Archive for cull cow prices

Milk Fell. Costs Rose. What Kept These Dairy Budgets Positive?

Milk fell $1.72/cwt and costs rose $1.07, yet the Northeast average moved six cents. On Bullvine’s math, a 31% cut in cattle, crop and other income erases that cushion. For 300–699-cow herds, 7.4% does.

Northeast dairy margins

The 2025 Northeast Dairy Farm Summary shows Northeast milk receipts dropped $1.72/cwt in 2025 while total costs climbed $1.07/cwt. On paper, margins got $2.79 worse. Yet the modeled balance barely flinched, slipping six cents from $2.44 to $2.38. One revenue stream absorbed the blow: cattle and other non-milk income surged $2.73/cwt. Shrink that stream 31% (Bullvine’s math) and the cushion is gone.

That’s not a story about cattle revenue being suspicious. It’s a story about what’s doing the load-bearing work, and how much of it a 2027 expansion budget can afford to lose.

The $0.06 that explains 2025

The summary covers 136 Northeast farms, from 70 to more than 5,000 milking cows. Because the sample skews large, the report weights its three herd-size groups equally, so a group averaging 181 cows counts as much as one averaging 2,136. In barn terms, the $7.78/cwt the accountants call “non-milk farm income” is the cull cow check, the calf check (beef-cross and dairy), crop sales and the change in raised-livestock inventory, all rolled together. The report is direct about what moved: “Increased value of cattle sales was the main contributor to this.” It adds that larger farms “had more income from beef-on-dairy and cull cow sales.” 

Input, US$/cwt20242025Change%
Milk price$23.93$22.21−$1.72−7.2%
Total costs (incl. depr., living & tax)$26.54$27.61+$1.07+4.0%
Non-milk income (cattle, crop, other)$5.05$7.78+$2.73+54.1%
Modeled balance (Bullvine math)$2.44$2.38−$0.06 

Inputs: 2025 Northeast Dairy Farm Summary, Figure 6 and reported milk prices. Changes and balances are Bullvine calculations from published averages, not the report’s net-earnings or cash-margin measures.

The cash-receipts worksheet shows where the money came from. Cattle sales more than doubled, from $2.57 to $5.39/cwt, while crop sales slipped from $0.80 to $0.54. For a sense of the market behind that line, CoBank’s lead dairy economist, writing in the summary’s outlook section, put beef-on-dairy calves at a record $2,013 a head in mid-April 2026. One caution: these aren’t the same farms both years. The sample went from 122 farms averaging 820 cows to 136 averaging 941, so the bridge compares two samples, not one set of farms over time. 

The report’s net cost of production fell from $21.49 to $19.83/cwt. Producing milk didn’t get cheaper. More of the cost got covered by cattle, crop and other income. A lower milk breakeven and a lower cost of running the business are different things.

The expansion trap. A $19.83/cwt breakeven doesn’t mean it costs less than $20 to make milk. It means cattle, crop and other income covered $7.78 of a $27.61 cost. If the calf and cull checks shrink, the milk check carries more of that full $27.61.

More cows, not stronger margins

As of USDA’s October 16 outlook, the dairy herd stood at 9.710 million cows in August 2026, up 167,000 head on the year. Milk production rose 1.7%, but output per cow slipped one pound. The herd grew; the cow didn’t. Dairy-cow slaughter through 39 weeks ran above 2025 but below the 2023–25 average. 

None of that is a price signal to expand. USDA’s October forecast puts the 2026 all-milk price at $19.90/cwt, Class III at $15.80 and Class IV at $18.90. The same outlook projects the 2027 herd averaging 9.710 million: flat, not 10 million. A monthly head count and an annual-average forecast are different numbers. 

The farm-level decision isn’t whether the national herd is growing. It’s whether the next cow earns her place under your milk contract, your calf and cull market, and your replacement budget.

The Bullvine Non-Milk Dependence Test

Start with three published 2025 averages: $22.21 milk, $7.78 cattle-and-other income, $27.61 total costs. The modeled balance is $2.38/cwt. Hold milk price, milk volume and costs fixed, and shrink only the cattle-and-other line.

ScenarioRemovedRemainingBalance
Published baseline—$7.78$2.38
Illustrative 10% cut$0.78$7.00$1.60
Illustrative 25% cut$1.95$5.84$0.44
Illustrative 40% cut$3.11$4.67−$0.73

Bullvine calculations from the summary’s 2025 inputs, computed before rounding. All figures US$/cwt.

The three percentages are markers, not forecasts. We didn’t calibrate them to calf-price history or lender stress tests. The number that does the work is the zero point: divide the $2.38 balance by the $7.78 input and you get 30.6%, the cut that exhausts this cushion with everything else unchanged.

One boundary. Because the stressed line is the whole category, a 25% cut here is not a 25% drop in calf prices. Splitting calf checks from cull checks from crop sales is the operator’s job, using their own records.

The average hides three different herds

Run the same arithmetic by herd size and the $2.38 comes apart. Milk price barely differed across the groups. Costs and cattle income didn’t.

Herd groupAvg cowsNon-milkBalanceZero point
1–299 cows181$6.02−$0.74negative before cut
300–699 cows507$7.26$0.547.4%
700+ cows2,136$9.91$7.0370.9%
All farms941$7.78$2.3830.6%

Inputs: summary Figures 9 and 14 (milk price, total costs and non-milk income by group). Balances and zero points are Bullvine math, US$/cwt.

The 1–299-cow group average was under water on this measure before any cut. The 300–699-cow group average loses its cushion at a 7.4% drop in cattle-and-other income. Only the 700+ group, which also had the most cattle income per cwt, holds up through a deep cut. Individual results spread wider still: net earnings ran from more than $3,000 a cow to losses of more than $2,000, and nearly one-third of the farms lost money on an accrual basis. A regional average can’t decide an individual expansion. 

What 44 cents tells you, and what it doesn’t

The 25% scenario leaves $0.435/cwt for the all-farm average, rounded to 44 cents. It looks like a margin, and margins invite decisions. The summary’s total-cost line already includes interest, depreciation, and a $0.60/cwt family-living-and-income-tax line. It does not include scheduled loan principal, a return on equity or new capital. By the report’s own figure, each 1% of return on equity adds $0.49/cwt.

If you’re asking…What 44 cents supports
Is that cash in the account?No. It’s an accrual-adjusted balance that includes depreciation and inventory changes.
Does it cover the loan payment?Interest is already in the costs. Principal is not.
Does it pay the family?$0.60/cwt for family living and income tax is already deducted. Whether that matches your household is another question.
Is the investment earning a return?Not established. No equity return is in the benchmark.
Will the next cow earn 44 cents?No. There’s no replacement purchase, construction, financing or production response in an averages-based number.

Principal is where this bites, and the report measures it. Its cash-flow analysis counts operating expenses, family living, income tax and scheduled principal payments: $27.84/cwt in cash required. Against that, the average farm had $22.21 of milk and $7.11 of cattle, crop, capital and other income, leaving a cash margin of $1.48/cwt. The report’s highlights page lists $2.12; its body text and cash-flow table show $1.48. We use the table. On Bullvine math, a 20.8% cut in that other income erases the cash margin. At the 25% marker, the average farm is 30 cents short on cash after debt service. That’s before any capital replenishment, and it’s the arithmetic a lender will run. 

Don’t count the cattle check twice

There are two correct ways to lay out this worksheet. The first adds cattle-and-other income to revenue and subtracts total costs. The second subtracts that income from costs first (that’s how the summary gets $19.83) and compares the net cost with milk revenue alone. Both land on $2.38. The error is mixing them: using the already-adjusted $19.83 andadding the $7.78 to revenue again.

Line, US$/cwtRoute A: full revenueRoute B: milk vs. net costFatal error: double-credited
Milk revenue$22.21$22.21$22.21
Cattle-and-other income+$7.78already in cost line+$7.78 again
Cost subtracted−$27.61 total−$19.83 net−$19.83 net
Balance (Bullvine math)$2.38$2.38$10.16 — wrong

The overstatement is exactly $7.78/cwt. Both cells look right in isolation; it only shows when you reconcile the two routes. This is an illustration from published averages, not a documented error at any farm or in the source report. Five checks:

  • Trace what the cost cell has already subtracted.
  • Trace whether any income line appears twice.
  • Match period, denominator and accounting basis.
  • Confirm both routes reconcile.
  • When you stress the cattle line, update the adjusted breakeven too.

Does the expansion create the exposure?

The test shows exposure. The next question is whose: does the expansion create it, or is the existing herd already underwater without this year’s calf and cull checks? For the 1–299-cow group average, the answer was already yes. Run both cases under the same weaker-income assumption. That’s partial budgeting as Penn State Extension lays it out: count only what the decision changes.

