Archive for feed supply chain

€2.2 Billion, 4 Companies, 1 Feed Bunk: CVC Just Carved Up Your Premix Supply Chain with dsm-firmenich Deal

CVC Capital Partners just bought one of the biggest names in your feed supply chain. Here’s the math on what changes, what might actually improve, and the four moves you should make before the deal closes.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: CVC Capital Partners bought dsm-firmenich’s entire Animal Nutrition & Health division on February 9, 2026, for €2.2 billion — carving one of the world’s largest dairy nutrition suppliers into four separate companies by year-end. For a 300-cow Midwest U.S. dairy carrying $73,000–$83,000 a year in mineral, vitamin, and premix exposure through this supply chain, the ownership change is anything but abstract. CVC brings genuine dairy experience through Urus and a proven digital-transformation playbook, but also brings PE margin discipline that typically hits input pricing within the first 24 months. Three structural risks matter most: vitamin allocation now runs through commercial negotiations rather than internal management, over 73% of global vitamin production is concentrated in China, and quarterly return targets can incentivise quiet reformulations that take weeks to show up in your bulk tank. Producers have roughly 10 months before closing to document current formulations, audit feed mill sourcing, trial a second premix supplier, and lock contract terms with substitution-notice and change-of-control protections. That playbook starts with one phone call to your nutritionist — this month.

On February 9, 2026, dsm-firmenich sold its entire Animal Nutrition & Health division to private equity firm CVC Capital Partners for approximately €2.2 billion, including an earnout of up to €0.5 billion. Combined with last year’s €1.5 billion sale of its feed enzymes stake to Novonesis, the total ANH divestiture reaches €3.7 billion — implying a 10x EV/Adjusted EBITDA multiple on the combined value. That’s ANH’s entire €3.5 billion-a-year operation and roughly 8,000 employees changing hands. 

Those are the corporate numbers. Here’s the farm-level number: a 300-cow dairy spends roughly $73,000 to $83,000 a year on the minerals, vitamins, and premix that flow through this supply chain, based on the University of Missouri Extension’s 2025 confinement dairy planning budget at $840/ton and 577–656 lbs per cow (a Midwest U.S. estimate — your region’s numbers will differ, but the exposure ratio holds). Minerals and vitamins? Bigger line item than you’d guess. And the companies supplying them just changed hands. 

One Division Becomes Four Companies

The nutrition supply chain that used to run through a single integrated ANH division is being carved across four separate businesses — all effective by the end of 2026: 

EntityWhat They SupplyOwnerHQ
Solutions CompanyPremix, performance products, precision servicesCVC Capital PartnersKaiseraugst, Switzerland 
Essential Products CompanyVitamins, carotenoids, aroma ingredientsCVC Capital PartnersKaiseraugst, Switzerland 
NovonesisFeed enzymes (phytase, xylanase, protease)NovonesisDenmark  
dsm-firmenich (retained)Bovaer, Veramarisdsm-firmenichKaiseraugst, Switzerland 

dsm-firmenich retains a 20% equity stake in both CVC-owned entities but holds no operational control. Feed enzymes went to Novonesis in a deal completed in June 2025, representing approximately €300 million in annual net sales. Novonesis will continue a long-term commercial relationship with ANH for re-sale of its feed enzymes through the premix network. 

So that “single supplier” relationship many producers had? It’s now four commercial relationships with four distinct P&Ls. Four separate sets of incentives deciding what goes into your premix, what it costs, and who picks up the phone when something goes wrong. This is part of a broader consolidation wave reshaping the dairy sector — and it’s accelerating. 

Company NameWhat They Supply to DairyOwnerYour RiskRevenue (Annual)
Solutions CompanyPremix, performance products, precision servicesCVC Capital PartnersThird in vitamin allocation queue~€2.0–2.5 billion
Essential Products CompanyVitamins, carotenoids, aroma ingredientsCVC Capital Partners73%+ China concentration; spot market priority~€1.0–1.5 billion
NovonesisFeed enzymes (phytase, xylanase, protease)Novonesis (independent)Re-sale through premix network only~€300 million
dsm-firmenich (retained)Bovaer (methane), Veramaris (omega-3)dsm-firmenichCost-benefit gap; unclear processor co-funding~€100–200 million

The PE Playbook: What Actually Changes on Your Farm

Let’s be honest — “private equity buys a feed company” usually makes producers nervous. Sometimes that’s warranted. Sometimes it isn’t. Here’s how to think about it clearly.

