Archive for dairy feed cost management

Deconstructing the June Milk Surge: The Management Playbook Your Competitors Are Using Now

June milk production jumped 3.4% while feed costs dropped — here’s how smart farms are cashing in on both trends.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: June numbers came in hot — 3.4% production jump to 18.5 billion pounds, and here’s the kicker… it’s not about pumping more milk anymore, it’s about making better milk. Operations focusing on components are seeing butterfat hit 4.23% and protein at 3.29%, which translates to an extra $15-20 per cow monthly. That’s $120,000+ annually for a 500-cow operation just from optimizing what’s already in the tank. Feed costs finally dropped too — corn’s forecast at $4.20/bushel, giving smart producers breathing room to upgrade their protein programs.The Canadians and Europeans are already ahead of us on this component game, and frankly… we’re playing catch-up. You need to start thinking genomics and precision feeding now, not next year.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Component premiums are printing money — Farms averaging 4.5% butterfat and 3.4% protein are banking an extra $0.75-$0.90 per hundredweight. Start genomic testing your replacement heifers today and breed for components, not just volume.
  • Feed cost relief creates opportunity — With corn at $4.20/bushel, reinvest those savings into bypass proteins and amino acid programs. Operations doing this right are cutting total ration costs 15% while boosting milk quality.
  • Robot adoption is hitting breakeven faster — Early adopters are seeing 22-month paybacks at current milk prices, plus 23% labor cost reductions. If you’re milking 200+ cows and struggling with labor, run the numbers now.
  • Regional positioning matters more than ever — Texas and Kansas operations are locking in processing contracts while traditional dairy regions scramble. Secure your milk marketing agreements before capacity fills up.
  • Technology + genetics = competitive advantage — Farms combining genomic selection with precision feeding are outperforming volume-focused operations by $180,000 annually per 1,000 cows. The gap’s only getting wider in 2025.

We all felt it before the USDA numbers hit. June was… different. Tanks were fuller, checks looked better, and suddenly everyone’s talking about this 3.4% year-over-year production jump like it came out of nowhere. But here’s the thing—this wasn’t some fluke weather event or lucky break. This was years of strategic moves finally paying off, and if you missed it, you’d better understand why your neighbors are starting to pull ahead.

I was at a processor meeting last week, and the room went quiet when someone mentioned their June intake numbers. Dead quiet. Because everybody knew what those numbers meant—some farms are playing a completely different game now.

The Numbers That Actually Tell the Story

IndicatorJune 2024June 2025Δ % YoY
24-state milk output17.90 billion lb18.50 billion lb+3.4%
U.S. dairy cow herd9.33 million hd9.46 million hd+1.4%
Milk per cow (24 states)2,045 lb2,110 lb+3.2%
2025 Q2 output (U.S.)58.6 billion lb60.0 billion lb+2.4%

The official USDA Milk Production report for June 2025 confirmed what we were feeling: 18.5 billion pounds of milk in the 24 major states, a 3.4% increase from the 17.9 billion pounds in June 2024. Production per cow hit a record 2,045 pounds, up 30 pounds from the same month last year.

The milk cow herd in the 24 major states was 9.03 million head, representing an increase of 151,000 head from June 2024. This expansion comes even as replacement heifer prices hold at record levels—and that’s telling you something about confidence in the fundamentals.

What’s really fascinating is how this played out regionally. Take the Central Valley—I know operations that are still struggling with H5N1 recovery from last fall. Some herds are still down 8% from pre-outbreak levels, but they are now seeing consistent monthly improvements.

Meanwhile, their neighbors—same feed, same climate, different management approach—posted double-digit jumps over last June. This isn’t just anecdotal. University extension specialists I’ve spoken with confirm this trend, noting that operations recovering from disruption are implementing comprehensive system upgrades, not just replacing what they lost.

What’s interesting is how this trend mirrors what we’re seeing globally. European producers have been dealing with their own production volatility, and New Zealand’s producers are facing similar challenges with weather patterns and input costs. The difference? U.S. producers who adapted early are actually gaining competitive ground internationally.

When you’re seeing fresh cows trade for $2,600-plus and operations are still expanding, what’s the outlook? That tells you where smart money sees profitability heading.

Feed Economics: The Game-Changer Nobody Saw Coming

CommodityJan 2025Jun 2025Δ %Driver
Corn CBOT nearby$4.60/bu$4.30/bu-6.5%Record planting intent +4.7 M acres7
Soymeal$312/ton$285/ton-8.7%South-American carryover
Western alfalfa$282/ton$255/ton-9.6%Moisture-rich spring

Here’s where things get really interesting, and honestly, where I think some producers are going to get left behind if they don’t pay attention.

Feed costs. That elephant that’s been stomping around the room for what, three years now? But this spring changed everything. According to the latest USDA World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE) report, corn is forecast at $4.20 per bushel for the ’25/’26 season. Soybean meal is projected to cost around $310 per short ton, which isn’t cheap, but it’s manageable when your energy costs drop.

MetricJune WASDE (May 12)Revised June 24 ActualVarianceComments
2025 milk, calendar-yr227.8 billion lbTracking 228.3 billion lb annualised+0.5 billion lbUSDA lifted its forecast 500 million lb in July on herd growth
All-milk price (’25)$21.95/cwtSpot forecast $21.60/cwt-$0.35Higher supply offsets butter price strength
Class III (’25 avg.)$18.65/cwtFutures $18.40-$0.25Cheese inventories +4% YoY
Class IV (’25 avg.)$18.85/cwtFutures $19.05+$0.20Butterfat demand still robust

This created what I’m calling the “feed relief rally.” Suddenly, operations that were white-knuckling through $5+ corn could breathe again. But here’s the catch—and there’s always a catch, right? While corn prices became more favorable, protein costs remained stubborn.

This is the “barbell economy” in action: low-cost energy inputs on one side (like corn) and high-cost, high-value inputs on the other (like specific amino acids and bypass proteins).

Let me break this down with some real numbers. A 1,000-cow operation that was spending $180,000 monthly on feed last year might be looking at $165,000 now—if they strategically reinvested their corn savings into a more efficient protein program. That’s $180,000 annually back in their pocket, which could cover a robot payment, facility upgrades, or just straight profit.

I was speaking with a nutritionist who works with approximately 40 farms across the Upper Midwest. He told me something that really stuck:

“The farms that are crushing it right now aren’t the ones who just dumped more corn in the TMR when prices dropped. They’re the ones who used the corn savings to upgrade their protein program and push butterfat numbers.”

Dairy nutrition experts emphasize that corn cost savings should be reinvested in protein program optimization—something the industry has been preaching for years but now finally has the margin room to implement. The farms that figured this out early are the ones posting those eye-popping June numbers.

The Technology Revolution (Finally Paying Off)

What’s particularly noteworthy is how technology adoption is finally showing real ROI. Robotic milking systems are gaining significant traction across operations of all sizes, but the farms that use them strategically are seeing returns that make the rest of us take notice.

This development is fascinating because it’s not just about the U.S. anymore. Canadian producers have been ahead of us in adoption rates—about 8.7% of their cows are milked by robots, compared to our numbers—and they’re sharing data that’s helping to accelerate learning curves here.

Let me tell you about a Michigan producer I’ve been following—runs multiple robots on about 240 fresh cows, added another unit in March. His labor situation went from crisis to competitive advantage almost overnight.

Not because robots eliminate labor (they don’t), but because they let you deploy people where they actually add value instead of just standing in a parlor twice a day.

The investment’s substantial—we’re talking significant capital depending on the brand, features, and necessary facility retrofits—but this producer’s projecting a sub-24-month payback, based on current milk prices and redeploying labor units. Here’s his math: at $23.50/cwt milk and saving 1.5 FTE positions at $45,000 each, plus production gains of about 8 pounds per cow daily… the numbers work.

He said something that really hit me:

“I’m not just buying equipment, I’m buying the ability to scale without scaling my biggest headache.”