Market assumptionDon’t expandExpand
This year’s cattle incomeExisting herd, projectedExpanded herd, projected
Weaker cattle incomeExisting herd under the shockExpanded herd under the shock

Read across to judge the expansion. Read down to judge the exposure. If both columns fail under the shock, the expansion didn’t create the problem; the base herd has it already. If the expanded herd stays cash-positive but the new capital earns nothing, that’s a different problem.

What this means for your operation

The one thing to take into the next expansion meeting: run this test while you can still change the commitment, and put the review date in writing. Penn State’s guidance is to test uncertain assumptions until the preferred decision switches. It also says to look at both this year’s and next year’s cash flow, because a move that helps one can hurt the other. The Bullvine addition is to tie that to the project calendar. 

  • By November 20, 2026, split the revenue lines. Trailing 12 months: milk, beef-cross calves, dairy calves, culls, other livestock, crops, other income. Keep cash receipts separate from inventory changes.
  • Stress calf and cull checks, not “non-milk.” Run 10%, 25% and 40% on your own cattle lines, then find your own zero point on both an accrual and a cash basis. The benchmark’s 30.6% is not yours, and neither is its 20.8%.
  • Name what fails first. A scheduled principal payment, a minimum cash balance, a lender covenant or a return target, chosen before you see the result.
  • Run expand vs. don’t-expand under the same shock. If the 25% case flips the answer, that’s a redesign trigger: fewer cows, staged construction, less debt, a stronger milk agreement or a larger reserve.
  • Check the breakeven definition. If the worksheet starts from a cattle-adjusted milk breakeven, the cattle check doesn’t go back in as revenue.
  • Write the checkpoint. Next commitment, its date, the options still open on that date, the threshold, and who signs off. “Not yet paid” and “not yet committed” aren’t the same thing, so read the agreements.

The biggest cattle check in this five-year series is real income. The expansion question is whether the next cow still earns her place when that check gets smaller, and whether you’ll find out while you can still do something about it.

Interactive Diagnostic Tool The Bullvine Financial Series

Non-Milk Income Dependence & Breakeven Stress Tester

Test how vulnerable your operating cushion is to a correction in beef-cross calves, cull cow checks, and secondary farm revenue.

Benchmark Quick-Load:
\$ /cwt
Net blend price received
\$ /cwt
Calves, culls, crops, accrual-adj.
\$ /cwt
Operating, interest, depr. & living
Used to convert \$/cwt into total annual cashflow impact
cwt/yr
Stress-Test Non-Milk Revenue Line: 0.0% Reduction
Stressed Non-Milk Line
\$7.78/cwt
No reduction applied
True Net Breakeven
\$19.83/cwt
Milk price needed to break even
Remaining Cushion
+\$2.38/cwt
+\$238,000 / year
Healthy Operating Cushion: The operation absorbs full overhead, family draw, and normal debt principal requirements.
Review The Math: Avoiding The \$7.78 Double-Counting Error

Lenders and farm managers frequently commit the catastrophic double-counting trap when reviewing net cost of production. Here is how your active numbers reconcile:

Method Calculation Flow Result
Full Revenue vs Full Cost \$22.21 milk + \$7.78 non-milk − \$27.61 total +\$2.38/cwt
Milk vs Adjusted Breakeven \$22.21 milk − \$19.83 net cost +\$2.38/cwt
Fatal Accounting Error Crediting non-milk to revenue AND subtracting it from costs +\$10.16 (+\$7.78 Error)

*Depreciation and family living allowances are included. Scheduled debt principal, equity return targets, and income taxes are not.

Complete references and supporting documentation are available upon request by contacting the editorial team at editor@thebullvine.com.

Learn More

The Sunday Read Dairy Professionals Don’t Skip.

Every week, thousands of producers, breeders, and industry insiders open Bullvine Weekly for genetics insights, market shifts, and profit strategies they won’t find anywhere else. One email. Five minutes. Smarter decisions all week.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent

The National Heifer Number Fits Wisconsin and California. Almost Nobody Else.

Wisconsin sits at 40.3 replacements per 100 cows. California at 40.4. National is 41.9 — so a third of the herd is fine using it, and everyone else has been quoting a stranger’s number.

Executive Summary: USDA’s replacement-heifer pool fell 769,700 head between 2020 and 2025 while the milk-cow herd held flat, and a DRMS analysis of continuously DHIA-tested Holstein herds shows third-and-later-lactation culling down 7.6 points across the same years — even as cull cows hit a record US$157.00 per cwt. Joining two USDA columns nobody had joined shows why: national freshening capacity for a 500-cow herd fell from 151 head to 134, leaving a 33%-turnover herd 31 short. State coverage runs 49 points wide, from 28.6 to 77.8.

dairy replacement heifer coverage

Cull-cow prices hit their highest monthly average on record in July 2025 and herds on DRMS records were culling less, not more. The average price received for cows, beef cows and cull dairy cows sold for slaughter reached US$157.00 per cwt that month, US$15.00 above July 2024. In the same year, a DRMS analysis of Holstein herds on continual DHIA test, shared publicly on LinkedIn by DRMS’s Dr. Robert Fourdraine, put third-and-later-lactation culling at 46.1%, down 7.6 points since 2020.

Behind that retention sits a supply problem. The dairy replacement heifer inventory reported by USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service fell 769,700 head between January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2025 on the agency’s revised figures, while the national milk-cow herd finished essentially unchanged. Replacement pressure contributed to lower culling. That is an inventory signal, not proof that beef semen caused it.

Where the culling actually went

Nothing moved in 2021. First-lactation culling sat at 25.2% in 2020 and 25.3% in 2021. Second lactation went from 31.7% to 31.5%. Third-plus edged up from 53.7% to 54.0%.

The break starts in 2022 and holds through 2025 in all three groups — four consecutive declining years, not a two-point wobble.

Lactation group202020212022202320242025ChangeRelative
1st25.2%25.3%24.0%24.0%22.4%21.6%-3.6 pts-14.3%
2nd31.7%31.5%29.9%29.5%27.2%26.7%-5.0 pts-15.8%
3rd and later53.7%54.0%50.5%49.9%47.0%46.1%-7.6 pts-14.2%

The 7.6-point move is the biggest in absolute terms. Look at the relative declines, though: 14.3%, 15.8%, 14.2%. Nearly identical. This isn’t only older cows getting a reprieve. Exits slowed across the whole productive herd, and the head-count effect landed hardest where turnover was always highest.

Run it on a 500-cow herd carrying 150 third-and-later-lactation cows. A 7.6-point drop is about 11 of those cows staying who would have left in 2020.

Does 41.9 mean anything in your state?

The national 41.9 is where every story about this shortage stops. For most herds, it’s also where it stops being useful.

The Bullvine Replacement Coverage Ratio divides milk-replacement heifers by milk cows and multiplies by 100. Both inputs come from the same NASS table each January. Run it on the state pages and coverage ranges from 28.6 replacements per 100 cows in Michigan to 77.8 in Kansas on January 1, 2025 — a 49-point spread the national number hides completely.

StateMilk cows (1,000 head)Milk replacements (1,000 head)Replacements per 100 cows
Michigan440.0126.028.6
Texas675.0220.032.6
Minnesota440.0165.037.5
Wisconsin1,265.0510.040.3
California1,710.0690.040.4
Pennsylvania465.0200.043.0
Idaho680.0305.044.9
New York630.0320.050.8
Arizona189.0130.068.8
Kansas180.0140.077.8
United States9,349.33,914.341.9

Bullvine calculation. Published evidence: USDA NASS, Cattle, January 31, 2025, state tables, January 1, 2025 inventory, head. Bullvine math: state milk replacements ÷ state milk cows × 100. Ratios built on small cow bases move further on the same absolute change — Kansas and Arizona each carry under 200,000 milk cows against Wisconsin’s 1.27 million, so treat the extremes as directional rather than precise.

One caution before you locate yourself on that list. NASS counts heifers where they physically stand, not who owns them. Kansas at 77.8 and Arizona at 68.8 carry custom-raised animals destined for herds in other states, and the reverse holds too — a Michigan or Texas herd may own heifers growing out of state, which makes its real position better than 28.6 or 32.6 suggests. This is a location map, not an ownership ledger. Check your contracts before you treat a state number as your supply.

The two biggest dairy states land closest to the national figure — Wisconsin at 40.3 and California at 40.4, inside 1.6 points of 41.9. Together they hold roughly a third of the U.S. herd on that same table, so for that third the national number is a fair proxy. The other two-thirds are reading a number that isn’t theirs.

A 500-cow herd’s share of the state pool runs 143 head in Michigan, 163 in Texas, and 254 in New York. Same national headline, three different decisions.

Is the heifer pipeline really that tight?

The obvious response to a shrinking heifer supply is to buy replacements, not keep older cows. The national trend says why that stopped working.

Most beef-on-dairy programs rest on one assumption: a shortfall can be bought out. That assumption holds when replacements are plentiful, and through 2021 the national pool held above 48 replacements per 100 cows. Both series turn in the same window — coverage drops below 48 in 2022, and the DRMS culling decline starts in 2022. Coverage is a January 1 inventory and culling an annual rate, so read the alignment as directional rather than same-day.

