Is your dairy farm ready for the unexpected? Discover essential contingency planning tips to ensure your operation thrives through any crisis. Learn more now.
Imagine waking up to discover a disease spreading across your herd or a vital piece of equipment on your dairy farm that has failed. Though they don’t have to, these situations can flip your life around. This is the reason a robust contingency plan is essential. ” Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth,” Mike Tyson stated. For dairy producers, such blows may represent severe storms, abrupt changes in the market, or health emergencies.
Your farm’s safety net is contingent on planning. Planning for the “what-ifs” ensures survival and potentially empowers you to thrive in the face of unforeseen challenges. The statement, “It pays to be paranoid,” is a testament to this proactive attitude. Anticipating crises ahead gives you a sense of control, helping you manage them to reduce financial loss and disturbance. Embracing this proactive approach can help you protect your livelihood and the prosperity of your dairy farm.
Navigating an Era of Uncertainty: The Imperative of Robust Contingency Plans in Dairy Farming
The dairy sector’s many difficulties emphasize the importance of solid backup plans. The COVID-19 epidemic threw off labor availability, supply chains, manufacturing, and market demand; farms had to keep running while ensuring staff health.
Changes in government policies add yet more intricacy. Changing trade agreements, agricultural policy, and environmental laws force dairy producers to react fast, influencing financial stability. These new rules might throw off corporate models, so brilliant reactions are needed to stay viable.
The H5N1 avian influenza outbreaks and Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) danger highlight supply chain weaknesses. These illnesses underline the importance of preparation with movement limits, further testing, and the interconnectedness of cattle health management.
Considering these overall difficulties, thorough backup preparations are essential. They enable dairy farms to negotiate unanticipated circumstances with resilience, protecting operations against uncertainty.
Grasping the Full Spectrum of Resources: Lessons from the Field to the Farm
During a crisis, one must know and use the resources at hand. High-stress military situations depend on fast access to information and resources, including air support and medevac facilities. This quick information flow emphasizes the need to understand all available tools.
As head of a dairy farm, maintain current with your supplies. Know where your processes and plans are, how capable your local emergency response teams are, and be aware of surrounding utility services. Like putting emergency medical supplies in key essential regions, prepositioning assets can improve your reaction time. This proactive strategy guarantees your readiness for effective crisis management.
Financial Resilience: The Pillars of Working Capital and Equity
Financial readiness, with enough accessible cash reserves and working capital, is your first line of protection in any crisis. It provides a sense of security that operations can continue even with unexpected disturbances. Keeping enough reserves to cover four to six months of running costs ensures that the money is readily available if anything happens to the primary account holder, offering a reassuring safety net.
Just as crucial is maintaining a solid financial sheet. On a market-based balance sheet, aim for a net worth of more than 50% to guarantee further funding in case of long-term difficulties. The harmony between solid equity and good operating capital will enable your business to withstand small and significant challenges.
Critical elements of a robust risk management plan include many insurance products and market price protection measures. Crop insurance, income insurance, and other coverages protect your working capital and equity. This multi-layered strategy helps stabilize your financial situation, strengthening your contingency plan.
Workforce Continuity: Jolene Brown’s Imperative for Implementing a ‘Plan B’
Jolene Brown emphasizes the need for having a “Plan B,” especially for employment readiness. Seamlessly transferring responsibilities may make all the difference in a crisis between continuous operations and debilitating downtime, instilling confidence. Employees must be cross-trained absolutely. If someone fails to fulfill their obligations, another may easily replace them, improving your staff’s redundancy and your confidence in your team’s preparedness.
Cross-training, however, needs to be improved. Create backup plans to manage unanticipated gaps. For instance, having bespoke operators ready for harvest or custom heifer raisers to do chores would immediately help amid labor shortages. These outside alliances guarantee constant output even with internal disturbances.
Establishing a culture wherein leaders are dedicated to teaching their successors is also vital. Good succession planning includes continuous mentoring, enabling essential staff members to acquire leadership positions. This guarantees a seamless change in case of unexpected absences and improves the competency of your staff. A good succession plan addresses leadership change and asset transfer, enabling your business to flourish even under challenging circumstances.
Addressing Leadership Voids: Comprehensive Succession Planning for Dairy Farm Resilience
The unexpected death of a principal owner is one of the most challenging obstacles a dairy farm faces. Clear management transition plans and beyond asset transfer should be part of succession planning. This guarantees constant output and morale. Clearly defining responsibilities for successors, implementing management handover procedures, and creating business continuity plans are vital. Planning for asset distribution and leadership succession helps farms maintain stability and handle challenges properly.