But here’s what nobody talks about enough… the learning curve is steep. Really steep. I am aware of another operation that installed robots last year and spent six months dealing with cow traffic issues because they hadn’t properly redesigned their facility. They’re finally hitting their stride now, but those first six months were brutal.

Robotic milking specialists indicate that facility design accounts for the majority of system success. You can’t just drop advanced technology into an existing setup and expect miracles.

Butterfat Numbers Don’t Lie (And Neither Do Paychecks)

This is where genetics finally started paying real dividends. We’ve been hearing about genomic selection for years, but 2025 is when you can actually see it in the tank and on your milk check.

According to a Q2 2025 analysis from CoBank’s Knowledge Exchange, national butterfat levels hit 4.23% in 2024, and early 2025 data suggests we’re not backing off that trend. Protein is averaging 3.29% across the Federal Milk Marketing Order system, which means your component checks are carrying more weight than ever.

The farms that figured this out early? They’re not just making more milk; they’re making more valuable milk. And in a multiple-component pricing world, that’s everything.

What strikes me about this shift is how it’s creating entirely different business models. Traditional volume-focused operations are finding themselves competing against component-optimized farms that might produce less total milk but generate higher revenue per hundredweight.

I know operations—particularly in Pennsylvania and the Northeast—that have been laser-focused on components for three years. They’re averaging well above 4.5% butterfat and pushing 3.4% protein. Their June component premiums alone were worth an extra $0.75-$0.90 per hundredweight over regional averages. With decent production per cow, that’s serious money—sometimes $15-20 per cow per month straight to the bottom line.

Pennsylvania dairy producers focusing on components report significant premium advantages that compound month after month. As one told me recently, “Every genetic decision, every feeding tweak, every management choice gets measured against components first, volume second.”

Here’s the math that’ll get your attention: a 500-cow operation averaging 70 pounds per cow daily with a $0.80/cwt component premium is looking at an extra $10,080 monthly. That’s $120,960 annually just from optimizing what’s already in the tank.

Regional Reality Check: Winners and Losers Emerge

RegionStand-out StatesYoY Δ %Contributing Factors
SouthwestTexas+9%45,000-cow expansion, new panhandle cheese capacity
High PlainsKansas+16%16,000-cow build-out; three large green-field barns filled
Upper MidwestSouth Dakota+10%Component-focused herds, strong basis, corn < $4.50 /bu
Pacific NWCalifornia+2.7%Recovery from H5N1 losses; cooler June THI
Mountain WestIdaho+6%21,000 more cows, genetic gains in fat % and protein %
Northwest CoastWashington-3%Lingering HPAI culls, heat-stress spike mid-month

Here’s what’s happening in the real world, away from the national averages, and this is where it gets uncomfortable for some folks.

The expansion states—Texas, parts of Kansas, South Dakota—they’re building fresh capacity and filling it with good genetics and modern management. Meanwhile, some traditional dairy regions are watching this shift and wondering if they missed the boat.

Take Texas… they’ve been aggressive about new greenfield operations near those big cheese plants in the Panhandle. I heard from contractors working on multiple 4,000-cow facilities that’ll be online before Christmas. That’s not just growth; that’s strategic positioning, with $10 billion in new processing assets coming online throughout the U.S. through 2027.

MetricJan–Jun 2024Jan–Jun 2025Δ %Driver
U.S. cheese exports497 million lb540 million lb+8.7%EU supply constraints
Skim-powder exports772 million lb735 million lb-4.8%China demand lull
Butter-fat exports52 million lb74 million lb+42.3%MENA bakery demand

This pattern of strategic positioning around processing hubs isn’t unique to the U.S.; it reflects consolidation trends we’re seeing internationally. Australia has been consolidating its operations for years, and European producers are facing similar pressure to scale or specialize. The difference is that our expansion states still have access to land and water that much of the world lacks.

California’s recovery from H5N1 has been slower than anyone had hoped, but the operations that came back strong implemented biosecurity measures that should’ve been standard practice years ago. It’s expensive—around $12,000 per 1,000-cow facility from what I’m hearing—but the alternative is watching your herd get wiped out.

Here’s the thing, though… some of the traditional dairy regions are fighting back smarter than expected. I know operations in New York and Wisconsin that are leveraging their location advantages—being closer to population centers, having better infrastructure, and established relationships—to compete on service and quality, rather than just scale.

Agricultural economists observe that location advantages, combined with management expertise, create a competitive positioning that’s hard to replicate through size alone.

The Management Revolution Behind Those Numbers

What strikes me most about June’s numbers isn’t the production increase—it’s the management sophistication that made it possible. Precision feeding, genetic optimization, and facility design… these are no longer buzzwords. They’re the difference between farms that thrive and farms that just survive.

The operations killing it right now have figured out that success isn’t about any single technology or practice. It’s about systems thinking.

Feed management that optimizes for components, not just pounds. Genetics programs that target profitable traits. Facility design that works in harmony with cow behavior, rather than against it.

I was on a farm in Ohio last month—approximately 450 cows, but every system was perfectly dialed in. The owner walked me through their feeding program, and I swear, he knew the exact cost per pound of every ingredient and how it impacted milk composition. His feed efficiency was running 1.38 pounds of milk per pound of dry matter—that’s exceptional territory.

That level of precision… it’s evident in the numbers. And honestly? A lot of farms are still fighting the last war—optimizing for milk volume when the money’s in milk value.

This trend suggests we’re moving into an era where data literacy becomes as important as animal husbandry skills. The operations that can merge traditional stockmanship with modern analytics are building sustainable competitive advantages.

Risk Factors Nobody Wants to Discuss

Here’s where we need to get real for a minute, because this success story has some warning signs attached.

Weather dependency is huge. June’s favorable conditions helped, but we’re heading into August heat with climate patterns that, to be honest, are unpredictable. The operations that have invested in cooling systems and heat stress management are likely to have a significant advantage if another scorching year like 2023 is on the horizon.

Current global weather patterns are exhibiting concerning similarities to 2012—the last time we experienced a particularly devastating drought. European producers are already facing water restrictions in some regions, which is creating ripple effects in global feed markets.

Processing capacity constraints are building. Those big cheese plants everyone’s building to supply? They’re already running at 85-90% capacity. When they hit their limits, spot milk pricing will become volatile—and not in a way that favors producers without solid contracts.

Labor quality and availability continue to deteriorate in most regions. Technology can help, but it can’t fix everything. The farms that are succeeding aren’t just investing in automation, they’re investing in training their people to work with advanced systems.

Water availability is the sleeper issue. For producers in the West and Southwest, securing long-term water rights is becoming as critical as securing a feed contract. The new facilities in Texas are being built with water strategy as a primary concern, a risk factor that can no longer be ignored.

There’s also a global factor we don’t discuss enough—currency fluctuations affecting export competitiveness. When the dollar strengthens, our exports get more expensive, and that matters more now that we’re producing component-rich milk that commands premium prices internationally.

Forward-Looking: What This Means for Your Operation

Looking ahead, the fundamentals that drove June’s success remain in place, but the competitive landscape is shifting rapidly. Feed costs appear manageable through harvest, and processor demand remains solid. The farms that invested in the right infrastructure are well-positioned to continue capitalizing.

However, here’s the uncomfortable truth: a storm cloud is building that nobody wants to discuss. What happens when everyone catches up? The competitive advantage of being early to automation, early to component optimization, early to precision management—that advantage erodes as more farms make these moves.

The question isn’t whether your operation should modernize. The question is whether you can afford to wait while your neighbors build advantages that’ll be hard to overcome.

I was talking to a banker who specializes in dairy financing, and he put it perfectly:

“The farms that are borrowing money for technology and genetics right now are going to be the ones buying their neighbors’ cows in three years.”

June’s numbers weren’t just about good weather and cheaper corn. They were about an industry finally reaching its stride after years of changes. The farms that understood this early are reaping the rewards. The ones still figuring it out? They better move fast, because this train’s picking up speed.