Replacement numbers haven’t been this low in absolute terms since 1978. The Bullvine put a price on that low in January: 800,000 missing heifers, and who pays the bill? What the 1978 framing misses is coverage — how many replacements stand behind each cow, year by year.

January 1Milk-replacement heifersMilk cowsReplacements per 100 cows
20204.684 million (revised)9.3426 million50.1
20214.60 million9.44 million48.7
20224.4406 million9.3770 million47.4
20234.3372 million9.4025 million46.1
20243.9512 million9.3468 million42.3
20253.9143 million9.3493 million41.9

Bullvine calculation. Methodology Note — published evidence: USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service, Cattle, U.S. national, head, January 1 inventory. The 2020 and 2021 rows come from the January 29, 2021 release, the 2022 and 2023 rows from the January 31, 2023 release, and the 2024 and 2025 rows from the January 31, 2025 release, using revised figures where a later release supersedes an earlier one. The January 2020 release originally reported 4.64 million replacements; the January 2021 release revised that to 4.684 million, and the revised figure is used throughout. Stated assumption: milk-replacement heifers weighing 500 pounds and over represent the available replacement pool, which is broader than heifers expected to calve within the year. Bullvine math: heifers ÷ cows × 100. The 2021 row derives from figures published to three significant figures and is accurate to roughly ±0.2.

Coverage fell from 50.1 to 41.9 — about eight fewer replacements behind every hundred cows. The pool contracted 16.4%, while milk cows moved 6,700 head, a difference well inside the agency’s own revision range.

It hasn’t released either. The January 30, 2026 Cattle report put milk replacements at 3.90 million, down slightly again, while milk cows climbed 2% — about 220,000 head — to 9.57 million. We called this America’s worst replacement crisis in 47 years in August 2025, and the 2026 count didn’t soften it. More stalls, fewer heifers behind them.

What beef semen is and isn’t doing

A 2023 Journal of Dairy Science analysis of U.S. Holstein and Jersey females found sexed-dairy and beef-semen inseminations both rose from 2019 through 2021, allocated differently by parity and service number, with larger herds driving most of the increase. University of Wisconsin–Madison Extension reported that in 2020, 20% of Holstein females were bred with sexed semen while beef semen accounted for 23% of inseminations — two different bases, as the source expresses them.

That’s a deliberate two-job strategy. Replacements come from selected females, beef-cross value from the rest. It works when conception, calf survival, heifer growth, and freshening all land near plan.

It breaks when any one of four assumptions misses: pregnancy rate slips, heifer attrition rises, the herd expands, or cow exits run above what the breeding plan assumed.

The timing is what hurts. A beef mating pays a calf cheque in weeks. The missing replacement shows up two years later, long after the decision is made.

How many replacements does a 500-cow herd actually need?

Running the Numbers

Scope: 500-cow Holstein herd, U.S. national basis, 12-month window, head and USD. Herd size held flat, no purchased replacements.

NASS publishes a second line most coverage ignores: milk-replacement heifers expected to calve during the year. That removes any need to assume an entry rate.

January 1Heifers expected to calveMilk cowsFreshenings per 100 cowsPer 500-cow herd
20222.8262 million9.3770 million30.1151
20232.7694 million9.4025 million29.5147
20242.5089 million9.3468 million26.8134
20252.4998 million9.3493 million26.7134

Bullvine calculation. Published evidence: the NASS Cattle releases linked above — 2022 and 2023 from the January 2023 report, 2024 and 2025 from the January 2025 report. Bullvine math: expected-to-calve ÷ milk cows × 100, then × 5 for a 500-cow herd. No entry-rate assumption is used anywhere in this box.

Layer 1 — sourced arithmetic. A 500-cow herd’s share of the national freshening pool fell from 151 head in 2022 to 134 in 2025.

Seventeen fewer fresh heifers a year, on the same cow numbers.

Layer 2 — demand against that supply. Turnover scenarios below are the Bullvine model, not a NASS figure.

TurnoverReplacements neededAvailable at 2025 coverageGap
26%130134+4
33%165134-31
40%200134-66

A low-turnover herd sits in balance. At 33% turnover, the herd is 31 head short, and at 40% it’s 66 short. The conservative figure the takeaways use is 31.

The NASS average price received for milk cows — animals sold for dairy herd replacement only, reported quarterly — hit US$3,010 per head in July 2025, up from US$2,360 in July 2024, per the August 29, 2025 Agricultural Prices release. Buying out of a 31-head gap at that price is roughly US$93,000. Buying back the 17-head decline in freshening capacity is roughly US$51,000. Both are model outputs conditional on the herd choosing to buy rather than retain, and neither is any farm’s books.

What this means for your operation

Next 30 days.

  • Calculate replacement demand as herd size × your own annual turnover rate, using mean cow inventory as the denominator — the method the 2006 Journal of Dairy Science culling review recommends. Requires 12 months of exit records. Red-flag trigger: if you can’t produce a turnover rate from your own records, freeze beef-eligibility decisions until you can. Backfires when the denominator is inventory plus culls: that review’s worked example shows the same herd reading 25% instead of 34%, and 32% instead of 46%.
  • Count heifers due to freshen in the same window, then deduct expected pregnancy loss, deaths, sales, and animals that won’t meet your entry standard. Threshold: projected freshenings under 90% of projected need moves this to the top of your list. Benchmark against your own state’s coverage, not the national 41.9.
  • Pull your last three cull-cow settlements and check them against the US$157.00 per cwt July 2025 average. If your marginal cows are worth that and you’re still keeping them, name the reason out loud.

Next 90 days.

  • Rank females for sexed-dairy semen and release beef eligibility only once the replacement target is covered. Requires current index or genomic ranking plus a reproduction forecast. Threshold: reset the ratio whenever pregnancy rate moves more than two points. Backfires if the ranking is done once and left, because the eligible pool shifts monthly.
  • Where the gap is real, choose openly among four levers: fewer beef matings, fewer avoidable exits, purchased replacements, or a smaller expansion. Debt load decides this one more than herd size does — a heavily leveraged herd is buying replacements with borrowed money at US$3,010 a head, which makes retention and fewer beef matings the cheaper levers even when the cows are marginal. Keeping every marginal cow by default isn’t a fifth lever.

Running the retention number

The direction of this one confuses people, so run it rather than eyeball it. Keeping an older cow is not free. You give up her salvage cheque, and you accept a production and component gap against the heifer who would have replaced her. What you avoid is the purchase price.

Net cost of retention = salvage you gave up + the twelve-month cash margin gap against a fresh heifer − the purchase price you avoided. Positive means retention is the expensive choice.

Fill it with your own three numbers: your cull weight at US$157.00 per cwt live, your own cash milk and solids difference between her and a first-lactation animal over twelve months, and US$3,010 or your actual quote.

At a 1,400-pound cull weight, salvage runs about US$2,200 — roughly 73% of that July heifer price, which is why the margin gap usually decides this rather than the price spread. Run that gap on your own contract’s pay basis: a component-based milk cheque and a volume-based one weight solids and pounds differently, so the same two cows produce a different gap depending on how you get paid. Compute it from your statement, not from hundredweights.

One caveat: this is a twelve-month frame, and over multiple lactations the heifer’s longer remaining life and her own eventual salvage tilt it further toward replacement. Requires your own DHI records. We’re not supplying a margin figure because it moves too much by herd to model honestly.

Next 365 days.

  • Rebuild the forecast quarterly on actual pregnancies, attrition, and exits. A plan built at 26% turnover misses badly at 40%.
  • Opportunity signal: herds holding freshening coverage above the national 26.7 per 100 cows while running beef on the bottom end capture calf revenue and keep the option to sell springing heifers into a market that showed no sign of loosening in the January 2026 count. In a low-coverage state like Michigan at 28.6, that option is worth more.
  • Before benchmarking your parity rates against this analysis, get your cow count in each lactation group. The 21.6%, 26.7%, and 46.1% figures answer three different parity questions and can’t be averaged unweighted into a herd number. And know that DRMS excludes cows sold for dairy from these rates — so if you calculate turnover on all exits, your figure will read higher and the two aren’t comparable. Strip dairy sales out of your own numerator first, or you’ll conclude you’re culling harder than you are.
  • We’ve argued the flip side of the retention trade before: the longer a healthy cow keeps producing, the less exposed you are.

What the chart cannot tell you

The DRMS analysis is consistent with farms protecting cow inventory. It does not identify beef-semen exposure by herd, link any individual cow’s exit to projected heifer supply, or separate replacement pressure from better transition management, reproduction, udder health, facilities, labor, or planned expansion.

DRMS has now confirmed the methodology. The denominator is the average number of cows across all included herds in each year — the mean-inventory approach the 2006 Journal of Dairy Science review by Fetrow, Nordlund and Norman recommends. The numerator covers cows recorded as sold for feet and legs, low production, reproduction, injury, mastitis, disease, udder, reason not reported, and died. Cows sold for dairy — animals that go on milking in another herd — are excluded.