CVC isn’t a nutrition company. They manage roughly €201 billion in assets across 150+ companies with combined annual sales over €165 billion. But here’s the thing that matters for dairy: CVC already owns Urus, which they describe as “a global leader dedicated to serving dairy and beef cattle producers around the world with cutting-edge genetics and customised reproductive services”. They’re not walking into animal agriculture blind. And this isn’t even their first deal with dsm-firmenich — CVC held a majority stake in the ChemicaInvest joint venture with DSM back in 2015. 

The return math, simplified: CVC paid roughly 7x normalised EBITDA for ANH. Their recent PE exits have averaged 3.3x invested capital at a 27% gross IRR. If historical patterns hold, a €2.2 billion acquisition needs to grow toward €6–7 billion over a five-to-seven-year hold. That’s the number shaping every pricing, staffing, and product-line decision going forward. 

What does that mean in plain language? PE ownership follows a predictable sequence:

  • Phase 1 (Years 1–2): Margin improvement — operational efficiencies, overhead reduction, portfolio rationalisation. This is the phase most likely to touch your feed bill.
  • Phase 2 (Years 2–5): Bolt-on acquisitions to build scale and market share.
  • Phase 3 (Years 5–7): Position for premium-multiple exit or IPO.

The Private Equity Stakeholder Project tracked 129 PE deals in U.S. agriculture between January 2018 and December 2023 using Pitchbook data — outcomes ranged widely, from genuine platform growth to Prima Wawona, where Paine Schwartz Partners merged two profitable stone fruit growers into a single entity that entered Chapter 11. CVC’s track record looks materially different. But the underlying dynamic — new owners optimising for return metrics on a fixed timeline — applies across every PE-owned supplier. 

Where PE Ownership Could Actually Help

Here’s where I’ll push back on the doom narrative. PE ownership isn’t all margin pressure and cost-cutting. CVC has been aggressive about deploying AI and digital transformation across its 120+ portfolio companies, classifying each by AI readiness and prioritising where technology can unlock measurable value. ANH already built precision livestock tools — Sustell for farm-level sustainability measurement, Verax for animal health monitoring, and FarmTell for data-driven herd management. Under a PE owner with CVC’s tech orientation, investment in those platforms could accelerate. 

Steven Buyse, CVC’s Managing Partner, said in the announcement: “The Solutions Company will continue to drive innovation and efficiency in animal farming, delivering tailored solutions with high proximity to its global customer base. The Essential Products Company will be built as a resilient global leader in essential feed, food, and fragrance ingredients”. 

Translation: CVC sees two distinct value-creation stories. The Solutions Company gets the precision services and innovation mandate. The Essential Products Company gets built for supply reliability and cost efficiency. If CVC executes well, producers could see better digital tools, more professionalised logistics, and sharper supply-chain management. That’s a real potential upside.

The catch? Those digital tools and precision services tend to come bundled with longer-term contracts and proprietary data ecosystems. More on that in a minute.

Three Structural Risks That Still Deserve Your Attention

You Might Be Third in the Vitamin Supply Queue

When ANH was one division, vitamin production and premix blending shared a single management team. During the 2023 vitamin price crash — Chinese oversupply drove ANH’s adjusted EBITDA down 91% year-on-year in Q3, with a vitamin price effect of about €120 million  — the integrated structure absorbed the hit. When BASF’s Ludwigshafen plant fire in July 2024 sent Vitamin A prices surging from roughly $21/kg to $72/kg — a 243% spike — internal allocation kept the premix business supplied. 

Post-split, those allocation decisions become commercial negotiations. The Essential Products Company now serves three customer types:

  1. dsm-firmenich — contractually guaranteed volumes under a long-term supply agreement, backstopped by a €450 million loan facility and up to €115 million in additional liquidity support from dsm-firmenich 
  2. Spot buyers — willing to pay premium prices during supply squeezes
  3. The Solutions Company — a customer relationship, not a guaranteed supply line

During a disruption, dairy premix customers could find themselves third in that queue. In November 2022, DSM announced a temporary halt to Rovimix Vitamin A production at its Sisseln, Switzerland, plant for at least 2 months, along with significant reductions in Rovimix Vitamin E-50. DSM stated it would “honour existing contractual commitments” while activating allocation procedures. That kind of allocation triage gets harder when the vitamin producer and the premix blender sit on separate balance sheets — and it’s exactly the type of supply chain vulnerability that dairy producers have been caught flat-footed by before.

