environment.

The co-op is a certified “B Corporation” that takes care of the environment very seriously. The cooperative said that by 2030, it wants to only use 100% sustainable and recyclable packaging and have net-zero carbon emissions.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Tillamook is also seen as a rare success story in the dairy industry. Farmers all over the country dumped milk because getting rid of it was a logistical nightmare, but Tillamook farmers were sure where to send their loads. This is because of the way Tillamook does business. All of its products are made and packaged at the same place, making them ready for sale. As dairy products disappeared from store shelves across the country, Tillamook’s sales went up by an average of 50%.

Tillamook has a corporate culture that has roots in the area, which is different from many companies in the market today. The family of CEO Patrick Criteser has been in Oregon since the state was founded. His ancestors moved to Oregon in the 1860s, just a few years after it became a state. Tillamook is an Oregon institution that has been around for as long as the state itself.

If you want to see the creamery for yourself, a new visitor centre opened in 2019, and the process of making cheese has been on display to the public since the 1940s.

At the next International Dairy Show, which will be held in Orlando, Florida, Tillamook will be given the “Processor of the Year” award.

Supply-managed Canadian dairy farmers will get their fourth and last direct payment from the Dairy Direct Payment Program. This programme is meant to help producers who have been hurt by the government’s CETA and CPTPP trade deals.

Under CETA, the trade deal between Canada and the European Union, the EU’s share of the Canadian cheese market went up by 18,500 tonnes, which, according to the National Farmers Union of Canada, means that Canadian dairies will lose 185,000 tonnes of fluid milk production. The Dairy Processors Association of Canada thought that dairy producers would lose about CAD670 million (USD490 million) in market share and investment returns. According to Dairy Farmers Canada, under CPTPP, Canada’s free-trade deal with 10 Asia-Pacific countries, including major dairy exporters like Australia and New Zealand, Canadian dairies would lose CAD160 million per year.

For the first three years of the Dairy Direct Payment Program (DDPP), the government gave up to CAD1.28bn (USD940m) to the country’s dairy producers as compensation. The fourth and final round was worth CAD468m (USD343m).

Farmers who qualify get money based on how much milk they produce. For example, the owner of an 80-head dairy farm will get CAD38,000 (USD27,880). Before March 31, 2023, producers must sign up with the Canadian Dairy Commission in order to get paid.

Future compensation

In its 2020 pre-budget submission, DFC estimated that the market access granted by CETA, CPTPP, and CUSMA would cost Canadian farmers an average of CAD450m (USD330m) each year in income. The group also said that by 2024, 18% of Canada’s dairy production will come from outside the country.

So, the Canadian government has been asked to come up with a plan to give affected producers more money through a new package of compensation, this time to deal with the effects of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

In the Fall Economic Statement for 2022, the state promised dairy farmers up to CAD1.2bn (about USD879m). Under the DDPP, the money will be given out from 2024 to 2029. The ministry said that farm owners with a herd of 80 milking cows could get a direct payment of about CAD106,000 (USD77,700) over six years, with each payment being less than the last.

Bibeau said, “We made a promise, and we kept it.” “Our government promised that after trade agreements were signed, supply-managed sectors would be fully and fairly compensated. ​

“The payment at the start of 2023 is the last part of the dairy producers’ compensation for CETA and CPTPP. From the beginning of next year until 2029, they will be paid for CUSMA. I also reaffirm that our government will not give up any more market shares as a result of supply management in future trade talks.” ​

Launch of the Sustainable Agriculture Strategy consultations

In other news, Minister Bibeau has started a process to come up with a plan for sustainable agriculture (SAS).

SAS will help farmers make a living while also helping to cut down on pollution. The strategy will be made with the help of the agricultural sector, and provinces and territories will be involved in the planning process.

There will be public meetings and targeted workshops, as well as an advisory committee made up of producers and people from the sector. The goal is to finish the plan in the coming year.

Michael Oakes, chair of the NFU England dairy board, says that the soon-to-be-implemented Dairy Purchasing Code will make the industry more open and fair.

The dairy farmer in the West Midlands hoped that after years of talks and the 2020 Defra consultation, the new law would make the dairy industry stronger by spreading the risk more evenly between the farmer, the processor, and the retailers.

Mr. Oakes said, “Right now, the farmers are taking on more risk than the rest of the supply chain.” “And I hope that the new laws will make things fair again. Most dairy farmers take on a lot more risk than they should.

“Over the past few years, we’ve seen processors and retailers keep taking a profit from milk and dairy products, even though the farmer has sometimes made nothing at all. We need processors to do more than just cut the price at the farm gate to deal with risk. This could happen through different relationships with their customers or new markets.

Mr. Oakes told The Scottish Farmer that he also wanted the new rules to make things more clear. He said, “We’re not talking about setting prices, but farmers and processors are free to do that if they want to.” At the end of the day, I hope we’ll have a clear idea of what affects and moves the price of milk at the farm gate.

Many of these issues have been talked about for a long time, and negotiations have been tougher when the price of milk is low. Many people remember the “SOS Dairy” crisis of 2012 and the “Voluntary Code of Practice” for dairy contracts that came out of it. This code was meant to improve the contracts between farmers and people who buy milk.

Even though a lot of people signed up for the voluntary code, it only made small changes, and farmers still thought there were unfair trade practises. Then, in 2020, the government started a discussion about regulating dairy contracts, which called for change. In early 2021, the government said it would regulate dairy contracts using the powers in the Agriculture Bill.

After Defra has listened to what people have to say, the next step is for a “SI” to go before Parliament. After the Agriculture Act was passed, the government already had the power to make the regulation. Now, all that needs to happen is for the SI to pass through Parliament, which is a bit easier, but MPs will still vote on it.

Once the law is passed, it is expected that it will take two years to put it into effect. This will give farmers and dairy processors time to change contracts if they need to and set up new groups to represent them. In the next few years, it’s likely that most dairy farmers will need to sit down with their processor and make sure that their relationship meets the new rules.

Even though the details haven’t been made public yet, Mr. Oakes has seen the plans and said they are “99% there.”

He told her, “We’re almost there. I’ve seen it, and I’m happy about it, as are the people who represent Scotland and the other devolved nations. The way prices are set is the obvious sticking point in all of this, but the industry is working through it.

“We can’t afford to put processors out of business, but we want to be in a better place with more fairness and better farmer representation.”

This year, dairy farmers got record prices for their milk, but they also had record business costs. Mr. Oakes was quick to point out that the situation was complicated. He said, “Some of your readers will have had the best summer ever if they bought their fertiliser last year and feed before prices went up.”

“However, I know that some other people didn’t buy early enough, and then they had a drought, so they’ve had a very hard year. If the predictions of a drop in the market this spring come true, it will be hard for dairy farmers again.

“But if farmers don’t have faith in a margin, production will go down, as we saw this summer. It was the first time that the industry worked together to raise the price and restore confidence in the sector since I became dairy chair six years ago.

Mr. Oakes said that people’s spending habits would change because of the rising prices. But he was sure that milk and other dairy products would continue to be important for feeding the country.

“We might see a little bit of a shift away from branded milk or cheese and toward own label,” he said. “But 98% of homes have milk, and I don’t think that will change. It can be one of the least expensive ways to get nutrients and food.

“This is true for milk, cheese, and all other dairy products. With a block of Cheddar, you can make a lot of tasty, healthy meals.

The dairy chair said that there are also growing opportunities abroad. He said that 30–50% of Cheddar was already being exported at a higher margin than sales in the United States. Most of these high-value markets are outside of Europe, where business has slowed down since Brexit. However, many EU buyers still buy UK goods at a discount.

“There are more and more export opportunities, and we need to make sure that processors are ready to take advantage of them,” Mr. Oakes said. In the past, we haven’t been able to take advantage of market opportunities because we focused too much on the domestic market. If these markets want more milk, this industry has shown that it can deliver, as long as there is a profit margin.

Mr. Oakes says that balancing a growing dairy industry with climate change goals depends on where you draw the line. He said, “Our summer wasn’t easy, but compared to other European countries like the Netherlands or Spain, at least we were able to grow some feed.”

“And using phosphorus as a fertiliser doesn’t give us the same problems. The dairy industry’s dairy roadmap is helping us prove our environmental credentials and carbon footprint, which is good on a global scale.

Fonterra’s CEO Miles Hurrell has stated that the Co-decision op’s to sell DPA Brazil is in line with its objective of focusing on the New Zealand milk pool. Investment in DPA Brazil has matured, and the sale will allow us to refocus on growing our core companies. Fonterra is relieved to have closed the deal, which was put on hold owing to COVID-19 market circumstances, according to Mr. Hurrell. Fonterra’s financial disclosures have shown DPA Brazil held for sale from January 2020.

DPA was founded in 2003 by Fonterra and Nestlé with the intention of producing and selling dairy products throughout Latin America. The joint venture shifted its attention back to Brazil and chilled dairy in 2014.

For its part, Nestlé owns 49% of Fonterra’s stock. DPA has 1,300 employees throughout its two factories. In Brazil, DPA promotes several well-known brands, including Nestlé, Chamyto, Ninho, Chandelle, Chambinho, Neston, and Molico.

Competition authority permission is a precondition to the transaction. Throughout the pre-completion phase, the underlying performance of the DPA Brazil business will be included in Fonterra’s previously stated FY23 profits projection. In its financial report for FY23, Fonterra will give an update on the overall impact of its divestment initiative.

The company said that its strong growth in earnings was due to how well its protein portfolio did, especially in medical nutrition. It thinks that the price of milk at the farm gate will be between $8.50 and $9.50 per kg of milk solids, with $9 as the middle point.

The CEO of Fonterra, Mike Hurrell, said that it was a good start for the company given what was going on in the world at the time.

“Geopolitical and macroeconomic events continue to have an effect on us, with higher costs at every point in our supply chain,” he said. “The story is the same on the farm, where our farmer shareholders have to deal with much higher input costs.”

Hurrell said that milk supply from key exporting regions like Europe, Australia, and the US has been down over the past year, and production in New Zealand is down 2.9% compared to the same time last season.

China’s “softening of demand” for whole milk powder is due to changes in the stock market.

“We’ve seen more people from other places joining in, which has helped to make up for some of the drop in demand from Greater China,” he said. “We’re happy with our sales contract rate, even though it’s still early in the fiscal year.”

Hurrell said that the company’s ingredients business is still making a lot of money from its protein products, especially casein and caseinate, which are used in medical nutrition. Last year, underlying earnings went up 94% to $368 million, and normalised profit after taxes went up 84% to $214 million.

“The stable high margins in our protein portfolio give us the confidence to raise our earnings guidance, even though the wider range reflects the market’s volatility, which we expect to continue in the short to medium term.”

“If these conditions last for a long time, it could be good for earnings forecasts in a different way.”

People said that the dairy cooperative did better in the food service channel compared to the same time last year. Still, the high cost of milk continues to put a lot of pressure on both retail and food service margins.

Hurrel said that the company had made progress on shipping the extra inventory at the end of the company’s fiscal year, and that the stock had returned to normal levels.

“There’s no doubt that the world is becoming more uncertain. Pressures from inflation are being felt both on the farm and in our business as a whole, but the fundamentals of the dairy industry are still good, he said.

Consumers and businesses often have different ideas of what it means to be sustainable. Understanding what consumers want and how they feel about sustainability in the dairy industry can help people who make dairy products market them well.

In an article published by Elsevier and printed in the Journal of Dairy Science®, researchers from North Carolina State University looked at how consumer perceptions of sustainability are affected by trends and consumer desires for sustainability. They also looked at how consumer perceptions of sustainability compare to popular plant-based alternatives.

Consumers’ views on sustainability are affected by many things, such as packaging, labelling, animal welfare, organic status, grass-fed or pasture-raised feeding systems, and perceptions of local and clean labels. When consumers and businesses don’t agree on what sustainability means, it can lead to confusion and frustration. In addition to demographics and psychographics, products within the same category can have different effects on how people feel about sustainability.

The authors of this study looked at where there are differences between how sustainability is currently defined and how consumers see it, as well as how to use strategic marketing to teach consumers.

Angelina Schiano, PhD, Department of Food, Bioprocessing and Nutrition Sciences, Southeast Dairy Foods Research Center, North Carolina University, Raleigh, NC, USA, was the first author of the study. She said, “Consumers themselves have different perceptions, definitions, and options of sustainability that vary between categories and products in the dairy industry.” “Understanding where sustainability definitions overlap and where they differ is more than just a technical exercise. These definitions shape public opinion and policy, and not thinking about the full effects of a chosen definition can have wide-ranging effects on the industry, the environment, and people’s quality of life.”
Consumers’ views on sustainability are affected by many things, such as packaging, labelling, animal welfare, organic status, grass-fed or pasture-raised feeding systems, and perceptions of local and clean labels. When consumers and businesses have different ideas about what sustainability means, it can lead to confusion and frustration. (Photo: iStock/sergeyryzhov)

Environmental, economic, and social sustainability are often used as a framework for thinking about sustainability. The use of water and land, greenhouse gas emissions, and reliance on nonrenewable energy sources are environmental factors. The price of products and the ability of producers to make money are economic factors. Social factors include the number of jobs held by undocumented workers and the care of animals. The authors found that people’s definitions of sustainability include all three of these parts, often in different ways.

“Cognitive overlap can lead to halo effects that have a big impact on how people see things and what they want to buy. “For example, a product that is marketed as healthy may be seen by consumers as more sustainable, and a product that is marketed as natural may be seen as more healthy,” said Dr. Schiano.

People were more likely to think of healthier and more environmentally friendly practises when they heard the word “organic.” “This shows that the best label claims to make people think that organic milk is more sustainable are those that include other aspects of sustainability in addition to the organic status.”

But the study suggests that promoting nonconventional dairy as a sustainable alternative may hurt the dairy industry in the long run by making consumers less interested in conventional dairy and less willing to pay for it. Instead, the authors suggest using strategic marketing and a consumer-centered approach to teach people about the dairy industry in a way that makes people feel better about dairy and dairy products in general, especially when compared to how plant-based alternatives are marketed.

The Mesa de Productores Lecheros Santafesinos MeProLSaFe knew in the first edition of the programme Dólar Soja that the government’s mistakes and the historic drought would make the crisis in the sector even worse.

The government’s work on macroeconomics has delayed investment decisions and caused a pullback in the sector, but milk won’t stop flowing because what we’re seeing is a concentration of production, not a decrease.

Yes, the drought will slow down production next year because some reserves will arrive later because of the delay in planting corn. This will affect both confined and pastoral dairy farms, but the market will eventually be able to handle them.

There is worry because if the smaller dairy farms went away, production would go down, and there would be less milk and all of its products on store shelves. But there won’t be a shortage of milk because the farms won’t go away. Instead, they will be taken over by bigger farms. There will be less milk coming from the same number of larger farms.

The way things are made today requires a larger scale, which means that some producers will have to leave the business as they have been building it, while others will grow. But dairy farming won’t go away. Instead, it will have to change with the times.

The government needs reserves to be able to pay its international debts, so it is putting measures on the producers’ backs that don’t take into account the damage they do.

The Dolar Soja programme, which gives money to grain exporters, large agricultural producers, and landowners, fully reaches small producers, takes them out of the game, and shakes up all activities that depend on grains and that rent the land they work on.

MeProLSaFe predicts that the combination of the weather and politics will cause a sharp drop in dairy production in the next few months. This will lead to a lack of processed products and the loss of a lot of dairy farms and dairy producers. But there is nothing new under the sun when it comes to politics… The drought will be the most noticeable.

The group not only predicts hard times, but also suggests ways to avoid them and find a balance between the government’s needs and those of the producers. For example, the government should help the smallest producers by compensating the price of raw milk at the farm gate, offering financing with low rates and long terms, and changing the cost structure.

They say that if these alternatives aren’t used or are thought about at the wrong time, very few dairy farms will survive the economic imbalance and the extreme drought, and there will be a shortage of processed products next year. Prices will go through the roof, which will raise the cost of the basic food basket and make inflation worse.

All of this was already talked about in September, when the desperate Dolar Soja measure was new and promised to be one-of-a-kind and never done again. They made suggestions that are still in effect. The answers that were promised are still not here.

It’s good to eat dairy products, but making them is getting harder and requires producers to change the way they think and the infrastructure they use. Even though milk will keep coming, macroeconomic policies are forcing dairy farmers to change how they run their businesses.

According to Nathan Penny, senior agri economist at Westpac New Zealand, a pick-up in the Chinese economy should translate into increased Chinese dairy demand in the year ahead. He added, “We expect the Chinese economy to rise by 6% over 2023 from a lacklustre 3.5% over 2022.”

Overnight on November 15th, auction prices for dairy products went up, putting an end to a streak of three days in which prices had gone down. The general price index increased by 2.4%, with crucial whole milk powder (WMP) prices showing an increase of 3.1%. Penny highlights the fact that overall and WMP costs are still lower by 18% and 19% respectively compared to the same period last year.

The prices during the auction were inconsistent from product to product, with three products experiencing price increases and three experiencing price decreases. Prices of skim milk powder (SMP) increased by the same amount as prices of whole milk powder (WMP), but prices of anhydrous milk fat (AMF) increased by 2.7%. The addition of SMP, WMP, and AMF together accounted for 87% of the product that was sold, which resulted in a 2.4% increase in the overall price.

Penny is very emphatic on the fact that “this result was better than both our expectations and the market expectation for essentially a flat result.” The encouraging finding comes after China’s government decided to loosen limits on covids. As a result of the slowdown in the Chinese economy, the demand for dairy products in China had been steadily declining throughout the year.
expansion of the economy

Penny believes that the recent relaxation of limitations on covid in China may be an indication that Chinese officials are moving toward adopting a more pragmatic approach to covid. “We had predicted that this would be the case at some point in the future, and on that basis, we forecast the Chinese economy to rise by 6% over 2023 from a sluggish 3.5% over 2022.”

Penny anticipates that the improvement in the Chinese economy and the easing of limitations on Covid would result in an increase in the demand for dairy products in China during the next year. These projections lend credence to Westpac’s 2022-2023 milk price forecast of NZ$8.75 (US$5.42) per kilogramme of milk solids. “At the same time, the relaxation in the Chinese Covid limits and the uptick in pricing overnight bode well for our 2023-2024 projection of NZ$10.00 (US$6.20) per kg MS,” writes Penny. “This bodes well for our 2023-2024 forecast of NZ$10.00 (US$6.20) per kg MS.”

The Australian Dairy Farmers Corporation (ADFC) has increased the price that it pays to its various suppliers. It was one of the first processors to put a price increase into effect for this season. To this point, only a small number of processors in Australia have proposed any sort of price adjustment. ADFC providers will be compensated an average of AUS$9.90 (US$6.61) per kilogramme of milk solids throughout the 2022-2023 season. This amount will be backdated to the beginning of July.
Milk price

According to statements made by Stephen Sheridan, the newly appointed chief executive of Australian Dairy Farmers, increased input costs are putting a strain on primary producers as well as processors, despite the fact that milk prices are trending upward.

“The cost of inputs, such as labour force shortages, the price of energy, fertiliser, electricity, and gas for the processors.” Feed costs, which have been impacted as a result of recent flooding. All of these factors are having an effect on the costs of the inputs, which in turn has an effect on the profitability. Because of its high energy requirements, dairy farming is particularly vulnerable to the negative effects of inflation and interest rate fluctuations.

The quantity and quality of grass across Europe has deteriorated as a result of the hot and dry weather that occurred over the summer, according to the short-term prognosis for agricultural markets in the EU. In addition, yields of the primary crops that are used for feed have decreased.

Numerous farmers had already begun using some of their winter feed during the summer, which resulted in a decrease in crop growth of 0.4% and a further culling of their herd of 0.9%. In 2022, it is anticipated that milk collection in the EU will decrease by 0.5%. The decline in milk powder exports is primarily responsible for the seven percent dip in EU dairy exports.

It is possible that farmers in Europe will continue to face difficult conditions at the beginning of the year 2023 as they attempt to contend with high input costs and anticipated declining demand. It is anticipated that the yield growth could be slightly higher (0.6%) and could compensate for further reductions (-0.8%) in the dairy herd. This is based on the assumption that weather conditions would be typical.

Despite a decrease in national milk output of about a billion litres over the previous five years, the number of employees working for Dairy Australia has increased by almost 30 percent over that same time period.

According to the annual reports of the DA, the organisation had a total staff of 139.65 full-time equivalent positions in the 2016–2017 fiscal year, with 91.3 FTEs located at its Southbank headquarters and 48.35 FTEs distributed across its eight regional development programme sites.

The most recent annual report for 2021-22 states that the number of full-time equivalent employees has increased to 178, although it does not provide a breakdown of how many of those work at Southbank versus the RDPs.

The national milk production has decreased from 9 billion litres in 2016–17 to an estimate of just about 8 billion litres for this season while the number of employees working for DA has increased.

The increase in employee numbers is reflected in the salary bill, which has increased from $14.9 million in 2016-2017 to $18.34 million in 2021-22.

David Nation, the managing director of the DA, stated that the number of employees “fluctuates over time based on the huge rise in the supply of services to farmers and the sector and the reduced need on consultants to offer these services.”

In response to inquiries over the expansion of Dairy Australia’s workforce, Managing Director David Nation stated that he intends to raise the level of farmer engagement.

“There are also plans to increase Dairy Australia’s services and engagement with farmers through each of our 8 regional sites,” the statement read. Which involves increasing both the expertise and the capacity to provide support for agricultural enterprises.

Despite the fact that the DA was unsuccessful earlier in the year in its attempt to get a 20% rise in the levies that farmers contribute to the company’s research, development, and marketing efforts, they have decided to raise wages.

At the time, the Australian Dairy Farmers Board urged the nation’s 5000 farmers not to support any increase in the levy. This was due to the fact that dairy processing giants such as Fonterra, Bega, and Saputo refused to contribute, despite enjoying the benefits of the R&D body’s $10 million investment in post farmgate manufacturing research, market access, and development. At the time, the Australian Dairy Farmers Board urged the nation’s 5000 farmers not to support any increase in

Glenn Britnell, a dairy farmer near Woolsthorpe, said that the issue that DA needed to address was “What value have we obtained from hiring more workers while producing less milk?” Britnell added that this was the question that DA needed to answer.

It’s fine with me if they add more people to their workforce, but are they also adding value further down the chain?

Steve Henty, a dairy farmer in Cohuna, stated that DA had brought value to his own operation throughout the course of his lifetime, but he was unable to attribute anything to the company’s R&D that had assisted him over the past five years.

On the other hand, he stated that “when there’s an emergency, they [the DA] do really step up, calling to ask what we need, particularly when things are tight.”

Regarding the decrease in milk output, Mr. Henty stated that “everyone has to bear a little bit of blame.” He pointed the finger at individuals with large numbers of cows who “had not been able to achieve the correct balance” as well as “those of us of a certain age who are thinking of running beef.”

For the first time since the beginning of the year, the third quarter saw positive yearly growth in the total domestic consumption of milk in all products. This favourable outcome was largely a result of increased use of all cheese. The third quarter saw a slight slowdown in U.S. dairy export volumes from the second quarter’s record pace, but the sector was still on track to virtually certainly break another calendar year record. Through the third quarter of 2018, performance increased greatly from the previous record-breaking 17.3 percent calendar year recorded in 2021 to 18 percent of the total milk solids produced in the United States.

After many months of below-year-ago levels, the U.S. dairy industry has finally clearly started to increase milk production. Despite this increased supply, dairy product prices stabilised and in some cases rose in October after declining in recent months. Retail price inflation for all products, the food and beverage categories, dairy products, and the majority of specific dairy products all slowed in October compared to the previous month. For Tier 1 coverage at the $9.50/cwt level, the Dairy Margin Coverage programme provided a second payout of $0.88/cwt in September for 2022. According to the USDA’s dairy outlook and the CME Group’s dairy futures, milk prices will be roughly $2.50 to $3.00 per hundredweight lower in 2023 than they are now.

Another tragic chapter in the protracted decline of Hawaii’s dairy sector is being written with the bankruptcy reorganisation of the state’s only commercial dairy.

However, legislators have assured the public that they are working on a solution to save Hawaii’s Cloverleaf Dairy.

“This is the sole dairy in the state,” Senator Inouye, who represents Hilo, said. I’m helping them out, and I want Cloverleaf to be successful.

Recent bankruptcy court filings reveal that local billionaire Bahman Sadeghi now owns 85.7% of the stock of Boteihlo Enterprises Inc., Cloverleaf’s parent firm.

Sadeghi is also the owner of Meadow Gold Dairy in Hawaii.

According to Inouye, the dairy can be saved by Sadeghi’s acquisition.

She claimed that the majority of people in the area and the state were in favour of Meadow Gold.

The Big Island dairy will be able to recover from bankruptcy, upgrade to newer machinery, and grow under the new ownership.

According to Inouye, Sadeghi owns land in the area with access to water for Cloverleaf’s parched herd.

Cloverleaf, which lost $94,000 in 2016, reported that it had to relocate 200 of its cows, or almost half of its herd, to graze on a neighbouring property due to the recent drought.

However, Dutch Hawaiian Dairy Farms, a nearby ranch, has allegedly refused to return the cows owing to a disagreement over grazing fees, as claimed by the firm.

That, according to company president Ed Boteihlo, is what led to most of the losses and ultimately the bankruptcy case.

A big number of cattle were placed on Dutch Hawaiian Dairy Farms LLC’s property in 2020 during a drought season, and the company has refused to take them back, according to Boteihlo.

Due to probable legal action, Dutch Hawaiian declined to comment on the matter. It has stated that it intends to continue seeking a separate agreement to buy Cloverleaf.

Bankruptcy courts must approve any sales.

Inge Lugtenberg is a student from the Netherlands who lives in Luttenberg. She is 21 years old. She is part of an exchange programme between UW-River Falls and the Aeres University of Applied Sciences in Dronten, the Netherlands. The programme is about dairy management and entrepreneurship.

She said that the exchange programme is helping her think about her family’s dairy farm and learn about future opportunities and problems in the dairy industry. She has been thinking about taking over the farm her parents run one day.

The Lugtenberg family owns and runs a farm with 177 cows near Luttenberg. Each cow makes about 21,000 pounds of milk with 4.7 percent fat and 3.7 percent protein per year. They also farm about 220 acres and raise about 100 young animals.

The public’s criticism and talk about a plan to cut down on ammonia emissions from the dairy industry are two of the biggest problems Dutch dairy farmers have to deal with. The government of the Netherlands wants to cut nitrogen emissions by half by the year 2030. According to the New York Times, most of the nitrogen pollution in the Netherlands comes from the manure left behind by the country’s estimated 1.6 million cows.

Under the plan, farmers would have to reduce the number of animals they own. If farmers can’t handle these cuts, they may have to shut down. There will be some money from the government to help farmers change their ways to be more environmentally friendly, but some Dutch farmers see a dark future. A study done by Wageningen Economic Research and paid for by the FrieslandCampina dairy cooperative says that the number of dairy farms in the Netherlands will drop by 33 percent by 2030. Part of the reason for the expected drop is that farmers are getting older and leaving the business without anyone to take over.

The study did show that the climate agreement goals could be met if the country’s herd size dropped to about 1.48 million heads and the dairy industry stayed within the limits for phosphate and nitrogen waste. But the study also said, “It seems like we need to take more steps to reach our goals for ammonia emissions.”

Environmental concerns could also lead to new chances. The Lugtenberg farm is part of FrieslandCampina, which works to meet government and consumer demands for sustainability. All of the farmers who are members of the cooperative have to meet basic requirements for sustainability and grazing. The cooperative keeps track of progress through milk testing and physical farm audits.

The cooperative just updated its sustainability programme to help farmers who want to take more steps to make their farms even more sustainable. It wants to give rewards to dairy farmers based on how well they do on indicators related to the climate. Lugtenberg said that farmers in the “Plant Proof” programme can earn up to 4.50 euros per 100 kilogrammes of milk, which is about $2.10 per 100 pounds, depending on how much greenhouse gases are reduced.

Program gives a lot of different kinds of information

The Aeres University programme also focuses on the different kinds of entrepreneurship to help students deal with an uncertain future. Lugtenberg said she is learning what else she could do as a business owner if she needed to find other work or diversify. When she gets back from Wisconsin, she will work as an intern for an accounting firm in the Netherlands.

The exchange programme is also teaching her how to talk to her parents and brothers about what they want and need from a plan for taking over the family farm.

She said, “I’m learning about a five-year plan and what to do before, during, and after change.” “It’s a good idea to start the talk.”

Through the exchange programme, she was able to visit some dairy farms in Wisconsin. Many things about Dutch farms and Wisconsin farms are the same, like having 100 to 200 cows and being family-owned. She said that she has also seen differences.

She said, “I thought there would be more grass here.” I’ve seen more tiestalls as well.

Most Dutch farms have barns with freestalls. The Netherlands has banned tiestalls because people have talked about how bad they are for animals.

She has also been to farms in Wisconsin that use lagoons to get rid of manure. Most Dutch farmers have more floors with slats and manure pits. Because they give off ammonia and smell bad, the country doesn’t allow open lagoons.

She said, “We need to be more aware of space.”

The person in charge of livestock and business at Aeres University is Jeroen Nolles. He said that Aeres University has exchange programmes with universities in France, Portugal, Sweden, Finland, and Germany, as well as with UW-River Falls.

Kirsten Clark went to school in the Netherlands from August 2019 to January 2020. She graduated from UW-River Falls in 2021. She grew up on a dairy farm near Birnamwood, Wisconsin, called Schairer Farms. About 1,300 cows are used to make milk on the farm.

“Even though being far from home was hard, I really grew as a person,” Clark said. “Seeing the similarities and differences opened my eyes to the dairy industry and made me want to learn more. That trip also made me believe in myself and gave me the courage to go to graduate school to study dairy nutrition.”

She is an advanced student at The Ohio State University right now.

Clark said that Dutch dairy farms are smaller than those in the United States. Because of rules, the Dutch dairy industry pays a lot of attention to how it affects the environment. The country is also small, which makes it hard for the agricultural sector to grow. Dairy farms are part of this.

“In Wisconsin, the number of farms keeps going down, but the number of cows stays the same,” she said. “Dutch farmers focus on efficiency and new technology because they can’t grow their farms.”

Professor of animal and food science at UW-River Falls Steve Kelm said that the exchange programme isn’t just for dairy science. In December 2021, the UW-System Board of Regents gave UW-River Falls permission to start a new undergraduate programme in international food operations management. It’s a joint programme between UW-River Falls and Aeres University that leads to two degrees.

Dale Gallenberg, who just left his job as dean of the UW-College of Agriculture, Food, and Environmental Sciences at River Falls, said that the programme will give students the chance to get degrees from both UW-River Falls and Aeres University.

Students in the four-year programme at UW-River Falls will spend the whole third year of the programme in the Netherlands. The second year of the programme at Aeres University will be spent in Wisconsin. Students should learn about food processing technology and operations management from both an international production and a marketing point of view through this programme. There are internships, work placements, and independent study courses as part of the programme.

A recent USDA GAIN report, said that the Bulgarian dairy industry faced a lot of problems in the marketing year 2021 with the national dairy herd, cow milk production and collection, and contracting for processing. The number of dairy farms and stocks went down because the summer was dry and hot, feed grain prices went up, inflation pressure (especially in the energy sector), and there weren’t enough people to work on the farms. As bigger, more efficient dairy operations took over, consolidation and restructuring of the industry kept going. In 2022, the process moved along even faster because it was another hot and dry summer, feed prices went through the roof, inflation reached almost 20%, and people bought less dairy products because they cost more.

All food groups have been hit hard by inflation. The ONS says that prices for food and drinks that don’t contain alcohol went up by 14.6% in the year leading up to September 2022. This forces people to rethink some of the things they buy in order to save money. Dairy products have been used as loss-leaders to get people into supermarkets for a long time. This means that the price of milk has been kept artificially low and hasn’t changed much over time. Kantar says that the average price of a litre of own-brand cow’s milk was £0.54 in the 12 weeks ending on October 7, 2018, and £0.55 in the 12 weeks ending on October 2, 2021. Milk has been portrayed as a high-volume, low-margin, highly commoditized category.

Cow’s milk is still a favourite in British homes, and the markets for other milks are very different. If you look back 12 weeks (until September 4, 2022), 95% of homes bought cow’s milk. Compared to this, only 13% of households buy an alternative that is made by a private label, and 22% buy ANY alternative. In fact, less than 6% of the market for milk and alternatives is made up of alternatives.

Cow’s milk is a natural source of protein, calcium, iodine, and vitamin B12. It is also one of the cheapest ways to make sure you are getting good nutrition. During a crisis in the cost of living, it makes sense that people would look for the best value for their money. Cow’s milk is the best value out there. Cow’s milk is 23% cheaper than the alternatives (Kantar 12we 2 Oct 2021), so most people, except those with food allergies or special dietary needs, will probably continue to buy it. There is a chance that people will try to waste less milk and plan how much they drink better, which could cause some volume loss.
The price of private label cow’s milk has gone up.

The price of private label cow’s milk went up by 35% from £0.55pl to £0.74pl in one year.

There is no better value for money than cow’s milk.

1
Have the prices of alternatives to milk also gone up?

The price of private label alternatives has also gone up by 15%, to an average of £0.91 per litre. This still costs 23% more than cow’s milk with a private label. Branded alternatives, which make up 2/3 of the value of the alternative market, have gone up in price by only 8%, but since they already cost £1.59 per litre, people who buy alternatives have been switching to cheaper private label alternatives. The branded alternative market has lost 10% of its volume from one year to the next, while the private label alternative market has gained 10% of its volume.

The alternative milk market is going through the same process of becoming a commodity as cow’s milk did many years ago, when supermarkets started selling milk and bread at low prices as a loss-leader to bring in customers. This includes a shift from brand names to private labels. The cost of living crisis is likely to keep putting pressure on the alternative sector, which will put pressure on margins in the future.

Why are the prices of cow’s milk going up?

The rising cost of making milk is part of the reason why milk prices are going up in stores. Prices for things like animal feed, fuel, electricity, and fertiliser have gone up a lot, which is a big problem for dairy farms.

Defra’s agricultural price index shows that the average cost of farm inputs has gone up by 31% in the 12 months leading up to August. Feed, fuels (energy), and fertiliser are the most important things for dairy farms, and their prices have gone up by 31%, 58%, and 118%, respectively.

The production levels started to go down in the fall of 2021. This was because the costs of making things were going up, there was a constant lack of workers, and farm margins were tight. In the second half of 2021, 138 million litres less milk was delivered than in the same time the year before. This was a 2.3% drop.

Dairy processors raised the prices they paid farmers for milk to help make up for rising costs and to try to get farmers to produce more milk, but deliveries stayed low. But because of how strong and long-lasting price increases were, especially for energy-related inputs like fertiliser and fuel, the price increases did not lead to the increase in milk production that was hoped for.

At the processing level, manufacturers have had to renegotiate selling prices because of the higher cost of getting the milk supplies they need and the rising cost of energy, packaging, labour, and transportation. Prices for fresh milk had been stable for a long time before these increases. Up until last fall (Sep21), real prices for fresh milk were going down because general inflation (as measured by the RPI for all goods) was almost twice as fast as inflation in fresh milk prices.
Conclusion

As long as the price of things like energy and feed keeps going up, it’s likely that the price of things like milk will go up, too, because these costs have to be passed on to the customer. But rising prices aren’t just happening with dairy milk; prices are also going up for alternatives. Cow’s milk is likely to keep its market share as long as it is a better value for the money, but there could be volume pressures if consumers have to cut back on everything.

[1] Between January 2017 and September 2017, the RPI went up by 16.2%, but the price of fresh milk only went up by 8.4%.

Peter McBride, the chair of Fonterra, says that dairy farmers are moving away from cows and milk at a rate of about 1% per year. And the company is going to have to deal with that.

McBride said at the Fonterra Shareholders’ Fund annual general meeting that land use change could happen even faster as more pressure is put on farmers by things like an ageing population, the way farmers choose to live, and stricter rules about greenhouse gas emissions and water quality.

Even though farm gate dairy prices are at an all-time high—from $6.35 per kilo of milk solids in the 2018/19 season to $7.14 in the 2019/20 season, $7.54 in the 2020/21 season, and $9.30 last season—this trend is still happening.

McBride said that dairy land in different parts of the country has been used for things like solar panels, horticulture (growing avocados, hops, and kiwifruit), and heifer or winter grazing.

But not so much for forestry.

“That affects sheep and beef more than dairy,” McBride said, “but it does affect dairy because it makes heifer grazing less certain.”

As the government tries to get farms to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, there has been a lot of talk from farming groups and politicians in the opposition about how trees are bad for farms and rural communities.

A report commissioned by the farming group Beef + Lamb found that up to 50,000 hectares of farm land bought last year could be planted with pine trees in the future.

Beef + Lamb said that was “alarming” and “far more than is needed.”

Milk production is going down for more than just one reason. High prices for feed, a lack of workers, and the weather are also factors. Farmers were hit by storms, flooded rivers, changing temperatures (including droughts), and low levels of light over the winter, which may have been caused by climate change.

But the weather isn’t everything.
Less milk is being made.
Fonterra1 figures for the month of September show that 1 percent of dairy land is lost every year. From DCANZ.

The Dairy Companies Association of New Zealand makes milk production statistics every month.

Based on milk solids, the most recent report shows that milk production was down 3.8% from September 2021. This number was down 4 percent from June to September, and it was down 4.2 percent from June to September.

A spokesperson for an association told Newsroom that New Zealand’s current production numbers (1.85 billion kg milksolids for the 12 months to September 2022) are very close to what they were in 2014.

“There is a constant race for land use, and other pressures will limit supply in the future.”

The latest dairy monthly report from Beijing Orient Agricultural Business Consultants (BOABC) shows that the production of dairy products went down a little bit in September, but the price of raw milk has stopped going down.

China processed 2.758 million megatonnes (MT) of milk in September, which is 5.8% more than the same month last year (YoY). This brings the year-to-date total to 23.10m MT, which is 2.6% more than the same time last year. BOABC says that the control of the covid-19 pandemic across the country is the reason why milk production has been going up in recent months. BOABC also points out that, even though people haven’t been eating much dairy in recent months, this is likely to change as the pandemic continues to be stopped from spreading.

Also, BOABC says that there is a shift toward healthier products, with less pork being eaten and more milk, beef, lamb, and seafood being eaten, even though lamb prices in China are falling very quickly right now. Because of lockdowns and other worries, Chinese shoppers are also shopping closer to home. Sales at hypermarkets and supermarkets are down, but sales at convenience stores have gone up by a lot. E-commerce in China keeps growing, and this way of getting dairy is quickly becoming a key way to sell. Consumer research shows that these ways for Chinese people to buy things online help them understand their purchases better by giving them access to key information about each product, such as claims about the environment, health, and where the product came from. All of these things are important to Chinese people when they buy things.

Along with an increase in milk production, the price of raw milk in China has stopped going down. From the end of September through October, the price stayed the same at 4.14 yuan/kg MS. Prices at stores for liquid milk and yoghurt have also gone down a little bit in October. Prices at stores are still changing, as we’ve seen over the past 10 months. In September, imports of liquid milk went down 18.2% year over year. The price of imported liquid milk did go up 19.3% from one year to the next, though. NZ liquid milk and cream made up 33% of all imports in September, which was up 6.2% year over year. The price of these exports was also up 12.4% year over year.

Prices for Chinese soy meal have also kept going up, going up another 12.3% from September and 33.5% from the same time last year. Corn prices are also going up. They went up 0.9% from September to October, which is a 5.4% increase from the same time last year. This continues the trend of rising costs over the past few months, which has been caused by covid-19 lockdown effects on forage, labour, and transportation costs.

Imports of butter are going along pretty steadily. So far this year, imports are only 1.1% behind the same time last year, but they have gone up a lot in the three months leading up to September. Butter imports in September were 60.9% higher year over year.

Both skim milk powder (SMP) and whole milk powder (WMP) imports are still behind. SMP imports are down 24.3% year-over-year, and WMP imports are down 16.2% year-over-year, with the same deficit for WMP imports in September.

China’s total dairy imports were 20.3% lower at the end of September than they were at the same time last year. However, the value of China’s dairy imports for the whole year was only 2.4% lower. Some people think that Chinese imports will continue to lag during the first half of 2023. It is expected that Chinese imports will end the year around this 20% lower point.

The USDA, meanwhile, has said that it will spend almost $1 billion to “buy food for emergency food providers like food banks.” It looks like the announcement will be about “protein items” to help fund activities for kids and families. At this point, it’s not clear how much of this investment will go to Dairy, but most people expect that Cheese and Liquid milk will be part of it.

The last time the US government announced large programmes to buy food, like the “Farmers for Families” food box programmes in the early stages of the covid-19 pandemic, cheese prices in the US market went from very high to very low in just a few days.

Because this programme takes cheese out of the US market on purpose, it will definitely mess up the US cheese market. However, it could help the cheese market around the world.

Federal Agriculture Minister Marie-Claude Bibeau said again that Ottawa will pay the Supply Management sector because of the Canada, U.S., and Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

Bibeau says that the dairy, poultry, and egg producers and processors who are hurt by CUSMA will share $1.7 billion.

That money will be given out through direct payments and programmes for investing.

David Wiens, Vice President of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, says that they would have preferred not to have to give up any markets at all.

“Because, of course, this trade deal is ongoing. So we’ll never be able to get those markets back. But it’s true that we’re glad our government has acknowledged that this trade deal has hurt us.

He says that they are still worried about what was lost in the CUSMA deal.

“The US has control over Canada’s dairy policies, which is a very new and changing part of a trade deal. We aren’t allowed to compete with them in any of the markets they are in around the world. But on top of that, if we change anything about how we handle dairy. The Americans will keep an eye on that, which worries us a lot because we think that this trade deal also takes away some of Canada’s sovereignty.