What’s happening globally reinforces this urgency. Producers in other major dairy regions are making similar transitions, and the competitive landscape is becoming increasingly sophisticated. The margin for error is shrinking, and the rewards for getting it right are growing.

The result is undeniable: we’re creating two different dairy industries. One that’s profitable, efficient, and sustainable. And one that’s just trying to hang on.

The question is, which one are you building?

What’s your best ROI technology investment of 2025? Share your experience in the comments below—your insights could help a fellow producer make the right call.

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

Learn More:

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.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent

Stop Hemorrhaging Money on Feed: The Million-Dollar Risk Management Arsenal That’s Separating Profitable Dairies from the Walking Dead

Stop gambling with feed costs like it’s 1985. Smart dairies lock in 35% cost stability while competitors bleed $228K annually. Here’s their playbook.

Feed price chaos just became the ultimate herd killer, with expenses now devouring 77.2% of operating costs and 50.7% of total production costs (USDA Economic Research Service), costing a typical 1,000-cow operation an additional $228,000 annually since 2019. While most operations treat procurement like hoping for rain during a drought, the industry’s most profitable players have quietly deployed sophisticated risk management strategies that eliminate guesswork and lock in predictable margins year after year. With U.S. milk production forecast at 226.9 billion pounds for 2025 and the all-milk price at $21.10 per cwt (USDA Dairy Market Outlook), here’s the exact playbook they’re using to transform feed price volatility from a profit killer into a competitive weapon.

So here’s the million-dollar question: Are you still managing feed costs like it’s 1985, or are you ready to deploy the same strategies that corporate giants use to lock in profits while their competitors get crushed?

The Problem: Feed Price Volatility Is Destroying Dairy Margins

You’re essentially running your feed program like breeding solely for milk volume while completely ignoring butterfat and protein content—technically productive, but financially suicidal in today’s component-focused market.

Here’s the shocking truth that industry consultants won’t tell you: only 13% of farmers actually quantify their risks (Agriland Risk Management Expert), yet 62% believe they can handle the top 10 operational risks, while 30% have already experienced financial losses from these very risks. This isn’t just poor planning—it’s operational delusion that’s destroying family legacies.

The University of Wisconsin Extension confirms this crisis: many dairies won’t survive this decade—not because they aren’t good farmers, but because they’re poor risk managers (The Bullvine Risk Management).

Here’s the kicker most operations miss: approximately 80% of countries aren’t self-sufficient in milk production (Strategic Commodity Risk Management Report), creating a heavily interdependent global supply chain where disruptions anywhere affect prices everywhere. This means effective risk management requires a global perspective and continuous monitoring of international developments—just like managing your genetic program requires understanding global genomic trends, not just your neighbor’s bull selection.

Think of unmanaged feed price volatility like running cows with elevated somatic cell counts (SCC). You might maintain milk volume temporarily, but you’re destroying component quality and setting yourself up for mastitis outbreaks that could devastate the entire operation.

The data reveals a staggering disconnect between dairy operations’ current feed cost reality and proven opportunities—while 77.2% of operating costs go to feed and only 13% of farmers quantify their risks, strategic operations are achieving 35% cost volatility reductions and $135,000+ annual savings through systematic risk management approaches. This visualization exposes the massive competitive advantage available to operations willing to move beyond reactive purchasing toward comprehensive risk management strategies, with government programs alone delivering positive returns in 13 out of 15 years for minimal cost.

Layer 1 (The Foundation): Government Programs – Your Subsidized Safety Net

Let’s challenge conventional wisdom here: most dairies are leaving money on the table by viewing government programs as “welfare” rather than sophisticated business tools. That’s like refusing to use genomic testing because your grandfather selected bulls by eye.

Risk management expert Deirdre O’Shea from Aon warns that dairy businesses “must not look at risks in isolation, but realise that they are interconnected” (Agriland Risk Management Expert). Yet most operations continue operating with fragmented, reactive approaches that leave massive gaps in protection.

Dairy Margin Coverage: Your Foundation Bloodline

The DMC program, established under the Farm Bill, provides financial assistance when the margin between the all-milk price and average feed cost falls below your selected coverage level (Wisconsin Extension DMC Update). For the first 5 million pounds of milk production, $9.50/cwt margin coverage has yielded positive net benefits in 13 out of 15 years. The cost? Only $0.15/cwt for $9.50/cwt margin coverage.

Be prepared for the next enrollment window, which typically opens January 29 – March 31 annually (Wisconsin Extension DMC Update). Miss this window, and you’re flying naked for another year.

Dairy Revenue Protection and LGM-Dairy: Targeted Performance Protection

DRP is federally subsidized and starting around $0.26/cwt after subsidies, while LGM-Dairy provides protection against gross margin loss. Industry experts recommend combining DRP with DMC to effectively manage milk price risk (The Bullvine Risk Management).

The Layered Defense Strategy

Here’s where most operations get it wrong: they think they need to choose between these programs. Smart operations don’t choose—they layer them like building a comprehensive genetic program. Risk management expert advice emphasizes that “unless risks are planned and quantified then it can be difficult to mitigate potential impacts” (Agriland Risk Management Expert).

Real-World Example: A 1,200-cow Wisconsin operation using layered government programs protected 85% of their margin exposure for less than $0.60/cwt total cost. When feed prices spiked 40% during the 2022 crisis, their government program payments covered $180,000 in additional costs while competitors absorbed the full hit.

Layer 2 (Strategic Sourcing): Forward Contracts, Regional Sourcing, Alternative Ingredients

Stop treating feed procurement like emergency breeding decisions. The most profitable operations implement “base-plus-opportunistic” procurement models that combine contract stability with spot market flexibility.

Forward Contracts: Your Proven Sire Strategy

Direct forward contracts with feed suppliers provide straightforward price certainty for future deliveries. These agreements are essential for proper business planning, providing predictability for input costs and serving as effective tools for managing input price risks.

Unlike spot market transactions that expose you to daily volatility, forward contracts can be established well in advance, allowing strategic planning and cost stabilization—like using proven sires with established genomic predictions rather than gambling on unproven genetics.

The Strategic Blend Approach

Here’s the winning formula: industry experts recommend securing 60-70% of feed needs during price dips but preserving flexibility (The Bullvine Risk Management). Reserve the remaining 30-40% for spot market purchases or shorter-term contracts, allowing you to capitalize on favorable price dips while maintaining flexibility.

A documented case study involving forward contracting showed operations could reduce feed cost volatility by up to 35% while maintaining supply security. For a 1,000-cow operation, that translates to budget certainty on over $800,000 in annual feed expenses.

Regional Sourcing: Building Supply Chain Resilience

Feed costs exhibit significant regional disparities—over a five-year period, feed expenses in California averaged more than 20% higher than those in the Upper Midwest. Building supply chain resilience requires “absorptive capacity”—multiple sourcing strategies, diversified transportation channels, supplier segregation, and sufficient inventory levels.

The USDA supports local and regional food systems through over 30 grant and loan programs, recognizing their vital role in enhancing supply chain resilience. Advanced routing strategies and real-time data access in feed delivery can achieve measurable cost reductions. Some systems have demonstrated 3.5% reductions in transportation costs through logistics optimization.

Alternative Feed Ingredients: The Hidden Profit Center

A documented case study involving fresh citrus waste inclusion at 7.1 kg per cow per day resulted in feed cost savings of $0.37 per cow daily. For a 1,000-cow herd, that’s over $135,000 in annual savings while maintaining identical milk yield, fat, and protein content.

In 75-77% of over 100 animal feeding studies across 30 countries, animals fed alternative ingredients performed optimally or showed increased productivity compared to standard diets.

Proven Alternative Feed Options

The Bullvine’s latest analysis shows concrete savings from properly evaluated alternatives (The Bullvine Feed Costs):

FeedstuffCost ($/ton)CP (%)NE_L (Mcal/lb)Max InclusionPros
Corn DDGs$240280.8530%High energy, fiber
Canola Meal$380360.7820%Methionine-rich, sustainable
Beet Pulp$21080.7215%Digestible fiber, palatable

Research shows that field peas can effectively replace corn grain and soybean meal portions, with studies finding substituting up to 60% of traditional protein and energy sources maintained milk production and composition (The Bullvine Feed Costs).

Environmental Bonus Benefits: The citrus waste example displaced 14 hectares of cropland, conserved 944 kg of nitrogen fertilizer, 480 kg of phosphorus fertilizer, and 40 kg of herbicides annually. The carbon mitigation totaled 387,360 kg CO2-e, primarily from landfill diversion.

Layer 3 (Advanced Tools): Hedging, Futures, and Technology

Government programs provide excellent foundation protection, but comprehensive risk management requires additional tools—just like genetic improvement requires moving beyond visual appraisal to genomic testing and Estimated Breeding Values (EBVs).

Futures Contracts: Locking in Your Feed Costs

The CME Group’s Micro Grains and Oilseeds Futures have revolutionized hedging accessibility for dairy operations. These contracts are one-tenth the size of standard contracts—500 bushels for corn instead of 5,000—making them perfect for precise hedging without massive capital requirements.

Managing the Risks of Risk Management

Here’s the harsh reality: hedging isn’t risk-free. Margin calls require immediate cash even when your overall position improves. Transaction costs accumulate. Basis risk—the difference between local cash prices and futures prices—can undermine strategies.

The primary barriers are often lack of management time and specialized expertise rather than unwillingness to implement these tools. University research confirms that these factors are primary reasons farmers avoid risk management tools.

Are you willing to accept the complexity of risk management to gain margin certainty, or are you comfortable gambling your operation’s future on uncontrollable market forces?

Technology Integration: Precision Feed Management

Modern risk management requires technological integration similar to precision dairy farming approaches that have delivered measurable results. According to research, precision dairy farming technology adoption led to a 30% increase in milk yield, a 25% reduction in feed costs, and a 20% decrease in veterinary expenses (Precision Dairy Farming Africa Study).

Proper calibration of feed management software and written protocols for feeding can significantly enhance overall efficiency and cost control.

The Action Plan: Your 90-Day Implementation Roadmap

Comprehensive risk management implementation follows a structured, phased approach similar to implementing systematic genetic improvement.

Phase 1: Assessment and Planning (Month 1)

Start with thorough risk assessment of your current feed procurement, similar to conducting genetic evaluations of your current herd. Risk management experts emphasize that “scenarios should be selected that require quantifying or calculating how much a risk is worth” (Agriland Risk Management Expert) before developing possible event responses.

Phase 2: Strategy Development and Pilot (Months 2-3)

Select appropriate mix of hedging instruments based on your risk assessment. Partner with reputable brokerage firms or specialized advisory services. Before full-scale implementation, initiate a pilot program applying chosen strategies to a smaller, manageable portion of feed purchases.

Be prepared for the next DMC enrollment window, which typically opens January 29 – March 31 annually (Wisconsin Extension DMC Update).

Phase 3: Full Integration (Ongoing)

Scale successful pilot strategies to full operation. Establish continuous monitoring and adjustment protocols. Integrate risk management with daily operational practices, including proper calibration of feed management software and written protocols for feeding.

Critical Success Requirements

Financial Capital and Technology: Successful implementation requires dedicated funds for option premiums, futures margins, and potential margin calls. Government programs like DMC offer affordable entry points, but comprehensive strategies need adequate capitalization.

Human Capital: The most sophisticated financial instruments fail without knowledgeable personnel to implement and manage them. The primary barriers are often lack of management time and specialized expertise.

How much are you investing in training your team on risk management compared to what you spend on genetics or nutrition consultations?

Global Perspective: Learning from International Best Practices

European Union: EU dairy production is projected to decline by 0.2% in 2025, with milk deliveries reaching 149.4 million metric tonnes (USDA Dairy Market Outlook). European producers are already embracing sophisticated risk management while American farms cling to outdated approaches.

United States: The 2025 milk production forecast is 226.9 billion pounds due to higher expected cow numbers and anticipated improved milk yield per cow (USDA Dairy Market Outlook). This growth trajectory demonstrates the potential for strategic expansion—but only for operations implementing proper risk management.

The Uncomfortable Truth About Industry Resistance

Here’s what nobody wants to discuss: industry experts warn that many dairies won’t survive this decade—not because they aren’t good farmers, but because they’re poor risk managers (The Bullvine Risk Management). Yet only 8.4% of operations have written succession plans while 83.5% of dairy farms fail by the third generation.

This same short-term thinking and resistance to sophisticated planning pervades feed procurement strategies. The dairy industry’s historical resistance to financial sophistication is creating a massive competitive divide. While corporate operations deploy hedge fund-level risk management, family farms continue operating like it’s 1985.

Here’s the brutal reality: University extension specialists confirm that farmers who ignore risk management typically fail not because of bad luck, but because they choose ignorance over expertise (Wisconsin Extension DMC Update). The tools exist. The subsidies are available. The only question is whether you’ll use them.

What Success Looks Like: Measurable Outcomes

Operations implementing comprehensive risk management systems report several quantifiable benefits:

  • Margin stability: Reduced feed cost volatility by up to 35%
  • Budget certainty: Predictable costs on 60-70% of annual feed expenses
  • Enhanced borrowing capacity: Lenders favor operations with stable cash flows
  • Improved profitability: Feed cost savings of $0.37 per cow daily from alternative ingredients

ROI Calculations: For a 1,000-cow operation spending $1.2 million annually on feed, implementing comprehensive risk management can reduce volatility on $800,000+ in expenses while capturing savings opportunities worth $135,000+ annually.

The Bottom Line

Feed price volatility isn’t going away—if anything, global interdependence and climate uncertainty are making it worse. Current USDA forecasts show continued pressure on margins, with feed costs remaining the dominant expense category for confined operations (USDA Dairy Market Outlook).

The question isn’t whether you can afford to implement comprehensive risk management strategies; it’s whether you can afford not to. The corporate dairies that are thriving in this volatile environment aren’t lucky—they’re strategic.

AspectTraditional ApproachStrategic Risk Management
Purchase TimingReactive, spot market buying60-70% forward contracts + 30-40% spot
Risk ManagementHope and prayer methodologyLayered government programs + hedging
Cost VolatilityFull exposure to market swings35% reduction in price volatility
Supplier StrategySingle supplier dependencyMulti-regional supplier network
Technology UseGut feeling decisionsReal-time analytics & monitoring
Expected OutcomeAnnual losses of $228K+$135K+ annual savings potential

Here’s the uncomfortable truth: industry experts confirm that operations failing to embrace sophisticated risk management are doomed (The Bullvine Risk Management). While corporate operations deploy hedge fund-level risk management, family farms continue operating like it’s 1985. This isn’t sustainable.

But here’s the opportunity: with current all-milk prices at $21.10 per cwt and feed representing over 77% of operating costs (USDA Dairy Market Outlook, USDA Economic Research Service), the margin for error has never been smaller. This creates urgency but also opportunity for operations willing to embrace sophisticated risk management.

Your immediate action steps:

  1. Be prepared for the next DMC enrollment window, which typically opens January 29 – March 31 annually (Wisconsin Extension DMC Update)
  2. Analyze your historical feed costs and identify your top three feed ingredients by dollar volume
  3. Contact a commodity broker to discuss micro futures contracts for your primary ingredients
  4. Evaluate three alternative feed ingredients available in your region using cost/nutrient analysis
  5. Develop relationships with at least two additional regional feed suppliers
  6. Implement feed management software integration with your existing dairy management system
  7. Calculate your current feed cost volatility over the past 36 months and establish target reduction goals

The tools exist. The strategies are proven. Government subsidies make foundation protection affordable. The dairy operations that implement comprehensive risk management in 2025 will be the ones still profitable in 2030.

Expert advice is clear: “Don’t wait for a crisis to rethink your approach. Schedule a risk management audit with your team. Identify your vulnerabilities. Build a plan. Act” (The Bullvine Risk Management).

Stop gambling with your dairy’s future. Start managing it strategically—because in 2025’s transformed dairy economy, comprehensive risk management isn’t just smart business, it’s survival.

The real question is: Will you be proactive and implement these strategies before the next market explosion destroys your margins, or will you be reactive and scramble to survive after it’s too late?

Your cows, your family, and your legacy deserve better than hope and prayer.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Government Program Goldmine: DMC coverage costs only $0.15/cwt yet delivers positive returns in 13 out of 15 years, while most operations ignore this subsidized profit protection because they view it as “welfare” rather than sophisticated business tools
  • Alternative Feed Revolution: Strategic incorporation of citrus waste and other byproducts generates $135,000+ in annual savings for 1,000-cow operations while maintaining identical milk yield, fat, and protein content—yet most nutritionists actively discourage these options
  • Procurement Strategy Transformation: The winning formula combines 60-70% forward contracts for price stability with 30-40% spot market flexibility, reducing feed cost volatility by 35% and providing budget certainty on $800,000+ in annual expenses
  • Technology-Driven Precision: Operations implementing comprehensive feed management software and risk monitoring report 30% milk yield increases, 25% feed cost reductions, and 20% veterinary cost decreases compared to gut-feeling management approaches
  • 90-Day Implementation Reality: Complete risk management transformation requires just three months using proven strategies—Phase 1 assessment, Phase 2 pilot programs, Phase 3 full integration—yet 83% of operations resist change and fail by the third generation

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Most dairy operations treat feed procurement like hoping for rain during a drought, yet feed expenses now devour 77.2% of operating costs—making reactive buying the fastest way to destroy your margins. While 62% of farmers believe they can handle operational risks, only 13% actually quantify them, and 30% have already experienced devastating financial losses from the very risks they thought they could manage. The industry’s most profitable players have quietly deployed sophisticated risk management arsenals that eliminate guesswork: government programs yielding positive returns in 13 out of 15 years, alternative feed ingredients saving $0.37 per cow daily, and strategic procurement reducing cost volatility by 35%. European producers are already embracing these advanced strategies while American farms cling to outdated approaches, creating a massive competitive divide that’s separating the thriving operations from the walking dead. With current milk prices at $21.10 per cwt and feed representing over 77% of operating costs, comprehensive risk management isn’t just smart business—it’s survival. Stop treating feed costs like emergency breeding decisions and start deploying the same strategic thinking you use for your genetic program.

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

Learn More:

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.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent

Feed Cost Reality Check: Bunge’s $34 Billion Viterra Buyout Just Rewrote the Rules for Every Dairy Operation

$90,000 feed cost bomb: Bunge’s mega-merger just rewrote dairy economics. Smart producers adapting procurement strategies now—are you ready?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The comfortable days of competitive feed pricing just ended with Bunge’s $34 billion Viterra acquisition, creating a commodity giant that will fundamentally alter your milk-feed margin calculations. University of Saskatchewan economists project this consolidation will cost farmers over C$770 million annually through increased canola crush margins (10-16%) and grain export basis hikes (15%), translating to $90,000 in additional feed costs for a typical 1,000-cow operation. While industry cheerleaders celebrate “synergies,” the 88% market concentration ratio in Canadian grain handling proves we’ve entered a new era where three agribusiness titans control the feed ingredients that determine your profitability. The merger eliminates Viterra as an independent competitor precisely when dairy operations need every negotiating advantage to maintain income over feed cost (IOFC) ratios. This isn’t just Canada’s problem—global commodity price synchronization means every dairy producer worldwide must now deploy sophisticated risk management strategies including precision feeding technology, cooperative purchasing alliances, and advanced financial hedging to survive the new feed cost reality.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Immediate Feed Cost Impact: A 1,000-cow dairy operation faces $90,000 in additional annual feed costs due to projected 15% increases in grain export basis, while smaller 250-cow operations absorb roughly $22,500 in extra expenses—forcing immediate ration diversification strategies to reduce dependency on canola and soybean meal
  • Market Power Concentration Danger: The merger creates 88% four-firm concentration in Canadian grain handling with 40% market control by the new entity, eliminating competitive pricing for essential feed ingredients and requiring dairy cooperatives to form larger purchasing alliances to maintain any negotiating leverage
  • Technology-Driven Survival Strategy: Smart producers are immediately implementing precision feeding systems with dry matter intake (DMI) monitoring and sensor technology to optimize feed conversion ratios, targeting 15-20% efficiency improvements within 24 months to offset structural cost increases
  • Advanced Risk Management Imperative: Traditional passive price-taking is dead—profitable operations must now deploy integrated margin management using Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy (LGM-Dairy) insurance combined with futures contracts on corn and soybean meal to protect against margin compression in the less competitive market
  • Global Ripple Effect Reality: With dairy demand remaining resilient globally in 2025 despite supply constraints, the ability to manage feed costs through alternative protein sources, on-farm storage investments, and strategic procurement timing will increasingly determine competitive advantage across all major dairy regions
dairy feed cost management, agribusiness consolidation impact, milk-feed margin optimization, feed procurement strategies, dairy market concentration

Think your feed costs are high now? You haven’t seen anything yet. The mega-merger that closed yesterday creates a commodity trading titan with unprecedented power over the feed ingredients that determine whether your dairy operation stays profitable or goes under.

Let’s cut through the corporate spin and discuss what Bunge’s $34 billion acquisition of Viterra, completed on July 2, 2025, really means for dairy farmers worldwide. While executives celebrate their “transformative business combination,” you’re about to face a fundamentally different—and more expensive—reality for feeding your herd.

Here’s the bottom line: the University of Saskatchewan’s economic analysis projects that this merger will cost Western Canadian farmers alone over $ 770 million annually. And if you think this is just Canada’s problem, think again. This consolidation reshapes global feed markets, and your income over feed cost (IOFC) is in the crosshairs.

The New Feed Cost Mathematics—And It’s Not Pretty

Let’s talk numbers that matter to your operation. The University of Saskatchewan study projects the merger will increase canola crush margins by 10% to 16% while boosting grain export basis by 15%. For protein meals critical to maintaining milk protein levels above 3.0% in your rations, this translates to real money out of your pocket.

Here’s what this looks like on your feed bill: the study projects processor margins will reduce farm-gate prices paid to canola growers by $8 to $13 per tonne, creating an annual income loss of C$200 million to C$325 million for canola farmers. These captured margins don’t disappear—they show up as higher costs when you’re buying canola meal to maintain adequate metabolizable energy (ME) levels in your lactating cow rations.

What This Means for Your Operation: If you’re running a 1,000-cow dairy consuming approximately 12,000 tonnes of feed annually, the projected 15% increase in grain export basis, adding $7.56 per tonne to baseline costs, represents an additional $90,000 in annual feed costs. That’s not a rounding error—that’s a new truck payment, forever.

For smaller operations? A 250-cow dairy faces roughly $22,500 in additional annual costs. A 5,000-cow operation? You’re looking at an additional $450,000 per year. Do the math on your own herd size—it’s not going to be pleasant.

Market Concentration Reaches the Danger Zone

Here’s the reality: the merged entity now controls an estimated 40% of the entire Canadian grain market, with the post-merger four-firm concentration ratio for grain handling companies reaching 88%—a level economists consider proof of non-competitive market structure.

Think about it: when your primary feed supplier transforms from one of several competitors into a dominant market force with over 350 grain storage facilities, 125 oilseed crushing and refining plants, and 55 port terminals worldwide, you’re no longer negotiating—you’re accepting whatever terms they offer.

Canada’s Competition Bureau concluded that the deal was “likely to result in substantial anti-competitive effects,” specifically highlighting harm to competition in grain purchasing in Western Canada and canola oil sales in Eastern Canada. But did that stop the deal? Nope.

Why Every Dairy Farmer Should Be Worried

Here’s what the industry cheerleaders won’t tell you: while Bunge CEO Greg Heckman celebrates creating “a stronger organization with enhanced capabilities,” dairy producers face a perfect storm of reduced competition and enhanced pricing power working against them.

Feed Conversion Reality Check: With feed representing half of total farm expenses, the projected margin increases will directly compress your income over the feed cost (IOFC) metric. Current data show that feed costs range between 20% and 45% of gross income, depending on how much feed you produce yourself. If you purchase all your feed, your feed cost pushes to around 50% of the milk check.

Your Holstein producing 85 pounds of milk daily with a feed conversion ratio of 1.4 will face increased input costs for both protein and energy components. And unlike corporate executives pocketing these “synergies,” you can’t pass these costs on to consumers when selling into competitive milk markets.

Let’s face it—this isn’t just about numbers on a spreadsheet. This is about whether your operation survives the next five years.

The Cooperative’s Diminished Power

Let’s be honest about your bargaining position. Even the largest dairy cooperatives now face a counterparty that’s vastly larger, more geographically diversified, and vertically integrated across the entire global supply chain. The new Bunge-Viterra possesses superior market intelligence, end-to-end logistical control, and the ability to engage in global trade arbitrage on a scale that regional dairy cooperatives can’t match.

This isn’t just about price per tonne anymore. With dominant control over storage and transportation infrastructure, the merged entity can dictate delivery schedules, contract flexibility, and quality specifications. During supply disruptions, you may experience longer wait times, stricter terms, and fewer alternatives.

Here’s the reality: your co-op’s negotiating power just got cut off at the knees.

What Smart Dairy Farmers Are Doing Now

The new reality demands you move beyond passive price-taking toward sophisticated risk management. Here’s your action plan, with specific timelines and cost estimates:

Diversify Your Rations (Implementation: 6-12 months): Reduce dependency on core commodities most affected by the merger—corn, soybean meal, and canola meal. Work with nutritionists to explore agricultural byproducts (distillers grains, corn gluten), alternative forages, and locally available ingredients less tied to global pricing power. Expected cost reduction: 8-15% on protein sources.

Amplify Cooperative Power (Implementation: 3-6 months): Your co-op must adapt by forming larger purchasing alliances with other cooperatives to aggregate demand. Scale provides the only meaningful counterweight against suppliers of Bunge-Viterra’s magnitude. Target: Increase collective buying power by 200-300%.

Embrace Precision Feeding Technology (Implementation: 12-18 months): Investment in sensor technology for monitoring dry matter intake (DMI) becomes essential for optimizing ration formulations in this consolidated supply environment. Expected ROI: 15-20% improvement in feed efficiency within 24 months.

Advanced Financial Hedging (Implementation: 30-90 days): Shift from simply hedging milk prices to actively managing the milk-feed margin. The Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy (LGM-Dairy) insurance program specifically protects against margin compression between milk prices and feed costs. Layer this with strategic use of futures and options contracts on corn and soybean meal.

Global Ripple Effects You Can’t Ignore

Don’t think this is just a North American issue. The merger creates secondary effects through global commodity price synchronization that will impact dairy operations worldwide:

North America: The 2025 all-milk price forecast has been revised to $22.55 per cwt, while feed costs continue climbing. U.S. operations face secondary cost impacts through reduced cross-border competition.

Global Markets: Dairy demand remains resilient globally in 2025, despite consumer budgetary pressures, but higher feed costs threaten to squeeze margins worldwide.

The Three Questions You Need to Ask Your Nutritionist This Week

  1. How can we reduce our dependency on canola and soybean meal by 25% without sacrificing milk production?
  2. What alternative protein sources are available locally that aren’t controlled by the big three agribusiness giants?
  3. What would be the cost of implementing precision feeding technology to optimize our feed conversion ratio?

The Bottom Line

Key Takeaways:

  • The Bunge-Viterra merger creates immediate feed cost pressures through reduced competition and enhanced pricing power over essential feed ingredients
  • Economic projections show real impact: $90,000 additional annual costs for a 1,000-cow operation, with proportional increases across all herd sizes
  • Market concentration reaches dangerous levels: 88% four-firm concentration ratio signals a non-competitive market structure

Immediate Actions Required:

  • Diversify feed rations to reduce dependency on core commodities, most affected by the merger
  • Strengthen cooperative purchasing power through larger alliances and enhanced buying scale
  • Implement precision feeding technologies to optimize feed conversion ratios and monitor DMI
  • Adopt advanced financial hedging strategies, including LGM-Dairy insurance and futures contracts

Next Steps:

  • Contact your nutritionist within 48 hours to evaluate alternative protein sources
  • Review your cooperative’s purchasing alliance opportunities within 30 days
  • Assess precision feeding technology ROI for your specific operation within 60 days

The new agribusiness Goliath is here, and it’s already reaching into your feed budget. The question isn’t whether this will impact your operation—it’s whether you’ll be prepared when those higher feed bills start arriving. Because one thing’s certain: they’re coming, and they’re coming fast.

Your move.

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

Learn More:

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.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent

The Grain Gamble: Why Growing Your Feed Could Make or Break Your Dairy

Could growing your own grain save your dairy 15% on energy costs or bankrupt you? The truth depends on your farm size, location, and what the experts won’t tell you.

Your nutritionist recommends buying grain. Your banker suggests growing it. Meanwhile, Penn State researchers found that Pennsylvania dairy farms that grow their feed use 15% less fossil energy than those that import it from the Midwest.

So who’s right?

Let’s cut through the confusion and examine what the research shows versus what the sales pitches promise. The cold, hard truth about growing grain on dairy farms is more complex than either side admits, and knowing when it makes sense—and when it’s financial suicide—could be the difference between thriving and barely surviving the next market downturn.

WHY FARMERS ARE RUSHING BACK TO GRAIN PRODUCTION

Dairy farmers’ interest in producing feed grains has historically ebbed and flowed with market conditions. Still, we’re currently witnessing a significant upswing in consideration of this practice across multiple dairy regions.

This renewed attention isn’t happening in a vacuum—it’s a direct response to several converging factors in the dairy landscape that are causing many farmers to rethink their feed-sourcing strategies.

The appeal is understandable: growing your grain potentially offers greater control over feed costs, provides inventory security during supply chain disruptions, and creates flexible acreage that can be harvested as grain or forage depending on seasonal needs.

But before adopting this trend, farmers need to carefully evaluate whether on-farm grain production truly meets their operation’s specific circumstances.

THE SHOCKING ENERGY ADVANTAGE NOBODY’S TALKING ABOUT

Let’s start with some good news that might surprise you: Research from Penn State University found that dairy farms in the Northeast that grow their grain can reduce fossil energy inputs by up to 15% compared to farms that import feed.

The study compared three farming systems with identical herd sizes and milk output but varying degrees of feed self-sufficiency. Systems that produced both forage and grain on-farm lowered total fossil energy inputs per ton of milk by 15% compared to systems producing only forage.

How? Primarily by importing 71% less feed crops that would have been grown elsewhere.

“If you think about the Midwestern practices for growing feed crops, largely it’s done with synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, which are extremely energy-intensive to produce. We wanted to understand the energy use that this approach requires compared to growing feed on-farm, where that fertilizer requirement can be met, in part, with manure and through diversifying crop rotations to include perennial legume crops.” — Penn State University Researchers.

This significant reduction in energy usage comes from creating a more closed nutrient cycle on the farm. The researchers noted that nitrogen inputs were four times greater for imported corn grain than for that grown on the trial farm, where injected animal manure and nitrogen-fixing legumes met a significant portion of the crop’s nitrogen requirements.