So this isn’t herd turnover rate. That same 2006 review defined culling to include dairy sale, slaughter or salvage, and death, and warned that dropping a destination distorts the comparison. Excluding dairy sales makes this a measure of exits that aren’t sales to other dairies — closer to what the industry means by involuntary culling than to total turnover, and lower than total turnover by the size of the dairy-sale category.

One more feature of the population worth knowing: these are herds that stayed on DHIA test for six straight years. Continuously enrolled herds aren’t a random sample of the national herd, and nothing in the analysis claims they are.

One counter-signal makes the retention read stronger. Culling fell in all three groups during 2025 — first lactation 22.4% to 21.6%, second 27.2% to 26.7%, third-plus 47.0% to 46.1% — in the same year that cow price series hit its record. Herds on DRMS records kept more cows while the beef market paid the most it ever had to take them away.

Proving beef-on-dairy changed cow-level exit decisions needs semen allocation, heifer inventory, and disposal records linked inside the same herds. DRMS says that linkage is possible but would take additional work, and it deferred two of our five questions — the cow count by lactation group, and whether herd-level beef-semen use can be tied to disposal records — to a World Dairy Expo session on October 1: Improving Calf Health: What the Data Shows and How New Traits Can Be Used, with Dr. Robert Fourdraine of DRMS and Katie Schmitt of the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding, 11:30 a.m., Mendota 1. DRMS says that presentation will include Beef × Dairy calf numbers, herd size and replacement animals entering the herd. We’ve accepted an interview afterward and will report it.

Which leaves one number worth more than any of these. Pull your heifer inventory report, count how many animals are due to freshen in the next twelve months, and compare that to the turnover rate your own exit records produced last year.

Key Takeaways

  • The national 41.9 replacements per 100 cows fits Wisconsin and California almost exactly and almost nobody else — Michigan sits at 28.6, Kansas at 77.8, and state figures count where heifers stand, not who owns them.
  • Joining USDA’s two heifer columns shows freshening capacity for a 500-cow herd fell from 151 head in 2022 to 134 in 2025. At 33% turnover, that’s 31 short; at 26% you’re fine.
  • Retention isn’t the cheap default anymore. At US$3,010 a head, salvage recovers about 73% of a replacement’s cost, so the twelve-month margin gap decides the trade, not the price spread.
  • Culling fell across every lactation group in the same year cull cows hit US$157.00 per cwt. Replacement pressure contributed to that — but nothing here proves beef semen caused it, and DRMS excludes dairy sales, so your own all-exits number won’t match these.
The Bullvine Tool

Heifer Supply & Retention Trade-off Calculator

Audit your pipeline deficit and test whether holding a marginal older cow beats taking the slaughter salvage check.

(After death loss/sales)
(USDA July avg: $3,010)

Cow Retention vs. Replacement Trade-Off

(Heifer advantage over cow)
12-Mo Pipeline Balance
-31 head
Buyout cost: $93,310
Net Retention Cost (Per Cow)
-$162
Salvage covers 73.0% of heifer
Retention Warning

Your heifer pipeline falls short of expected exits. While retaining an older cow is currently cheaper than buying a replacement on the open market, verify if your margin gap includes somatic cell penalties and mastitis treatments.

Source Data: USDA NASS & DRMS Extracts • thebullvine.com

UPDATE, September 18, 2026: DRMS has responded to our September 18 request and confirmed the methodology behind the culling figures. The analysis covers Holstein herds on continual DHIA test across six years from January 1, 2020; the denominator is the average number of cows across those herds each year; and the rates exclude cows sold for dairy. This article has been updated to reflect that, and to correct the description of how the figures reached us — they were shared publicly on LinkedIn by DRMS’s Dr. Robert Fourdraine, not supplied privately to The Bullvine. DRMS will present fuller herd trends, including Beef × Dairy calf numbers, herd size and replacement animals entering the herd, at World Dairy Expo on October 1, and has offered an interview afterward.

Methodology, limitations, and corrections. Inventory and price figures come from the USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service releases linked above, on U.S. national and state bases as labeled, in USD. Livestock prices are prices received on a live-weight basis. The Replacement Coverage, state coverage, and Freshening Coverage ratios and the 500-cow scenarios are Bullvine calculations on those published inputs; national averages will not match your region, herd size, or management system, and the turnover scenarios are a model rather than any farm’s books. The culling figures come from a DRMS analysis shared publicly on LinkedIn by Dr. Robert Fourdraine. DRMS confirmed the methodology to The Bullvine on September 18, 2026: Holstein herds on continual DHIA test across six years from January 1, 2020, with annual rates calculated against the average number of cows across those herds and cows sold for dairy excluded. Factual corrections: editor@thebullvine.com

Learn More

The Sunday Read Dairy Professionals Don’t Skip.

Every week, thousands of producers, breeders, and industry insiders open Bullvine Weekly for genetics insights, market shifts, and profit strategies they won’t find anywhere else. One email. Five minutes. Smarter decisions all week.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent

Beef Tariff Waiver 2026: Dairy Has 90 Days to Find Out If Its Best Hedge Still Holds

NMPF flagged 20% of dairy income. The contract your culls actually compete in didn’t move a dollar. Here’s the barn math on a 90-day window nobody has signed yet.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The day Washington waived tariffs on 300,000 tonnes of imported ground beef, the 90% lean trim contract — the one your cull cows actually compete in — held dead flat at $449, while fat trim dropped $8. NMPF put dairy’s exposure at 20% of annual farm income in its August 24 statement, and the $13 billion figure that followed it through the trade press isn’t in that statement; independent reconstruction lands at $10.5 to $12.2 billion. On a 1,000-cow herd, roughly $337,000 to $435,000 of cull and beef-cross calf revenue moves through the 90-day window, with August auction trade running $160/cwt liveweight on culls and $1,200 to $1,975 a head on beef-cross calves. Cattle futures were already sliding well before August 21, so any softening in your cull check needs testing against the WASDE revision and the Tyson plant closures before you blame the waiver. Here’s the part almost nobody flagged: USDA’s Risk Management Agency built LRP coverage types specifically for beef-on-dairy calves and dairy cull cows, and the cull cow product caps at 13 weeks — 91 days against a 90-day waiver. A hedge at a fifth of your revenue isn’t a hedge anymore — it’s a second commodity position, priced by trade policy instead of by cheese.

beef tariff waiver dairy

If beef-cross calves and cull cows make up 20% of your gross revenue, a fifth of your dairy’s income statement was just exposed to a trade policy window you had no say in. On August 21, Washington opened a 90-day tariff waiver on 300,000 metric tonnes of imported ground beef. But before you panic-sell culls or cut beef semen services, look at the actual contract data.

That 20% figure comes from the National Milk Producers Federation’s August 24, 2026 statement, and it’s a national aggregate — your own share is knowable from your settlement sheets and probably isn’t 20%. The same Friday the waiver landed, USDA’s Oklahoma auction report showed slaughter cows selling $5.00 to $7.00 lower than the week before. Whether those two facts are connected is the question this piece exists to answer.

A White House official told reporters an executive order would follow within two weeks. No signed order has appeared in the Federal Register as of this morning, and the White House hasn’t published a supplier list or an enforcement mechanism for its stated commitment that the imported beef will sell 25% below current market prices.

Policy status and market prices reflect publicly available U.S. information as of the morning of August 26, 2026. Prices are U.S. national unless a region is specified.

Two Signed Orders, One That Never Got a Signature

The waiver isn’t the story. The repetition is.

Washington has reached for beef import relief three times since February. A signed presidential proclamation on February 6 raised the 2026 beef tariff-rate quota by 80,000 metric tonnes, allocated entirely to Argentina, restricted to lean beef trimmings by HTS line, released in four quarterly tranches — published in the Federal Register on February 13. In May, the administration prepared a 200-day suspension of beef tariff-rate quotas across all exporting nations; the Wall Street Journal reported on May 10 that the signing was delayed, and The Hill reported on August 20 that the plan was shelved after pushback from the president’s inner circle.

Then August 21.

Northern Ag Network’s August 21 reporting frames the current action as the second executive order aimed at beef prices, because May never produced one.

Why the product scope matters more than the count. February targeted lean beef trimmings specifically, by HTS line. August covers “product for ground beef” — a phrase the White House hasn’t defined. May would have suspended beef TRQs across the board. February hit lean trim directly. August almost certainly does, though the White House hasn’t said so in writing, and lean trim is the product your cull cows compete against in the grind. That’s why this waiver lands differently on a dairy than on a cow-calf operation, and it’s the thread worth pulling if you’ve built beef-on-dairy revenue into your operating budget.

Action DateVolume & ScopeProduct DefinitionLegal Status
Feb 6, 2026+80,000 t TRQ, Argentina only, 4 quarterly tranchesLean beef trimmings, specified by HTS lineSigned proclamation; Federal Register Feb 13
May 2026TRQ suspension, all exporting nations, 200 daysBeef TRQs across the boardSHELVED — never signed
Aug 21, 2026300,000 t waiver, 90 days“Product for ground beef” — undefined by White HouseAnnounced; no EO in Federal Register as of Aug 26
Late Nov 2026Expiry if signed on stated timelineLapse, extend, or become templateUnknown — lands inside fall culling

Running the Numbers: A 1,000-Cow Dairy’s 90-Day Beef Channel

Every figure in the middle column is either sourced or a labeled assumption. Fill the right column with your own, and the answer moves. The model assumes an even calving distribution across the year.

Metric1,000-Cow Baseline ModelYour Herd
Annual cull rate / 90-day culls35% (assumption) / 86 head 
Cull liveweight & farmgate price1,350 lb @ $160/cwt = $2,160/head 
90-day cull salvage gross$185,760 
Beef-semen share / calving rate60% / 85% (both assumptions) 
90-day crossbred calves126 head 
Calf realized value$1,200 – $1,975/head 
90-day calf revenue$151,200 – $248,850 
Total 90-day beef channel gross$336,960 – $434,610 
5–10% compression exposure$16,848 – $43,461 

On 300 cows, the same assumptions run roughly $101,000 to $130,000 through the channel. The percentage exposure is identical; the dollar figure isn’t.

Cull price is the midpoint of current national auction trade: USDA AMS National Daily Feeder and Stocker Summary, August 24, 2026, shows Boning 80-85% at $152.00–162.00 and Lean 85-90% at $143.00–146.00. Oklahoma National Stockyards on August 21 averaged $167.44 on Lean 85-90% and $166.75 on Breaker 75-80%.

Calf values reflect August 2026 beef-cross trade at Ohio auctions reported by Farm and Dairy: beef cross calves $1,200–$1,975/head, with top beef cross at $1,975, against dairy cross at $700–$1,175. Those are per-head prices on baby calves, not per-pound. If you sell by weight, that same report shows crossbreds by weight at $550–$700.

The compression range is a stress test, not a forecast. Nobody has isolated post-waiver farmgate movement from the decline already underway.

The pricing basis that trips up half the coverage. The national cutter cow carcass cutout ran $351.50/cwt on August 22, 2026 (USDA AMS Daily Cattle & Beef Summary). That’s a carcass value — and dairy culls don’t dress anywhere near their live weight. A 2024 Journal of Dairy Science study by Berdusco found direct-cull dairy cows averaged 42.5% dressing percentage, versus 49.1% for cows fed 60 days before slaughter. The broader literature puts dairy cow dressing percentage at 35% to 48% depending on gut fill, pregnancy status, udder weight, and trimmable defects. University of Maine Extension notes dairy cattle dress roughly 3% lower than beef cattle because of heavier bone and lighter muscling.

Run it: 1,350 lb at 42.5% is a 574 lb carcass. At $351.50/cwt, that’s $2,017 — in the neighborhood of the $2,160 liveweight figure, which is the point. Multiply cutout by live weight, and you’d book $4,745 a head. Plenty of coverage does exactly that.

Day-old calves run on a different clock than feeders. The $1,200–$1,975 range above is a per-head price on a wet newborn sold within days of birth. That’s a separate market from the feeder cattle futures dominating cattle headlines, with different buyers and different drivers. Feeder futures fell roughly 17% between May 1 and August 21, but no source has measured what that did to day-old values — so check your own last four settlement sheets against the range rather than assuming a matching decline.

Will Imported Ground Beef Actually Move Your Cull Cow Price?

The arithmetic runs cooler than the headlines, and the answer depends on your denominator.

300,000 metric tonnes converts to 661 million pounds. Against USDA’s 2026 beef production forecast of roughly 25.5 billion pounds, that’s 2.6% of annual U.S. beef production. On paper, a rounding error.

Annual is the wrong frame for a 90-day policy. Set the same volume against roughly one quarter’s production and it’s 10.4%. Against annual U.S. beef imports near 5.5 billion pounds, 12%. Analyst Scott Varilek pegged it at about 44 days of U.S. ground beef consumption, per AgWeb — the narrowest frame, and arguably the most honest, since ground beef is where this volume lands.

Small against all beef. Considerably larger against the 90-day lean-trim segment where your culls get priced. Independent trader Dan Norcini told Reuters on announcement day, “This is just a drop in the bucket. It really does nothing to fix the main issue which is a greatly reduced supply of cattle here in the U.S.”

The Trim Market Didn’t Believe It

Here’s the read almost nobody published, and it’s the most important number in this story.

Per Western Livestock Journal, the 50% lean trim August contract lost $8 over the announcement week to close at $161, with September down $8 to $151. The 90% lean August contract held unchanged at $449. September gained $3.

That second contract is the one that matters to you. Cull cows are a primary source of 90% lean trimmings — the lean side of the grind, blended with fat trim to make ground beef, and the exact product category this waiver targets. Traders had every opportunity to mark it down on Friday. They didn’t move it.

Fat trim took the hit instead. Whatever the market priced on August 21, it wasn’t a lean-trim supply shock.

That’s the strongest evidence available that the alarm is running ahead of the arithmetic. One week of contract data from a single trade source isn’t a verdict — but it’s a direct market read on the specific product category NMPF flagged, and it points the other way.

Everyone Assumed August 21 Tanked the Cattle Market. Check the Dates.

Live cattle futures fell 17.1% and feeders 16.9% from their May 1 highs to the August 21 low, per Barchart technical analysis published August 20 — a technical derivation rather than an exchange settlement figure.

The mid-August leg down had nothing to do with import policy. USDA’s August 12 WASDE cut its 2026 fed steer price forecast by $5.75/cwt. Tyson Foods’ announced closures at Joslin, Illinois, and Eagle Mountain, Utah, along with its stated intent to sell the Pasco, Washington plant, were cited by Andrew Griffith of the University of Tennessee and Tim Petry, livestock marketing specialist at North Dakota State University Extension, as contributing to the decline, per Agriculture.com’s August 17 report.

Announcement day itself is genuinely murky. The honest move is to show the disagreement rather than pick the loudest version. AgWeek reported August live cattle down 30 cents and August feeders down 55 cents. Reuters described futures “tumbling to eight-month lows.” AgWeb said they “gapped lower on the open.” Drovers reported both contracts “clawed back the morning’s losses” by the close — on the same morning USDA’s Cattle on Feed report came in bullish at 11.1 million head, up 2% year over year.

Feeder trade shows where the real pressure sat. Joplin Regional Stockyards sold feeder steers steady to $10 lower that week; Oklahoma National Stockyards saw feeder steers and heifers $5–15 lower and calves $10–20 lower. Those declines run deeper than anything in the cull cow trade — and feeder cattle aren’t what this waiver touches. We covered the broader cattle-market selloff separately; that piece tracks the whole complex, while this one isolates what lands on a dairy’s income statement.

Market SegmentAnnouncement-Week MoveWaiver ExposureWhat Actually Drove It
90% lean trim, Aug contract$0.00 — unchanged at $449Direct — this is the target productMarket declined to price a supply shock
Slaughter / cull cows (OK)−$5.00 to −$7.00/cwtDirect — cull salvage valueUnisolated from pre-existing decline
Feeder steers (OK National)−$5 to −$15/cwt; calves −$10 to −$20None — not a ground beef productAug 12 WASDE −$5.75/cwt; Tyson plant closures
Live cattle & feeder futures−17.1% / −16.9% from May 1 highsIndirect at mostDecline pre-dates Aug 21 by 16 weeks
Day-old beef-cross calvesUnmeasuredIndirect, via feeder boardNo source has quantified the pass-through

How a Percentage Became a $13 Billion Headline

NMPF quantified this exposure in percentages — 20% of farm income, 20% of beef production. No dollar total.

The $13 billion figure that’s followed the story since August 25, including in DairyHerd’s headline, isn’t in that statement. How a percentage becomes a dollar headline matters more than which outlet ran it first: the arithmetic requires a total-dairy-income denominator, and nobody publishing the number has shown one.

Two independent reconstructions get close without landing there. Working from a reported USDA-ERS February 2026 forecast of $42.5 billion in 2026 dairy cash receipts — down $6.2 billion from 2025, which back-solves 2025 milk receipts to roughly $48.7 billion — and treating beef as 20% of total farm income against milk’s 80%, the beef leg lands near $12.2 billion. A second method, applying HighGround Dairy’s estimate of roughly $4.50/cwt of beef income against 2026 milk production, comes out near $10.5 billion. That second figure is single-sourced commercial analysis, and the cull-versus-calf split inside it dates to 2022.

Both are forecasts and estimates, not audited baselines. They establish a range: $10.5 to $12.2 billion. The $13 billion figure sits above it. Not invented — a plausible estimate that rounds up, built on NMPF’s percentage by someone downstream, then repeated as though the trade group said it.

If that number is anywhere in your budget, replace it with your own percentage math.

