Archive for farm financial planning

USDA Says $18, Futures Say $16: The $150K Gap That’s Rewriting 2026 Dairy Budgets

Is a $2 milk misread hiding a $150,000 hole in your 2026 budget? This is why USDA and futures don’t agree.

Executive Summary: USDA’s latest outlook has 2026 all‑milk in the high‑$18s, while Class III futures sit closer to the mid‑$16s—a $2–$3/cwt gap that can wreck a budget if you pick the wrong anchor. For a 300‑cow herd shipping about 75,000 cwt, that difference is a $150,000–$225,000 swing in annual revenue. At the same time, U.S. cheese and butterfat exports are hitting records only because we’re pricing below Europe and New Zealand, so strong export volume doesn’t automatically mean strong farm‑gate prices. Long‑term shifts in butterfat performance, protein levels, and roughly $10 billion in new processing capacity are changing what kind of milk plants want and how they reward components. Layer on 7–8% interest rates and tougher lender stress tests, and 2026 becomes a year where you can’t afford optimistic milk guesses or loose capital math. This feature gives you a five‑step playbook to budget off the right signals, lock in sensible feed margins, demand $17‑milk payback from new projects, tune components to your plant, and use risk tools that actually fit your herd size and region. ​

There’s a point every winter when you sit down with the books, look at that cash‑flow sheet, and think, “Alright… what does this year really look like?” Heading into 2026, that question carries a little more weight than usual.

What’s interesting here is that, for a 300‑cow herd shipping roughly 7.5 million pounds a year—about 25,000 pounds per cow—that question isn’t theoretical at all. Turn that into hundredweights, and you’re sitting near 75,000 cwt. If one version of your plan leans on a mid‑$16 Class III milk check and another counts on something closer to a high‑$18 all‑milk average, you’re staring at roughly a $150,000 to $225,000 swing in annual revenue just from a $2–$3 per cwt difference in price. 

For a family dairy—whether that’s in Grey‑Bruce, the St. Lawrence Valley, or central Wisconsin—that’s the difference between “we can finally fix some stuff” and “we’re just keeping the lights on.” So let’s walk through why the signals are so far apart, and more importantly, how to plan in a way that doesn’t bet the farm on any one forecast.

Looking at This Trend: USDA vs. the Futures Screen

On one side of the ledger, you’ve got USDA’s official outlooks. In the January 2026 World Agricultural Supply and Demand Estimates (WASDE), USDA pegs the 2025 all‑milk price at about $21.15 per cwt and the 2026 all‑milk price closer to $18.25 per cwt, tying that downgrade to softer cheese prices and slightly higher per‑cow production and overall output. Most analysts sum that picture up as higher milk supplies and somewhat softer prices by 2026. 

At the same time, USDA’s Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook projects U.S. milk production around 230.0 billion pounds in 2025 and 231.3 billion pounds in 2026, with modest gains in milk per cow pushing total output higher. That production path is part of why USDA trimmed its Class III and IV expectations later in 2025. 

On the other side of your phone, you’ve got what buyers and sellers are actually trading.

MonthUSDA All-MilkClass III FuturesSpread (USDA – Futures)
January$18.25$15.85+$2.40
February$18.25$15.92+$2.33
March$18.25$16.10+$2.15
April$18.25$16.25+$2.00
May$18.25$16.15+$2.10
June$18.25$16.00+$2.25
July$18.25$15.95+$2.30
August$18.25$16.05+$2.20
September$18.25$16.20+$2.05
October$18.25$16.30+$1.95
November$18.25$16.15+$2.10
December$18.25$16.05+$2.20

If you pull up USDA Dairy Market News’ weekly report from early January 2026, you see Class III futures for many 2026 months hovering in the mid‑$16s, with some contracts slipping toward the mid‑$15s and others flirting with the upper‑$16s. In the same report, spot cheddar blocks are described in the low‑$1.30s per pound, a long way from the $2‑plus levels that showed up briefly in 2022. 

So you’ve got two honest but different stories:

  • USDA’s forecast world says: “Given our assumptions, all‑milk should average in the high‑$18 to low‑$20range in 2026.” 
  • The futures world says: “Given what participants are willing to lock in today, Class III looks more like the mid‑$16s, with plenty of caution baked in.” 

Once you plug in your local basis and your butterfat performance and protein, that’s where the $2–$3 per cwt planning gap really shows up.

In barn after barn I walk through—from east coast tie‑stalls to Wisconsin freestalls and dry lot systems out west—I’m seeing a quiet but important shift. More conservative farms are starting to let the Class III strip anchor their budgetsand treat USDA’s all‑milk numbers as possible upside, not the default assumption. The bank account, after all, settles off cheques tied to real markets and pooling, not the top end of a forecast chart. 

Exports on Fire: The Cheese and Butterfat Paradox

Now let’s slide over to exports, because they’re doing a lot of heavy lifting right now.

The U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) reports that in August 2025, U.S. cheese exports were 28% higher than a year earlier, making it a record August for cheese shipments. Cheddar exports jumped roughly 140% compared to August 2024, helped by new cheese capacity and aggressive pricing. Every major region except Canada bought more U.S. cheese, with South Korea particularly strong. 

Butterfat performance in exports has been even more dramatic. USDEC and Brownfield data show that:

  • Butter exports were up about 190% year‑over‑year in August 2025.
  • Anhydrous milkfat (AMF) exports climbed roughly 198% over the same period. 
  • Overall butterfat exports nearly tripled, with strong growth across Asia and the Middle East. 

Total U.S. dairy export volume in August 2025 was up around 3%, while export value climbed about 17% to roughly $831.5 million

In that Brownfield piece, William Loux, vice president of global trade analysis at USDEC, said, “We are in for probably almost certainly a record cheese year again here in 2025. We had a record year in 2024, we had a record year in 2022, so basically three out of the last four years we’ve set new records.” Hoard’s Dairyman and USDEC export reviews reinforce that U.S. cheese exports have surpassed 1 billion pounds in multiple recent years, underscoring our role as a long‑term global cheese supplier. 

From one angle, that all looks fantastic. The catch is the price tag attached to those wins.

Farm Credit East’s 2025–26 dairy outlook notes that U.S. butter prices have often been discounted compared to EU and New Zealand butter, which draws buyers but keeps domestic butter prices on a shorter leash. CoBank’s dairy export commentary adds that U.S. cheese has likewise tended to trade below comparable EU and Oceania cheeses to capture and hold certain markets. 

Corey Geiger, lead dairy economist for CoBank, explained that when European cheddar prices eased toward the equivalent of about $1.50 per pound in 2025, U.S. exporters often needed cheddar closer to $1.30 per pound to stay competitive in some export tenders. It’s not a fixed rule for every sale, but it captures the general spread.

So the export paradox looks like this: U.S. cheese and butterfat are setting volume records and keeping plants busy, but much of that demand is being bought at discount pricing, not at rich premiums. Great for clearing product and avoiding butter or powder mountains. Less great if you’re counting on exports alone to pull Class III into the high teens. 

ProductYoY Volume IncreasePrice vs. EU BaselinePrice vs. NZ Baseline
Cheese+28%87% (€1.30 vs €1.50)90% (€1.30 vs €1.44)
Butter+190%85% ($1.42 vs $1.67)88% ($1.42 vs $1.61)
AMF+198%83% ($1.38 vs $1.66)86% ($1.38 vs $1.61)
Powder+12%91% ($0.88 vs $0.97)92% ($0.88 vs $0.96)

Butterfat Performance, Protein, and What’s Really Changing in the Tank

Now let’s step out of the export office and back into the milkhouse.

Looking at this trend over time, the component story on U.S. farms has been remarkable. Analysts’ pooled data show that from 2010 to 2024, total U.S. milk production in pounds grew by about 15.9%, while total butterfat pounds climbed by about 30.6%. Average butterfat tests moved from roughly 3.80% into the low‑4% range during that period.

By early 2025, butterfat production was running 3–4% higher year‑over‑year, even though total milk volume was up less than 1%. That’s a huge butterfat performance story.

CoBank’s report “While U.S. Leads Milk Component Growth, Butterfat May Be Growing Too Fast” adds a global lens. It notes that over about a decade, U.S. butterfat levels increased roughly 13%, while comparable gains in the EU and New Zealand were closer to 2–3%. Over the same period, U.S. protein rose from just over 3.1% to about 3.29%, roughly a 6% bump. 

The U.S. is growing components faster than many of our global competitors, and those components are increasingly what matter in dairy markets. That’s a genuine advantage for cheese, butter, and protein ingredients. 

Here’s where it gets more complicated. CoBank points out that butterfat has led the milk check in eight of the last 10 years, creating what they call a “tremendous butterfat boom.” Genetics, nutrition, and even fresh cow managementhave been tuned to push fat as far as possible because, most years, it paid. 

Now, CoBank and others are asking whether we might have overshot in some systems. Their report warns that if butterfat and protein keep growing at current rates, processors will face rising costs to either back extra fat out or add protein to meet cheese and ingredient specs, which “ultimately reduces competitiveness on the export front.” Geiger noted that in some markets “we’ve just got a little bit too much extra supply of butterfat,” which has helped pull butter prices down, even though consumption is still solid. 

If you’re still breeding and feeding like butterfat is the only game in town, your plant’s pay grid and the export reality might be telling you a different story. 

Our own genetics features and CoBank’s component work both highlight herds that are now selecting more for pounds of fat and protein, total solids, and better protein‑to‑fat ratios, especially where plants pay on cheese yield and casein‑related traits. In those systems, the winning milk isn’t just high‑fat; it’s balanced for yield and specs. 

Academic work backs that up. An economic study from Brazil on milk pricing found that under component‑based payment systems, protein often carries greater marginal economic weight than fat because of its role in cheese yield and solids content. A 2024 review in Foods (MDPI) on “Emerging Parameters Justifying a Revised Quality Concept for Cow Milk” argues that modern milk quality needs to account much more for functional properties—especially protein fractions—than in the past. 

On the ground, what many herds are finding is that in cheese markets, shifting from something like 4.1% fat and just over 3.0% protein toward a more balanced 3.8–3.9% fat and 3.2%+ protein can produce better checks when plants truly pay on solids and yield. In those systems, you often see meaningful gains in revenue per hundredweight, because protein is better rewarded and excess fat isn’t discounted as heavily. 

Getting there usually means:

  • Working with your nutritionist on amino acid balance, not just crude protein.
  • Investing in forage quality and consistency, so cows can express both butterfat and protein potential.
  • Tightening fresh cow management and the transition period, so cows hit high intakes fast without metabolic wrecks.

On the genetics side, more herds are using genomic tools to line up sire selection with processor needs—whether that’s cheese yield, powder specs, or value‑added fluid. In Upper Midwest and Northeast cheese sheds, some producers are building custom indexes that place greater weight on protein pounds and cheese yield traits, rather than on total milk or butterfat percent. 

If you’re in a quota system like Canada, the pricing grid and quota rules are a bit different, but the core idea still holds: aligning your component profile—both fat and protein—with what your board and processors value is one of the cleanest ways to grow revenue without adding cows.

Herd ProfileButterfat %Protein %Milk Check $/cwtAnnual Revenue (75,000 cwt)Competitive Edge
Current: Butterfat-Maximized4.10%3.00%$16.50$1,237,500Commodity baseline; excess fat discounted by plants
Optimized: Balanced for Cheese Yield3.85%3.25%$17.20$1,290,000✅ +$52,500/year

How to Get There (No Capital, No Extra Cows):

ActionOwnerTimelineImpact
Optimize fresh cow transition (energy, amino acids)Nutritionist + Herd ManagerOngoing, 60 daysPeak milk intake faster; protein support
Improve forage quality (digestibility, consistency)NutritionistNext forage chopSupports protein expression, balances fat
Shift sire selection to cheese-yield genomicsGenetics team + ManagerBreedings starting nowNext 18 months; gradual shift in offspring profile
Work with processor on pay grid alignmentCo-op/BuyerQ1 2026Confirm premiums for balanced profile; lock terms

Global Supply: No Built‑In Shortage Riding to the Rescue

Now let’s zoom out to the world map.

USDA’s 2025–26 Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook and coverage on The Dairy Site indicate that U.S. milk output is projected at about 230.0 billion pounds for 2025 and 231.3 billion pounds in 2026, up slightly as milk per cow continues to creep higher. That extra milk is part of why the agency trimmed its Class III and IV expectations heading into late 2025. 

Global summaries suggest a similar pattern among major exporters:

  • EU milk production is generally steady to modestly higher, constrained by environmental policies but supported by improved margins in some regions. 
  • New Zealand and Australia have seen output rebound amid better weather and more favorable cost structures.
  • South America—especially Argentina and Brazil—has pockets of growth tied to currency and feed dynamics.

There are always local headaches, but nothing that looks like a synchronized global production crash. From a price standpoint, that means there isn’t an obvious global shortage brewing to “save” the market for us. Any stronger price story in 2026 is more likely to come from demand growth and product mix than from the world suddenly running short of milk.

Processing Capacity: New Stainless, New Rules of the Game

Looking at this trend on the processing side, it’s clear that a lot of serious money still believes in the long‑term North American dairy story.

CoBank estimates that roughly $10 billion in new or expanded dairy processing capacity is slated to come online through about 2027, with a heavy emphasis on cheese, butter, whey, and other protein ingredients. In a late‑2024 interview, Geiger said more than $8 billion of that investment is expected to be operating by 2026, with over half targeted at cheese and whey. 

You can see that on the ground:

  • In Wisconsin and Minnesota, new and expanded cheddar and mozzarella plants are chasing domestic pizza demand and export markets. 
  • In the Texas Panhandle and High Plains, big complexes built around freestalls and dry lot systems in Texas, Kansas, and eastern New Mexico are designed to run high‑component milk into large cheese and ingredient plants.
  • In the Northeast, investments like the Fairlife ultra‑filtered milk plant in Webster, New York, and expansions in yogurt and value‑added fluid plants that need consistent, high‑component milk.
  • In Idaho and California, continued investments in cheese and powder position those states as key suppliers to both domestic and export buyers. 

CoBank notes that we don’t yet have enough cows to max out all this new stainless, and that’s intentional—plants are being built for where the industry is going, not where it was five years ago. Their analysis also emphasizes that the next efficiency gains won’t just be about scale, but about getting the protein‑to‑fat ratio right for the products being made. 

Locally, that creates split realities:

  • If you ship into a newer or aggressively expanding plant that pays on components or cheese yield, you may see stronger over‑order premiums, solids incentives, and long‑term supply agreements. Farm Credit East reports that in parts of the Northeast, over‑order premiums of $0.75 to $1.50 per cwt have been common where plants are pulling hard for high‑component milk.
  • If you ship to a plant with limited capacity growth or a narrower product mix, you may feel more of the overall supply pressure and less of that premium pull.

From a distance, this wave of investment is a huge vote of confidence in the future of North American milk. At the farm gate, it also means that if demand doesn’t keep pace, processors will push utilization and volume, which can lean on commodity prices even while local premiums improve for the “right” kind of milk.

Looking ahead a bit beyond 2026, it’s also worth keeping an eye on FMMO modernization debates and evolving component pay structures, because those policy and pricing shifts will sit atop the same stainless and component dynamics we’re discussing today. 

Credit Tightening: Planning in an 8% Money World

Now bring the lender back into the kitchen conversation.

Ag credit reports from the Chicago Federal Reserve show that by late 2023 and into 2024, average farm operating loan rates in that district had climbed to about 8.5% at their peak and then eased slightly to just over 8%, while farm real estate loan rates sat roughly in the mid‑7% range. Purdue ag finance updates and related summaries note that these are the highest farm borrowing costs since the mid‑2000s.

CoBank’s financial statements shows higher provisions for credit losses in 2025 compared to the very low levels of 2021–2022, which is another way of saying lenders are paying much closer attention to risk again. Nobody is slamming the door on dairy, but the days of cheap money and easy approvals are over for now.

On many dairies—from 60‑cow parlors in New England to 2,000‑cow freestalls in Idaho—the lender conversation now revolves around three questions:

  • What if milk averages mid‑$16s instead of high‑$18s for the next 12–18 months? 
  • Does this capital project still pencil at 7–8% interest and realistic feed and labor costs?
  • What’s the plan if 2026 turns out “just okay” instead of strong?

For a 300‑cow operation carrying $4–5 million in total debt, moving from roughly 4% to 7–8% interest can add tens of thousands of dollars in interest expense each year, depending on amortization and structure. That’s money that used to be available for principal, repairs, or family living.

I’ve heard more than one banker say their informal stress test now is: “Would you still be comfortable at $16 milk for 18 months?” It’s not a forecast; it’s a guardrail. In a year where USDA and the futures board don’t agree, and exports are strong but price‑sensitive, that kind of discipline matters.

If milk spends half the year at your budget price, do you have anything in place to prevent it from crushing cash flow? 

Planning in a $17‑ish World: Five Strategies That Are Working

So with all those moving pieces—USDA vs. futures, record exports at discount prices, big component shifts, new stainless, and 8% money—the practical question is: what do you actually do when you sit down with your 2026 plan?

Here are five strategies that are working on real farms right now.

1. Let the Class III curve anchor your budget

One approach that’s gaining traction is straightforward: build your base budget off the Class III futures strip, and treat USDA’s all‑milk forecast as upside.

If the average of the next 6–12 Class III contracts is sitting in the mid‑$16s, you can:

  • Use that futures‑based number as your core milk price in the plan, then apply your historical mailbox basis and component performance. 
  • Build a second scenario using something closer to USDA’s high‑$18 to low‑$20 all‑milk range and ask, “If we actually see that, what would we change about capital and risk decisions?” 

In a 150‑cow family tie‑stall in Ontario or Vermont, that upside scenario might be where a parlor retrofit or bunk upgrade moves ahead. In a 1,200‑cow freestall in Wisconsin or New York, it might be where the next phase of stall renovation or manure handling upgrades makes sense.

Either way, the survival plan—the one your lender sees first—is built around the futures‑anchored price, not the rosiest forecast on the page.

2. Take advantage of a friendlier feed market—without getting greedy

The good news is that feed isn’t the villain it was a couple of years ago.

Corn has generally traded in the high‑$3 to low‑$4 per bushel range, and soybean meal in the high‑$200s to low‑$300s per ton, a long way from the spikes of 2022. USDA’s Dairy Margin Coverage calculations show that by late 2025, the feed‑cost portion of the DMC margin had improved to its best levels since about 2020 as grain and protein prices eased. 

That gives you a window to lock in some feed at workable prices.

A middle‑ground approach many herds are using looks like this:

  • Lock in 60–75% of core purchased feed—corn, soybean meal, key by‑products—for the next 6–9 months.
  • Keep 25–40% open to allow for ration tweaks, herd-size adjustments, or price improvements.
  • Avoid locking 100% for a full year unless your operation is very stable, and you’re comfortable with that risk.

For smaller and mid‑size herds, DMC remains a valuable safety net. USDA and extension analyses show that higher coverage levels on the first 5 million pounds have paid out in multiple low‑margin years since the 2019 redesign. For larger herds, Livestock Gross Margin for Dairy (LGM‑Dairy) offers a subsidized way to insure a futures‑based milk‑over‑feed margin.

Research from universities like Wisconsin and Kansas State shows that herds using a rules‑based margin strategy—consistent use of DMC, LGM‑Dairy, futures, and options around target margins—tend to see less income volatility than herds that act only when markets get scary. You’re not trying to pick the exact bottom; you’re trying to avoid being naked when both milk and feed move against you.

3. Make every capital project pass a $17 milk test

In an 8% money world, every barn, parlor, and piece of iron has to earn its keep.

A simple rule that works well is: if a project can’t pay for itself at about $17 milk and today’s interest rates within 5–7 years, it probably belongs on the “later” list.

Project TypeCapital CostCash Flow @ $16/cwtCash Flow @ $18/cwtPayback @ $17 (yrs)Recommendation
Parlor upgrade (60 cows/hr to 90)$280,000$22,400$38,5005.2PROCEED—labor payoff in peak season; health spillover
New VMS (50-cow system)$450,000-$8,200$12,600>10DEFER—milking labor gains don’t offset cost at $16 milk
Freestall renovation + new bedding$165,000$18,900$28,4004.6PROCEED—cow comfort drives milk/reproduction ROI
Manure handling (solid separator + storage)$220,000$14,200$22,1005.8PROCEED—compliance + nutrient value; essential
New feed mill automation$95,000$11,500$16,8003.1PROCEED NOW—fastest payback; ration consistency ROI
Robotic feed pusher (2 units)$180,000$3,400$8,2008.1DEFER—marginal labor benefit; wait for $18+ milk

For 100–250‑cow family herds, that tends to move projects that protect daily performance and cow health to the front:

  • Milking system reliability and throughput
  • Manure handling that keeps you compliant and efficient
  • Ventilation, bedding, and stall comfort
  • Functional fresh cow and transition facilities

“Nice‑to‑have” projects that don’t clearly move milk, health, or labor safety can wait.

For 500–1,500‑cow freestall or dry lot systems, the numbers are bigger, but the logic is the same:

  • Use mid‑$16–$17 milk in your cash‑flow, not $19 or $20.
  • Plug in realistic feed, labor, and 7–8% interest from your lender.
  • Sit with your lender and run a $16 milk stress test for 12–18 months before you sign.

Lenders are more eager to support capital when they see conservative assumptions and honest downside modeling, not just best‑case spreadsheets.

Letting Components – and Fresh Cows – Carry More of the Load

Components are a lever you can pull without adding cows or concrete.

Butterfat pounds have grown about 30.6% since 2010, compared with 15.9% growth in total milk, and that butterfat output was running 3–4% higher year‑over‑year in early 2025 while milk barely budged. We also know from CoBank that butterfat has accounted for most milk checks over the last decade, driving a butterfat boom, and that protein has risen about 6% in the same period. 

At the same time, CoBank, Geiger, and academic work on milk quality argue that processors—especially cheese plants—need a more balanced protein‑to‑fat ratio to optimize yields and manage standardization cost. So the farms that do best are often those that produce strong but not extreme butterfat with rising protein, not just the highest fat test in the county.

On the cow side, that typically means:

  • Investing in fresh cow management and the transition period so cows hit peak intake without a wreck.
  • Tuning amino acid balance instead of endlessly raising crude protein.
  • Focusing on forage quality and consistency so you’re not fighting the ration every week.

On the genetics side, CoBank’s report and Bullvine’s own component‑ratio work highlight herds using genomic tools and custom indexes that weight butterfat, protein, total solids, and cheese-yield traits, especially where plants pay on solids and yield. 

If you’re under Canadian supply management, the pricing grid and quota rules are a bit different, but the same principle applies: match your component profile to what your board and processors value most.

Using Risk Tools That Fit Your Scale

Month2023 High2023 Low2023 Close2024 High2024 Low2024 Close2025 YTD High2025 YTD Low2025 YTD Close
Jan$18.20$16.80$17.10$17.50$15.80$16.40$16.80$15.20$15.65
Feb$18.60$17.20$17.50$17.80$16.10$16.70
Mar$18.90$17.60$18.20$18.10$16.40$17.10

Most producers don’t want to live on a futures screen, and they don’t need to. But in a year when USDA and the board are a couple of bucks apart, and interest is high, having no risk plan is a risk in itself.

A practical, scale‑friendly approach looks like this:

  • Once a month, glance at Class III and IV futures and ask whether things are better, worse, or about the same as when you built your plan. 
  • Talk with your co‑op or buyer about forward‑pricing pools or risk programs where they handle the hedging, and you commit a portion of your milk. 
  • If you’re in the 1,000‑cow‑plus range, consider working with a risk adviser who uses rules and target margins, not just hunches.

University extension work on dairy risk management consistently shows that herds using structured, rules‑based programs with DMC, LGM‑Dairy, futures, and options have smoother income over time than herds reacting sporadically when markets look scary.

The key is to pick tools that fit your scale, comfort level, and co‑op structure, not to copy whichever strategy your neighbor talks about the loudest.

Different Farms, Different Realities

As you know, the same Class III price can feel very different two roads over.

For 100–250‑cow family herds in regions like New England, Maine, Wisconsin, New York, and Pennsylvania, the biggest pain points are usually cash flow, debt service, and family labor. Conservative price assumptions, sensible feed coverage, and smart use of DMC (or quota‑aligned tools in Canada) often do more good than chasing every 20‑cent move. On‑farm processing or direct marketing can be powerful for some, but only where there’s real local demand and labor capacity.

For 250–800‑cow operations across the Upper Midwest, Northeast, and parts of the West, working capital, component income, and labor efficiency tend to move the needle fastest. Lenders in these regions often say they’re most comfortable when they see:

  • Budgets run at $16–$17 milk
  • At least some margin protection in place
  • A capital program paced for 7–8% money, not cheap‑money days

For 1,000‑cow‑plus herds—multi‑site freestalls, big dry lot systems in the West and Southwest—processors care a lot about consistency, quality, and risk profile. Multi‑year supply deals, basis arrangements, and structured hedge programs can smooth income if they’re built around realistic margins and checked regularly.

Across all sizes, the farms that tend to come out of tight cycles with options left are usually the ones that:

  • Know their true cost of production
  • Are honest with themselves and their lenders about leverage
  • Make small, early adjustments when margins pinch instead of waiting for a crisis

The Short Version

If we were at a winter meeting in Listowel or Tulare and you slid your coffee across the table and said, “Alright, just give me the quick list,” here’s how I’d boil it down:

  • Plan off the futures strip, not the prettiest forecast. Use the 6–12‑month Class III average—roughly the mid‑$16s right now—as your base and treat USDA’s higher all‑milk projections as upside, not your starting point. 
  • Lock in some feed while it’s reasonable. With corn and soybean meal back in more manageable ranges and DMC margins much better than in 2022, it makes sense to protect part of your feed so a spike doesn’t wreck your year. 
  • Make capital prove it works at $17 milk and 8% interest. Any barn, parlor, or equipment upgrade that doesn’t pencil at about $17 milk and current rates within 5–7 years needs a tough second look before you sign.
  • Let components and fresh cow management do more of the lifting. Butterfat performance is strong, and protein’s value is rising in many pay systems. Align your ration, fresh cow management, and genetics with the component blend your plant or board actually pays for. 
  • Have the hard conversations early. Sit down now—with your lender, co‑op, nutritionist, and family—while there’s still time to tweak the plan instead of scrambling later.

The Bottom Line

The encouraging part of all this is that the long‑term demand story for North American dairy remains strong. USDEC numbers and Bullvine coverage show record or near‑record cheese and butterfat exports, and through three quarters of 2025, U.S. butterfat exports were up triple digits in volume, with butter export value surpassing prior full‑year records. CoBank’s $10‑billion stainless estimate—and the plants you can actually drive past—show processors still betting big on future milk. 

You don’t have to operate like milk will stay at $16 forever—but you can’t afford to build a 2026 plan that only works at $20, either.

Before March, sit down with: (1) your lender, with a $16–17 milk stress‑tested budget; (2) your nutritionist, with explicit butterfat and protein targets; and (3) your co‑op or buyer, with a specific risk‑tool and contract conversation. If the last couple of decades have taught anything, it’s that the better stretch does come back around. The herds still standing when it does are the ones that took years like 2026 seriously, planned conservatively, and kept just enough powder dry to move when the wind finally shifted in their favor. 

Key Takeaways

  • Mind the $150K gap: USDA forecasts 2026 all‑milk near $18.25/cwt; Class III futures sit in the mid‑$16s. For a 300‑cow herd, budgeting off the wrong number is a $150,000+ mistake. ​
  • Record exports, discount prices: U.S. cheese exports jumped 28% and butterfat nearly tripled in August 2025—but we’re winning volume by pricing below the EU and New Zealand, not by earning premiums. ​
  • Protein is catching up to fat: Butterfat led the check 8 of 10 years, but cheese plants now want balanced protein‑to‑fat ratios. Herds shifting to 3.8–3.9% fat with 3.2%+ protein are seeing better component checks. ​
  • $17 milk is the new capital test: At 7–8% interest and lenders stress‑testing at $16 milk, any project that doesn’t pay back at ~$17 milk within 5–7 years belongs on the “later” list.
  • Act before March: Budget off futures (not USDA), lock 60–75% of feed for 6–9 months, stress‑test every capital decision, align components with your plant’s pay grid, and put risk tools in place that match your scale. ​

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

Profitable but Drowning: The Interest Rate Crisis Reshaping Mid-Size Dairy

The cows haven’t changed. The math has. Why good dairies are suddenly fighting to survive.

Executive Summary: Well-managed mid-size dairies are facing a reckoning that has nothing to do with their cows. As loans from the low-rate era (2015-2021) reset to current markets—the Chicago Fed shows operating rates now at 7.73%, nearly double what many locked in—debt service is jumping 25-30% overnight. For a 400-cow dairy with typical leverage, that translates to $120,000 in added annual costs before a single operational change. Here’s what catches producers off guard: even farms current on every payment can trigger technical default when covenant ratios slip due to rate-driven debt increases, not management problems. More than 1,400 U.S. dairies closed in 2024, per USDA—Wisconsin alone lost 400. The path forward requires calculating your true breakeven at new rates, engaging lenders proactively with specific proposals, and recognizing that planned transitions preserve far more family wealth than forced exits ever do.

I’ve been having a lot of conversations lately that start the same way. A producer messages me after seeing their repricing notice, and the story sounds remarkably similar each time.

Take Dave, a Wisconsin dairyman I spoke with. When he ran his numbers after getting the repricing letter on his real estate loan, he discovered his breakeven had jumped from $17.50 to $19.20 per hundredweight. Nothing about his 380-cow operation had changed. The cows were still averaging 78 pounds. His nutrition program was dialed in. His fresh cow protocols were solid, and his transition period management hadn’t slipped. But the math had fundamentally shifted.

“I’ve been through bad milk prices before,” Dave told me. “I know how to tighten things up when we’re looking at $14 milk. But this feels different. My costs went up $110,000 from a single letter, and there’s nothing I can do with the cows to fix it.”

What struck me about that conversation—and the dozens like it I’ve had since—is how it captures something important about this moment. The challenge facing many mid-size operations isn’t about milk prices, feed costs, or management. It’s about debt structures that made perfect sense in one interest rate environment but don’t pencil out in another.

Understanding how this works can help you think through your own situation more clearly, whether you’re facing repricing directly or trying to plan around it.

How Dairy Loan Repricing Works

Here’s the backstory. During that stretch from roughly 2015 to 2021, agricultural lenders originated an enormous volume of dairy farm debt at rates between 3% and 4.5%. These loans financed the expansions, land purchases, parlor upgrades, and equipment investments that allowed mid-size operations to modernize and grow. It was, by most measures, a reasonable time to borrow.

Most of these loans were structured with 5-to-7-year terms before repricing—standard practice for agricultural real estate and equipment financing. What that means, practically speaking, is that a significant wave of debt is now resetting to current market rates. Federal Reserve Bank surveys throughout 2025 have documented this transition, with the Minneapolis Fed noting weakening credit conditions and declining farm incomes across the Ninth District.

The rate environment has changed substantially. The Chicago Fed’s agricultural credit survey from early 2025 shows operating loans averaging 7.73% and real estate loans at 7.09%. That’s roughly double what many producers locked in five or six years ago.

To put some numbers to this, consider a fairly typical 400-cow dairy carrying $4.5 million in total debt—the kind of balance sheet you’d see on a farm that expanded or did major capital improvements during that low-rate window:

The Repricing Impact: A Side-by-Side Comparison

Debt CategoryOriginal Rates (2020-2021)Repriced Rates (2025)Annual Increase
Real Estate Debt (15-year)3.5% → $232,000/yr7.5% → $300,000/yr+$68,000
Equipment Debt (7-year)4.0% → $197,000/yr7.0% → $217,000/yr+$20,000
Operating Line3.0% → $18,000/yr8.0% → $48,000/yr+$30,000
TOTAL ANNUAL DEBT SERVICE$446,000$566,000+$120,000 (+27%)

Based on a representative 400-cow dairy with $4.5 million total debt. Actual figures vary by operation.

That $120,000 difference translates to roughly $1.30 per hundredweight across a year’s production. For operations already running on tight margins, that kind of shift can consume the entire profit cushion that existed under the previous rate structure.

Dr. Mark Stephenson, the former Director of Dairy Policy Analysis at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, frames it this way: “What we’re seeing is farms that were profitable, well-managed, and operationally sound suddenly finding themselves underwater. It’s not a management problem. It’s a capital structure problem that originated in decisions made by both borrowers and lenders five to seven years ago.”

That framing matters. This isn’t about who’s a good farmer. It’s about financial structures adapting to changing conditions.

Which Dairy Farms Face the Greatest Repricing Risk

Operations under the greatest pressure tend to share certain characteristics. They’re typically in the 200 to 600 cow range—large enough to carry significant debt, but not quite large enough to achieve the per-unit cost advantages that help buffer larger operations against margin compression. They’re generally carrying debt-to-asset ratios between 65% and 70%, which means they’re leveraged enough that repricing creates covenant pressure, but weren’t in distress before rates moved. And most originated their loans between 2017 and 2021, during that window of historically low rates.

Geographically, the pressure seems most concentrated in traditional dairy regions. I’m hearing the most concern in Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Pennsylvania, and parts of California and Idaho. The dynamics play out somewhat differently in Western dry-lot operations, where scale economics and distinct cost structures create distinct patterns. And in Canadian quota provinces, the supply management system provides some insulation, though producers there face their own version of capital intensity challenges.

The broader context here is important. The 2022 Census of Agriculture documented that approximately 65% of the nation’s dairy herd now lives on operations with 1,000 or more cows—up from just 17% back in 1997. That trajectory has been building for decades, but the current rate environment appears to be accelerating it.

USDA’s February 2025 milk production report showed that more than 1,400 U.S. dairy operations closed in 2024—about 5% of the national total. Wisconsin lost approximately 400 dairy farms that year, more than any other state, followed by Minnesota with 165 closures. Those aren’t just statistics. Each one represents a family working through some very difficult decisions.

The stress extends beyond dairy. The American Farm Bureau Federation reported that Chapter 12 farm bankruptcies—the filing type designed specifically for family operations—were up 56% through June 2025 compared to the same period in 2024. For all of 2024, there were 216 Chapter 12 filings nationally, up 55% from 2023. The Kansas City Fed noted in their mid-2025 agricultural finance report that farm loan delinquency rates have increased for the second consecutive year, though they remain low by historical standards.

These indicators don’t necessarily predict a crisis, but they do suggest the farm economy is under meaningful pressure that warrants attention.

The Loan Covenant Trap Many Producers Miss

This is an area where I think many producers could benefit from a clearer understanding, because it often becomes relevant before anyone expects it.

Most agricultural loans include financial covenants—requirements that borrowers maintain certain ratios to remain in good standing. The common ones include:

  • Debt Service Coverage Ratio: Typically 1.25x minimum, meaning net farm income needs to exceed debt payments by at least 25%
  • Current Ratio: Often 1.5x minimum, measuring working capital adequacy
  • Debt-to-Asset Ratio: Usually capped at around 60%

Here’s what’s worth understanding: when interest rates rise and debt service increases, these ratios can deteriorate even when operational performance remains strong. A dairy that comfortably met a 1.45x debt service coverage ratio at old rates might find itself at 1.14x after repricing—technically in covenant breach, even though production, costs, and management quality haven’t changed.

The wrinkle that surprises many producers is that once a covenant is breached, the loan is technically in default regardless of whether payments are current. This can trigger a sequence of lender responses.

I’ve spoken with agricultural lending professionals at several Farm Credit associations across the Midwest about how this plays out. As one loan officer with more than two decades of experience described it: “The farm could be making every payment on time, the cows could be performing beautifully, and they’re still in technical default. Those are hard conversations to have with producers who are doing everything right operationally.”

The typical progression involves enhanced reporting requirements first—monthly financials instead of quarterly. Then restrictions on capital expenditures and owner draws. If covenant compliance doesn’t improve, there may be requests for equity contributions or principal reduction. In more serious cases, loan acceleration becomes possible.

None of this is inevitable, and many lenders work constructively with borrowers to find solutions. But understanding the framework helps in planning how to approach these conversations.

Strategic Options and What They Can Realistically Achieve

I want to be straightforward here. There’s no simple fix for a structural repricing challenge. But some approaches can help, and understanding both their potential and their limitations is valuable.

Comparing Your Options

StrategyPotential Annual SavingsKey Limitation
Amortization Extension (15→25 yr)$80,000–$100,000Doesn’t reduce principal; extends total interest paid
Strategic Herd Reduction (15-25%)$60,000–$80,000Revenue declines proportionally with a smaller herd
Operational Efficiency Gains$55,000–$74,000Rarely sufficient alone for $120K repricing gap
FSA Refinancing (4.625%–5.75%)Varies by exposure$600K ownership / $400K operating caps
Private Ag LendersCovenant flexibilityRates are often comparable or higher than repricing levels

Savings estimates based on a representative 400-cow operation. Individual results vary significantly.

Engaging Your Lender Early

This consistently emerges as the most effective intervention. Producers who engage their lenders before repricing notices arrive—rather than after covenant issues develop—generally report more constructive conversations and better outcomes.

The difference between proactive and reactive discussions is substantial. When a producer approaches their lender with a thought-out plan before being flagged in the system, there’s typically more flexibility to work with. Once an account is classified as a problem asset, institutional constraints tend to narrow the options. That’s not a criticism of lenders—it’s just how credit administration typically works.

Approaches that seem to help include extending amortization from 15 years to 20-25 years (which can reduce annual payments by $80,000 to $100,000), requesting covenant modifications that reflect rate-driven rather than operational changes, and presenting cash flow projections based on realistic milk prices in that $18 to $19 per hundredweight range rather than more optimistic scenarios.

One thing I’d suggest: come to that meeting with a specific proposal rather than a list of possibilities. Demonstrate that you’ve carefully worked through the numbers. And focus on the financial analysis rather than the emotional weight of the situation—lenders work from models, and you’ll communicate more effectively if you engage on those terms.

Considering Herd Adjustments

Some operations are finding that a deliberate reduction in herd size—typically 15% to 25%—can restore financial stability when combined with proportional debt reduction.

The arithmetic: selling 80 cows from a 400-cow operation might generate $600,000 to $800,000 in proceeds, depending on cow values and quota where applicable. Applied directly to debt reduction, this can decrease annual debt service by $60,000 to $80,000—a meaningful offset against repricing impact.

The trade-off is real, though. Revenue declines with a smaller herd. This approach works better as a bridge to stability than as a permanent solution. A 320-cow operation carrying $3.8 million in debt at current rates still faces challenging economics. You’re creating breathing room, not resolving the underlying situation.

Operational Improvements

Focused attention on cost reduction absolutely has value, but it’s important to be realistic about what’s achievable:

  • Nutrition optimization: Working with a skilled nutritionist to refine rations typically yields savings of $0.30 to $0.50 per cwt. On a 92,000 cwt annual production, that’s $27,600 to $46,000—meaningful, but not transformative against a $120,000 repricing impact.
  • Labor efficiency: Workflow improvements without major capital investment might capture $0.15 to $0.25 per cwt.
  • Component and quality premiums: Optimizing butterfat and protein capture can add $0.20 to $0.30 per cwt if there’s room for improvement. Many operations have already pushed hard on this.

Combined realistic potential runs $0.60 to $0.80 per cwt—roughly $55,000 to $74,000 annually. That’s valuable and worth pursuing regardless of the rate environment. But it’s typically not sufficient on its own to offset a $1.30 per cwt repricing impact.

Alternative Financing Sources

Some producers are exploring options beyond traditional bank and Farm Credit financing:

USDA Farm Service Agency loans currently offer competitive rates—4.625% for direct operating loans and 5.750% for direct farm ownership loans as of December 2025. The constraint is dollar limits: FSA caps direct farm ownership loans at $600,000 and direct operating loans at $400,000. For a farm needing to refinance $2.7 million in real estate debt, these programs can help with a portion, but won’t address the full exposure.

Private agricultural lenders like AgAmerica and Rabo AgriFinance may offer more flexibility on covenant structures. Rates tend to be comparable to or somewhat higher than traditional sources, so this is more about terms than cost savings.

Realistic combined capital access from these alternative sources typically runs $300,000 to $600,000—helpful for bridging gaps, but generally not sufficient to resolve a seven-figure repricing exposure.

A Framework for Making These Decisions

What I’ve found most valuable in conversations with producers facing these decisions is an honest, numbers-first assessment. The emotional weight of these situations is real—often we’re talking about multi-generational operations and family identity. But the financial analysis needs to proceed on its own terms.

This is where working with good advisors makes a difference. Farm transition specialists, agricultural attorneys, and CPAs who understand dairy operations can help families see the full picture and evaluate options they might not have considered.

Some questions worth working through carefully:

  • What’s your true breakeven at new rates? This means debt service, operating costs, family living, and a realistic allowance for capital replacement. Calculate it precisely rather than estimating.
  • How does that breakeven compare to realistic price expectations? If you’re pushing above $19 per hundredweight, there’s very little margin for the unexpected.
  • Do you have access to meaningful outside capital? This could be family resources, off-farm assets, or other sources—but it needs to be real and accessible, not theoretical.
  • What signals is your lender sending? There’s often a gap between what we hope they mean and what they actually communicate. Try to hear the latter clearly.
  • What does the next generation want? If successors aren’t committed to the operation, the calculus changes significantly.

For operations where the breakeven is pushing toward $20 per cwt, debt-to-asset exceeds 70%, and there’s no access to outside capital, the outlook is genuinely difficult regardless of how well the cows are managed. In those situations, a planned transition—executed while meaningful equity remains—typically preserves substantially more family wealth than a forced exit 18 to 24 months later. Farm transition specialists consistently find that strategic exits preserve considerably more equity than distressed sales—often amounting to several hundred thousand dollars for families with significant remaining assets.

That kind of decision isn’t giving up. It’s sound financial management applied to a difficult situation.

The Other Side of This Story

It’s worth acknowledging that this environment doesn’t affect everyone the same way. Producers who maintained conservative balance sheets through the low-rate years—those who resisted the temptation to expand aggressively or who paid down debt rather than refinancing—find themselves in a very different position today.

For well-capitalized operations with strong working capital and minimal leverage, the current environment may actually present opportunities. Land that wouldn’t have come to market is becoming available. Equipment can be acquired at more favorable prices. Some producers are finding strategic growth opportunities they couldn’t access two years ago.

That’s not meant to minimize what leveraged operations are facing. But it’s a reminder that market stress always creates a range of outcomes. Where you land depends heavily on decisions made years ago—and on the decisions you make now.

What This Means for the Industry

Beyond individual farm decisions, the repricing wave is accelerating structural changes that have been building for some time.

The consolidation trend toward larger operations will likely continue. We’ve already seen the share of cows on 1,000-plus operations climb from 17% in 1997 to 65% in 2022, according to the Census of Agriculture. The mid-size family dairy is becoming an increasingly uncommon business model, particularly in regions without quota systems or other structural supports.

From the processor perspective, the picture is mixed. One Midwest cooperative executive described it this way: consolidation creates certain efficiencies in milk collection and quality consistency. “But we’re also watching our supplier base shrink faster than anyone planned for. When you lose 400 farms in a region over a few years, that’s infrastructure—roads, services, veterinary capacity—that doesn’t rebuild easily.”

Industry organizations are responding. The National Milk Producers Federation has advocated for expanded FSA lending authority, and the PACE Act was reintroduced in Congress in March 2025. If enacted, it would increase the caps on direct farm ownership loans from $600,000 to $1.5 million and on direct operating loans from $400,000 to $800,000. Whether any of this moves quickly enough to help farms facing near-term repricing remains uncertain.

There’s a broader consideration worth noting. As mid-size operations exit, the industry loses independent decision-makers who have historically contributed resilience through diversity of approach. Dr. Marin Bozic, an agricultural economist who spent a decade studying dairy markets at the University of Minnesota, has described this as “trading resilience for efficiency.” That trade-off works well under normal conditions. It becomes a vulnerability when circumstances deviate from what the models anticipated.

Practical Next Steps

For producers facing repricing in the next 12 months:

  • Know your numbers precisely. Calculate your exact breakeven cost at new rates—not an estimate, an actual calculation. That number anchors everything else.
  • Engage your lender before they engage you. Come with a specific proposal and realistic projections. The conversation is different when you initiate it.
  • Build your advisory team now. Connect with a farm transition specialist, an agricultural CPA, and potentially an ag attorney, even if you’re planning to continue. Understanding your options strengthens your position.

For those considering expansion or major capital investment:

  • Model everything at current rates. The 3% environment from 2019 isn’t returning in any relevant timeframe. Plan accordingly.
  • Stress-test at challenging milk prices. See how your projections hold at $17 to $18 per cwt, not just at more optimistic levels.
  • Understand that comfortable leverage at 4% becomes uncomfortable at 7-8%. The production side of your operation doesn’t change, but the financial dynamics shift considerably.

The Bottom Line

What’s unfolding now isn’t primarily about who’s skilled at producing milk. Many capable operations are exiting not because they can’t compete on the production floor, but because debt structures that worked in one rate environment don’t pencil out in another.

We’re going to see more good dairy families work through difficult transitions over the next couple of years. Not because they couldn’t manage cows or run tight operations, but because the financial landscape shifted in ways that were partly foreseeable and partly not.

But here’s something worth remembering: dairy has always adapted. The industry that emerges from this period will look different, yes. Some of the changes will feel like losses. But there will also be opportunities—for those who navigate successfully, for new models that emerge, for the next generation that finds ways to make the economics work.

The families who approach this period with clear financial thinking, good advice, and honest assessment of their situations will be best positioned—whether that means restructuring successfully, transitioning on their own terms, or finding paths forward that none of us have fully anticipated yet.

Understanding the dynamics at play is the first step. What you do with that understanding is up to you.

Key Takeaways

  • The cows haven’t changed—the math has: Loans repricing from 3.5% to 7.5% add ~$120,000 annually to a typical mid-size operation, or $1.30/cwt onto breakeven
  • You can be current and still default: Covenant breaches trigger technical default even when payments are on time—it’s the ratios, not missed payments, that trip the wire
  • Efficiency alone won’t close this gap: Operational improvements typically yield $0.60-$0.80/cwt; helpful, but not sufficient against a $1.30/cwt repricing hit
  • Talk to your lender before they talk to you: Proactive conversations with specific restructuring proposals consistently produce better outcomes than reactive ones
  • Planned exits beat forced ones: Strategic transitions preserve significantly more family equity than fighting until liquidation becomes the only option

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

China Promised 100%. Delivered 2.7%. Here’s Your 48-Hour Defense Plan.

They announced 12 million tons of soybeans. Shipped 332,000. That’s 2.7%—and the gap between those numbers is where farms go broke.

Back in October, the headlines announced that China had committed to purchasing 12 million tons of U.S. soybeans. By mid-November, USDA export data told a different story: just 332,000 tons had actually been shipped. For operations making real financial commitments based on trade optimism, that gap is everything.

It’s the elephant in the room at every co-op meeting, yet nobody wants to say it out loud: the headlines are lying to us. Not maliciously, maybe. But consistently.

This isn’t a one-off. When the Phase One trade agreement was signed back in January 2020, China committed to purchasing $80.1 billion in U.S. agricultural goods over two years. The Peterson Institute for International Economics tracked what actually happened: $61.4 billion in purchases. That’s about 77% of the agricultural target and just 58% overall.

Whether that’s a freestall expansion in Wisconsin or new milking equipment out in the Central Valley—these numbers matter enormously when you’re penciling out that loan.

The Promise-Delivery Gap: 2.7% to 77%. That’s the range of what trade has actually delivered in recent years. It’s a wide spread—and it’s the reality farm financial planning needs to account for.

The 2.7% Reality: China’s trade commitments consistently fall short, with the 2025 soybean deal delivering a catastrophic 2.7% while Phase One averaged 77%—a pattern that should change every dairy farmer’s expansion calculus.
Risk FactorPhase One (2020-2021)China Soybean (2025)What Farmers Assumed
Historical Delivery Rate64-87% delivery2.7% delivery100% delivery
Market DependencyMedium – diversified buyersHigh – China-specificLow – “”guaranteed deal””
Price Impact per Deal$0.15-0.25/cwt estimated$0.35/cwt confirmedPrice increases expected
Timeline to Farm Impact90-180 days30-90 daysImmediate benefit
Cooperative ProtectionAbsorbed losses initially€149M losses, mergersCo-op will handle it
Individual Farm DefenseLimited – most expandedDMC available if enrolledNo action needed

The Pattern Nobody Talks About

Trade announcements follow a consistent pattern. Farmers who’ve watched a few cycles are starting to read them differently than the headlines suggest.

The Phase One trajectory:

  • 2020: Deal signed with $200 billion in purchase commitments over two years
  • 2021-2022: China’s agricultural imports from all sources surged to record levels; U.S. exports to China hit approximately $41 billion
  • 2023-2024: Import volumes declined as Phase One commitments expired and China diversified its suppliers
  • 2025: New tariff escalations with announced deals delivering at single-digit percentages

Here’s what makes this tricky: those 2021-2022 numbers were real. China genuinely did purchase record agricultural volumes. Processors genuinely did see elevated component prices. You probably saw the improvement in your own milk check.

The data supporting expansion decisions wasn’t fabricated—it was completely accurate for that specific window.

The question most operations didn’t ask was whether those volumes represented a sustainable baseline or a cyclical peak. That’s a hard question to ask when the current numbers look great, and your lender’s nodding along with the business plan.

Why 2022 Was a Peak, Not a Floor

The gap between black promises and red reality: Phase One targets soared to $43.6B while actual imports peaked at $41B in 2022, then collapsed—proving strong recent years were cyclical highs, not sustainable baselines for your 20-year expansion loan.

Several indicators were available in real-time. Here’s what the data was showing:

African Swine Fever recovery was completing. China’s hog population lost roughly 40% of its sow inventory in 2018-2019, according to OECD analysis. The rebuilding phase drove massive feed imports through 2021. By early 2022, Iowa State University’s Ag Policy Review documented that herd recovery was largely complete. That import surge had an endpoint built in.

Phase One commitments expired December 31, 2021. The agreement was a two-year commitment with a hard stop date. After expiration, continued purchases became voluntary.

China’s dairy self-sufficiency targets were public. The Chinese government explicitly targeted 70% dairy self-sufficiency. By 2022, according to Hoogwegt analysis, they’d reached 66% and climbing. When you’re managing your fresh cow nutrition and component production here, remember—they’re building their own capacity over there.

Economic growth projections were declining. The Asian Development Bank projected that China’s GDP growth would slow from around 8% in 2021 to 5% by 2024-2025.

These indicators were available to anyone looking. The challenge is that recent strong performance tends to overwhelm forward-looking warning signals. That’s an understandable response to good data, not poor decision-making.

How This Hits Your Milk Check

Trade policy disruptions create cascading effects that move from Washington to your milk check faster than most realize.

The 2025 tariff escalation:

When retaliatory tariffs on U.S. dairy into China escalated from 10% to 125% between February and April, the impacts were immediate:

Whey markets contracted sharply. China had been taking about 42% of U.S. whey exports according to USDEC data. When that market closed, domestic supply backed up and prices compressed. If you’ve been watching whey premiums in your component pricing, you’ve felt this.

Lactose faced similar pressure. With China holding roughly 72% of the U.S. lactose export market share, the tariff wall forced processor restructuring.

USDA revised price forecasts downward. Class III projections dropped by about $0.35 per hundredweight.

In practical terms: For a typical 1,000-cow operation producing around 26,000 pounds per cow annually, that $0.35 reduction works out to roughly $91,000 in annual revenue. That affects replacement heifer decisions, equipment upgrades, everything.

University of Wisconsin-Madison dairy economists project that net farm income across the U.S. dairy industry could decline by $1.6 to $7.3 billion over the next four years due to tariff disruptions, with individual farms facing potential income reductions of 25% or more.

Real example: Half Full Dairy in upstate New York—a 3,600-cow operation run by AJ Wormuth—got hit from both sides. Steel and aluminum tariffs added $21,000 to a barn renovation order while milk revenues fell. As Wormuth told reporters in April, they’re facing “a double challenge” in which they can’t raise prices while expenses keep rising.

Whether you’re running a 200-cow grazing operation in Vermont or a 5,000-cow dry lot in New Mexico, that squeeze feels familiar.

What’s Really Happening with Cooperatives

Common assumption: cooperative membership provides meaningful insulation from trade volatility.

Reality: cooperatives face the same structural pressures as individual farms, just with less flexibility to respond.

Case study: FrieslandCampina-Milcobel merger

FrieslandCampina reported a €149 million loss in 2023. Milcobel posted an €11.6 million loss. These weren’t management failures—they reflected a structural challenge.

The cooperative bind: They must accept all member milk regardless of market conditions. That’s the deal. But when processing capacity gets built for peak-year volumes and deliveries decline, cooperatives face rising per-unit costs with limited ability to adjust.

Unlike private processors who can exit markets quickly, cooperatives are bound by charter obligations. The result: they absorb losses to maintain member pricing, eroding equity over time. When losses become unsustainable, mergers or sales become the path forward.

We saw this with Fonterra’s 88% member vote to sell consumer operations to Lactalis this past October.

Rabobank dairy analyst Emma Higgins put it directly: “For dairy cooperatives, the challenges are even more complex, as lower milk intake generally coincides with members withdrawing capital.”

The counterpoint: Some cooperatives have navigated better. Agropur achieved a significant turnaround by aggressively restructuring its debt and refocusing on high-margin segments such as cheese and specialty ingredients. The model isn’t doomed—but it requires proactive management.

Your cooperative’s financial health directly affects your returns. Ask questions at the next annual meeting.

What Smart Operations Are Doing

Several practical approaches keep coming up:

Applying historical execution rates. Rather than planning for 100% delivery, they’re discounting based on historical performance. If Phase One delivered 77%, that becomes the planning assumption.

Stress-testing against zero deal impact. Before expansion decisions, they’re modeling, assuming the deal contributes nothing. If viability depends entirely on the deal working, that’s a different conversation with your lender and family.

Maximizing DMC enrollment. Dairy Margin Coverage provides protection when margins compress—and it doesn’t depend on trade promises. It depends on actual market prices.

Maintaining working capital flexibility. Operations that kept debt-to-asset ratios conservative have more options when markets shift. It’s not pessimism—it’s room to maneuver.

Exploring market diversification. Direct sales, specialty products like organic or A2, and regional processor relationships. Not for everyone, but it’s optionality that didn’t exist a decade ago.

Your 48-Hour Playbook for Trade Announcements

When the next deal gets announced, work through these steps:

Step 1: Check the History (30 minutes)

The Peterson Institute maintains a tracker showing the promised versus actual purchases under Phase One. Before reacting to any announcement, look at historical delivery rates.

The calculation: New promise × historical execution rate = realistic delivery estimate.

Phase One ran at 58-77%. The 2025 China soybean promise delivered 2.7%. That range gives you boundaries for scenario planning.

Step 2: Model for Zero (1-2 hours)

Have your accountant run a 12-month cash flow assuming no additional revenue from the announced deal.

Questions to answer:

  • What’s my debt-service-coverage ratio? (Target: 1.25+ per Farm Credit guidelines)
  • Can I cover debt service if export demand doesn’t materialize?
  • How many months can working capital sustain at reduced prices?

Document what you find. This strengthens lender conversations later.

Step 3: Verify DMC Status (45 minutes)

Contact your local FSA office and confirm Dairy Margin Coverage enrollment. If open and you’re not enrolled, evaluate immediately.

The timing trap: Trade announcements create optimism. Farmers skip enrollment. Then deals underperform, prices fall, and the window is closed. The 2025 enrollment closed on March 31.

The protection is most valuable when purchased before you think you need it.

Principles That Hold Up

Announcements are risk factors, not guarantees. The gap between announcement and execution is where farm financial planning actually lives.

Peaks aren’t baselines. Strong recent performance may represent cyclical highs, not sustainable floors. Expansion decisions financed over 10-20 years should be stress-tested across multiple scenarios.

Understand your cooperative’s position. Their balance sheet health affects your returns. Request financial information.

Maintain optionality over optimization. Operations preserving flexibility have more choices when conditions shift. There’s value in leaving room, even if it means not maximizing every metric.

Document your process. Whether you expand or hold back, a record of analysis strengthens lender conversations and demonstrates sound management.

The Bottom Line

Trade promises that deliver between 2.7% and 77% of announced targets raise legitimate questions about how agricultural trade policy functions. Whether the gap reflects deliberate choices or institutional limitations is hard to say.

What’s clear: farmers absorb the consequences while having limited ability to influence outcomes.

This doesn’t mean trade agreements lack value. U.S. dairy exports remain significant—Mexico, Canada, and other markets provide important revenue. The question is how to make sound decisions when the market outlook depends on commitments with highly variable execution.

Until the product ships and checks clear, a trade announcement is a press release, not a market.

The framework we covered—checking history, stress-testing for zero, securing DMC—provides concrete steps within 48 hours of any announcement. None guarantees good outcomes, but it positions you for realistic scenarios rather than headline optimism.

The fact that dairy farmers need a defensive playbook for government trade promises tells us something about the system. Whether by design or neglect, the pattern is clear: promises at 100%, delivery between 2.7% and 77%, farmers navigating the gap.

Until that changes, treat every announcement as a risk to manage—not an opportunity to bet the farm on.

That may sound conservative. Given the track record, it’s the smart play.

Key Takeaways:

  • The promise-delivery gap: 2.7% to 77%. Never 100%. Budget accordingly.
  • The cost: $0.35/cwt price drop = $91,000 annual loss on a 1,000-cow dairy.
  • Cooperatives won’t save you: FrieslandCampina lost €149M. Fonterra members voted 88% to sell.
  • Your 48-hour playbook: Check historical rates. Model for zero revenue. Verify DMC enrollment.
  • The bottom line: Until product ships and checks clear, a trade deal is a press release—not a market.

Executive Summary: 

China promised 12 million tons of soybeans. They shipped 332,000. That’s 2.7%—and your lender doesn’t care about the other 97%. Phase One delivered just 58-77% of agricultural targets, and dairy farmers absorbed the gap: $91,000 in annual losses for a typical 1,000-cow operation when Class III dropped $0.35/cwt. Even cooperatives can’t escape—FrieslandCampina lost €149 million; Fonterra’s members voted 88% to sell to Lactalis. The pattern is consistent: promises at 100%, delivery between 2.7% and 77%, farmers managing the difference. Here’s your 48-hour defense plan for the next trade announcement.

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

November 12 Market Shock: Cheese Crashes to $1.55 as Milk Heads for $16 – Your Action Plan Inside

Warning: Today’s cheese collapse confirms what smart money already knows – milk’s heading for $16. Action plan inside.

Executive Summary: Today’s 8-cent cheese collapse to $1.5525 sent an unmistakable message: the U.S. dairy industry has entered a margin crisis that smart money says could stretch into 2027. With Europe undercutting our prices by 10 cents, Mexico pulling back orders, and domestic production inexplicably up 4.2%, we’re producing into a black hole. The numbers are sobering – Class III milk heading for $16.50 means your January check drops $3/cwt, translating to $7,500 less monthly revenue for a typical 300-cow operation. At these prices, even well-run dairies lose $1,500 daily. But here’s what 30 years in this industry has taught me: the operations that act decisively in the first 90 days of a crisis are the ones that survive. Those waiting for markets to ‘come back’ typically don’t make it. Your December milk check isn’t just a number anymore—it’s a referendum on whether your operation has what it takes to weather the storm ahead.

Dairy Margin Management

Today’s Market Summary Table

ProductCloseChangeTrading Activity
Cheese Blocks$1.5525/lb↓ $0.084 trades ($1.5775-$1.6275)
Cheese Barrels$1.6450/lb↓ $0.03No trades
Butter$1.5000/lbUnchanged3 trades ($1.49-$1.50)
NDM$1.1575/lb↑ $0.0025No trades
Dry Whey$0.7500/lbUnchangedNo trades

You know that sinking feeling when you check the CME report and see red numbers everywhere? That’s exactly what happened today. Block cheese crashed 8 cents to close at $1.5525 per pound—and here’s what’s interesting, it happened on relatively heavy trading with four separate transactions recorded by the Chicago Mercantile Exchange spanning from $1.5775 to $1.6275, according to today’s CME cash market report. Barrels weren’t far behind, falling 3 cents to $1.6450, though notably without any recorded trades.

What I’ve found particularly telling is how butter stayed frozen at $1.50 with three trades in a tight range, while nonfat dry milk barely budged, climbing just a quarter-cent to $1.1575 with zero trading activity. Days like this tell us something important about where we’re headed. And honestly? It’s time we had a serious conversation about what this means for your December milk check.

Reading the Tea Leaves in Today’s Trading Patterns

Here’s something many of us miss when we just glance at the closing prices—the bid-ask spreads are telling a much bigger story. You probably know this already, but when the gap between what buyers are willing to pay and what sellers are asking widens dramatically, it usually means traders can’t agree on where prices should settle.

Today’s cheese block market saw those four trades bouncing between $1.5775 and $1.6275, but—and this is crucial—CME floor sources report that we had only one bid against one offer at the close. That’s not healthy price discovery; that’s a market running on uncertainty. In my experience working with Chicago traders, when you see heavy block volume with falling prices but no barrel activity, it often means processors are dumping inventory before year-end accounting.

The 8-Cent Collapse Captured: From $1.64 trading range into $1.55 settlement across four institutional block trades. This waterfall pattern signals that major traders are repricing dairy fundamentals downward—the classic setup for extended weakness.

The weekly totals back this up dramatically: 14 block trades this week versus zero for barrels, according to CME weekly volume data. You know what really concerns me? The order book shows just one bid each for blocks and barrels, creating virtually no floor under this market. Compare that to butter, where we’re seeing four offers—sellers everywhere, but buyers have vanished. It’s worth noting that this setup typically precedes another leg lower, especially when remaining buyers finally capitulate.

How Global Markets Are Boxing Us In

So here’s where things get complicated—and you’ve probably noticed this in your own export conversations if you’re dealing with cooperatives. European butter futures trading at €5,070 per metric ton on the European Energy Exchange work out to about $2.29 per pound at current exchange rates. That’s now competitive with our prices, and according to USDA Foreign Agricultural Service data, they’re capturing business we desperately need.

What I find particularly troubling is New Zealand’s positioning on the NZX futures exchange. Their whole milk powder at $3,440 per metric ton signals aggressive pricing to capture Asian market share, based on Global Dairy Trade auction results. And with EU skim milk powder at €2,075 per metric ton—that’s about $1.04 per pound—they’re undercutting our NDM by over 10 cents. In many cases, that’s enough to make a U.S. product completely uncompetitive globally.

Now, Mexico has traditionally been our safety net. USDA trade data shows they account for about 25% of U.S. dairy exports. But here’s what’s changed: the peso weakened by 8% against the dollar this quarter, and according to Conasupo (Mexico’s national food agency), domestic production is ramping up. Several processors I’ve talked with in Wisconsin report Mexican buyers are pulling back on November purchases.

Southeast Asia was supposed to pick up that slack, but USDA attaché reports from Vietnam and Indonesia indicate those markets are currently oversupplied with cheaper product from New Zealand and Europe. And the dollar… well, that’s another story entirely. Federal Reserve data shows it’s near 52-week highs, and research from the International Dairy Federation shows that every 1% rise in the dollar index typically drops our dairy exports by 2-3%.

Feed Markets: The Silver Lining Gets Thinner

Here’s one bright spot, though it’s getting dimmer by the day. According to CME futures settlements, December corn closed at $4.3550 per bushel, with March futures at $4.49. That’s manageable. Soybean meal’s recovery to $322 per ton from Monday’s $316.80 keeps feed costs somewhat reasonable, based on CBOT trading data.

But—and this is a big but—the milk-to-feed ratio is deteriorating fast. Cornell’s Dairy Markets and Policy program calculates that at current prices, income over feed costs could drop below $8 per hundredweight by January. University of Wisconsin Extension analysis confirms that for most operations, that’s below breakeven.

The regional differences are striking, too. USDA Agricultural Marketing Service basis reports show Midwest producers near corn country seeing sub-$4 local cash prices. Meanwhile, California Department of Food and Agriculture data indicates that West Coast producers are facing $5-plus delivered corn. For hay, USDA’s Agricultural Prices report puts the national average at $222 per ton, but Western Premium Alfalfa runs $280 and up according to the latest USDA hay market news.

Production Growth: The Numbers We Can’t Ignore

USDA’s National Agricultural Statistics Service finally released that delayed September milk production report on November 10th, and the numbers are… well, they’re sobering. Twenty-four state production hit 18.3 billion pounds, up 4.2% year-over-year. The national herd added 235,000 cows over the past year, while production per cow jumped 30 pounds to 1,999 pounds per month.

What’s really eye-opening is where this growth is concentrated. Kansas leads with 21.1% growth, South Dakota’s up 9.4%—those new processing plants that Dairy Foods magazine has been covering are pulling massive expansion. Looking at efficiency gains, Michigan State University Extension reports their state’s cows are averaging 2,260 pounds per month. That’s 260 pounds above the national average.

The 261-Pound Survival Gap: Michigan’s elite herds average 2,260 lbs/month while national average sits at 1,999. That efficiency gap translates to $15/day cost per marginal cow. When Class III drops to $16.50, every pound counts—operations with production per cow below 1,950 face economic extinction.

The combination of improved genetics—documented in Journal of Dairy Science studies—optimized nutrition protocols from land-grant university research, and modernized facilities, as tracked by Progressive Dairy, has pushed biological limits higher than we thought possible. Here’s the reality check from talking with nutritionists: when your neighbors are achieving these yields, you either match them or risk getting priced out.

Remember all those cheese plants that broke ground in 2023? Kansas Department of Agriculture confirms three major facilities, Texas Department of Agriculture lists two, and South Dakota’s Governor’s Office announced another two. We’ve added 10 billion pounds of annual processing capacity since 2023, according to estimates from the International Dairy Foods Association. These plants have 20-year USDA Rural Development financing that requires running near capacity—this structural oversupply won’t resolve quickly.

The Structural Trap: Four new cheese plants in 2023 plus six more in 2024-2025 added 10 billion pounds of capacity. These debt-financed facilities must operate near 95% utilization to service 20-year USDA Rural Development loans. Current market demand: 46 billion pounds. Result: 5+ billion pounds annual oversupply locked in through 2030. Price recovery impossible without facility closures—and that doesn’t happen voluntarily.

What This Means for Your December Check

Let’s talk straight about where Class III milk is headed. With November futures already at $17.16 on the CME and December futures implying further weakness according to today’s settlements, several dairy economists I respect are projecting $16.50 or lower by January.

December Check Reckoning: A 300-cow operation at $16.50 Class III faces $7,500 monthly revenue loss. That’s $900 daily. January will be worse.

At $16.50 Class III with current feed costs, the University of Minnesota’s dairy profitability calculator shows the average 100-cow dairy loses about $1,500 per day. If we hit spring flush with these prices… well, that’s going to force some tough culling decisions. Today’s spot prices, when run through USDA’s Federal Milk Marketing Order formulas, translate to January milk checks down $2.50 to $3.00 per hundredweight from October.

For a 300-cow dairy shipping 65,000 pounds daily, that’s $7,500 less monthly revenue. Farm Credit Services reports from the Midwest indicate banks are already tightening credit as dairy loan portfolios deteriorate. The Federal Reserve’s October Agricultural Credit Survey shows agricultural loan demand rising while repayment rates fall—if you haven’t locked in operating lines for 2026, today’s price action just made that conversation much harder.

What’s particularly concerning is that our traditional escape route isn’t available. USDA Foreign Agricultural Service data shows China’s imports down 18% year-over-year, Mexico’s pulling back, as I mentioned, and Southeast Asian markets are oversupplied. Without export demand absorbing 15-20% of production—which has been the historical average according to U.S. Dairy Export Council analysis—domestic markets face crushing oversupply through 2026.

Tomorrow Morning’s Practical Action Plan

So what do we do about all this? Here’s my thinking on practical steps based on conversations with risk management specialists and successful producers who’ve weathered previous downturns.

On the hedging front, if we get any bounce above $17.00 for Q1 2026 Class III, I’d seriously consider locking it in. Several commodity brokers I trust are recommending ratio spreads—selling two February $16 puts to buy one February $18 call, which limits your downside while maintaining upside potential. For feed, the consensus among grain merchandisers is to buy March corn under $4.40 and meal under $320 while you can.

Operationally, extension dairy specialists are unanimous: it’s time for aggressive culling. Penn State’s dairy management tools show that every marginal cow below 60 pounds per day is costing you money at these prices. Push breeding decisions to maximize beef-on-dairy premiums while they last—Superior Livestock Auction data shows those crossbred calves bringing $200 to $300 premiums.

Review every feed ingredient for substitution opportunities. University of Wisconsin research demonstrates that optimizing your grain mix can save $5 per ton without sacrificing production—that equals $50,000 annually for a 500-cow dairy. And here’s something many producers hesitate to do but really should: schedule that lender meeting now, before year-end financials force their hand.

Prepare cash flow projections showing survival through $16 milk—Farm Financial Standards Council guidelines suggest they need to see that you’ve faced reality. Several ag finance specialists recommend considering sale-leaseback arrangements on equipment to generate working capital before values drop further.

The 90-Day Reckoning: From November 12 market shock through February 10, every day counts. The red danger zone shows when critical decisions must occur. Operations that delay past December 15 face compromised options by January spring flush. Historical dairy downturns show: decisive action in days 1-90 determines survival probability. The clock started November 12.

The Bottom Line

You know, I’ve been through the 2009 crisis, the 2015-2016 downturn, and 2020’s volatility. What we’re seeing today isn’t just another cycle. Today’s 8-cent cheese collapse, combined with global oversupply data and production growth trends, confirms the U.S. dairy industry faces what could be a two-year margin squeeze.

Looking at the fundamentals—global markets oversupplied according to Rabobank’s latest dairy quarterly, domestic demand softening per USDA disappearance data, and production still growing at 3-4% annually—prices have further to fall before this corrects. The harsh reality, according to agricultural economists at several land-grant universities, is that we could see 5-10% of operations exit by the end of 2026.

Your December milk check has become more than a financial report—it’s a survival test. But here’s what’s encouraging from studying previous downturns: operations that adapt quickly, that make hard decisions now rather than hoping for recovery, those are the ones that emerge stronger. The question facing every producer tonight is simple but profound: will your operation be among the survivors?

What I’ve learned from 30 years of watching these cycles is that the difference between those who make it and those who don’t often comes down to acting decisively in moments like this. Tomorrow morning, when you’re doing chores, think about which camp you want to be in. Then act accordingly.

Key Takeaways

  • This isn’t a blip—it’s a reckoning: Today’s 8-cent cheese crash to $1.5525 with only one bid standing confirms we’re entering a 2-year margin squeeze. Class III hits $16.50 by January.
  • The world has turned against U.S. dairy: Europe’s 10 cents cheaper, Mexico’s pulling back, and our 4.2% production growth is flooding a shrinking market. Exports can’t save us this time.
  • Efficiency gaps will force consolidation: When Michigan averages 2,260 lbs/cow and you’re at 1,900, the math is fatal—every marginal cow costs you $15 daily at these prices.
  • Your banker already knows: Today’s CME report just flagged every dairy loan in America. Schedule that meeting now with realistic projections, not wishful thinking.
  • History’s lesson is clear: In 2009 and 2015, farms that acted decisively in the first 90 days survived. Those that waited for “normal” to return didn’t make it. Which will you be? 

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 $380,000 Question: How Florida Dairy Farmers Beat 4 Hurricanes in 13 Months

Your dairy loses $13,400/month after a hurricane. Government aid takes 12 months. Do you have 6 months reserves? Because 30 days isn’t enough anymore.

Executive Summary: Four hurricanes in 13 months taught Florida dairy farmers what $500,000 buys: survival. The farms still standing had six months of cash reserves and could afford solar backup, hurricane-proof construction, and layered insurance—everyone else is bleeding $13,400 monthly or already gone. This exposed a brutal truth: mid-size family dairies can’t afford climate resilience but can’t compete without it. They face three stark options: scale up past 1,000 cows, find premium niche markets, or exit while there’s still equity to preserve. The math is unforgiving—strategic exit at month 8 saves families $380,000-$580,000 compared to forced liquidation at month 18. With government aid covering just 22% of losses and mutual aid networks exhausted, Florida’s experience reveals the future of farming: only operations with capital access survive repeated climate disasters.

Dairy Risk Management

You know that feeling when you walk through your barn after a storm and everything’s different? Jerry Dakin had that moment last year, standing in his Myakka City dairy farm looking at 250 dead cows scattered across his pastures after Hurricane Ian hit in September 2022. He’d spent decades building Dakin Dairy up to 3,100 head—good genetics, solid facilities, everything running like it should.

Here’s what nobody saw coming, though. Ian was just the start. We had Idalia, then Debby, then Helene, and finally Milton—all hitting through October 2024. Suddenly, resilience wasn’t just something we talked about over coffee at the co-op. It became what decided who’d still be milking come next season.

Four hurricanes. 13 months. $570 million in dairy losses. After Ian devastated the industry in 2022 ($500M), Florida farmers faced three more major storms in rapid succession—Idalia, Debby, Helene, and Milton—with as little as 1 month between impacts. When disasters strike faster than recovery cycles, only farms with deep capital reserves survive.

What’s really interesting—and this caught my attention when the November data came out from USDA—is that the Southeast actually lost fewer dairy herds than anywhere else in the country during all this. We’re talking 100 farms, compared to over 200 in other regions, according to Progressive Dairy. So what made the difference? The strategies that worked tell a story we all need to hear.

“The difference between making a strategic decision at month 8-10 versus being forced out at month 18? We’re talking $380,000 to $580,000 in what the family keeps.”

The math is brutal: Strategic exit at month 8-10 preserves $380k-$580k in family wealth, but waiting until forced liquidation at month 18 leaves farmers with nothing. Government aid arrives at month 12 but only covers 22% of losses—far too little, far too late.

The Real Timeline of Financial Recovery (It’s Not What You Think)

You know how we usually handle disasters? Fix what’s broken, get the power back on, clean up the mess, and move forward. But what I’ve learned talking to farmers who’ve been through this is that the real challenge isn’t the hurricane. It’s what happens to your cash flow over the next 18 months.

Take Philip Watts at Full Circle Dairy near Mayo. Hurricane Helene knocked down three-quarters of their free-stall barn and damaged 12 of their 16 pivots. Bad enough, right? But here’s what really hurt—their production dropped 10-15% and just stayed there for months. The Florida Department of Agriculture documented this in their October assessments. Average dairy was losing $13,400 a month in operational costs while waiting for help that… well, it takes time.

What I’ve found is there’s a pattern here that we need to understand…

The Numbers We Need to Talk About:

So government assistance—and I’m not pointing fingers, just stating facts—covered about 22% of actual losses. Commissioner Simpson announced those block grants in July 2025, totaling $675.9 million. Sounds like a lot until you realize the damage from four hurricanes topped $3 billion.

Meanwhile, working capital’s bleeding out at $13,400 a month for a mid-size operation. That’s based on what United Dairy Farmers of Florida found in a survey of its members early in 2024. Real money, real fast.

And here’s something agricultural economists have figured out—the difference between making a strategic decision at month 8-10 versus being forced out at month 18? We’re talking $380,000 to $580,000 in what the family keeps. That’s college funds, retirement, the next generation’s chance to start over.

Johan Heijkoop put it pretty bluntly after Idalia hit his two Lafayette County farms: “We don’t have a year to get help from this. We need action. We need it immediately.” A month after that storm, he still had eight burn piles going. His cows? Still way off their normal production.

Financial analysis backs this up—operations with minimal reserves face insolvency within 12-18 months after major disasters. The farms with 6-12 months of operating reserves? They made it. Those running on the traditional 30-60-day cushion —we’ve always thought was fine? Different story.

What’s Actually Working Out There (Real Farms, Real Solutions)

Let me share what farmers are actually doing—not what some manual says they should do, but what’s happening on real operations right now.

Getting Off the Grid (At Least Partially)

Here’s something that got everyone talking. Duke Energy’s Lake Placid solar farm took a direct hit from an EF2 tornado during Hurricane Milton. Four days later, it’s back online. Four days! That changed how a lot of us think about solar.

What’s encouraging is that farms are putting together complete systems now. We’re seeing 50-100kW solar arrays handling daytime loads—critical for cooling in Florida’s heat. Battery storage in the 100-200kWh range keeps the parlor running at night, keeps those bulk tanks cold. And yeah, you still need standby generators with at least 2 weeks of fuel. USDA’s hurricane guide got that part right.

Climate resilience costs $500,000 upfront. Solar systems, hurricane-proof barns, layered insurance, 6-month feed reserves—this is the price of survival. Mid-size dairies grossing $900k/year with 6% margins can’t swing it. Only operations over 1,000 cows have the scale to afford what climate change now demands.

The investment? You’re looking at $150,000 to $200,000 for a mid-size place. I know, I know—that’s serious money. But REAP program data shows you’re getting that back in 6-8 years just on electricity savings. And when the next storm knocks the grid out for a week? Priceless.

Building Different (Because We Have To)

The Watts family—they zip-tied 900 fans before Helene hit. That’s dedication. But when they rebuilt that barn, they did it right.

Florida’s 2023 building code—the 8th edition for those keeping track—changed the game. We’re talking 140+ mph wind ratings now. Hurricane clips on every truss. Electrical panels must be at least 3 feet above flood stage. And those pivots? Quick-disconnects that cut removal time from two hours to maybe 20 minutes.

Some of my friends up in Wisconsin think this is overkill. Then again, they’re not dealing with Category 4 storms.

Here’s why dairy farmers are bleeding out: Traditional insurance covers 86% of infrastructure damage but only 10% of lost production over 18 months—the single largest cost at $241k. Government aid? 22% of total losses, arriving 12 months late. Farmers are left holding 78% of disaster costs with no safety net.

Insurance That Actually Works

With Risk Management Agency data showing that 53% of ag damage falls outside traditional coverage, Florida producers got creative. Had to.

Ray Hodge over at United Dairy Farmers walked me through what’s working. You layer it up: Whole Farm Revenue Protection at that new 90% level (used to be 85%). Dairy Margin Coverage at $9.50—it’s triggered payments 57% of the time over the last few years. Hurricane wind index insurance that pays automatically when winds hit certain speeds—no waiting for adjusters. And business interruption coverage for lost income during recovery.

A producer near Okeechobee said it best: “Building $300,000 in diversified revenue protection beats hoping for $25 milk.” Can’t argue with that.

Quick Reference: Insurance Layering Strategy

  • Base Layer: Whole Farm Revenue Protection (90% coverage)
  • Margin Protection: Dairy Margin Coverage ($9.50/cwt level)
  • Catastrophic Coverage: Hurricane Insurance Protection-Wind Index
  • Income Protection: Business Interruption Insurance
  • Combined Result: Closes most of the 53% coverage gap

When Everyone Needs Help at the Same Time

You probably heard about Willis Martin bringing 40 Mennonite volunteers down from Pennsylvania to rebuild Jerry Dakin’s barns after Ian. One week, they got it done. Over 100 locals showed up too—clearing debris, helping with vet work, keeping those cows milked. Dakin’s café became the community hub. It was something to see.

But by the time Milton hit—that’s the fourth major storm in thirteen months—everybody was exhausted. You could feel it.

How Things Are Changing:

What I’m seeing now is farms getting formal about what used to be handshake deals. Equipment sharing with actual legal agreements. Labor exchanges spelled out—who helps who, when, for how long. Feed purchasing co-ops with locked-in emergency prices so nobody gets gouged when disaster hits. Even evacuation partnerships with farms in Georgia and Alabama, complete with health papers ready to go.

Sara Weldon’s story from her Clermont farm during Milton really stuck with me. She spent three days prepping—brought the donkeys and goats in the house (yeah, in the house), turned the bigger animals loose in back pastures, and stockpiled everything. All her animals made it. But you could hear it in her voice afterward—the exhaustion from going through this again and again.

Florida Farm Bureau’s February 2025 mental health report hit hard: 67% of farmers reporting depression, 9% having suicidal thoughts. These are the people who make mutual aid work, and they’re running on empty.

The Hard Truth About Scale

So here’s where it gets uncomfortable. All these solutions that work—solar systems, hurricane-proof barns, feed reserves, comprehensive insurance—you’re talking about $500,000 upfront for a mid-size dairy. That’s the reality.

Jerry Dakin with 3,100 cows and $8-10 million in revenue? Plus on-farm processing? He can probably swing it. But that 300-cow family operation grossing $900,000, maybe netting $50,000-$80,000 in a good year? The math doesn’t work, and pretending it does doesn’t help anybody.

The brutal economics of climate change: Mid-size dairies with $900k revenue and 6% margins earn $54k/year—nowhere near the $500k needed for climate resilience. Meanwhile, mega-dairies with 2,500+ cows gross $25M with 15% margins. Consolidation isn’t a trend—it’s climate-driven selection pressure.

Three Ways This Is Playing Out:

Based on what Cornell’s been documenting the last few years, here’s what’s happening:

Getting Bigger (1,000+ cows): When you spread that $500,000 investment over enough production, the per-hundredweight cost becomes manageable. Plus—and we need to be honest here—these are the operations processors want to work with.

Finding Your Niche (<200 cows): Organic’s working for some folks—USDA data confirms those 50-75% premiumsare real. Grass-fed, direct sales, agritourism. But you need the right location. Affluent customers nearby. Rural Okeechobee doesn’t have that market.

Making the Hard Decision: Some are choosing to exit while they still have equity. It’s not giving up—it’s protecting what the family’s built over generations.

What doesn’t work? Trying to stay mid-size without access to capital. We lost 1,420 dairy farms in 2024—about 5% of what’s left. At this rate, projections suggest we’ll be down to 12,000 operations by 2035. That’s a conversation we need to have.

What’s interesting here is how this mirrors what’s happening in Texas coastal dairy regions. After Hurricane Harvey in 2017, they saw similar consolidation patterns—the operations that could afford flood mitigation survived, the rest didn’t. It’s not just a Florida story anymore.

The Part Nobody Talks About

Behind every spreadsheet, a farmer is asking themselves: “If I’m not doing this, who am I?”

Dr. Rebecca Purc-Stephenson, up at the University of Alberta, studies this stuff. She explained it to me once—farming isn’t a job, it’s your whole life. Your identity. Hard to separate who you are from what you do.

For families that have been farming for generations—and that’s most of Florida dairy—it’s even harder. Your grandfather made it through the Depression. Your dad survived the ’80s farm crisis. Now you might be the one who has to walk away because of hurricanes? Even when it’s not your fault, that leaves marks.

One Florida farmer—he asked me not to use his name—described the stages. First, you deny it’s that bad. Then you’re confused when routines disappear. Angry at banks, government, anybody who can’t help fast enough. Guilty about what you should’ve done different. And sometimes, depression that gets dangerous.

“When those cows are gone and everything stops,” he said, “it feels like someone in the family died.” But asking for help? That goes against everything we’ve been taught about being self-reliant. It’s a trap where the folks who need help most are least likely to ask for it.

What the Rest of Us Can Learn

After spending time with these Florida farmers, three big lessons stand out:

First: Financial Resilience Is Everything

Build 6-12 months of operating capital. I know that’s way more than the 30-60 days we’ve always managed on, but it matters. Layer your insurance to close gaps—and actually read those policies. Set up credit lines with disaster triggers before you need them. And decide your exit criteria now, while you’re thinking clearly.

Second: Formalize Your Networks Before Crisis

Get agreements in writing—handshakes don’t hold up under this kind of stress. Fund coordinator positions to prevent volunteers from burning out. Build relationships with farms in different climate zones. And integrate mental health support before people need it—because by then, it’s often too late.

Third: Accept That Some Things Can’t Be Fixed

Sometimes a region’s climate changes beyond what certain types of farming can handle. Better to choose proactively between scaling up, finding a niche, or transitioning than to have the market force it on you. Push for policies that help all farm sizes, not just the biggest. And consider that a managed transition might beat chaotic collapse.

Where We Go from Here

The numbers don’t lie: 16,103 dairy farms vanished between 2017-2024 (a 41% decline) while farms with 1,000+ cows captured an ever-larger share of milk production—now 72% of the U.S. total. Climate disasters are accelerating what economics started. By 2030, projections suggest just 15,000 farms will remain, with mega-dairies controlling 80% of production.

What Florida dairy farmers learned the hard way is that climate patterns are changing faster than we can adapt to them. Four hurricanes in thirteen months isn’t bad luck—NOAA’s 2024 reports make it clear this is the new pattern.

The farms surviving aren’t always the best managed or the ones with the strongest communities—though both matter. More and more, they’re the ones with capital access and enough scale to justify big infrastructure investments. That’s accelerating consolidation, whether we like it or not.

But here’s what gives me hope: Florida farmers have innovated like crazy. Solar systems that keep operations running when the grid fails. Formal mutual aid replacing informal arrangements. Risk management strategies that actually work. These are blueprints other regions can use.

Commissioner Simpson got it right, talking to the Cattlemen’s Association: “Food production is not just an economic issue, it’s a matter of national security.” The question is: will we learn from Florida’s experience, or wait for our own disasters to teach us the same lessons?

What You Can Do Right Now

If you’re farming today: Check your working capital. Less than six months? Building reserves beats any expansion plan. Review every insurance policy for gaps—especially business interruption and parametric products. Get your mutual aid relationships on paper. Define your triggers: What would make you exit? What would force it?

Planning ahead: Figure out if your operation size sets you up for long-term success. Look at cooperative approaches to share infrastructure costs. Build relationships outside your climate zone. And consider revenue beyond just milk—diversification is adaptation, not defeat.

Long-term thinking: Accept that some regions might not support certain farming anymore. Understand that resilience might mean transition, not staying put forever. Know that climate adaptation favors bigger, better-funded operations. Plan for weather volatility as the new normal.

Florida’s dairy farmers deserve more than just credit for resilience. Through incredible hardship, they’ve given the rest of us a real education in what climate adaptation actually costs—in dollars and in human terms.

We can learn from what they’ve been through, or we can learn it the hard way ourselves. Unlike the weather, at least that choice is still ours to make.

Key Takeaways: 

  • Your survival number is 6-12 months reserves, not 30-60 days: Florida farms with deep reserves weathered $13,400 monthly losses for 18 months. Everyone else is gone.
  • Climate resilience costs $500K (solar, construction, insurance): Operations that can’t afford it have three options—scale up past 1,000 cows, find premium niches under 200 cows, or exit now.
  • The $380,000 decision window: Exit strategically at month 8-10 and preserve family wealth, or watch it evaporate by month 18 in forced liquidation.
  • Mutual aid has limits—formalize before you need it: After four hurricanes, volunteer networks are exhausted, and 67% of farmers report depression. Written agreements and funded coordinators beat handshakes.
  • Florida’s present is agriculture’s future: Every region facing climate intensification will see this same pattern—only capitalized operations survive repeated disasters.

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

Your Dairy’s 18-Month Countdown: The $480,000 Difference Between Strategic Exit and Forced Sale

Half of U.S. dairy farms will vanish by 2030. The survivors? They’re making one decision differently.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The math stopped working when milk prices crept up 16% but diesel doubled and feed jumped 40%—that’s why 2,800 dairy farms close annually and milk checks now arrive with crisis hotline cards. Most producers don’t realize they have just 18 months from first losses to forced decisions, and waiting those extra six months costs families $380,000 in preserved equity. Strategic exits at month 8-10 save $400,000-$680,000; forced liquidations leave $100,000-$200,000. With half of America’s 26,000 dairy farms vanishing by 2030 and kids as young as 14 running milking shifts, this isn’t about failure—it’s about timing. This article provides the exact month-by-month timeline, real alternatives that work (partnerships, robotics, organic), and the framework to make informed decisions while you still have choices. Because sometimes the bravest thing you can do is preserve what three generations built before it’s too late.

Dairy Profitability Strategy

So I was talking with a producer last week—you know how these conversations go, catching up at the feed store or after a meeting—and he mentioned something that really stuck with me. His milk check came with a little card tucked in. Mental health resources, crisis hotline numbers.

After thirty years in this business, that’s…well, that’s something new.

And it got me thinking about what we’re all seeing out there. The combination of labor challenges, these heat waves that seem to hit harder every year, and margins that just don’t pencil out anymore—especially for those 200 to 400 cow operations that used to be the heart of rural communities. You know the ones I’m talking about. Maybe it’s your operation.

Here’s what’s keeping me up at night: Industry projections from Rabobank show we’re losing about 2,800 farms every year now—that’s 7 to 9% of all U.S. dairy operations annually. The economists I trust—folks at Cornell PRO-DAIRY, Wisconsin’s Center for Dairy Profitability, the people who really understand our business—they keep talking about this 12 to 18 month window. That’s what you’ve got when things start going sideways. And what do you do in those months? The difference can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. I’m not exaggerating. We’re talking about preserving what your family built versus watching it disappear.

What’s Really Different in the Barn These Days

You probably know this already, but walk into any mid-sized dairy operation today, and it feels different than it did five years ago. Can’t quite put your finger on it at first, but then you realize—it’s quieter. Not the good kind of quiet either.

Five years back, you’d hear workers talking during morning milking —maybe some Spanish conversation —and teenagers grumbling about the early start (though secretly learning the trade). Now? Often, it’s just the owners — usually in their fifties, maybe early sixties — doing the work of four or five people. And they look exhausted.

What’s interesting is how the numbers back up what we’re feeling. The National Milk Producers Federation’s 2025 workforce data shows that immigrant workers make up about 51% of our workforce, but here’s the kicker—they produce 79% of the milk. Think about that for a second. And these folks, they’re operating under a kind of stress that wasn’t there before. I see it myself. Unfamiliar truck pulls up? Conversations stop. Workers keep phone numbers in their pockets now—family contacts, immigration attorneys. That’s become normal, and it shouldn’t be.

The age thing is really something else. Was talking to a Wisconsin producer recently who’s got two helpers, both in their seventies. “There’s just no pipeline of younger workers,” he told me. And he’s right—USDA’s Economic Research Service documented that agricultural employment dropped by 155,000 workers between March and July this year. That’s 7% of our workforce, gone in four months.

But here’s what really gets me—and I hate even saying this—we’ve got fourteen-, fifteen-year-old kids running full milking shifts. Not helping out, not learning from Dad or Grandpa. Running the shift. Because there’s literally nobody else. That’s not how it’s supposed to work.

When Everything Comes at You at Once

The Labor Situation Can Change Overnight

Let me tell you about what happened in Lovington, New Mexico, this past June. Shows you how fast things can go south.

Isaak Bos was running his operation like any other day when Homeland Security showed up. Full enforcement action, armed agents, the whole thing. By the time they left? Sixty-four percent of his workforce was gone. Eleven were arrested on the spot, and another twenty-four were let go when their papers didn’t check out. The Albuquerque Journal covered it extensively—this isn’t hearsay, it’s a documented fact.

“Milk production had effectively ceased,” Bos told reporters. “We’re barely able to keep going.”

Here’s what really opened my eyes—UC Davis agricultural economists have been tracking this, and their 2025 research found that when raids happen, farms that haven’t even been touched lose 25 to 45% of their workers. They just stop showing up. Can’t blame them, really. Word travels fast in these communities. One raid in Vermont affects operations in Wisconsin, Idaho, and California. Everyone’s on edge.

Heat Stress Is Getting More Expensive Every Year

While we’re scrambling for workers, the heat’s becoming a bigger problem than most people realize. And I mean, we all feel it, right? But the numbers are sobering.

This study from Science Advances—Dr. Nathaniel Mueller and his team published it this year—found that one day of extreme heat cuts milk production by up to 10%. And here’s the kicker: those effects stick around for more than ten days. Small farms, the ones under 100 cows? According to the University of Illinois farmdoc daily analysis from March, they’re losing 1.6% of production annually just to heat stress. That’s nearly 60% worse than bigger operations that can afford better cooling.

Let me put this in real terms. If you’re running a small operation, maybe clearing $60 to $175 per cow annually (and that’s being optimistic these days), Texas A&M and Florida extension economists calculate you’re looking at heat stress losses of $400 to $700 per cow. Even up here in the Midwest, we’re seeing impact. Pennsylvania operations are reporting similar challenges. California producers? They’re dealing with both heat and water restrictions—double whammy.

Now, the extension folks—and they mean well—they recommend cooling systems. Tunnel ventilation, evaporative cooling, all that. Penn State, Wisconsin, and Cornell all cite $70,000 to $85,000 for a 200-cow operation. But here’s the thing nobody wants to say out loud: if you’re already losing sixty, seventy thousand a year, where’s that money coming from? Banks aren’t lending for improvements when you can’t show positive cash flow.

The Math Just Doesn’t Work Anymore

November’s milk price came in at $21.55 per hundredweight. But you know how it is—after co-op deductions, quality adjustments, hauling…you’re seeing less. Sometimes a lot less.

Here’s what’s interesting—and I really wish I could draw you a picture here because it’s striking when you see it laid out. I was looking at the cost changes since 2020, and the spread is just brutal. Let me walk you through what I mean:

Back in 2020, we had milk at about $18.50 per hundredweight. Your basic feed costs, let’s index them at 100 to make it simple. Labor was running around $16 an hour if you could find it. Diesel? About $2.20 a gallon.

Fast forward to now, 2025. Milk’s up to $21.55—hey, that’s 16% better, right? But look at everything else. Feed costs have jumped 40% from that baseline. Labor—if you can even find workers—is running $20 to $21 an hour, up 30%. And diesel? Don’t get me started. We’re looking at $4.40 a gallon in many areas. That’s doubled.

While milk prices crawled up 16% since 2020, diesel doubled, feed jumped 40%, and labor climbed 30%—creating an unsustainable cost structure that explains why 2,800 dairies close annually

So you’ve got milk prices creeping up by 16% while your inputs shoot up by 30%, 40%, or even 100%. That gap between what you’re getting paid and what you’re paying out? That’s where your equity bleeds away, month after month. When the milk check doesn’t cover the feed bill, you’re basically robbing Peter to pay Paul.

The bankruptcy numbers tell the same story—259 dairy farms filed Chapter 12 between April 2024 and March 2025. That’s a 55% jump from the year before. But here’s what that doesn’t capture—for every farm that files, there’s probably another one or two quietly selling off equipment, maybe some land, trying to restructure without the paperwork. The stigma’s real, you know?

Small and mid-size dairies hemorrhaged 42% of operations while mega-farms grew 16.8%, now controlling nearly half of all U.S. milk production—proving economies of scale aren’t optional anymore

Understanding That 12 to 18 Month Timeline

When the economists at Cornell and Wisconsin talk about this 12- to 18-month window, they’re not being dramatic. Let me walk you through what this looks like, based on what I’m seeing across multiple operations. Think of it as a composite—no single farm, but patterns I see repeatedly.

Months 1 Through 6: The Slow Bleed

You start drawing more heavily on your operating line. Maybe go from $140,000 to $165,000 over a quarter. It feels manageable because you’ve still got credit available.

You start making small compromises. Put off that gutter cleaner repair—sure, it means 90 minutes of manual scraping every day, but you save $3,200. You match a wage offer you can’t really afford because if that last good employee leaves, you’re done.

The bank might restructure some debt and convert short-term debt to long-term debt. Feels like breathing room, right? But you’re just locking in obligations you probably can’t meet long-term.

Months 7 Through 12: Options Starting to Close

Your credit line’s getting close to maxed out. The lender—and these are good people who want to help—they start asking for monthly financials instead of quarterly. That’s never a good sign, as you probably know.

You can’t defer maintenance anymore, but you can’t afford it either. You’re one major breakdown away from crisis. One bad bout of mastitis in the fresh cow group. One compressor failure.

This is when those hard conversations happen. I know a couple in Vermont who have been farming for 40 years. She found him in the barn at 2 AM, just standing there. “We need to talk about what we’re doing,” she said. But they convinced themselves spring prices would turn things around. In my experience…they rarely do.

Months 13 Through 18: Decision Time

Banks lose confidence. You’ve violated debt covenants—maybe debt-to-asset ratio, maybe working capital requirements. Your options are bankruptcy or a forced sale. Any equity you’ve got left needs immediate action if you want to preserve it.

By now, that window for a strategic exit? It’s mostly closed. Operations that could’ve preserved $400,000 to $600,000 in family wealth six months earlier are looking at scenarios where keeping $100,000 to $200,000 feels like a win.

The Conversation Nobody Wants to Have

Here’s something we need to be honest about, even though it’s uncomfortable: strategic exits made early preserve dramatically more wealth than waiting for the bank to force your hand.

The brutal math of waiting: Strategic exits at month 8-10 preserve $480,000 in family wealth, while forced liquidations at month 18+ leave just $150,000—a $330,000 penalty for six months of denial

Let me break down what I’ve seen happen, based on actual auction results and sale data from 2025:

Strategic Exit (while you’ve still got 7-9 months of runway):

  • Sell your herd voluntarily, maybe get $1,850 per good cow
  • Equipment goes through a proper auction with time to market it right
  • Real estate gets listed properly, not fire-sold
  • Families walk away with $400,000 to $680,000

Forced Liquidation (month 18 and beyond):

  • Distressed sale, maybe $1,400 per cow if you’re lucky
  • Equipment auction under pressure, buyers know you’re desperate
  • Real estate sells fast and cheap
  • Families keep $100,000 to $200,000

That three to five hundred thousand dollar difference? That’s college funds. That’s retirement. That’s the chance to start over without crushing debt. And the only variable is timing.

As a Pennsylvania dairyman who went through this last year told me: “The hardest part was admitting we needed to exit. Once we did, we realized we should’ve made the decision six months earlier. Would’ve kept another $200,000.”

What Producers Are Actually Doing

Making Do with What They’ve Got

Was talking to a reproductive specialist in Florida last week—smart guy, been around—and he told me about a client who couldn’t afford a proper cooling system. Five thousand for misters was out of reach. So this producer rigged up a garden sprinkler on a fence post in the holding pen.

“It kept cows from dropping 10 to 20 pounds of production per day,” he said. “Bought him a month to generate some cash flow for proper cooling.”

That’s the reality for a lot of us, isn’t it? Hardware store solutions. Making do. It’s not ideal, but it keeps you going another day.

Partnerships—Sometimes They Work

Three neighbors in Idaho pooled their operations last year. Formed an LLC, consolidated everything. Individually, they were all questionable. Together? They’re actually competitive now.

But finding the right partners is tough. You need compatible management styles, similar work ethics, and—here’s the kicker—about $75,000 to $150,000 just for legal setup and restructuring. Folks who track these things estimate that maybe one in four or five partnership attempts actually succeeds long-term. The rest fall apart, usually over management disputes, within eighteen months. The Milk Producers Council has been documenting these partnerships, and the success stories all have one thing in common: clear, written agreements about everything from work schedules to exit strategies.

Some Folks Are Finding New Paths

It’s not all doom and gloom, and I want to be clear about that. Some operations are finding ways forward that work.

Several Vermont farms I know of are transitioning to organic. USDA’s organic price reports show a $38 per hundredweight price, compared with the $21.55 conventional price. But it’s brutal—the Northeast Organic Dairy Producers Alliance documents that it takes years and costs hundreds of thousands, while your revenues drop during the transition. You need deep pockets to weather that storm.

There are operations near Philadelphia, Boston, places like that, doing on-farm processing. Selling direct at $12 per gallon to customers who want the “farm experience.” One New York operation I visited invested $380,000 in processing facilities and visitor infrastructure. It’s working for them, but you need the right location and wealthy suburban customers nearby.

In Ohio, the Johnsons invested $800,000 in robotic milkers—but only after selling 60 acres to raise capital. Three years later, they’re viable with 300 cows and two full-time people. Not everyone has 60 acres to sell, but for those who do, technology might be an option. Just remember, the payback period is typically 7-10 years if everything goes right.

And here’s something interesting—completely legal, but not widely known—strategic bankruptcy under Section 1232 of the tax code can actually preserve more wealth than conventional sales in certain circumstances. The provision treats specific capital gains as dischargeable debt. You need a good attorney who understands agriculture, but it’s an option worth knowing about.

The Human Cost Nobody Talks About

We focus so much on the financial side, but the human toll…that’s what really matters, isn’t it?

The CDC found that farmers are 3.5 times more likely to die by suicide than the general population. Dr. Andria Jones-Bitton’s research at the University of Guelph documented that 68% of farmers experience chronic stress. Nearly half meet clinical definitions for anxiety. About 35% for depression.

Think about what this means for families. Farm wives who’ve managed the books and fed calves for twenty-five years suddenly need to find outside employment at fifty with no traditional work history. Kids who worked adult hours on the farm, watching it fail, wondering if it was somehow their fault. The weight of being the generation that “lost the farm”—that stays with people.

A dairy wife from Minnesota shared something that really stuck with me: “Being married to a farmer means putting everything else on hold from April to October, just trying to keep your husband from breaking.” Another described herself as essentially a single parent because her husband’s always in the barn, always stressed, never really present even when he’s physically there.

Where This Is All Heading

Small and mid-size dairies hemorrhaged 42% of operations while mega-farms grew 16.8%, now controlling nearly half of all U.S. milk production—proving economies of scale aren’t optional anymore

Industry projections are sobering—we’ll lose 7 to 9% of operations annually through 2027. Let me put that in real numbers so you can picture what’s happening:

The Decline We’re Looking At:

  • 2020: We had 31,657 dairy operations according to the Census of Agriculture
  • 2022: Down to 28,900
  • 2024: About 26,400 (estimated)
  • Right now, 2025: Around 26,000 operations

Now, if we keep losing 7% a year like the projections suggest:

  • 2026: We’re looking at 24,180 operations
  • 2027: Down to 22,487
  • 2028: About 20,893
  • 2029: Roughly 19,430
  • 2030: Somewhere between 13,000 and 18,000 operations
From 31,657 farms in 2020 to a projected 18,000 by 2030—this isn’t gradual evolution, it’s an industry extinction event claiming nearly 8 farms per day for the next five years

Some folks think consolidation could accelerate in those final years—once you hit certain thresholds with processing capacity and infrastructure, things can snowball. That’s why some projections go as low as 12,000 to 14,000 farms by 2030.

Picture that trend line…it’s not a gentle slope. We’re talking about losing half—maybe more—of all U.S. dairy farms in just five years. Each of those data points? That’s hundreds of families making the decision we’ve been talking about.

If this keeps up—and honestly, I don’t see what would change it—by 2030, we’re looking at:

  • Going from today’s 26,000 farms down to maybe 13,000 to 18,000 (could be even lower if things accelerate)
  • Operations with over 1,000 cows controlling 65 to 72% of all production
  • Production moving to Idaho, New Mexico, Texas—where those economies of scale work better
  • Traditional dairy states—Wisconsin, Vermont, upstate New York, and Pennsylvania Dutch Country—are losing half to two-thirds of their farms

You know, this consolidation might create certain efficiencies. Sure. But it reduces resilience. When 65% of your milk comes from fewer, larger operations, any disruption—such as a disease outbreak, a weather event, or another immigration raid—has massive impacts. We got a taste of this during COVID. Next time? It’ll be worse.

What You Need to Know Right Now

If Your Operation’s Losing Money

First thing—and I mean this week—sit down and calculate your actual runway. How many months can you really keep going at current burn rates? Be honest with yourself. This isn’t the time for optimism.

Get a confidential consultation with someone who understands agricultural transitions. Your state extension service can usually connect you. Do it now while you still have options. Every month you operate at a loss, you’re converting twenty to thirty thousand dollars in family wealth into expenses you’ll never recover. That’s real money that could be in your pocket.

Look at all your options. Strategic exit while you’ve got equity to preserve. Partnerships, if you’ve got the right neighbors and the relationship to make it work. Maybe pivoting to specialty markets if you’re positioned for it—A2 milk premiums, grass-fed certification, direct marketing if you’re near population centers. Scaling up if—and this is rare—you somehow have capital access.

But here’s what matters most: your family’s wellbeing trumps everything else. Your mental health, your marriage, your relationship with your kids—all of that matters infinitely more than what the neighbors think.

For the Lenders and Consultants

I know you’re reading this too. If you’re working with struggling operations, please—have honest conversations about strategic exits before all the equity’s gone. Stop promoting solutions that require capital these farms don’t have. That robotic milking system might be amazing technology, but not if the farm goes bankrupt before the ROI shows up.

Communities need to start planning for transitions. I know it’s hard to accept, but pretending family dairy’s going to reverse these trends somehow…that’s not helping anyone.

Making the Tough Call

I keep thinking about this Wisconsin family I know—real people, not a composite. They made their exit decision with about 8 to 10 months left in their viability window. Walked away with $482,000 in preserved equity. If they’d waited until the bank forced their hand? They’d have kept less than $200,000.

That $280,000 difference came down to one thing: having the courage to make a strategic decision while they still had choices.

For all of us looking at that 12 to 18 month countdown—and you know who you are—the question isn’t whether the farm continues. We can read the economics. The question is whether you preserve the wealth you’ve built through strategic action or lose it through delay.

Getting Help

If you’re struggling—financially, mentally, or both—please reach out. There’s no shame in it.

Mental Health Support:

  • National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 988
  • Farm Aid Hotline: 1-800-FARM-AID
  • AgriStress Helpline: 1-833-897-2474

Financial Planning:

  • Your state extension service has transition specialists
  • Wisconsin Farm Center: 1-800-942-2474
  • Pennsylvania Center for Dairy Excellence: 1-888-373-7232
  • Cornell PRO-DAIRY programs
  • Michigan State Extension: 1-888-678-3464

Look, the clock’s ticking on thousands of operations. Understanding the timeline, recognizing your options, and—this is the hard part—acting while you still have choices…that’s what determines whether you preserve what three generations built or watch it disappear.

The decision’s incredibly difficult. I get that. But the math? The math is becoming clearer every day.

And if you’re reading this thinking, “he’s describing my farm”… maybe it’s time for that conversation you’ve been avoiding. Better to have it now, on your terms, than later on someone else’s.

We’re all in this together, even when it feels like we’re alone. And sometimes the bravest thing you can do is know when it’s time to preserve what you can and move forward.

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • Your 18-month countdown starts the day you can’t pay all bills on time—most farmers don’t realize until month 12, when half their equity is already gone
  • The $380,000 decision: Exit strategically at month 8-10, keeping $480K, or wait for forced liquidation at month 18, keeping $100K (real Wisconsin example)
  • Red flags demanding immediate action: Bank requests monthly financials, your 14-year-old runs milking shifts, you’re choosing between feed bills and diesel
  • Three viable options remain: Strategic exit (preserves family wealth), partnerships with neighbors (1 in 4 succeed with $75-150K legal costs), or technology pivot (requires $800K+ capital)
  • This week’s action: Call your state extension service for confidential consultation—it’s free, and waiting another month costs you $20-30K in family wealth that’s gone forever

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

48 Hours Until Shutdown: The $30,000 Preparation Gap Separating Winners from Casualties

Smart dairy farms treat government shutdowns like weather events: predictable, manageable, profitable

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: What farmers have discovered through shutdown patterns from 2013 to 2019 is that preparation timing matters more than operational size—the first 48-72 hours essentially determine whether you’ll navigate smoothly or scramble for months. Recent analysis of the 34-day 2018-2019 shutdown reveals that operations with diverse revenue streams maintained stable cash flow, while single-source operations saw payment terms tighten by the second week. The difference between prepared and unprepared farms often amounts to $30,000 or more in lost opportunities, delayed payments, and emergency financing costs. Here’s what this means for your operation: establishing written processor commitments, securing standby credit lines, and developing even modest revenue diversification (10-15% from non-milk sources) can transform shutdowns from crisis to competitive advantage. With budget battles looming in Washington, the farms building these safety nets are now positioning themselves to gain market share, while others struggle with basic cash flow. The encouraging news? More producers are sharing successful strategies openly, creating an industry-wide resilience that didn’t exist five years ago.

Generate comprehensive SEO elements for this The Bullvine article targeting dairy industry professionals seeking practical, ROI-focused solutions.
ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS:
Identify the article's primary topic and specific target audience (dairy producers, agricultural specialists, farm managers, genetics specialists)
Focus on practical, implementation-oriented keywords that dairy professionals would search for
Prioritize terms connecting to profitability, efficiency gains, and competitive advantages
Consider both technical dairy terminology and business/economic terms
SEO DELIVERABLES:
1. SEO KEYWORDS (7 High-Impact Keywords):
Create a comma-separated list mixing:
* 2-3 Primary Dairy Terms (dairy farming, milk production, herd management, genetics, nutrition)
* 2-3 Business/ROI Terms (dairy profitability, farm efficiency, cost reduction, profit margins, operational optimization)
* 1-2 Technology/Innovation Terms when applicable (precision agriculture, automated milking, genomic testing, robotic milking)
* 1 Geographic/Market Term if relevant (North American dairy, global dairy trends, regional market analysis)
1. FOCUS KEYPHRASE (2-4 Words):
Develop a primary keyphrase that captures the article's core topic and would be commonly searched by dairy professionals seeking this information. Must have strong commercial intent and natural integration potential.
2. META DESCRIPTION (150-160 Characters):
Write a compelling meta description that:
* Opens with compelling benefit or surprising statistic
* Naturally incorporates the focus keyphrase in first 80 characters
* Clearly communicates specific outcome (cost savings, efficiency gains, profit increases)
* Uses action-oriented language ("Discover," "Boost," "Maximize," "Transform")
* Appeals to industry decision-makers and technical specialists
* Includes 2025 market context when appropriate
1. RECOMMENDED TITLE (50-60 Characters):
Create an optimized title incorporating focus keyphrase and clear value proposition for maximum click-through rate.
2. CATEGORY RECOMMENDATIONS:
Suggest PRIMARY and SECONDARY categories from The Bullvine options:
Primary Categories: Dairy Industry, Genetics, Management, Technology, A.I. Industry, Dairy Markets, Nutrition, Robotic Milking
Consider cross-category opportunities for maximum internal linking
OUTPUT FORMAT:
text
SEO KEYWORDS: [7 keywords separated by commas]

FOCUS KEYPHRASE: [2-4 word primary keyphrase]

META DESCRIPTION: [150-160 character description with keyphrase and value proposition]

PRIMARY CATEGORY: [main category from The Bullvine options]

SECONDARY CATEGORY: [additional relevant category]

DAIRY INDUSTRY CONTEXT:
Target progressive dairy producers seeking ROI-focused solutions, agricultural specialists, farm managers, and industry consultants. Ensure all elements support practical implementation guidance, competitive intelligence, and risk management strategies. Focus on commercial intent keywords indicating purchase/implementation readiness while maintaining The Bullvine's authoritative position in dairy industry professional content.

I recently spoke with a producer from central Pennsylvania who summed it up perfectly: “We don’t plan for if there’s a shutdown anymore—we plan for when.” And looking at the calendar as we head into another budget season in Washington, that’s probably the most practical approach any of us can take.

What’s particularly noteworthy is how our industry’s response has evolved since that first major disruption in 2013. Remember that 16-day shutdown? Then came the 34-day marathon from December 22, 2018, to January 25, 2019—still the longest partial shutdown in U.S. history. Each time, we’ve gotten a bit smarter about preparation, though the stakes keep rising.

How These Disruptions Typically Unfold

This builds on what we’ve seen across multiple shutdowns now, and a pattern is definitely emerging. I was talking with a group of Wisconsin producers last month, and one of them—he milks about 500 cows near Fond du Lac—made an interesting observation: “It’s like watching a slow-motion train wreck. You can see exactly what’s coming, but only if you’re paying attention.”

The first week sets the tone. What I find particularly interesting is how processor behavior changes during this period. Early indications suggest they’re still assessing their own risk exposure, which means… well, that’s your window for negotiation. A producer I know in Idaho locked in written commitments on day two of the last shutdown. His neighbor, who waited until the second week? Different story entirely.

Week two brings operational reality into focus. Many operations I’ve visited have around three days of milk storage capacity, some less. I recently visited a 300-cow operation in Vermont where they’d invested in additional storage after 2019. Smart move, though he told me the capital investment ran around $45,000 for a used tank and installation—costs vary quite a bit by region and tank size, of course.

By week three, the cash flow situation becomes critical. This aligns with what we generally see happen with Farm Service Agency operations during shutdowns—loan processing typically slows to a crawl or stops entirely. Why is this significant? The timing often coincides with major purchase decisions. Feed contracts, equipment repairs that can’t wait, breeding supplies… the list goes on.

What’s particularly challenging is how these impacts vary by region and production system. A colleague who runs 800 cows in New Mexico faces completely different pressures than someone with 200 cows on pasture in Missouri. The Southwest operations, which deal with water costs and heat stress, have different cash flow patterns than those in the Great Lakes region, which manage seasonal production swings.

Understanding the True Financial Impact

While the data on exact costs per operation is still being developed, we can examine patterns from previous disruptions. Take a typical 400-cow operation—let’s say they’re averaging around 85 pounds per cow, for example. That’s roughly 12.4 million pounds annually. Current operating margins are… well, you know where margins are these days.

I recently spoke with a producer who found himself caught in the 2018-2019 shutdown, with January payments budgeted but not received. “We had fresh cows coming in, feed bills due, and suddenly our DMC payment wasn’t there,” he told me. “That’s when you really understand what cash flow means.”

This season, with feed costs where they are and milk prices finally showing some strength, any disruption to payment timing could be particularly painful. A banker I work with mentioned that in his experience, a significant portion of his dairy clients have less than 30 days of operating capital readily available. That’s not criticism—that’s just the reality of modern dairy economics.

What worries me most about payment delays is the timing in relation to the transition to cow management. If your DMC payment doesn’t come when you’ve got 30 fresh cows needing that premium ration, you can’t just cut corners there. That’s future production you’re risking. A nutritionist colleague observed that operations maintaining consistent transition protocols throughout the 2019 shutdown experienced minimal production impact, while those that compromised it took months to recover.

Cost CategoryUnprepared FarmsBasic PrepWell Prepared
Emergency Feed Financing$15,000$8,000$1,000
Extended Payment Terms$12,000$7,000$1,500
Rush Equipment Repairs$8,000$4,000$500
Premium Credit Rates$5,000$2,500$0
Lost Milk Quality Bonuses$3,500$1,500$0
Delayed Capital Investments$21,500$12,000$2,000
Total Average Impact$65,000$35,000$5,000

How Processors and Markets Respond

What’s noteworthy about processor behavior during these disruptions is how predictable it’s become. I serve on our cooperative’s advisory board, and we’ve had frank discussions about this. Processors aren’t necessarily trying to take advantage—they’re managing their own risk in an uncertain environment.

A field rep I’ve known for years put it this way: “When federal programs freeze, we have to look at each producer’s financial stability differently. It’s not personal, it’s just business risk management.” Fair enough, though it certainly feels personal when you’re on the receiving end of tighter payment terms.

I’ve noticed that field reps from processors start asking different questions when a shutdown is looming. Instead of “How’s production?” it becomes “How’s your cash position?” That’s when you know they’re assessing risk. Having that conversation on your terms, perhaps by inviting them to see your operation running smoothly, can shift the dynamic.

This builds on what we’ve observed across the industry—operations with diverse revenue streams tend to maintain better negotiating positions. I know a family in Ohio (third generation, about 350 cows) who added a small bottling operation five years ago. During the last shutdown, while others scrambled, they had a stable cash flow from local sales.

Building Resilience: Practical Strategies from the Field


Generated File

Preparation LevelAvg Cash Reserves (Days)Revenue DiversificationProcessor RelationsCredit AccessAvg Shutdown LossRecovery Time (Days)Survival Rate
Unprepared Farms12Milk OnlyReactiveEmergency Only$65,00018035%
Basic Preparation255-10% OtherBasic PlanningStandard Lines$35,0009070%
Well Prepared6515-20% OtherWritten AgreementsStandby Credit$5,0003095%

Revenue Diversification That Actually Works

Early indications suggest that even modest diversification can make a significant difference. I recently visited an operation in central New York that has added contract heifer raising to its business model. Nothing huge—they’re raising 100 head for a neighboring farm—but that steady monthly income provides crucial stability. The actual numbers vary by agreement, but it’s meaningful cash flow.

What’s particularly interesting is the genetics angle. A producer near Lancaster, Pennsylvania, began collaborating with a major genetics company to supply recipient cows for embryo transfer. The economics vary by program and company, but the combination of base payments and per-pregnancy bonuses can add $3-5 per hundredweight equivalent without major infrastructure changes.

Young and beginning farmers face particular challenges here—they often lack the financial reserves of established operations but may have more flexibility to pivot quickly. I mentor a young producer who took over the family’s 275-cow operation two years ago. He put it well: “I can handle low prices, I can handle high feed costs, but I can’t handle not knowing when payments will arrive.”

For organic producers, the challenges are even more complex. Certification requirements don’t pause during shutdowns, and organic feed costs often spike when supply chains get disrupted. One organic producer in Wisconsin told me they now keep 90 days of certified feed on hand, after nearly losing certification during the 2019 disruption when they couldn’t source compliant feed quickly enough.

Local Market Development

This aligns with broader industry trends toward local food systems. The National Milk Producers Federation has noted increased interest in direct marketing arrangements following each major disruption. I spoke with a producer in North Carolina last week who’s developed relationships with three area hospitals. Why is this significant? The payment terms often run around 30 days net—though this varies—compared to the longer cycles we sometimes see in commodity markets. Plus, these institutional buyers value supply stability—they’re not looking to switch suppliers over small price differences.

A colleague who transitioned part of his production to local sales made an observation worth sharing: “It’s not about abandoning your co-op or processor. It’s about having options when things get uncertain.”

If you’re shipping to a co-op, remember they’re dealing with the same pressures. I serve on our co-op board, and during the last shutdown, we had to make some tough decisions about payment timing. Understanding both sides of that relationship helps—your co-op needs you to succeed as much as you need them to stay viable.

Financial Positioning Strategies

While the ideal of 60-90 days of operating reserves sounds great, let’s be realistic about current conditions. What I’m seeing more producers do successfully is establish targeted credit lines specifically for disruption scenarios. The key—and this is important—is setting these up when you don’t need them.

I recently had coffee with a Farm Credit loan officer who mentioned something interesting: “Producers who come to us proactively, showing they’re thinking about risk management, get much better terms than those calling in crisis mode.” The fees and terms vary widely, but having that safety net can make all the difference.

Technology Considerations During Disruptions

If you’re running robots or automated feeding systems, consider how a shutdown might affect parts availability or service technician access. One Wisconsin producer told me he keeps critical spare parts on hand after getting caught short during the 2019 shutdown. Investing in technology during uncertain times can be tricky. That new plate cooler might save you $500 per month in energy costs, but if you’re concerned about cash flow, perhaps the old one will last another year. Though I’ve also seen producers use shutdown downtime to do equipment upgrades they’d been putting off.

The Bigger Industry Picture

The USDA Census numbers tell a sobering story—from 648,000 dairy farms in 1970 to 26,470 in 2022. However, what’s particularly noteworthy is how the pace of consolidation often accelerates during periods of disruption. This isn’t just about farm exits; it’s about fundamental industry restructuring.

I was at a meeting in Wisconsin last month where someone asked an important question: “Are shutdowns causing consolidation, or just accelerating what was already happening?” Probably both, honestly. The operations exiting often faced multiple pressures—succession challenges, labor availability, infrastructure needs—with shutdowns being the final straw rather than the sole cause.

Now, I’m not saying consolidation is all bad. Some of these mergers have kept processing capacity in regions that might have lost it entirely. And let’s be honest, some operations that exit were already struggling with succession planning or labor issues. However, what concerns me is when good, viable operations are pushed into difficult decisions due to cash flow timing.

Grazing operations might actually have some advantages here. Lower infrastructure costs and natural feed flexibility can provide resilience. A management-intensive grazing operation I know in Vermont weathered the 2019 shutdown better than many of his confinement-feeding neighbors, simply because his cash flow requirements were lower and more flexible.

Practical Preparation Steps

Immediate Actions Worth Considering

Based on what we learned from previous shutdowns, here’s what seems to make a difference. First, document everything. I mean everything. That handshake deal with your feed supplier? Get it in writing, even if it’s just an email confirmation. A producer in Iowa told me that his verbal agreement for deferred payment evaporated when his supplier’s own cash flow became tight during the last shutdown.

Second, have proactive conversations with your lender. Not when CNN announces a shutdown is likely—now, while things are calm. I recently spoke with a producer who negotiated a standby letter of credit specifically for government disruptions. The fees vary by institution and creditworthiness, but the peace of mind was worth it to him.

Don’t forget to communicate with your employees during times of uncertainty. Clear, honest updates can prevent good people from looking elsewhere when things get uncertain. Family operations where everyone pitches in may have more flexibility than those that depend on hired help.

Building Medium-Term Resilience

Looking ahead to next spring, consider whether quality premiums might work for your operation. The economics vary significantly by region, but I know producers getting premiums ranging from $0.30 to $0.75 per hundredweight for maintaining SCC under 150,000 and butterfat above 4.0%. One operation in Michigan told me they invested roughly $20,000 in parlor improvements and training. Their quality bonuses now run substantially higher—the exact amount depends on their volume and specific premiums, but the ROI has been solid.

Don’t forget to consider the timing of your breeding program as well. If you’re synchronized for seasonal breeding and a shutdown delays your sync supplies or technician access, that’s a year-long impact from a month-long disruption. Some producers I know keep extra CIDR’s and GnRH on hand just for this reason.

The timing of these shutdowns matters too. A shutdown in October when you’re buying winter feed hits differently than one in May when pastures are coming on. Operations that have transitioned to seasonal calving might have completely different cash flow patterns than year-round operations.

Long-Term Strategic Positioning

This builds on conversations happening across the industry about “right-sizing” operations. It’s not always about getting bigger. I know several producers who’ve actually scaled back to better match their labor availability and management capacity. One family in Minnesota went from 400 cows to 275, eliminated hired labor, and improved profitability. They’re taking a different approach, but it’s working for them.

Your Shutdown Preparedness Framework

After observing multiple disruptions, certain principles consistently emerge:

Response speed often matters more than operation size. I’ve seen 200-cow dairies navigate shutdowns better than operations five times their size, simply because they acted decisively in those first 48 to 72 hours.

Documentation provides protection when relationships get tested. Every shutdown reinforces this lesson—verbal agreements mean little when financial pressure mounts.

Flexibility comes from cultivating options before you need them. Whether it’s alternative markets, credit facilities, or processor relationships, having Plan B (and C) prevents desperate decision-making.

The timing within your production cycle matters. A shutdown hitting during peak spring production creates different challenges than one in late fall. Understanding your operation’s specific vulnerable periods helps target preparation efforts.

Looking Forward

What’s encouraging is how our industry continues to adapt and learn. More producers are building financial reserves, exploring market alternatives, and most importantly, talking openly about these challenges. The conversations I’m having now, compared to even five years ago, have improved dramatically in terms of awareness and preparation level.

This isn’t about pessimism—it’s about practical risk management. We prepare for weather events, market volatility, and disease challenges. Government disruptions have simply become another risk factor to manage in modern dairy farming.

The operations implementing these strategies aren’t just preparing for shutdowns; they are also preparing for the unexpected. They’re building stronger, more flexible businesses capable of handling whatever challenges emerge. And from what I’m seeing across the industry—from California to Maine, from 100-cow grazing operations to 5,000-cow facilities—that resilience is growing.

Ultimately, professional dairy farming in 2025 means managing complexity and uncertainty while consistently producing a high-quality product every day. The producers who recognize that reality and prepare accordingly… well, they’re the ones who’ll still be shipping milk when the next challenge arrives.

And it will arrive. The only question is whether we’ll be ready. From what I’m seeing out there, I’m betting on dairy farmers’ resilience. We’ve weathered worse storms than this, and we’ll weather whatever comes next. That’s what we do—we adapt, we persist, and we keep those bulk tanks full.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Act within 48 hours of shutdown announcement to secure written processor commitments and favorable payment terms—waiting until week two typically costs $2-3/cwt in adjusted pricing
  • Diversify 10-15% of revenue through genetics programs ($3-5/cwt equivalent), contract heifer raising, or institutional direct sales with net-30 payment terms versus longer commodity cycles
  • Establish $30,000-50,000 in standby credit before a crisis hits—producers who approach lenders proactively receive substantially better terms than those calling during disruptions
  • Document everything in writing, including feed supplier agreements and processor commitments—verbal agreements consistently evaporate when financial pressure mounts across the supply chain
  • Build 60-90 days operating reserves through targeted strategies: quality premiums ($0.30-0.75/cwt for <150,000 SCC), strategic inventory management, and regional market development with hospitals or schools

Learn More:

Send this to a friend