The China Concentration Risk Underneath Everything

The vitamin CVC market the company is stepping into is arguably the most geopolitically exposed input market in agriculture. AFIA president Constance Cullman told the 2025 NAFB Convention that over 73% of vitamins originate in China. The European Feed Manufacturers’ Federation (FEFAC) puts the concentration even higher for specific vitamins: 

  • Vitamin D3: ~93% China-sourced 
  • Vitamin B1: ~97% China-sourced 
  • Folic acid: nearly 100% China-sourced 

“We believe this is a national security issue.” — Constance Cullman, AFIA president, 2025 NAFB Convention 

China imposed provisional anti-subsidy tariffs of 21.9% to 42.7% on certain EU dairy products in late 2025. If that escalation touches vitamin exports — or if China simply prioritises domestic supply during a disruption — ANH’s European vitamin capacity becomes CVC’s most strategically valuable asset. And CVC will price it accordingly. On the flip side, CVC has both the capital and the incentive to invest in non-Chinese vitamin capacity — that’s exactly the kind of strategic asset-building that could justify a premium multiple at exit. 

Biology Doesn’t Run on Quarterly Reporting

Trevor DeVries at the University of Guelph presented research at the 2019 Western Canadian Dairy Seminar, establishing that “dairy cow health, production, and efficiency are optimized when cows consume consistent rations, both within the day and across days”. More variability between delivered and formulated rations increases the chance that cows won’t perform to expectations. 

Here’s the problem: when a margin-driven reformulation — swapping chelated zinc for zinc oxide, trimming vitamin inclusion from above-NRC to minimum-NRC — saves a few dollars per tonne of premix, the production effects may not show in the tank for six to eight weeks. By then, the cost saving has been booked to the current quarter’s EBITDA. The component drift? That’s your problem to diagnose.

This isn’t unique to PE ownership. Any supplier under margin pressure can make these moves. But PE’s quarterly discipline and fixed-horizon exit timeline sharpen the incentive.

Four Moves to Make Before the Deal Closes

The transaction is expected to close by the end of 2026. That gives you roughly 10 months. Use them. 

1. Get your formulation on paper. Call your nutritionist and request the complete premix specification for every product you’re running — full ingredient list, inclusion rates, source identifications (not just “zinc” but zinc methionine vs. zinc sulfate vs. zinc oxide), and guaranteed analysis. Dated and signed. This costs nothing, takes one conversation, and enables every other protective move. Without a baseline, you can’t detect reformulations, comparison-shop credibly, or hold anyone accountable.

2. Audit your feed mill’s sourcing. If you’re a 200–400 cow dairy, your premix likely comes through a feed mill, not directly from ANH. Ask three questions: Where do they source vitamins? How many suppliers? What’s the contingency if the primary goes on allocation or raises prices 20%? If your mill single-sources from the Essential Products pipeline, their vulnerability is yours.

3. Test a second supplier on part of your herd. Running 10–15% of volume through an alternative creates a tested backup and real negotiating leverage. Here’s a rough threshold: if your total premix spend exceeds $20,000 a year and you currently single-source, that trial is manageable. The premix market offers genuine options: Trouw Nutrition, Adisseo, Evonik, and regional specialists such as Animine, Devenish Nutrition, and Novus International. The ADM-Alltech joint venture, announced in September 2025, combines Alltech’s 33 feed mills (18 U.S., 15 Canada) with ADM’s 11 U.S. feed mills into a 44-mill network — another competitor entering the space. The trade-off: your nutritionist needs time to validate formulation equivalence, and rumen adaptation matters. Transition gradually. 

4. Lock contract terms while there’s an incentive to deal. Before closing, both sides want a smooth handover. Use that to formalise: 30-day written notice before any ingredient substitution; service-level commitments; pricing escalation caps indexed to verifiable benchmarks; and a change-of-control clause allowing renegotiation if either entity is subsequently sold. But remember — long-term contracts cut both ways. When vitamin prices crashed in 2023, locked-in terms would have left you paying above-market rates. Indexed pricing structures beat fixed rates in a volatile input market. 

Action ItemTimeline / DeadlineCost to ExecuteRisk If You Don’tWho to Call First
1. Document current premix formulationThis month (Feb 2026)$0 (one phone call)No baseline to detect reformulations or hold suppliers accountableYour nutritionist
2. Audit feed mill’s vitamin sourcingBefore April 2026$0 (3 questions)Feed mill’s single-source vulnerability becomes your cash flow crisisYour feed mill rep
3. Test second premix supplier on 10–15% of herdMay–Aug 2026$1,500–$3,000 trial costZero negotiating leverage; no tested backup during allocation squeezeIndependent nutritionist or alt supplier
4. Lock contract terms with substitution protectionsBefore Oct 2026 (deal close)Legal review: $500–$1,500Eat reformulations and price increases with no recourse or exit clauseFeed supplier + lawyer (change-of-control clause)

The Bovaer Split: Who Pays for Methane?

dsm-firmenich kept Bovaer and Veramaris while selling everything else. That means the company promoting methane reduction on your farm is no longer the company managing your daily nutrition. 

Elanco estimates a potential annual return of “$20 or more per lactating dairy cow” through voluntary carbon markets and government incentives — but that figure reflects projected potential, not observed farm-level returns. Greg Hocking, Mars Snacking’s global VP of R&D for New Innovation Territories, was direct in a December 2025 interview: “Consumers will benefit from these efforts, but we don’t expect them to pay extra for sustainability”. Denmark is moving toward subsidised adoption and may mandate methane-reducing additives. If that regulatory model spreads, processor co-funding could follow. 

But the gap between the additive cost and the documented on-farm returns means the economics of voluntary methane programs are still tight. Evaluate any value-chain program carefully — we dug into the details in Bovaer Unleashed: The Controversial Additive Changing Dairy Forever

What This Means for Your Operation

  • Your mineral and vitamin line item is more exposed than it looks. At $242–$275 per cow per year for a Midwest U.S. confinement dairy (University of Missouri Extension, 2025 ), a 10% cost increase means $7,000–$8,000 on a 300-cow operation. Your region’s absolute numbers will differ—benchmark your feed costs against strategic alternatives with your nutritionist. 
  • The financial incentives behind your supplier just changed — but that’s not automatically bad. PE ownership optimises for 5–7 year return cycles, not 20-year relationships. That could mean tighter margins andbetter digital tools. Verify rather than assume. Watch what actually happens to service levels and product specs.
  • Your feed mill is the invisible middleman. If they single-source vitamins from ANH’s Essential Products pipeline, a pricing or allocation squeeze hits you even if your name isn’t on the contract. Ask the question this week.
  • Precision services come with strings. If CVC invests in Sustell, Verax, or FarmTell — dsm-firmenich’s existing data platforms  — those tools could genuinely improve your herd management. Just understand what data you’re handing over and which contract terms come with it. 
  • Collective purchasing deserves a conversation. If you sell through a cooperative, ask whether group nutrition procurement is on the board’s agenda. Volume leverage is the strongest counter to supplier concentration — and building financial firewalls against supplier disruption starts with knowing where the risk sits. 

Key Takeaways

  • Get your complete premix formulation documented this month — dated, signed, with source identifications for every active ingredient. One phone call, zero cost, foundation for everything else.
  • Test an alternative premix supplier on 10–15% of your herd before the deal closes. A credible alternative is the only pricing leverage that consistently works in concentrated markets.
  • Evaluate whether your nutritionist works for the company selling you premix. If so, get a second opinion from an independent consultant.
  • Run the stress test: if premix costs rose 10% while milk prices dropped $2/cwt simultaneously, what does your cash flow look like? Run that number now, not after closing.
  • Don’t dismiss PE upside. CVC’s digital investment track record and its existing dairy exposure through Urus mean this could bring genuine improvements in supply-chain efficiency and precision tools. Stay skeptical, but stay open. 
  • Watch for CVC-branded communications in your feed mill or nutritionist’s feed after closing — that’s the signal the margin-optimisation phase has started.
Herd SizeCurrent Annual Premix CostAfter 10% IncreaseAnnual Cost ImpactImpact as % of Milk Revenue
100 cows$24,200–$27,500$26,620–$30,250$2,420–$2,7500.5–0.6%
300 cows$72,600–$82,500$79,860–$90,750$7,260–$8,2500.5–0.6%
500 cows$121,000–$137,500$133,100–$151,250$12,100–$13,7500.5–0.6%
750 cows$181,500–$206,250$199,650–$226,875$18,150–$20,6250.5–0.6%
1,000 cows$242,000–$275,000$266,200–$302,500$24,200–$27,5000.5–0.6%

The Bottom Line

The ownership of your dairy’s nutrition supplier changed on February 9, 2026. Your formulation, your service levels, and your contract terms haven’t changed yet. That gap is your window—and it closes when this deal does at year-end. How are you planning to use it? 

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

French Dairy Farmers Storm Paris: How EU Pesticide Wars Could Slash Your Feed Costs 15%

French tractor revolt exposes EU feed crisis—acetamiprid ban could spike your dairy rations 15%. Smart producers are hedging now. Are you?

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: French farmers’ May 2025 tractor blockade of Paris isn’t just European politics—it’s a preview of the regulatory wars that could determine whether your feed costs soar or stabilize through 2026. The battle over France’s Duplomb law centers on re-authorizing acetamiprid, a banned bee-toxic pesticide critical for sugar beet production that feeds millions of European dairy cows. With opposition lawmakers filing 3,500 amendments to gut the bill, this regulatory uncertainty creates supply-demand imbalances that ripple through global feed markets, potentially impacting sugar beet pulp availability and pricing for North American operations. The EU’s contradictory pesticide policies—acetamiprid approved until 2033 EU-wide but banned in France since 2018—expose the competitive distortions reshaping international dairy economics. Environmental groups cite 16 new peer-reviewed studies showing developmental neurotoxicity risks, while farmers argue regulatory asymmetries between EU nations create unfair feed cost disadvantages. As European milk production already declined 0.3% in 2024 amid regulatory pressures, this French uprising signals whether EU agriculture will prioritize environmental ideology over economic viability. Smart dairy producers need to evaluate feed contract strategies and supply chain diversification before these regulatory battles create market volatility that hits their bottom line.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Feed Cost Hedging Imperative: Lock in sugar beet pulp and alternative protein contracts now—regulatory uncertainty in major EU agricultural regions typically translates to 8-12% price volatility in feed commodity markets, with procurement delays costing operations $0.15-0.23 per cow per day.
  • Supply Chain Diversification Strategy: Develop backup feed sources beyond EU-dependent commodities—dairy operations relying on single-region protein sources face 23% higher cost exposure during regulatory disruptions, while diversified sourcing reduces feed price volatility by up to 31%.
  • Regulatory Arbitrage Monitoring: Track EU pesticide policy inconsistencies for competitive intelligence—French dairy farmers operating under stricter acetamiprid bans face 4-7% higher feed costs than German competitors, creating market distortions that impact global commodity flows and pricing.
  • Technology Investment Priority: Accelerate adoption of precision feed management systems—operations using real-time ration optimization technologies reduce feed waste by 12-18% and maintain consistent milk production during commodity price shocks, with ROI typically achieved within 14-18 months.
  • Policy Risk Assessment: Integrate regulatory scenario planning into 2026 business planning—EU agricultural policy shifts affect global feed markets even for North American operations, with smart producers already modeling 15-20% feed cost scenarios based on European regulatory outcomes.
dairy feed costs, agricultural regulations, dairy profitability, feed supply chain, EU dairy policy

French farmers rolled tractors into the nation’s capital on May 26, 2025, demanding lawmakers pass agricultural deregulation that could reshape European dairy feed markets within months. The heated battle over France’s Duplomb law centers on re-authorizing acetamiprid—a banned bee-toxic pesticide critical for sugar beet production that feeds millions of European dairy cows. With opposition lawmakers filing 3,500 amendments to gut the bill, this isn’t just French politics—it’s a preview of the regulatory wars that could determine whether your feed costs soar or stabilize through 2026.

The Protest That Stopped Traffic

Around ten tractors were parked defiantly outside France’s National Assembly, while over 150 farmers from multiple regions blocked major highways in Paris. This wasn’t symbolic theater—it was calculated pressure on lawmakers debating legislation that could fundamentally alter European agricultural competitiveness.

“This legislation to alleviate the burdens on the agricultural sector is extremely significant to us,” FNSEA Secretary-General Hervé Lapie told AFP. “We have been advocating for this for two decades. Our patience has worn thin”.

The farmers weren’t just making noise. They were defending what they see as survival tools in an increasingly hostile regulatory environment.

The Acetamiprid Battlefield: What’s Really at Stake

Here’s what dairy producers need to understand: acetamiprid has been banned in France since 2018, but it’s still legal across the rest of the EU until 2033. This creates a massive competitive distortion that directly impacts your feed costs.

The numbers tell the story. French beet production suffers when France can’t protect sugar beet crops with the same tools as Germany or Poland. That means less sugar beet pulp—a critical, cost-effective dairy feed component—and higher prices for what’s available.

But here’s the twist: the EU just slashed maximum residue levels for acetamiprid, effective August 19, 2025. Products like bananas, currants, lettuces, and other feed components will face much stricter limits. The European Food Safety Authority identified lower acceptable daily intake levels and acute reference doses, forcing these regulatory changes.

Why Dairy Farmers Should Care About French Politics

Feed Security is Feed Economics. Sugar beet pulp represents a significant portion of many European dairy rations. When regulatory asymmetries restrict production in major agricultural regions like France, supply-demand imbalances ripple through feed markets.

Environmental groups like PAN Europe and Générations Futures are pushing hard against acetamiprid re-authorization, citing new research showing developmental neurotoxicity and harm to pollinators. They’ve identified 16 peer-reviewed studies published within two years indicating various health and environmental risks.

The opposition is fierce. Nearly 1,200 medical doctors publicly warned that re-authorizing such pesticides would represent “a retreat for public health.”

The Parliamentary Power Play

When opposition lawmakers filed 3,500 amendments to delay the bill, supporters used a controversial “motion of rejection” to bypass extensive debate. This parliamentary maneuver sent the legislation directly to a joint committee without allowing a full discussion of the amendments.

Left-wing parties exploded. LFI announced plans to file a no-confidence motion against the government in response. Environmental groups called it an “anti-democratic tactic.”

But for agricultural interests, it was a strategic necessity. The FNSEA and allied groups viewed the amendment flood as obstruction designed to kill legislation they’d fought for decades to achieve.

What This Means for Your Operation

Three immediate implications for dairy producers:

  1. Feed Cost Volatility Increases
    Regulatory uncertainty in major agricultural regions creates price instability. Whether acetamiprid gets re-authorized or remains banned, the back-and-forth creates market uncertainty that typically translates to higher feed costs.
  2. Supply Chain Diversification Becomes Critical
    Dairy operations dependent on specific feed components from restricted regions face increased vulnerability. Smart producers are already exploring alternative protein and energy sources.
  3. Regulatory Harmonization Pressure Builds
    This French battle reflects broader EU tensions between national environmental standards and single-market competitiveness. Expect similar regulatory conflicts across other agricultural inputs.

The Broader European Context

France isn’t alone. Farmers across Germany, Spain, Italy, and Poland have staged similar protests over environmental regulations they claim undermine competitiveness. The EU has already made concessions, including shelving proposals to halve pesticide use by 2030.

Young French farmer Clément Patoir captured the frustration: “Few young people want to become farmers nowadays. Many children of farmers have to hear about their parents struggling with regulations constantly. It is a complicated job; you work long hours and are not necessarily rewarded”.

Bottom Line: Navigate the Regulatory Storm

This French tractor revolt exposes the fundamental tension between environmental ambitions and agricultural economics that’s reshaping European dairy production. Whether you’re in Wisconsin or Waikato, these regulatory battles matter because they’re determining global competitive dynamics.

Your next moves:

  • Lock in feed contracts before regulatory decisions create market volatility
  • Diversify protein sources to reduce dependence on potentially restricted inputs
  • Monitor EU regulatory developments that could impact global feed commodity flows

The farms that thrive through this regulatory uncertainty won’t be those fighting yesterday’s battles—they’ll be the ones adapting fastest to tomorrow’s rules. While politicians argue over pesticides, smart dairy producers are building resilient operations that can profit regardless of how the regulatory winds blow.

The message from Paris is clear: regulatory stability is dead. Operational agility is everything.

Learn More:

Join the Revolution!

Join over 30,000 successful dairy professionals who rely on Bullvine Weekly for their competitive edge. Delivered directly to your inbox each week, our exclusive industry insights help you make smarter decisions while saving precious hours every week. Never miss critical updates on milk production trends, breakthrough technologies, and profit-boosting strategies that top producers are already implementing. Subscribe now to transform your dairy operation’s efficiency and profitability—your future success is just one click away.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent
Send this to a friend