More recent research from the University of Wisconsin-Madison confirms these findings, showing that integrated crop-livestock systems can reduce purchased fertilizer inputs by up to 80%, significantly lowering costs and environmental impacts. Their long-term cropping systems trial demonstrated that diverse rotations, including grain and forage crops, could maintain yields while reducing input costs by $40-70 per acre compared to continuous corn systems.

WHERE YOUR DAIRY’S ENERGY GOES

Dairy Farm Equipment/ProcessPercentage of Energy Use
Ventilation25%
Lighting24%
Milk Cooling22%
Vacuum Pumps17%
Manure Handling4%
Electrical Water Heating4%
Feeding3%
Miscellaneous Equipment1%

Source: NYSERDA Dairy Farm Energy Audit Summary Report, 2003

MILK COMES FIRST: THE PRINCIPLE MOST GRAIN-GROWING DAIRIES FORGET

Before you get seduced by potential energy savings, remember this fundamental truth: you’re a dairy farmer, not a grain producer. Your primary mission is putting milk in the tank – everything else is a distraction.

Every dairy farmer must ask whether adding grain production truly advances your operation’s ability to make milk or diverts precious resources from what you do best.

This debate primarily affects regions where homegrown forages already form the foundation of profitable milk production. If growing grain comes at the expense of high-quality forage or compromises any aspect of your dairy operation, you’re shooting yourself in the foot before you even start.

The farm must ensure the resources are available to plant these extra acres of row crops without compromising in other areas. Adequate forage inventories need to be secured before diverting acres to grain production.

When there are extra grain acres to plant, timely planting of forage crops and spring harvest of hay crops cannot be compromised.

THE BRUTAL ECONOMICS YOUR EQUIPMENT DEALER WON’T MENTION

Let’s talk money – the real bottom line that often gets obscured in discussions about on-farm grain. The actual cost calculation extends far beyond seed, fertilizer, and herbicide.

A comprehensive assessment must include:

  • Capital investments in specialized equipment
  • Storage facilities and processing technology
  • Additional labor requirements
  • Opportunity costs of land use
  • Potential impacts on overall farm operations

Even with the advantages of energy efficiency documented by research, the economic equation remains complex. When accounting for all factors, many farms discover that the financial advantage of homegrown grain only materializes when commodity prices reach relatively high levels.

THE REAL NUMBERS: CAPITAL INVESTMENTS AND PAYBACK PERIODS

According to data from the University of Minnesota Extension, establishing grain production capabilities on a dairy farm requires substantial capital investment. Here’s a breakdown of typical equipment costs and expected useful life:

EquipmentTypical Cost Range (New)Expected Useful LifeAnnual Depreciation
Combine$300,000-$500,00010-15 years$20,000-$50,000
Corn Planter$80,000-$150,0008-12 years$6,600-$18,750
Grain Drill$40,000-$80,00010-15 years$2,600-$8,000
Grain Storage Bins$1.80-$2.50 per bushel capacity20-30 years$0.06-$0.12 per bushel
Grain Handling Equipment$25,000-$80,00010-20 years$1,250-$8,000
Grain Dryer$40,000-$150,00015-20 years$2,000-$10,000

Source: University of Minnesota Extension, Farm Machinery Cost Estimates

For a medium-sized dairy farm (150-300 cows) looking to produce 50% of its grain needs, total capital investments can easily exceed $500,000. This doesn’t include additional labor costs, maintenance, and fuel expenses.

It’s critical to note that not every energy efficiency measure is economically worthwhile on every farm. Penn State Extension warns against “false efficiency” from measures that look good on the surface but cause more problems than they’re worth.

This applies perfectly to on-farm grain production – what appears efficient in one dimension may create inefficiencies elsewhere.

THE BREAKEVEN EQUATION: WHEN GROWING YOUR OWN FINALLY PAYS OFF

Cornell University researchers analyzed the economics of on-farm grain production versus purchasing, finding that breakeven dynamics vary dramatically based on farm size, existing equipment, and market conditions:

Farm Size (Acres dedicated to grain)Breakeven Corn Price ($/bushel)Years to Positive ROI at Average Prices
Small (50-100 acres)$5.80-$7.2515+ years
Medium (100-250 acres)$4.75-$5.608-12 years
Large (250+ acres)$4.10-$4.805-8 years

Source: Cornell University PRO-DAIRY Program, Farm Business Management Data

These figures assume new equipment purchases, including depreciation, maintenance, fuel, and labor costs. Farms with existing equipment or those able to use custom operators for specific tasks may realize significantly better economics.

THE MILLION-DOLLAR INVESTMENT QUESTION NOBODY’S ASKING

The most thought-provoking question dairy farmers must consider is opportunity cost: “If money is available for investment, what has the potential to have a greater impact on milk production efficiency? Investing in grain infrastructure or cow-centric upgrades to improve areas such as cow comfort, milking process, and feeding practices?”

The New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) recommends following an “energy pyramid” approach, where farmers first conduct an energy analysis and then implement conservation measures and efficiency improvements before considering more capital-intensive projects.

This structured approach ensures farmers prioritize investments with the quickest and most substantial returns.

Given limited capital resources, investments that directly improve cow productivity and comfort – better bedding systems, improved ventilation, and more efficient milking parlors – may yield higher returns than grain production infrastructure. Every dollar tied up in specialized grain equipment is not working to improve the core of your business.

For perspective, adding a variable-speed drive to a milking vacuum pump can reduce that component’s energy use by as much as 60%, with typical savings of thousands of dollars per year for a medium-sized farm. Such targeted efficiency measures often deliver faster payback than diversification into grain production.

WHY HIGH-PRODUCING HERDS STRUGGLE WITH HOMEGROWN GRAIN

The challenge of homegrown grains often intensifies during storage and feeding. Commercial grain suppliers blend massive volumes to achieve consistent nutritional profiles and dilute potential quality issues.

Your operation can’t match this consistency, potentially leaving you vulnerable to quality variations impacting high-producing cows.

“Feeding high-moisture corn was fine when our cows were making 75 pounds of milk, but now they are at 105 pounds, and these cows notice any little hiccup in diet energy, high-moisture corn has become a real headache.” — Dairy Producer.

Modern high-producing cows have less tolerance for nutritional variability. Proper storage infrastructure represents both a significant investment and an ongoing management challenge.

Repurposing existing structures often seems economically attractive but frequently leads to excessive shrinkage and quality losses that eliminate potential savings. Every percentage point of shrink directly reduces the economic viability of homegrown grain.

“Shrink” refers to the loss of feed during storage, handling, and feeding. According to research from the University of Wisconsin, shrink losses for corn grain typically range from 4% to 15%, depending on storage methods. At current corn prices, each percentage point of shrink represents a loss of approximately $0.04-0.07 per bushel.

SUCCESS STORIES: WHEN GRAIN PRODUCTION WORKS

Despite the challenges, some dairy operations have successfully integrated grain production into their business model. Research from Michigan State University identified key characteristics of these successful integrated operations:

PROFILE: LARGE-SCALE INTEGRATED DAIRY (600+ COWS)

A 650-cow dairy in western New York operates 1,800 acres, with 1,100 acres dedicated to corn and soybeans for grain. Their success factors include:

  • Sufficient scale to justify full equipment ownership (2 combines, 3-grain trucks)
  • A dedicated grain management team separate from dairy operations
  • Modern grain storage with temperature monitoring and aeration
  • Proper equipment sizing to ensure timely forage harvest isn’t compromised
  • Crop consultant specifically for grain production decisions
  • Financial metrics tracking grain production as a separate profit center

“We track our grain production as its business unit with dedicated equipment and labor. This allows us to accurately compare our production costs against market prices and make informed decisions about which crops to grow versus buy each year.” — New York Dairy Farmer, 650 cows.

PROFILE: MID-SIZED PARTNERSHIP MODEL (300 COWS)

A 320-cow operation in Pennsylvania takes a different approach, sharing equipment and expertise with neighboring farms:

  • Equipment-sharing partnership with two neighboring grain farms
  • Custom harvesting arrangements that prioritize timing
  • Focused primarily on corn production, purchasing other grains
  • Uses flexible harvest approach – can choose grain or silage based on seasonal needs
  • Maintains emergency grain purchase relationships with local suppliers
  • Implements intensive soil testing to maximize fertilizer efficiency from manure application

This operation reports production costs approximately 15-20% below market prices in most years. It also has dedicated acreage that can be harvested as silage in drought years.

THE RESEARCH GAP THAT COULD BE COSTING YOU THOUSANDS

While the Penn State research demonstrates energy advantages for on-farm grain production in the Northeast, regional differences play a crucial role in this equation. The research specifically studied Pennsylvania dairy farms, where the energy intensity of transporting grain from the Midwest creates an opportunity for energy savings through local production.

“Relative to forage-only systems, even while requiring larger land areas locally, systems that produced both forage and grain on-farm lowered total fossil energy inputs per Mg of milk produced by 15%.” — Penn State Research Findings.

The researchers compared a novel cropping system implemented at Penn State University, which included a diverse rotation designed to produce forage, grain, and fuel on-farm (NSVO), with two model systems that produced either forage only (FOR) or forage and grain (FORGr).

They found that “relative to the FOR system, even while requiring larger land areas locally, the NSVO and FORGr systems lowered total fossil energy inputs per Mg of milk produced by 18% and 15% respectively”.

More recent research from Michigan State University Extension examined the economic performance of specialized versus diversified dairy operations across 246 farms. They found that specialized dairy farms (those focusing primarily on milk production and purchasing most or all feed) showed an 11% higher return on assets than diversified operations attempting to produce milk and significant grain crops. However, this advantage disappeared for farms larger than 500 acres, where economies of scale began to make grain production more feasible.

According to research, US farms doubled their energy efficiency in 25 years from 1994 to 2019. However, many opportunities to save energy remain, with many farms still operating outdated lighting systems and inefficient electric motors.

WHEN GROWING YOUR GRAIN MIGHT PAY OFF

Despite all the cautions, there are specific circumstances where on-farm grain production might be viable. Limited grain production could complement the dairy operation for farms with substantial excess acreage beyond forage needs, existing grain equipment, and experienced management capacity.

Regional factors play a significant role. The Penn State research specifically addressed Northeast dairy farms, where the energy intensity of transporting grain from the Midwest creates an opportunity for energy savings through local production. Farms in grain-producing regions may face entirely different energy and economic equations.

“On-farm fuel production lowered fossil energy inputs but required more land area and may not provide economic savings with current diesel fuel prices.” — Penn State Agricultural Systems Research.

The research also suggests that “on-farm fuel production in the NSVO system lowered fossil energy inputs but required more land area and may not provide economic savings with current diesel fuel prices.” This highlights the critical distinction between energy and economic efficiency—they don’t always align perfectly.

DECISION TOOL: IS GRAIN PRODUCTION RIGHT FOR YOUR DAIRY?

Use this self-assessment tool to evaluate whether grain production might be viable for your operation:

FAVORABLE CONDITIONS FOR ON-FARM GRAIN PRODUCTION:

✓ Farm has excess acreage beyond forage needs
✓ Operation already owns some grain equipment or has favorable custom work arrangements
✓ The farm is located more than 200 miles from significant grain production regions
✓ Management team has grain production experience or dedicated crop specialists
✓ Dairy size and land base allow for economies of scale (typically 2+ acres per cow)
✓ Operation has modern grain storage facilities or capital to build them
✓ Soil types and climate are favorable for grain production
✓ Dairy has sufficient equity position to absorb potential losses during the learning curve

WARNING SIGNS THAT GRAIN PRODUCTION MAY BE PROBLEMATIC:

⚠️ Farm struggles to produce sufficient high-quality forage
⚠️ Operation has limited equipment, labor, or management capacity
⚠️ Dairy focuses on high production per cow (90+ pounds)
⚠️ Farm is located in a traditional grain production region with competitive local markets
⚠️ Capital would be diverted from cow comfort or facility improvements
⚠️ Operation lacks modern grain storage facilities
⚠️ Farm struggles with timely completion of existing field operations
⚠️ Dairy has limited financial reserves to weather potential crop failures

YOUR DAIRY’S FUTURE: CORE BUSINESS OR DISTRACTION?

Dairy farms have attempted homegrown grain production for generations with wildly varying results. For some, it’s worked beautifully; for others, it’s been a financial burden. The difference between success and failure doesn’t come down to luck—it’s about a brutally honest assessment of your operation’s resources, capabilities, and core strengths.

Dr. Mark Stephenson, Director of Dairy Policy Analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, notes: “The economic advantage of diversification into grain production varies dramatically with farm size, management capacity, and regional factors. The most successful dairies I’ve observed either focus intensely on milk production or achieve sufficient scale in both enterprises to justify the additional complexity.”

Before making any decisions about grain production, ask yourself:

  • Is producing grain indeed advancing your dairy’s primary mission?
  • Are you realistically equipped to manage the additional complexity?
  • And most importantly, where will your capital generate the highest returns?

For some operations, particularly those in the Northeast with sufficient scale and existing infrastructure, the 15% energy reduction from on-farm grain production may align with both environmental goals and economic realities.

For others, doubling down on what you do best – producing milk – will outperform grain production every time. The truth isn’t convenient, but it’s what The Bullvine delivers.

QUESTIONS TO ASK BEFORE DIVING INTO GRAIN PRODUCTION

For Your Equipment Dealer:

  • What is the total annual ownership cost, including depreciation, maintenance, and financing?
  • How many acres of production are needed to justify this equipment purchase?
  • What custom options exist that might allow less capital investment?
  • How will parts availability and service scheduling work during critical harvest periods?

For Your Nutritionist:

  • What quality variations should we expect with on-farm grain production?
  • How will these variations impact our high-producing cows?
  • What testing protocols should we implement for homegrown grain?
  • What storage and processing methods would work best for our operation?

For Your Financial Advisor:

  • How does this investment compare to other potential uses of capital?
  • What is our actual breakeven cost, considering all expenses?
  • How will this impact our debt-to-asset ratio and financial flexibility?
  • What risk management strategies should we implement for crop production?

Key Takeaways

  • On-farm grain production creates a 15% energy savings by reducing reliance on synthetic fertilizers and transportation, but these environmental benefits don’t always translate to economic advantages.
  • Equipment investments for grain production ($300,000-$500,000 for combine alone) require substantial scale to justify, with small operations (50-100 acres) facing breakeven corn prices of $5.80-$7.25/bushel and 15+ years to positive ROI.
  • Successful grain-producing dairies separate grain operations from dairy management, maintain modern storage with quality monitoring, and often operate at larger scales (600+ cows) or through strategic partnerships.
  • High-producing herds (90+ pounds/cow) are particularly vulnerable to the quality inconsistencies of homegrown grain, making specialized milk production generally more profitable for operations under 500 acres.
  • Before diversifying, use the article’s decision tool to evaluate whether your farm has the favorable conditions (excess acreage, equipment access, management capacity) or warning signs (forage struggles, limited capital, high-production focus) that predict success or failure.

Executive Summary

The decision to grow grain on dairy farms presents a complex trade-off between potential energy savings and significant financial risks that vary dramatically by operation. While Penn State research shows dairy farms producing their own grain can reduce fossil energy inputs by 15% compared to importing feed, the economics only work for specific farm profiles with sufficient scale, existing infrastructure, and management capacity. Success stories typically feature operations with 600+ cows, dedicated grain management teams, and modern storage facilities, while smaller farms often struggle to justify equipment investments that can exceed $500,000 and may take 8-15 years to provide positive returns. Before diversifying, dairy farmers must honestly assess whether grain production advances or distracts from their core mission of producing milk, as specialized dairy operations show 11% higher returns on assets compared to diversified farms below 500 acres.

Learn more

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.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent
Send this to a friend