Conducting Scenario-Based Training: The Pillar of Crisis Preparedness
Scenario-based training or “war gaming” greatly aids preparation for possible crises. From natural calamities like floods or tornadoes to crises like disease outbreaks or equipment breakdowns, this entails building thorough, realistic scenarios that can affect your dairy farm.
Create your leadership team to evaluate the most relevant circumstances based on probability and possible influence. For example, whereas power outages are frequent, the effects of a parlor fire—though less likely—could be significantly more catastrophic.
Once situations are recognized, create a basic, step-by-step reaction strategy. These should encompass quick actions, communication plans, financial distribution of resources, and rehabilitation techniques. Specify roles and obligations to prevent uncertainty during a natural occurrence.
Including your whole farm team, these drills will help them. This guarantees everyone understands their part and offers insightful analysis from several angles. As genuinely as possible, replicate the situation by upsetting regular operations and deploying emergency gear.
During a crisis, assign tasks linked to many purposes; rotate these responsibilities in repeated exercises to improve cross-training and guarantee redundancy—record observations on the team’s answers, timeliness, and crisis management prowess.
Following protocols:
- Debrief once more.
- Discuss what went well and point out areas needing work.
- Change the plans, then inform the staff about these new ideas.
Using scenario-based training and consistent use of these rules improves the resilience and preparedness of your operations. This readiness guarantees that should a true crisis arise, your farm is ready to manage it quickly and successfully, helping team members develop confidence.
Strategic Communication: Safeguarding Information Flow in Times of Crisis
A crisis calls for good communication. A company policy guarantees constant information flow and helps to solve problems. Create backup lines of communication—like satellite phones or radios—to let everyone know should the central systems fail. Assign certain people to represent the farm to prevent contradicting claims. These contingency plans improve the farm’s resilience and guarantee a coordinated reaction during crises.
The Bottom Line
The resilience and success of your dairy farm depend on proactive contingency planning. You set your farm to withstand any storm by inventorying your resources, keeping finances solid, guaranteeing personnel continuity, creating succession plans, doing scenario-based training, and developing communication protocols. The fluid character of our sector calls for not only the development of these strategies but also their ongoing improvement and application.
Every exercise, revised plan, and team training session advances you toward mastery of unpredictability. In dairy farming, excellent preparation will help one differentiate between prospering and surviving. Thus, act right now. Examine your present contingency plans, find flaws, call on your staff, and pledge frequent drills and upgrades. The future of your farm relies on it. Investing in thorough and proactive preparation now guarantees that, should anything arise, you and your farm are ready to meet it squarely.
Key Takeaways:
- Comprehensive Resource Inventory: Always know what equipment, protocols, and local emergency response resources are available to you.
- Financial Preparedness: Maintain four to six months of operating expenses in accessible funds, and ensure proper account management for continuity.
- Workforce Redundancy: Cross-train employees and have fallback options to ensure continuous operation in case of unexpected disruptions.
- Succession Planning: Clearly outline management and operational succession plans to carry your farm through any significant leadership changes.
- Scenario-Based Training: Engage in regular training exercises to simulate various crises, ensuring protocols are practiced and improved over time.
- Effective Communication: Establish redundant communication channels and be clear about who is authorized to speak on behalf of the operation.
Summary:
Dairy producers need a robust contingency plan to survive and thrive in the face of unforeseen challenges, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, changes in government policies, H5N1 avian influenza outbreaks, and Foot-and-Mouth Disease (FMD) danger. During a crisis, it is crucial to understand the full spectrum of resources, including knowledge of processes, local emergency response teams, and surrounding utility services. Prepositioning assets can improve reaction time and guarantee readiness for effective crisis management. Financial readiness, with enough cash reserves and working capital, is the first line of protection in any crisis. A robust risk management plan includes insurance products and market price protection measures, such as crop insurance and income insurance. Adopting a proactive approach allows dairy farms to navigate unanticipated circumstances with resilience, protecting operations against uncertainty. A “Plan B” for employment readiness involves seamless transferring responsibilities, creating backup plans, and establishing a culture where leaders are dedicated to teaching their successors. Good succession planning includes continuous mentoring, enabling essential staff members to acquire leadership positions, and improving staff competency. A leadership team evaluates relevant circumstances, creates a basic reaction strategy, and involves the entire farm team in drills. Strategic communication is essential in a crisis, and backup lines of communication are created to keep everyone informed.
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: