You bred for butterfat. You won. Now $337M is gone in 90 days—and processors want less of what made your herd profitable. The math changed. Did anyone tell you?
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: U.S. dairy farmers lost $337 million in 90 days under new FMMO rules—and the genetics they spent a decade perfecting are now working against them. Butterfat climbed 13% since 2015, but protein didn’t keep pace: the average protein-to-fat ratio is 0.77, well below the 0.85-0.90 range processors need for efficient cheesemaking. Some plants have restructured contracts, paying reduced premiums for butterfat above threshold levels, while AFBF analysis shows Class price cuts of 85-93 cents per hundredweight. Canadian producers face parallel pressure—Western provinces shift from 85% butterfat pricing to 70% in April 2026. The playbook for 2026: get your contract terms in writing this week, calculate your herd’s ratio today, and select genetics for component balance rather than butterfat alone. The producers navigating this best understood their contracts before the rules changed.
When a 550-cow operator in east-central Wisconsin reviews his numbers these days, the economics look different than they did a few years back. His herd tests 4.58% butterfat—a genetic achievement that would have earned solid premium dollars not long ago. Today, his processor’s payment structure means production above a certain threshold earns reduced premiums.
“We did exactly what we were told to do for years,” he explained in a conversation for this article, asking that his name be withheld due to ongoing contract negotiations. “Now I’ve got daughters in the milking string from bulls I selected back in 2019, and I can’t change that overnight.”
He isn’t alone in this. Not by a long shot. For the past decade, U.S. dairy farmers responded to clear market signals. They bred for butterfat. They optimized rations for components. They invested in genetics that pushed Holstein herds from 3.75% butterfat in 2015 to 4.24% by 2024—a 13% increase in just ten years, according to USDA milk production data and Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding records. The CoBank Knowledge Exchange reported in September 2025 that this growth rate is roughly six times faster than that of the European Union or New Zealand over the same period.
Now, producers across the country are navigating a market where some of those premium structures are changing. Certain processors have adjusted how they value components above certain thresholds. Export markets that absorbed excess butterfat face trade policy questions. The situation keeps evolving, and thoughtful producers are adapting their strategies accordingly.
This isn’t a story about mistakes—farmers or otherwise. It’s a story about how pricing signals, genetic acceleration, and processor economics can create dynamics that shift over time. Understanding these forces helps us make better decisions going forward.
The Logic Behind Butterfat Focus
To understand the current landscape, it helps to revisit the reasoning that drove butterfat optimization. And honestly? The logic was sound based on the information and incentives available at the time.
Back in 2013, butterfat accounted for about 32% of the Class III milk price, according to Federal Milk Marketing Order data. By 2015, that figure had climbed above 50%. Then by July 2017—and those of you watching milk checks closely will remember this—butterfat was trading at $2.95 per pound while protein sat at $1.22. Nearly a 2.4:1 premium for fat over protein. Progressive Dairy documented this shift extensively, and it naturally influenced breeding priorities across the industry.
The genetic selection tools aligned with these market signals. Leadership at the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding has explained that Net Merit$ weightings reflect what the market signals to producers—in this case, more fat and more components. The pricing system was essentially communicating: we value more butterfat.
The farm-level economics were compelling. According to analysis from June 2025, producing one pound of strategic butterfat over the past decade generated an average of $2.54 in gross income while requiring only about 52 cents in nutrient costs—a marginal net return of roughly $2.02 per pound. With numbers like that, breeding for fat made clear economic sense.
Key factors driving butterfat selection from 2014 to 2020:
- Federal Milk Marketing Order pricing that rewarded components
- Consumer demand is shifting toward butter, whole milk, and premium cheese
- Genomic testing (available since 2009) enabling rapid genetic acceleration
- Net Merit$ index weighting butterfat at historic highs
- COVID-era quota systems that encouraged component density over volume
Genomic testing particularly accelerated the pace of change. Before 2009, genetic progress moved more gradually—farmers waited years for bull daughters to prove a sire’s value. After genomic testing became available, breeders could predict about 70% of a young bull’s genetic potential immediately, deploying high-butterfat genetics across the national herd within a few breeding cycles.
The April 2025 genetic base change illustrates this progress pretty clearly. Butterfat shifted by 45 pounds for Holsteins—an 87.5% larger adjustment than the 24-pound change in 2020, according to CDCB. That represents the fastest butterfat genetic gain in Holstein breed history.
Kevin Jorgensen, senior Holstein sire analyst at Select Sires, noted the continuing trajectory in January 2025: “Absolutely, we’re going to see additional gains. The emphasis placed upon this is not waning.”
So the genetics kept pushing forward even as some market dynamics began shifting underneath.
Understanding the Processor Side
This is where things get technical, but stick with me—it’s worth understanding because it explains what’s driving some of these contract changes.
Cheesemakers generally achieve better efficiency with milk at a protein-to-fat ratio roughly in the mid-0.80s to 0.90 range, though this varies somewhat by cheese type. At ratios in that range, fat and protein transfer into the cheese curd efficiently, waste is minimized, and yields are optimized. The American Dairy Products Institute has emphasized that standardizing the fat-to-protein ratio is one of the most important factors in ensuring optimal cheese quality and quantity.
Here’s the challenge. Current U.S. milk averages a ratio of about 0.77—down from the 0.82-0.84 range that held fairly steady from 2000 to 2017. The CoBank Knowledge Exchange reported in September 2025 that butterfat has been growing at roughly twice the pace of protein, which has driven the decline in that ratio. Both Feedstuffs and Hoard’s Dairyman covered this imbalance in their fall 2025 coverage.
| Metric | Protein-to-Fat Ratio |
| Current U.S. Average | 0.77 |
| Processor Optimal Range (Low) | 0.85 |
| Processor Optimal Range (High) | 0.90 |
| Gap from Optimal | -0.08 to -0.13 |
Research published in Frontiers in Veterinary Science has demonstrated that milk composition significantly affects cheese-making efficiency, with the protein-to-fat ratio playing a central role in determining both fresh and ripened cheese yields. When milk composition deviates from optimal ranges, processors can experience reductions in cheese output and higher nutrient losses in the whey stream.
Why does this matter to farmers? Because processors have costs they need to manage, and those costs ultimately affect what they can pay for milk.
Common processor approaches to managing composition:
- Cream removal: Separating excess butterfat before cheesemaking, then selling that cream separately—sometimes at different margins than cheese
- Protein fortification: Adding nonfat dry milk, condensed skim, or ultrafiltered milk to rebalance the ratio before processing
- Ultrafiltration investment: Installing membrane technology to concentrate proteins and adjust composition
Each approach involves expense. From the processor’s perspective, they’re managing milk composition to optimize their operations. Understanding this helps explain why some contract structures are evolving.
What Farmers Are Experiencing
The picture became clearer for many producers in late 2025 when component premiums stopped scaling as they had previously. Reports from multiple regions indicate that some processors have introduced payment structures where the incremental value of butterfat above certain thresholds is reduced. While individual levels vary by contract, producers in several areas report that additional butterfat above their processor’s preferred range no longer receives full premiums.
In October 2025, cheese processors reported milk is too high in fat relative to milk protein. Some cheese plants were essentially saying, “Don’t send me more butterfat.” By December, industry analysis indicated that premiums for higher butterfat had diminished for production above certain thresholds. What we saw is, the milk check, it got way too heavy in components.
To illustrate how this might affect an operation:
For a 600-cow herd shipping about 13.8 million pounds of milk annually at 4.6% fat, if the payment structure recognized full premiums only up to a certain point—say around 4.5%—the 0.1-point difference would represent roughly 13,800 pounds of butterfat that might earn a reduced premium. At even $0.50 per pound reduction in premium value, that’s approximately $6,900 in foregone annual income—or roughly $11.50 per cow per year left on the table. The actual impact varies considerably by contract, but the math helps illustrate why this matters.
One aspect that keeps coming up in conversations is that these details weren’t always clearly communicated upfront. A central Wisconsin producer described his experience: “I had to sit down with three months of milk checks and back-calculate before I understood what was happening. Nobody had really walked me through how the payment structure worked at higher test levels.”
I heard something similar from a California producer in the San Joaquin Valley who’s been running the same analysis. “We’re at 4.4% fat and thought we were in good shape,” he shared. “Then I realized our processor changed how they calculate premiums above 4.2%. Different market out here, but same basic dynamic.”
This points to an opportunity—and one of the most practical recommendations we can make: understanding your specific contract terms in detail.
How Other Regions Approached Component Growth
An interesting comparison emerges when we look at how other major dairy regions experienced this same period. Why did European and New Zealand farmers see different outcomes?
The differences trace back to structural factors rather than farmer decision-making.
Breed composition plays a significant role. The U.S. dairy herd is predominantly Holstein—a single breed that responded uniformly to genomic selection pressure. When U.S. farmers bred for butterfat, the national herd moved in that direction together. New Zealand’s herd is about 60% Holstein-Friesian/Jersey crossbreeds—the “KiwiCross”—with the remainder split among various breeds. The EU has significant breed diversity across countries. Different breed mixes respond differently to selection pressure.
Jersey crosses naturally produce higher protein-to-fat ratios. When New Zealand farmers selected for components, they achieved more balanced improvements in both fat and protein.
Pricing structures created different incentives. U.S. Federal Milk Marketing Orders explicitly reward individual components—which is why U.S. farmers responded so directly to component signals. EU milk pricing is largely based on intervention prices for butter and skim milk powder rather than on component premiums paid directly to farmers, according to the European Commission DG AGRI Dashboard. Different incentive structures led to different breeding emphases.
Here’s how the numbers compare:
| Region | Butterfat 2015 | Butterfat 2024 | 10-Year Change |
| U.S. | 3.75% | 4.24% | +13.0% |
| EU | 4.03% | 4.13% | +2.5% |
| New Zealand | 5.02% | 5.14% | +2.4% |
Source: CoBank Knowledge Exchange analysis (September 2025) reporting actual 2024 calendar year data; CLAL international dairy statistics
New Zealand already had higher butterfat than the U.S. Their breeding programs emphasized maintaining ratio balance while improving overall efficiency. Neither approach is inherently superior—they reflect different market structures and breeding objectives. But understanding these differences helps contextualize the U.S. experience.
But the international comparison isn’t just academic—because those other regions are also our customers.
The Export Market Factor
During early to mid-2025, U.S. butterfat exports frequently ran more than 140% above year-earlier levels, with some months nearly tripling prior-year volumes, according to USDA Foreign Agricultural Service data. Brownfield Ag News reported in November 2025 that butterfat exports to Canada alone were up 73%, with butter exports climbing 190%.
That export growth absorbed domestic production and supported prices. But it also created dependencies worth monitoring.
Current export market concentration:
- Mexico: More than 25% of all U.S. dairy exports—our largest and most consistent customer. CoBank’s December 2024 analysis noted that Mexico’s share of U.S. dairy product exports had grown to about 29% by late 2024.
- Canada: Second-largest market by value at $1.14 billion in 2024
- China: A key market for whey and specialty products, though exports have declined since 2022
| Export Market | Share of U.S. Dairy Exports | 2026 Trade Risk |
| Mexico | ~29% | USMCA renegotiation |
| Canada | ~18% | Supply management tensions |
| China | ~12% | Trade policy uncertainty |
| Other Markets | ~41% | Mixed/regional |
These three markets account for a substantial share of U.S. dairy export volume. All three face some degree of trade policy uncertainty heading into 2026, with USMCA renegotiation on the calendar and China trade dynamics continuing to evolve.
The American Farm Bureau Federation has described the U.S. dairy’s trade outlook as requiring careful navigation. CoBank’s lead dairy economist, Corey Geiger, has emphasized in multiple analyses that trade relationships—particularly with Mexico—are increasingly important to domestic market stability and that disruptions could pose significant challenges.
For producers focused primarily on their milk checks, trade policy can seem distant. But export market access affects domestic supply-demand balances, which ultimately influences what processors can pay.
What Canadian Producers Should Know
For our Canadian readers, the dynamics play out differently under supply management—but the underlying tension between fat and protein is creating similar conversations north of the border.
Canada’s Western Milk Pool is making a significant shift. The BC Milk Marketing Board announced in October 2025 that, effective April 1, 2026, Western Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba) will change their component pricing allocation from 85% butterfat / 10% protein / 5% other solids to 70% butterfat / 25% protein / 5% other solids. That’s a major rebalancing—protein’s share of producer payments will more than double.
| Component | Current (Pre-April 2026) | New (April 1, 2026) | Change |
| Butterfat | 85% | 70% | -15 pts |
| Protein | 10% | 25% | +15 pts |
| Other Solids | 5% | 5% | — |
The signal is clear: even in a quota system that’s historically emphasized butterfat, there’s growing recognition that protein deserves more weight in producer payments. Canadian producers selecting genetics today should factor this shift into their breeding decisions. The April 2025 Canadian genetic evaluations highlighted sires like FRAHOLME VEC TRITON-PP, ranking 30th on GLPI with +940 kg Milk, +105 kg Fat, and +63 kg Protein—the kind of balanced production profile that may become increasingly valuable under the new payment structure.
Practical Approaches Farmers Are Taking
Producers who recognized these dynamics early have been adapting their strategies. Their approaches offer useful frameworks to consider—whether you’re running a 200-cow family operation in Vermont, a 2,000-cow dairy in the Central Valley, or something in between. Specific processor options and contract structures vary by location, but the underlying principles apply broadly.
Contract clarity has become a priority. The question on a lot of minds right now: “At what point does my component premium structure change, and how?” Getting this in writing enables informed decision-making about ration and genetic investments.
An eastern Wisconsin producer described his experience after getting clearer on his contract terms in fall 2025: “Once I understood exactly how the payment structure worked at different test levels, I could actually plan around it. Before that, I was working with incomplete information.”
Ration adjustments are becoming more common. Nutritionists report increased interest in shifting from maximum-butterfat rations toward balanced-component approaches. Typical adjustments include:
- Reducing rumen-protected fat supplementation from 1.5% to 0.5% of dry matter
- Increasing alfalfa hay/haylage proportion for protein support
- Adding rumen-protected amino acids (lysine, methionine) to maintain protein while moderating fat
University of Minnesota dairy nutrition work led by Isaac Salfer, assistant professor of dairy nutrition, suggests that in many herds, component changes begin to show within roughly 4-6 weeks of a ration adjustment, with new steady-state levels often reached by 8-12 weeks—though actual timelines can vary by herd and ration specifics. These aren’t overnight changes, but they’re not multi-year horizons either.
- Exploring processor options makes sense. Farmers with competitive alternatives are obtaining quotes from multiple processors before contract renewals. Even without switching, documented alternatives provide useful context for conversations with current partners.
- Revenue diversification continues expanding. The beef-on-dairy approach has gained significant traction, with Holstein/Angus and Jersey/Angus cross calves commanding premium prices at weaning, according to recent USDA livestock market reports. Breeding a portion of the herd to beef genetics generates meaningful calf revenue—diversification that reduces dependence on any single revenue stream. Several producers I’ve spoken with describe this as one of their more impactful recent decisions.
- Genetic planning is evolving. While existing genetics represent previous decisions—those daughters are already producing—future breeding choices can emphasize a balance between protein and fat alongside other traits. Sire catalogs still feature many high-butterfat genetics. Dairy Global reported in January 2025 that among the top 100 Holstein sires, only six were negative for the fat test. But balanced-ratio options exist. The April 2025 evaluations identified sires showing strong component balance—bulls transmitting positive deviations for both fat percentage and protein percentage, rather than fat alone. When reviewing sire summaries, look beyond total pounds to the percentage deviations and the fat-to-protein relationship in the proof.
What’s Likely to Change
Now, I know federal order math isn’t anyone’s favorite topic, but the numbers here matter because they’re already hitting milk checks.
The 2025 FMMO reform isn’t just a policy update—it’s a fundamental reset of the American milk check. After a record 49-day national hearing that concluded in January 2024, USDA released its final decision on November 12, 2024. Producers in all 11 federal orders voted to approve the changes, and the new pricing formulas took effect June 1, 2025, according to USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service.
| Product Category | Make Allowance Increase (¢/lb) |
| Cheese | 5.0 |
| Butter | 5.4 |
| Nonfat Dry Milk | 5.9 |
| Dry Whey | 6.6 |
The changes are substantial. Make allowances increased by 5 to 7 cents per pound across cheese, butter, nonfat dry milk, and dry whey—representing a larger share of wholesale value going to processors. Farm Credit East documented the specific increases: cheese up 5 cents, butter up 5.4 cents, nonfat dry milk up 5.9 cents, and dry whey up 6.6 cents per pound.
The financial impact has been significant. Danny Munch, economist with the American Farm Bureau Federation, told Brownfield Ag News in June 2025 that once you net the negative make allowances against the benefits from updated Class I differentials and the return to the “higher of” Class I mover, dairy farmers still face meaningful losses. By September 2025, AFBF’s detailed analysis showed farmers had lost more than $337 million in combined pool value in just the first three months under the new rules, with Class price reductions ranging from 85 to 93 cents per hundredweight depending on the order.
The composition factor changes—updating baseline assumptions to 3.3% protein, 6% other solids, and 9.3% nonfat solids—took effect December 1, 2025, according to USDA’s final rule. These updated factors finally acknowledge what’s actually in today’s milk rather than formulas designed when milk tested around 3.5-3.6% fat and 3.1% protein.
Between processor payment restructuring and FMMO reform impacts, high-butterfat herds face a potential double squeeze heading into 2026. The producers navigating this best are those who understood their contracts before the rules changed—and who are now positioning their herds for what processors actually need, not what the old incentives rewarded.
Processor consolidation continues. The Arla Foods/DMK Group merger, expected to complete in 2026, will create a cooperative of more than 12,000 member farms processing approximately 19 billion kilograms of milk annually—the largest dairy company in Europe, according to Dairy Reporter’s April 2025 coverage. Similar consolidation dynamics exist in other regions. Larger processors typically have greater standardization capacity and different economics for managing milk composition.
Component evaluation discussions are evolving. CoBank economists suggested in their September 2025 analysis that protein may increasingly drive breeding decisions as market conditions evolve. Industry discussions increasingly focus on developing selection tools that emphasize component ratio balance rather than maximizing individual components—a recognition that what processors need and what the genetic indexes have been rewarding may not always align perfectly.
Industry leaders continue pushing for mandatory processor cost surveys to inform future make allowance discussions. NMPF CEO Jim Mulhern emphasized in October 2025 comments to Brownfield Ag News that ongoing reform is necessary for the federal order system to remain effective. The conversations are happening at every level, from cooperative boardrooms to Capitol Hill.
Your Monday Morning Checklist
- Get your contract in writing—this week. Call your processor or co-op field rep and request complete written documentation of how component payments work at different test levels. Don’t accept verbal explanations. You need the actual payment schedule showing where premiums flatten or decline.
- Calculate your herd’s protein-to-fat ratio today. Pull your last DHI test or bulk tank analysis. Divide protein percentage by fat percentage. If you’re below 0.80, you’re producing milk that costs your processor money to rebalance. That matters for your next contract conversation.
- Review one month of ration costs against component returns. Sit down with your nutritionist this month and calculate the actual ROI on your rumen-protected fat supplementation. At current component values, is that investment still paying?
- Get a competitive quote before your next contract renewal. Even if you have no intention of switching processors, having documented alternatives strengthens your position. Make three calls.
- Flag three sires in your tank for ratio review. Look at your current AI lineup. For each sire, check whether the fat percentage deviation significantly exceeds the protein percentage deviation. Consider whether that balance still serves your operation’s future.
- Set a calendar reminder for trade and policy news. Block 15 minutes monthly to scan USDA export reports and FMMO announcements. What happens in Washington and at the border affects your milk check more than most producers realize.
The Bottom Line
The butterfat gains achieved between 2015 and 2024 represent remarkable genetic progress. U.S. farmers responded effectively to market signals and improved their components, while their global counterparts didn’t. The current situation isn’t about those decisions being wrong—it’s about market conditions evolving and creating opportunities for strategic adjustment.
What producers across the Midwest and beyond are experiencing is a transition period. The signals were real, the decisions were rational, and the current landscape calls for thoughtful adaptation. The opportunity now lies in applying the same analytical approach that drove butterfat gains toward more balanced outcomes: genetics aligned with processor requirements, contracts with clear terms, and diversified revenue that provides flexibility.
The question every producer should be asking their co-op board right now: When did you know component pricing was shifting, and why didn’t you tell us?
“I’m not upset about it,” the east-central Wisconsin producer reflected. “I’m just adjusting. That’s what we do. But I wish somebody had laid out the whole picture five years ago instead of just highlighting the premium check.”
Farmers who recognized these dynamics and began adapting in 2025 will likely view this period as a recalibration rather than a setback. The question for every operation is whether current decisions account for where markets are heading—not just where they’ve been.
Additional Resources
For those interested in exploring these topics further:
- Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding (CDCB): Genetic evaluation tools and Net Merit$ component weightings at uscdcb.com
- University of Minnesota Extension Dairy: Research on component management through nutrition at extension.umn.edu/dairy
- CoBank Knowledge Exchange: Quarterly dairy economic analyses, including component and trade reports at cobank.com
- USDA Agricultural Marketing Service: Federal Order pricing data and component values at ams.usda.gov/market-news/dairy
In upcoming coverage, The Bullvine will examine specific breeding strategies for optimizing the protein-to-fat ratio over a five-year genetic plan—including which sire lines are showing promising balance characteristics for evolving market conditions.
KEY TAKEAWAYS
- $337 million gone in 90 days — FMMO reforms cut Class prices 85-93¢/cwt. This isn’t projection—it’s already hitting milk checks.
- The ratio gap is driving it — U.S. milk averages 0.77 protein-to-fat. Processors need 0.85-0.90. That mismatch explains why contracts are changing.
- Premium structures are shifting — Some plants now cap full butterfat premiums at threshold levels. Most producers haven’t seen their actual payment schedule. Have you?
- Canada confirms the trend — Western provinces shift from 85% butterfat pricing to 70% in April 2026. Protein’s value is rising on both sides of the border.
- Three moves to make this week: (1) Get your contract payment terms in writing. (2) Calculate your herd’s protein-to-fat ratio. (3) Review your sire lineup for component balance.
Complete references and supporting documentation are available upon request by contacting the editorial team at editor@thebullvine.com.
Learn More
- Bred for $3 Butterfat, Selling at $2.50: Inside the 5-Year Gap That’s Reshaping Genetic Strategy – Exposes the brutal five-year lag between genetic selection and your bulk tank reality. It delivers a framework to audit your current sire lineup against 2026 pricing, arming you with the tactics to pivot before those daughters ever hit the parlor.
- The $4.78 Spread: Why Protein Premiums Won’t Last Past 2027 – Breaks down the historic $4.78 Class III-IV spread and reveals why current protein premiums are a closing 18-month window. It positions your operation for the post-2027 market shift, ensuring you aren’t left chasing yesterday’s high-value component.
- The $700 Truth: Your Best Milkers Are Your Worst Investment (And 3,000 Dairies Just Proved It) – Unveils how 3,000 dairies are weaponizing beef-on-dairy premiums to cull their least efficient “high-volume” cows. This strategy delivers a $470-per-cow profitability boost by ruthlessly aligning herd genetics with actual market ROI instead of traditional production vanity.
Join the Revolution!
Join the Revolution!Join over 30,000 successful dairy professionals who rely on Bullvine Weekly for their competitive edge. Delivered directly to your inbox each week, our exclusive industry insights help you make smarter decisions while saving precious hours every week. Never miss critical updates on milk production trends, breakthrough technologies, and profit-boosting strategies that top producers are already implementing. Subscribe now to transform your dairy operation’s efficiency and profitability—your future success is just one click away.
