Can U.S. dairy farmers beat the odds and ramp up milk production? Dive into the latest trends, margins, and expert advice shaping American dairy’s future.
Summary: The USDA’s recent report reveals a 1% drop in U.S. milk production for June, with only the Upper Midwest showing growth. Despite improved on-farm margins suggesting potential for increased production, experts like Jon Spainhour highlight challenges such as high cattle prices and environmental factors. Colin Kadis points out opportunities for growth due to the relaxation of base programs from the COVID-19 era. However, rising costs in building and cow prices present serious obstacles, complicating the path to boosting milk output. Improved margins, expected to remain above $12 per hundredweight, face threats from economic and environmental challenges, highlighting the industry’s complexities in navigating a tricky landscape compared to global players like New Zealand and India.
- Recent USDA report shows a 1% decline in U.S. milk production for June, with growth only in the Upper Midwest.
- On-farm margins are improving, surpassing the $12 per hundredweight mark, up from a break-even point of $9 to $10.
- High cattle prices, low replacement inventories, and environmental challenges may limit potential milk production growth.
- Relaxation of COVID-19 era base programs creates new opportunities for dairy farming expansion.
- Rising building costs and cow prices are significant obstacles for farmers aiming to increase milk output.
- The industry’s complexities are heightened by economic and environmental factors, posing a challenge to U.S. dairy farmers.
U.S. milk output decreased by 1% in June despite improved on-farm margins. That’s correct; although you’d anticipate higher profit margins to increase production, the reality is significantly more complicated. Suppose you’re curious about why and what it means for the future of dairy farming in America; you’ve come to the perfect spot. Let’s examine the key parameters influencing milk production and determine whether a potential increase may be realized. Historical patterns indicate that strong margins should lead to greater milk output, but present difficulties such as high cow costs and heat waves impede expansion. This is more than an industry update; it may greatly influence dairy farmers’ lives throughout the country. Keep reading to learn more.
Surprising Trends in the USDA Milk Production Report: What Dairy Farmers Need to Know
Region | Milk Production Change (June Year-over-Year) |
---|---|
Upper Midwest | +0.5% |
Northeast | -1.2% |
Southeast | -1.5% |
Southwest | -0.8% |
West | -1.3% |
The USDA Milk Production report provides an overview of the U.S. dairy business. It reported a 1% reduction in milk yield in June compared to the previous year. This dip may not seem substantial initially, but even a tiny decrease may be significant for dairy farmers operating on razor-thin profits. Interestingly, the Upper Midwest was the only area to deviate from this tendency, seeing growth despite the general decline. This geographical variation shows the industry’s complicated dynamics, in which localized circumstances and agricultural techniques may considerably influence output results. Understanding these subtleties highlights American dairy producers’ problems and possibilities today.
Let’s Talk About On-Farm Margins: What They Mean for Dairy Farmers
Month | Dairy Margin ($ per hundredweight) |
---|---|
January 2024 | 11.50 |
February 2024 | 11.75 |
March 2024 | 12.00 |
April 2024 | 12.25 |
May 2024 | 12.50 |
June 2024 | 12.75 |
Now, let us discuss on-farm margins. Simply put, on-farm margins differ between a farmer’s earnings from milk sales and the cost of producing that milk. These margins have recently improved and are essential to dairy producers’ long-term viability and profitability.
According to Erica Maedke, Managing Director of Ever.Ag Insights, on their “Parlor to Plate” podcast, the Dairy Margin Coverage program’s margins surpassed the $11 mark in February. Surprisingly, these margins have steadily increased and will likely remain well over $12 per hundredweight for the foreseeable future. This is noteworthy because, for many dairy producers, a $9 to $10 margin often represents the break-even point—the barrier required to pay production expenses without suffering losses.