NMPF represents dairy producers, so its statement is advocacy on their behalf. That’s its job. Worth noting once, since the percentages it cited hold up under independent reconstruction.

Is Your Beef Income Still a Hedge, or a Second Commodity?

Beef-on-dairy got sold as risk mitigation. Cross the bottom of the herd, capture a calf premium, cushion the milk check when Class III goes soft. It worked — calf values climbed from about $200 to more than $1,600 per head over five years, per the Center for Dairy Excellence in April 2026.

The herd grew right alongside it. USDA NASS reported 9.71 million U.S. milk cows in July 2026, up 199,000 head from July 2025, with production in the 24 major states up 2.3% year over year. ERS put 2026 all-milk at $19.85/cwt on August 19, revised down 15 cents. September 2026 Class III futures settled near $16.34 on August 26.

Stack those next to each other, and a loop appears. Beef income helped fund herd retention. That retention added milk. That added milk is part of what’s holding milk prices down — the exact problem beef income was supposed to buffer.

No single source states that chain. It’s the pattern that emerges when separately reported figures sit side by side, and it’s offered here as analysis, not as anyone’s published finding. The implication is still hard to unsee. A hedge that grows to a fifth of revenue isn’t a hedge anymore. It’s a second commodity position — and unlike your milk check, this one gets repriced by trade policy. Most operations built this revenue stream one calf at a time without ever underwriting it as a standalone position.

The 30/90/365-Day Playbook for Herds Carrying 20% Beef Revenue

30-Day: Price RMA Livestock Risk Protection on calves and culls

Action. USDA’s Risk Management Agency built coverage for exactly this exposure. Per RMA Product Management Bulletin PM-25-028, Livestock Risk Protection carries an Unborn Calves type covering beef and beef-on-dairy cross calves sold within two weeks of birth, target weight 60–99 lb, plus a separate Cull Cows type for dairy cull cows with a 13-week coverage limitation. Thirteen weeks is 91 days. The waiver runs 90.

Execution. Call a licensed crop insurance agent with your projected calf and cull volumes and pick a coverage level. Premium subsidies run 35% to 55% depending on level, with additional support for new and beginning producers. Coverage prices derive from CME feeder cattle futures; RMA updates them daily. Trigger: if your beef channel clears 18–20% of gross revenue, this stops being optional.

Risk. Premiums are cash out the door, and if prices hold, you bought coverage you didn’t need. Full dairy calves file under the predominantly-dairy type, not beef-cross — don’t let that get miscoded.

30-Day: Read the pricing clause in your calf contract

Action. Find out whether you’re on a fixed price or a formula tied to feeder cattle futures.

Execution. Pull the actual document, not your memory of it. Formula pricing means you inherited the board’s volatility — and feeders ran $5–15 lower at Oklahoma National the week of the announcement while cull cows moved $5–7.

Risk. A fixed floor gives up upside if the market firms into the fall run.

90-Day: Triage fall culling on welfare and margin, not the political calendar

Action. If the EO gets signed on the stated timeline, 90 days runs to roughly late November — putting expiry inside fall culling season. Sort your cull list by physical condition and production margin rather than by waiver dates.

Execution. Honest herd-health triage, and a hard read on which cows genuinely can’t wait. If a cow is thin enough to grade Lean or Light, the dressing-percentage discount is already working against you — per Oklahoma State Extension guidance, low-dressing cows are discounted $8 to $15/cwt against high-dressing cows, with the widest spreads on the thinnest grades.

Risk. A lame cow doesn’t wait for policy clarity. Holding her costs feed, risk, and eventually carcass value. Don’t turn a marketing call into a welfare problem.

90-Day: Recalculate beef-semen share against replacement cost

Action. Replacement dairy cows averaged $3,130 per head nationally in April 2026, up $270 from January, per USDA price reporting — a spread we broke down in our cull-cow replacement analysis.

Execution. Requires actual heifer inventory, projected cull rate, and a two-year forward view.

Risk. Cutting beef services to build heifers takes two years to show. You’d be making a 2028 herd decision on 2026 information, and the beef premium may well outlast this waiver.

365-Day: Separate salvage accounting from calf revenue

Action. Most operations track beef as one line. They’re two different exposures — imported lean trim hits salvage value directly, while calf values run off feeder futures and feedlot demand. Split them and track the ratio between what a cull brings and what her replacement costs.

Execution. A bookkeeping change and one conversation with whoever builds your financials. At $160/cwt liveweight on a 1,350 lb cull ($2,160/head) against $3,130 replacements, that ratio sits at 0.69. The 0.75 and 0.65 marks below are Bullvine working benchmarks, not industry standards — set your own against your actual replacement cost. Above roughly 0.75, with margin over feed holding, you have room to cull on production rather than defensively. Below 0.65, every cull decision becomes a capital decision.

Risk. The ratio moves on both numerator and denominator. A replacement-price spike can push you under 0.65 without cull prices falling at all — watch both sides.

365-Day: Consider whether feeding culls beats shipping them

Action. The same Berdusco work in the Journal of Dairy Science found 60 days of feeding before slaughter lifted hot carcass weight by 179 pounds and dressing percentage by 6.5 points over direct culls, with better marbling and tenderness.

Execution. Pen space, feed, and 60 days you’re not milking her. Run it against your own feed cost and the current Lean-to-Boning price spread before committing.

Risk. You’re feeding a cull cow at feedlot cost with no milk income against her. The spread has to cover the feed plus the opportunity cost of the stall, and a cow with a chronic problem may not finish.

365-Day: Watch the expiry harder than you watched the announcement

Three attempts in six months, two of them signed, none permanent. The repeat is the risk, not any single window.

What Happens When the 90 Days Run Out?

Three outcomes, and the record doesn’t tell you which. The waiver lapses and lean trim reverts to out-of-quota treatment. It extends, the way February staged tranches across a full year. Or it becomes a template — the tool this administration reaches for whenever retail beef prices make headlines.

That third one is worth pricing. February got signed. May got pulled. August got posted before it was drafted. You can’t forecast that pattern, but you can hedge it — which is why the LRP conversation matters more than the tariff conversation.

Key Takeaways

  • The 90% lean trim contract — where your culls actually get priced — held flat at $449 the day the waiver dropped, while fat trim fell $8. Whatever the market priced on August 21, it wasn’t a lean-trim shock.
  • Skip the $13 billion headline. NMPF said 20% of farm income, not a dollar figure, and independent reconstruction lands at $10.5 to $12.2 billion. Your own share comes off your settlement sheets, not a national average.
  • If your beef channel clears 18–20% of gross revenue, price LRP on both calves and culls this month. The cull cow coverage caps at 13 weeks — 91 days against a 90-day waiver, which is closer to a fit than anything else on offer.
  • Check whether you’re pricing culls off liveweight or somebody’s carcass cutout number. Dairy culls dress around 42.5% direct, so multiplying $351.50 cutout by live weight books roughly twice what she’ll bring.
  • February signed, May pulled, August posted before it was drafted. None permanent, all aimed at lean trim. Watch the late-November expiry harder than you watched the announcement.

The Trade-Off at the Center of This

The 90% lean trim contract didn’t move on announcement day, which tells you the market isn’t pricing this as the shock the headlines described. That’s the case for calm. The case for caution is that this is the third try in six months at the same product, and nothing about the pattern says it stops.

You built the beef line to protect the milk check, and it worked well enough to become a fifth of your revenue and a second exposure — priced by trade policy instead of Class III. You gained margin. You gave up control over where it comes from.

Pull your last four calf settlement sheets and your last cull cow check. Are you pricing culls off liveweight or off somebody’s carcass cutout number — and does your calf contract hand you a floor, or hand you the board?

Complete references and supporting documentation are available upon request by contacting the editorial team at editor@thebullvine.com.

Learn More

The Sunday Read Dairy Professionals Don’t Skip.

Every week, thousands of producers, breeders, and industry insiders open Bullvine Weekly for genetics insights, market shifts, and profit strategies they won’t find anywhere else. One email. Five minutes. Smarter decisions all week.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent

$2,000 Cull Cows Are Exposing Dairy’s Biggest Lie: Management Can’t Save You Anymore

Cull cow: $2,000. Daily milk profit: $2. You’re not failing – you’ve been lied to about what survival actually requires.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The management myth just died. USDA’s October 2025 data confirms what the numbers have been screaming: your location now determines your profitability more than your skills ever will. Cull cows are fetching $2,000 as beef while daily milk margins scrape by at $2-3 per cow—and the smart money has noticed. Federal Milk Marketing Order data shows cheese-oriented regions pulling $1.00-1.50/cwt more than powder areas, handing some operations a $50,000+ annual advantage their neighbors can’t touch, no matter how hard they work. The heifer shortage—at 1970s lows—has flipped from crisis to cash flow, with producers breeding surplus heifers now banking $100,000+ annually. Billions in new processor investments are creating what analysts call “permanent regional stratification,” and lenders are already tightening credit windows. Strategic repositioning isn’t a five-year plan anymore—it’s a five-month decision. October’s culling data proves the reshuffling has already begun, and the producers who act now will be the ones still standing when the dust settles.

The USDA’s October 2025 Milk Production report confirms what we’ve all been feeling in our gut: The national herd is shrinking, but you know what? The reasons have fundamentally changed. This isn’t just about milk prices anymore—we’re watching a restructuring that’s making everything we thought we knew about good management seem… well, less relevant than it used to be.

Here’s the math we’re all looking at. October’s Class III milk was hovering in the mid-$16s per hundredweight, according to CME Group’s daily settlement data. Take your typical cow producing around 65 pounds daily—she’s bringing in maybe $11 in gross revenue. Feed costs? Using the USDA Farm Service Agency’s Dairy Margin Coverage calculations from October, we’re looking at roughly $8 to $9 daily per cow. That doesn’t leave much after labor, utilities, and keeping the lights on…

Meanwhile—and here’s what has everyone talking over morning coffee—that same cow is worth close to $2,000 as beef. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service weekly reports show cull cows bringing $1.60 to $1.70 per pound in some regions. A decent 1,200-pound cow? Do the math.

As one Extension economist down in Mississippi who tracks livestock markets put it to me, “When you’re looking at these beef prices, producers are asking themselves some pretty rational questions.”

But this goes deeper than just comparing milk checks to beef prices, doesn’t it? What October’s really showing us is the start of something bigger—where geography, genetics, and who you’re shipping to will matter more than ever. Management excellence? I hate to say it, but it’s becoming less relevant in the face of structural disadvantages.

The New Revenue Stream: Breeding for the Market, Not Just the Milking String

Here’s something clever that’s changing the entire breeding game—and I think more of us need to be talking about this. If you breed 20-25% more heifers than you need for replacements and sell the extras at these premium prices… well, as many of us have figured out, a 600-cow herd selling 30 surplus heifers at around $3,500 each? That’s roughly $100,000 in additional annual revenue. We’re talking about turning what most see as a constraint into a profit center.

USDA’s January 2025 Cattle inventory report shows dairy heifer numbers at historically low levels—we haven’t seen this level since the late ’70s. All those years of breeding for beef-on-dairy when milk prices were tough? Well, now we’re seeing the consequences—or maybe the opportunities.

Recent auction reports from key dairy states show good springers regularly trading above $3,000 per head, with top groups occasionally pushing past $4,000 per head. I spoke with an extension specialist at the University of Florida who’s been tracking this closely. “The consistency of these high prices,” he said, “that’s what’s remarkable. We’re not seeing the usual seasonal dips.”

A lending specialist at CoBank pointed out something fascinating—and think about this—the shortage that prevents you from expanding also prevents your competition from growing. Operations that might have expanded to grab market share? They simply can’t get the heifers at prices that make sense. It’s creating this forced discipline in the market that we haven’t seen before.

Smart producers are figuring out different ways to optimize. Can’t solve problems through expansion anymore—that playbook’s out the window. Instead, you’ve got to improve within your existing footprint. Genetic selection becomes crucial when you can’t add cows. I’m seeing more genomic testing than ever before.

I recently heard from a 480-cow operation in central Wisconsin that made the switch to component-based optimization last spring. They’re seeing an extra $3,800 monthly just from butterfat premiums alone, even with slightly lower volume. “We’re producing less milk but making more money,” the owner told me. “That’s not something I thought I’d ever say.”

How Geography Trumps Management

You know, the old wisdom was that efficient operations outlast downturns. We’ve all believed that, right? But what I’m seeing now challenges that thinking in ways most of us haven’t fully grasped yet.

Federal Milk Marketing Order data from October 2025 shows some cheese-oriented regions getting roughly $1.00 to $1.50 more per hundredweight than powder-oriented areas. Think about that for a minute—if you’re running a thousand cows, that gap could mean $50,000 or more annually. That’s not something you can just manage your way around, no matter how good you are at what you do.

And the driver behind these gaps? It’s these massive processor investments we’re seeing. The International Dairy Foods Association’s October 2025 capital investment tracking report shows billions in new and expanded dairy processing projects—dozens of facilities either under construction or recently announced across multiple states through the rest of this decade.

The concentration is what gets me. Texas is seeing major cheese facilities go in, including that big Leprino project near Lubbock everyone’s talking about. New York’s seeing major expansions in yogurt and premium milk. Idaho’s getting more cheese capacity around Twin Falls with Glanbia’s expansion. Wisconsin continues to add to its cheese infrastructure, with multiple expansion projects underway. Even the California Central Valley, despite its challenges, is seeing selective investment in specialized products.

What dairy economists at universities like Cornell and Wisconsin are telling me is this creates something like “permanent regional advantage.” Makes sense when you think about it. If you’re near these new cheese plants, you’re capturing premiums. If you’re shipping to butter and powder? Those challenges compound every month.

The producers in growth states—places like Idaho and Texas, where this new capacity promises good premiums—they culled selectively in October to upgrade genetics. Smart move.

But in other regions? Southwest dairy operations dealing with water restrictions, or Southeast producers managing not just heat stress but increasingly volatile feed costs and limited local grain production—that culling represented something different. Those folks are reducing exposure to what’s becoming a tougher competitive environment.

Building Your Bridge Through What’s Coming

For operations trying to navigate current challenges while positioning for better times, I’ve been collecting strategies from extension folks and producers who are making it work. From Southeast dairy operations dealing with heat stress and feed availability challenges to Upper Midwest producers managing seasonal variations, to California Central Valley farms wrestling with water costs.

First thing—and this is crucial—you need to understand your true economics beyond just that all-milk price everyone talks about. Several dairy economists at land-grant universities keep emphasizing this, and they’re right. With current component premiums, if you’re optimizing for volume rather than components, you could be leaving tens of thousands annually on the table, even for a modest-sized herd.

Component optimization matters more than ever. With butterfat premiums running anywhere from 50 cents to over a dollar per hundredweight above base in some areas—especially Upper Midwest operations shipping to cheese plants—if you’re still focusing on volume over components, you’re leaving serious money on the table.

Here’s what’s gaining traction based on my conversations:

You need to secure working capital lines now, while your operation still looks stable to lenders. Several ag lenders, including Farm Credit Services and regional banks, are telling me they expect to become more cautious about new working capital over the next year or so. Some are even talking about focusing more on financing acquisitions and restructurings if margins stay tight. That window? It’s narrowing faster than most folks realize.

The Dairy Margin Coverage program makes sense, too. According to the USDA’s Risk Management Agency, October 2025 updates, depending on your coverage level and production history, premiums often run from a few dimes to maybe 70 cents per hundredweight. But that cash flow protection when margins get really tight? Could make all the difference between weathering the storm and… well, not.

And here’s something livestock economists at universities like Kentucky and Kansas State are watching—CME feeder cattle futures have pulled back sharply since mid-October. Producers who locked in their beef-on-dairy calf values earlier are feeling pretty good right now. Consider hedging at least half your production to protect what’s become crucial revenue.

What’s interesting is that the operations doing these things aren’t expecting prosperity if milk prices drop to the $14-16 range that the USDA’s World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates suggest for next year. They’re building resilience to stay independent through what could be a tough stretch before things improve.

The Technology Factor and Labor Reality

The technology piece matters here too—and it’s changing the labor equation dramatically. Robotic milking systems, which can cost $150,000-250,000 per stall, are becoming more feasible for larger operations that can spread those fixed costs.

But here’s what’s interesting: these systems aren’t just about milking efficiency. They’re addressing the chronic labor shortage that’s hitting dairy farms nationwide.

One Pennsylvania producer running four robots told me, “We went from needing six milkers to basically one herd manager. In a market where finding reliable labor costs $18-22 per hour plus benefits, that math changes everything.”

For mid-sized farms, though, the capital requirements are creating another pressure point that’s accelerating consolidation decisions. And for those sub-300 cow operations? The technology investment rarely pencils out unless you’re adding significant value through on-farm processing or direct marketing.

Why Processors Keep Building While We’re Struggling

This apparent contradiction—processors pouring billions into new capacity while we’re dealing with tight margins—it makes more sense when you look at the longer game they’re playing.

Several outlooks from groups like Rabobank’s Q3 2025 Global Dairy Quarterly point to some interesting dynamics. The International Dairy Federation’s World Dairy Situation report is talking about potential gaps between global supply and demand later in the decade if trends continue.

Recent trade data from USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service shows Chinese imports of cheese and whole milk powder running well ahead of year-ago levels. Countries like Indonesia are expanding school milk programs that could add meaningful demand over the coming years. And with EU production constrained by environmental regulations, the U.S. is positioned well as a growth supplier.

Gregg Doud, who served as U.S. chief agricultural trade negotiator and now works with Aimpoint Research, explained it well at the recent World Dairy Expo: “Processors aren’t building for today’s prices. They’re looking at where they think we’ll be in 2028, 2030. The current downturn? It actually helps their positioning by limiting competitive expansion.”

What’s less visible—and this is based on industry analysis from groups like CoBank and what I’m hearing through the grapevine—is that a large share of new processing capacity appears to be already tied up in multi-year arrangements with larger farms. Contracts negotiated when prices were recovering in ’23 and ’24, locking in supply regardless of current spot conditions. It’s creating this two-tier market that not everyone fully grasps yet.

The Information Gap That’s Hurting Smaller Operations

One challenge I keep hearing about from mid-sized operations is what university economists call “information asymmetry.” Basically, larger farms dealing directly with processors often see market shifts months before that information reaches smaller producers through traditional channels.

This gap shows up in several ways. Larger operations often have earlier visibility into processor needs and plans. They might subscribe to proprietary research from firms like Terrain or StoneX, which costs tens of thousands of dollars annually. Meanwhile, smaller operations rely on cooperative communications that, honestly, can lag market realities by quite a bit.

A Pennsylvania producer managing 600 cows—a fifth-generation dairy farmer—put it to me straight: “We thought October’s price drop was temporary. We didn’t realize how much had already been decided about where the industry’s headed. By the time we understood, our lender was already getting cautious about new credit.”

The practical impact? By the time many producers recognize these fundamental shifts, the window for smart positioning has already narrowed considerably.

Regional Winners and What’s Creating Lasting Advantages

The geographic distribution of new processing investment is creating what analysts at CoBank call “permanent regional stratification.” Strong words, but they’re not wrong.

Looking at Federal Milk Marketing Order data from October 2025 and processor announcements, here’s who’s seeing sustained advantages:

Idaho’s Magic Valley continues to benefit from expansions in cheese infrastructure. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service data shows Idaho among the fastest-growing milk states, with many operations reporting solid annual gains. The Texas Panhandle’s seeing competitive pricing from multiple cheese plants.

Kansas—and this surprised me—has emerged as a real growth story, with some of the strongest percentage gains in the country according to USDA data. Central New York’s premium milk and yogurt facilities are creating genuine competition for local supplies.

But then you’ve got regions facing structural challenges. The Pacific Northwest remains primarily powder-oriented with limited cheese processing. California’s Central Valley operations are dealing with both water costs and a commodity-focused product mix that limit pricing upside.

Southwest dairy producers face increasing water restrictions and rising costs for heat-stress management. Southeast operations are wrestling with not just heat stress but also limited local feed production and basis challenges that add $30-40 per ton to feed costs. The Upper Northeast faces geographic isolation that creates significant transportation penalties that can substantially erode margins.

The hard truth? And this is tough for many of us to accept—operational excellence can’t overcome a structural pricing gap of $1 or more per hundredweight by geography. That recognition is driving some of October’s herd adjustments.

Practical Steps Depending on Your Situation

Based on what’s emerging from October’s data and conversations with folks making it work, here’s what I’m seeing:

If You’re in a Growth Region:

Focus on genetic improvement within your existing herd rather than expansion. A Texas producer near one of the new cheese plants told me, “We’re genomic testing everything and being selective like never before.”

Work on developing direct processor relationships where possible. Several Idaho producers tell me they’re having success negotiating directly rather than relying only on their co-op. And consider partnerships with neighboring operations—achieve some scale advantages without individual expansion.

If You’re in a Challenged Region:

You need an honest evaluation of your long-term position given structural disadvantages. Run scenarios at different milk prices—$14, $16, $18—to really understand your breakevens. It’s sobering but necessary.

Look at diversification that reduces dependence on commodity pricing. I know Northeast producers are finding success with on-farm processing, agritourism—not for everyone, but worth considering. California Central Valley operations are exploring specialty milk products that command premiums despite the region’s challenges.

For those sub-300 cow operations, the math gets even tougher. But I’m seeing some find success through direct marketing, value-added products, or transitioning to organic, where premiums can offset scale disadvantages. Others are forming producer groups to share resources and negotiate collectively.

And assess whether relocating might work, though as one Wisconsin friend said, “The math on moving with current land and heifer prices? Brutal.”

Universal Strategies That Work:

Secure financial flexibility now while credit’s available. Every lender I’ve talked to expects standards to tighten over the next year.

Implement component-focused production aligned with how your processor actually pays. This means regular ration work, good DHI records.

And develop non-milk revenue streams. Despite some recent softening, beef-on-dairy remains profitable according to cattle market folks at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. Every bit helps.

The Consolidation Already Underway

Let’s be honest about what’s happening here. Consolidation isn’t some future possibility—it’s here, right now. USDA’s 2022 Census of Agriculture shows dairy farm numbers in the mid-30,000s, and USDA Economic Research Service economists expect that to continue declining as the industry consolidates.

What’s driving this? ERS research consistently shows larger herds tend to have lower costs per hundredweight than smaller ones—often by several percentage points. Processors prefer fewer, larger suppliers to reduce complexity.

Technology adoption, especially robotic milking systems that can run $150,000-250,000 per stall, requires capital that favors bigger operations. The labor savings alone—reducing milking staff by 60-80% while addressing the chronic shortage of qualified dairy workers—makes automation almost mandatory for operations planning to survive long-term.

And the heifer shortage prevents smaller operations from achieving competitive scale, even if they wanted to.

Rather than viewing consolidation as failure—and this is important—many are recognizing it as evolution. As one university dairy economist at Wisconsin explained, “Operations that position strategically, whether through improvements, repositioning, or thoughtful exit timing, preserve more value than those forced into decisions.”

The Bottom Line

Several outlooks, including the Food and Agricultural Policy Research Institute’s baseline projections, suggest better price prospects later in the decade if global demand continues growing and herd size stays in check—though these are projections, not guarantees, as we all know.

Factors that could support recovery: The heifer shortage physically constrains expansion for a while. Global demand appears to be growing faster than supply, according to FAO data. Environmental regulations limit expansion in some major producing regions. And all this new processing capacity will need higher milk prices to generate returns.

But—and this matters—recovery probably won’t benefit everyone equally. Operations with secured processor relationships, geographic advantages, and superior genetics will likely capture premiums. Others might find that even recovered prices don’t fully offset their structural disadvantages.

What October’s Really Telling Us

After looking at the data and talking with folks across the industry, several lessons emerge pretty clearly.

Geography increasingly determines destiny. Those regional pricing gaps reflect structural realities that great management can’t overcome. If you’re in a disadvantaged region, that needs to factor into your planning—like it or not.

The heifer shortage creates both constraint and opportunity. Operations that optimize within their existing footprint while potentially monetizing excess production can turn the shortage to their advantage. Creative producers are making this work.

Information and relationships matter more than ever. Direct processor relationships and access to good market intelligence increasingly separate operations that thrive from those that struggle. Better information pays—literally.

Financial positioning can’t wait. Every lender emphasizes this—the window for securing working capital and risk management tools is months, not years. Wait until you need flexibility, and it might not be there.

Strategic positioning beats stubborn persistence. Whether improving for independence, positioning for acquisition on good terms, or planning an orderly exit, proactive decisions preserve more value than reactive ones. There’s no shame in strategic repositioning—it’s smart business.

We’ve weathered dramatic transitions before—from diversified farms to specialized operations, through technological changes and trade upheavals. This is another transition. What’s different is both the speed and the degree to which these advantages are becoming structural. Operations that recognize and adapt, rather than hope for a return to old patterns, are best positioned.

October’s strategic culling by forward-thinking producers shows something important: successful operations aren’t waiting for change to happen to them. They’re actively positioning for whatever comes next.

For those still evaluating, October’s message seems clear—the time for strategic decisions is now, while you’ve got options and can preserve value through thoughtful positioning.

The path forward won’t be identical for everyone—and that’s fine. But understanding the forces reshaping our industry helps inform decisions. In a world where change keeps accelerating, maybe the biggest risk is standing still.

For more specific information on programs mentioned, producers can check with their local USDA Service Center, university extension offices, or agricultural lenders.

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • Your zip code now outweighs your work ethic: Cheese regions earn $1.00-1.50/cwt more than powder areas—that’s $50,000+ annually, no amount of great management will ever close
  • The heifer shortage is now your profit center: Breeding 20-25% surplus heifers generates $100,000+ annually while locking competitors out of expansion at today’s prices
  • Your lender’s flexibility has an expiration date: Working capital windows slam shut by mid-2026—secure financing now, not when you desperately need it
  • This is a five-month decision, not a five-year plan: October’s culling data proves the reshuffling has begun—producers positioning now will be the ones still milking in 2027

Complete references and supporting documentation are available upon request by contacting the editorial team at editor@thebullvine.com.

Learn More:

The Sunday Read Dairy Professionals Don’t Skip.

Every week, thousands of producers, breeders, and industry insiders open Bullvine Weekly for genetics insights, market shifts, and profit strategies they won’t find anywhere else. One email. Five minutes. Smarter decisions all week.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent
Send this to a friend