Due to enhanced margins, dairy producers will benefit from more stability and maybe higher profits. Farmers may better manage their operations, reinvest in their fields, and expand to improve production capacity when margins are enormous. It denotes a buffer against the volatility that often characterizes agricultural markets, offering farmers more excellent breathing space and confidence in their economic prospects. This financial buffer is critical as companies face increased expenditures in other sectors, such as high cattle prices and rising construction costs.
Is the Road to Increased Milk Production as Smooth as It Seems?
Month | Class III Milk Price ($/cwt) | Class IV Milk Price ($/cwt) |
---|---|---|
January 2024 | 22.50 | 21.80 |
February 2024 | 22.70 | 22.00 |
March 2024 | 23.00 | 22.30 |
April 2024 | 23.10 | 22.40 |
May 2024 | 23.25 | 22.60 |
June 2024 | 23.35 | 22.75 |
First, The data provide a positive image of the possibility of the development of milk production. Improved margins have always been a solid incentive for dairy producers to increase production. “Decent margins on the spot basis and a nice margin moving out on the Class III and Class IV curve compared to feed prices would, historically, be an incentive to make milk,” remarked Jon Spainhour, a veteran dairy dealer. This kind of financial climate usually supports investment in milk production, maintaining a consistent supply to satisfy rising demand.
However, converting this theoretical potential into actual development is complex. While more robust financial data may pique interest, specific external considerations must be overlooked. For example, low replacement inventories make it challenging to increase operations fast. High cattle prices hinder efforts since farmers must evaluate the considerable financial expenditure necessary to grow their herds.
Beyond the immediate economic problems, environmental circumstances offer significant threats. Heat waves may significantly influence dairy cows’ health and output. At the same time, although avian influenza predominantly affects poultry, it is part of a more significant disease control and biosecurity concern that may indirectly impact the dairy industry. Spainhour recognizes this complicated reality, adding that although the long-term setting may favor increasing milk production, near-term problems may severely limit this expansion.
Looking Further Down the Road: The Landscape for Milk Production is on the Cusp of Significant Changes
Looking forward, the milk production environment looks about to shift dramatically. Despite existing obstacles like high feed prices and changing profits, the sector is primed for significant development, which may transform dairy farming in the United States and Europe. Jon Spainhour, a seasoned dairy dealer, predicts an increase in milk output. This confidence is not unjustified; historical statistics show that favorable margins fuel output growth.
Spainhour’s findings highlight an important point: despite obstacles such as heat waves and animal illnesses that temporarily strain output levels, the structural setup is promising. Dairy producers have negotiated numerous cycles of market pressures over the years, but the underlying foundation that supports milk production remains strong. When margins increase, as they are now, it creates an environment where growth is both conceivable and likely.
As we negotiate these changing environments, one thing becomes clear: patience and careful preparation will be required. There is potential for higher milk output, but dairy producers will need cautious risk management and some innovation. Spainhour’s analysis provides a realistic yet positive perspective, urging us to monitor local and global changes.
Where Does U.S. Milk Production Stand in the Global Dairy Arena?
To put things in perspective, consider how US milk output compares to that of other major dairy producers worldwide. Dairy producers in New Zealand, the Netherlands, and India have distinct problems and benefits, providing valuable insights for U.S. farmers to explore.
New Zealand, often considered a dairy powerhouse, relies primarily on pasture-based systems, which reduce input costs. However, since pastures are used so extensively, weather conditions may significantly impact yield. Despite these weaknesses, New Zealand maintains a strong export market, while the Netherlands has intensive dairy production techniques. The Netherlands has among the world’s most excellent milk production per cow, thanks to innovative technology and excellent farm management methods.
Compared to these nations, American dairy producers operate in a more varied and industrialized environment. The United States has ample geographical resources and excellent technology infrastructure, which provide prospects for scalability and efficiency. However, like those in the Netherlands, American farmers face increased environmental challenges and rising expenses. While the United States relies less on exports than New Zealand, global market forces continue to impact local policy and profit margins. Understanding these international environments reveals competitive pressures and offers insights into prospective strategic changes.
The Decade of Change: Reflecting on the Shifts in U.S. Milk Production
Year | U.S. Milk Production (Billion Pounds) |
---|---|
2019 | 218.4 |
2020 | 223.1 |
2021 | 226.3 |
2022 | 227.9 |
2023 | 226.0 |
2024 (Projected) | 228.5 |
To comprehend the present state of milk production in the United States, it is necessary to go back and consider the historical backdrop. Over the last decade, the dairy sector has faced economic and environmental problems that have greatly influenced its current position. For example, in the early 2010s, the dairy industry expanded rapidly, spurred by increased worldwide demand. The dairy industry in the United States reacted by increasing output via agricultural technologies and genetic advances. However, external issues such as shifting milk costs, trade disputes, and swings in consumer preferences for plant-based alternatives quickly hampered this expansion phase.
Fast forward a few years, and the COVID-19 epidemic has added another layer of complication. Initial lockdowns lowered demand in the food service industry, resulting in a temporary glut of milk, forcing some farmers to abandon their goods. The crisis forced dairy enterprises towards direct-to-consumer sales and local supply networks. Understanding these historical tendencies gives us significant insight into the dairy industry’s resiliency and adaptation in the United States.
While current measurements may indicate growth potential, the preceding decade’s experiences highlight the need for cautious optimism. The economic roller coaster did not end there. The mid-2010s saw a worldwide milk oversupply, resulting in falling prices and forcing many producers to the edge of financial ruin. USDA statistics show milk prices in 2016 were among the lowest in recent history. The historical background reminds us that the milk production equation always involves economic and environmental issues.
Navigating a Labyrinth of Challenges and Opportunities in the Dairy Industry
Colin Kadis provides a nuanced view of the current difficulties and prospects in the dairy sector. He remembers a period of great pessimism and overstock in the dairy industry a few years ago, accentuated by the COVID-19 outbreak. Base initiatives implemented during this period seemed to practically bar new entrants, making it almost hard for them to begin dairy farming. However, Kadis observes that the environment has changed; several basic programs have collapsed or eased, opening up a window of opportunity for those wishing to extend their activities.
But growth is not without its challenges. Kadis identifies several large cost increases that might serve as significant impediments. Building costs, for example, have often doubled, requiring farmers to take on far more debt to maintain the same output level as a few years earlier. Furthermore, cow prices have skyrocketed, and the supply of replacement animals is critically short. These characteristics, together, provide a challenging environment for expansion despite the better margins that would generally favor it.
According to Kadis, although underestimating the American dairyman’s potential to produce more milk is risky, the route to higher milk production is complex. This complicated combination of possibilities and difficulties shows that, although growth potential exists, the road will be more complex than current margins would imply.
The Bottom Line
As previously discussed, the most recent USDA Milk Production report depicts a confusing picture for dairy producers in the United States. While milk production fell 1% in June, there is cautious optimism about growing on-farm margins, which have cleared the $11 mark and are expected to continue rising. However, the optimistic hypothesis that higher margins would boost milk output confronts several real-world challenges, including inadequate replacement inventories, high cow prices, climatic effects, and avian influenza. However, considerable obstacles persist, notably growing expenses and the residual consequences of previous economic instability. Despite these challenges, there remains hope for growth, particularly with the relaxation of severe base programs implemented during the COVID-19 epidemic. The path ahead is everything but straightforward. While American dairy producers’ tenacity should not be underestimated, the path to greater milk output will undoubtedly be challenging. As you examine the future, remember that dairy farmers’ capacity to adapt and prosper in the face of hardship will be critical in creating the next chapter of milk production in the United States.
USDA Proposes Return to ‘Higher-Of’ Method for Fluid Milk Pricing: What It Means for Dairy Farmers
Learn how USDA’s plan to bring back the ‘higher-of’ method for milk pricing might affect farmers. Will this change help dairy producers? Find out more.
The USDA plans to bring back the ‘higher-of’ pricing method for fluid milk, a move intended to modernize federal dairy policy based on a comprehensive 49-day hearing that evaluated numerous industry proposals. This method picks the higher price between Class III (cheese) and Class IV (butter and powder) milk, which could signify a notable shift for the dairy industry. Previously, the 2018 Farm Bill had replaced the ‘higher-of’ system with an ‘average-of’ pricing formula, averaging Class III and IV prices with an additional 74 cents. While switching back might benefit farmers, it also introduces risks like negative producer price differentials in 2020 and 2021. The USDA’s proposal seeks to mitigate these challenges and provide farmers financial gains amidst modern dairy economics’ complexities.
Understanding the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) System
The Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system, established in 1937, plays a crucial role in ensuring fair and competitive dairy pricing. It mandates minimum milk prices based on end use, providing price stability for dairy farmers and processors across the U.S. Each FMMO represents a distinct marketing area, coordinating pricing and sales practices.
The ‘higher-of’ pricing method for Class I (fluid) milk has long been integral to this system. It sets the Class I price using the higher Class III (cheese) or Class IV (butter and powder) price, offering a financial safeguard against market volatility. This method ensures dairy producers receive a fair price despite market fluctuations.
However, the 2018 Farm Bill introduced an ‘average-of’ formula, using the average of Class III and IV prices plus 74 cents. While aimed at modernizing milk pricing, this change exposed farmers to greater risk and reduced earnings in volatile periods like 2020 and 2021.
A Marathon Analysis: Unraveling Modern Dairy Policy over 49 Days in Indiana
The marathon hearing in Indiana highlighted the complexities of modern dairy policy. Spanning 49 days, from Aug. 23, 2023, to Jan. 30, it reviewed nearly two dozen industry proposals. This intensive process reflected the sophisticated and multifaceted Federal Milk Marketing Order system as stakeholders debated diverse views and intricate data to influence future milk pricing.
Decoding Dairy Dilemmas: The “Higher-Of” vs. “Average-Of” Pricing Methods
The “higher-of” and “average-of” pricing methods are central to understanding their impact on farmers’ incomes. The “higher-of” process, which uses the greater of the Class III (cheese) price or Class IV (butter and powder) price, has historically provided a safety net against dairy market fluctuations. This method ensured farmers got a better price, potentially safeguarding their income during volatile times. Yet, it increased the risk of negative producer price differentials, which reduced earnings in 2020 and 2021.
On the other hand, the “average-of” method, introduced by the 2018 Farm Bill, calculates the price as the average of Class III and IV prices plus 74 cents. While this seems balanced and predictable, it often fails to deliver the highest financial return when either Class III or IV prices exceed expectations. Farmers have noted that this method might not reflect their costs and economic challenges in volatile markets.
The “higher-of” method often offers better financial outcomes during favorable market conditions but brings increased uncertainty during unstable periods. Conversely, the “average-of” method offers stability but may miss optimal pricing opportunities. This debate within the dairy industry over the best formula to support farmers’ livelihoods continues. Thus, the USDA’s proposal to revert to the “higher-of” method invites mixed feelings among farmers, whose earnings and economic stability are closely tied to these pricing mechanisms.
Examining the Potential Implications of the USDA’s Return to the ‘Higher-Of’ Pricing Method
The USDA’s return to the ‘higher-of’ pricing method, while potentially beneficial, also presents some challenges that the industry needs to be aware of. This approach, favoring the higher Class III (cheese) or Class IV (butter and powder) prices, seems more beneficial than the ‘average-of’ formula. However, deeper insights indicate potential challenges that need to be carefully considered.
The ‘higher-of’ method usually leads to higher fluid milk prices but poses the risk of negative producer price differentials (PPDs). When the Class I price far exceeds the average of the underlying class prices, PPDs can become negative, as seen during the harsh economic times of 2020 and 2021, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic.
Negative PPDs can hit farmers’ financial stability, making it harder to predict income and manage cash flows. This reflects the delicate balance between gaining higher milk prices now and ensuring long-term financial reliability.
The 24-month rolling adjuster for extended-shelf-life milk introduces further uncertainty. Its effect on milk pricing needs to be clarified, potentially causing fluctuating incomes for farmers in this segment.
In conclusion, while the ‘higher-of’ pricing method may offer immediate benefits, risks like negative PPDs and uncertain impacts on extended-shelf-life milk pricing demand careful consideration. Farmers must balance these factors with their financial strategies and long-term sustainability plans.
New Horizons for ESL Milk: Navigating the 24-Month Rolling Adjuster Amidst Market Uncertainties
Under the USDA’s new proposal, regular fluid milk will revert to the ‘higher-of’ pricing. In contrast, extended-shelf-life (ESL) milk will follow a different path. The plan introduces a 24-month rolling adjuster for ESL milk to stabilize prices for these longer-lasting products.
Yet, this change brings uncertainties. Laurie Fischer, CEO of the American Dairy Coalition, questions the impact on farmers. The 24-month adjuster is untested, making it difficult to foresee its effects amid fluctuating market conditions. ESL milk’s unique production and logistics further complicate predictions.
Critics warn that the lack of historical data makes it hard to judge whether this method will help or hurt farmers. There’s concern that it could create more price disparity between regular and ESL milk, potentially straining producers reliant on ESL products. While USDA aims to tailor pricing better, its success will hinge on adapting to real-world market dynamics.
Make Allowance Controversy: Balancing Processor Profitability and Farmer Finances
The USDA also plans to increase the make allowance, a credit to dairy processors to cover rising manufacturing costs. This adjustment aims to ensure processors are adequately compensated to sustain profitability and operational efficiency, which is expected to benefit the entire dairy supply chain.
However, this proposal has drawn substantial criticism. Laurie Fischer, CEO of the American Dairy Coalition, argues that the increased make allowance effectively reduces farmers’ milk checks, disadvantaging them financially.
Pivotal Adjustments and Economic Realignment in Dairy Pricing Formulas
The USDA’s proposal adjusts pricing formulas to match advancements in milk component production since 2000. This update ensures that farmers receive fair compensation for their contributions.
The proposal also revises Class I differential values for all counties to reflect current economic realities. This is essential for maintaining fair compensation for the higher costs of serving the fluid milk market. By reevaluating these differentials, the USDA aims to align the Federal Milk Marketing Order system with today’s economic landscape.
Recalibrating Cheese Pricing: Transition to 40-pound Cheddar Blocks Only
Another critical change in USDA’s proposal is the shift in the cheese pricing system. Monthly average cheese prices will now be based solely on 40-pound cheddar blocks instead of including 500-pound cheddar barrels. This aims to streamline the process and more accurately reflect market values, impacting various stakeholders in the dairy industry.
Initial Reactions from Industry Leaders: Balancing Optimism with Key Concerns
Initial reactions from crucial industry organizations reveal a mix of cautious optimism and significant concerns. The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) showed preliminary approval, noting that USDA’s proposal incorporates many of their requested changes. On the other hand, Laurie Fischer, CEO of the American Dairy Coalition, raised concerns about the make allowance updates and the impact of extended-shelf-life milk pricing, fearing it might hurt farmers’ earnings.
Structured Engagement: Navigating the 60-Day Comment Period and Ensuing Voting Procedure
To advance its proposal, USDA will open a 60-day public comment period, allowing stakeholders and the public to share insights, concerns, and support. This process ensures that diverse voices within the dairy industry are heard and considered. Once the comment period ends, USDA will review the feedback to gain a comprehensive understanding of industry perspectives, informing the finalization of the proposal.
Afterward, the USDA will decide based on the collected data and input. However, the process continues with a voting procedure where farmers pooled under each Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) cast votes to approve or reject the proposed amendments. Each Federal Order, representing different regions, will vote individually.
This voting process is crucial, as it directly determines the outcome of the proposed changes. For adoption, a two-thirds majority approval within each Federal Order is required. Suppose a Federal Order fails to meet this threshold. In that case, USDA may terminate the order, leading to significant changes in how milk pricing is managed in that region. This democratic approach ensures that the final policies reflect majority support within the dairy farming community, aiming for fair and sustainable outcomes.
Regional Impacts: Navigating the Complex Landscape of FMMO System Changes
The proposed changes to the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system are bound to impact various regions differently, given each Federal Order’s unique economic landscape. Federal Order 1, covering most New England, eastern New York, New Jersey, Delaware, southeastern Pennsylvania, and most of Maryland, may benefit from more favorable fluid milk pricing due to the higher-of method. With significant urban markets, this region could see advantages from updated Class I differential values addressing the increased costs of serving these areas.
On the other hand, Federal Order 33—encompassing western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana—might witness mixed outcomes. This area has substantial dairy manufacturing, especially in cheese and butter production, which could gain from the new cheese pricing method focusing on 40-pound cheddar blocks. However, the higher make allowance might stir controversy, potentially cutting farmers’ earnings despite adjustments for rising manufacturing costs.
The future remains uncertain for western New York and most of Pennsylvania’s mountain counties, which any Federal Order does not cover. These areas could feel indirect effects from the new proposals, particularly the revised pricing formulas and allowances, which could impact local milk processing and producer price differentials.
While the higher-of-pricing method may benefit farmers by securing better fluid milk prices, the regional impacts will hinge on each Federal Order’s specific economic activities and market structures. Stakeholders must examine the proposed changes closely to gauge their potential benefits and drawbacks.
The Bottom Line
The USDA’s push to reinstate the ‘higher-of’ pricing method for fluid milk marks a decisive moment for the dairy industry. The 49-day hearing in Indiana underscored the complexity of the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) System. Key aspects include reverting to the ‘higher-of’ pricing from the 2018 ‘average-of’ formula, new pricing for extended-shelf-life milk, and the debate over increased make allowances. Significant updates to pricing formulas and cheese pricing methodologies were also discussed.
The forthcoming vote on these changes is critical. With the power to reshape financial outcomes for dairy farmers and processors, each Federal Order needs two-thirds approval to implement these changes. Balancing modern dairy policy advancements with fair profits for all stakeholders is at the heart of this discourse.
Ultimately, these decisions will affect dairy practices’ economic landscape and sustainability nationwide. This vote is a pivotal moment in the evolution of the American dairy industry, demanding informed participation from all involved.
Key Takeaways:
Summary:
The USDA plans to reintroduce the ‘higher-of’ pricing method for fluid milk, a move aimed at modernizing federal dairy policy. This method, which selects the higher price between Class III and Class IV milk, could be a significant shift for the dairy industry. The 2018 Farm Bill replaced the ‘higher-of’ system with an ‘average-of’ formula, averaging Class III and IV prices plus an additional 74 cents. This change could benefit farmers but also introduce risks like negative producer price differentials (PPDs). The Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system ensures fair and competitive dairy pricing, and the ‘higher-of’ method usually leads to higher fluid milk prices but also poses the risk of negative producer price differentials (PPDs). Negative PPDs can impact farmers’ financial stability, making it harder to predict income and manage cash flows. The 24-month rolling adjuster for extended-shelf-life milk introduces further uncertainty, potentially causing fluctuating incomes for farmers. The USDA’s proposal to increase the make allowance, a credit to dairy processors, has been met with criticism from industry leaders. The USDA will open a 60-day public comment period to advance its proposal. The proposed changes to the FMMO system will impact various regions differently due to each Federal Order’s unique economic landscape.
Learn more: