Archive for FMMO reform

Your Next Milk Check Changes Everything: Why GLP-1 Drugs Just Made Protein King

Your grandfather chased butterfat. Your kids will chase protein. The switch happens on December 1. Miss it and you’re playing catch-up forever.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The pharmaceutical industry just rewrote dairy economics: 30 million Americans on GLP-1 weight-loss drugs can’t digest traditional cheese but desperately need protein, ending 20 years of butterfat dominance. December 1st brings Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms requiring a 3.3% minimum protein—a threshold that will trigger deductions for unprepared farms. Three proven strategies offer paths forward: amino acid optimization (generating $38,000+ within 60 days), Jersey crossbreeding (worth $850-1,100 per cow annually), or direct processor contracts (securing $270,000+ yearly for a 650-cow operation). The split is already visible—early adapters report record profits while operations with 55%+ debt-to-asset ratios and sub-3.2% protein face elimination. December 15 marks the strategic decision deadline before January’s bank reviews. This isn’t a temporary market disruption but a permanent shift where protein premiums of $1.40-1.75/cwt will separate survivors from statistics. The market has spoken: adapt to protein economics or exit on your terms before the choice gets made for you.

Dairy Protein Strategy

I was reviewing the latest milk check when something struck me. The numbers looked familiar enough, but there’s a fundamental shift happening underneath—one that started, surprisingly enough, in pharmaceutical boardrooms rather than our dairy barns.

When Eli Lilly announced last month that its GLP-1 drug, tirzepatide, became the world’s bestselling medicine, with over $10 billion in third-quarter sales alone, most of us probably didn’t pay much attention. But here’s what’s interesting: this pharmaceutical success story is about to reshape how we think about milk components, and it’s happening faster than most producers realize.

According to Gallup’s health tracking released in October, 12.4% of American adults are now using injectable GLP-1 medications for weight loss. That’s more than double the 5.8% from February 2024. And the Trump administration’s recent negotiations with Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk to reduce prices from around $1,000 monthly to $350 for injectables through Medicare and certain insurance programs—with oral versions potentially hitting $150 once the FDA approves them—well, that’s when adoption really takes off.

Dave Richards from IFF Consumer Insights shared something fascinating from their September 2025 report: households using these medications are fundamentally changing how they consume dairy. The implications reach far beyond individual shopping carts.

GLP-1 adoption among US adults has accelerated dramatically, doubling from 5.8% in February 2024 to 12.4% by October 2025, with projections exceeding 20% by March 2027 when oral formulations hit $150/month

Why Protein Is Suddenly Everything

The timing here is remarkable. Come December 1st—we’re talking 19 days from now—Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms kick in. The baseline protein standard jumps from 3.1% to 3.3%. If you’re shipping below that threshold, you’ll see deductions starting with your January milk check. Meanwhile, CME spot dry whey hit $0.75 per pound this week, marking an 11-month high according to the Daily Dairy Report.

Tom Henderson, who runs 600 cows near Eau Claire, Wisconsin, put it perfectly when we talked last week. “We’ve been chasing butterfat for twenty years,” he said, looking at his component premiums tracking sheet that goes back to 2008. “Now my co-op’s offering $1.40 per hundredweight premium for anything above 3.4% protein. That’s more than I’ve ever seen for fat premiums, even in the good years.”

What farmers are finding is that this isn’t just a U.S. phenomenon. The Canadian Dairy Commission announced in September that four western provinces—British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba—will shift their component pricing ratios come April 2026. They’re dropping butterfat’s payment weight from 85% to 70% while increasing protein from 10% to 25%. That’s a fundamental acknowledgment that the market has changed.

Looking at today’s futures tells the whole story. November Class III milk (your cheese milk) trades at $17.16 per hundredweight. Class IV (butter-powder)? $13.63. That $3.53 spread reveals exactly what processors value now.

You know, I’ve been watching robotic milking systems for years, and what’s interesting is how they might actually help with this protein push. A producer near Watertown, New York, told me his robots let him feed different groups more precisely—his high-protein genetics get exactly what they need, when they need it. “The robots don’t just milk,” he said. “They’re data collection points for component optimization.”

Timeline Watch: Critical Dates Approaching

  • Now through November 30: Last chance for nutrition adjustments to impact December protein tests
  • December 1: FMMO protein baseline increases to 3.3%
  • January 15: First milk check with potential deductions arrives
  • January 31: Banks finalize credit reviews based on new component economics

Understanding the GLP-1 Effect on Dairy Consumption

GLP-1 adoption among US adults has accelerated dramatically, doubling from 5.8% in February 2024 to 12.4% by October 2025, with projections exceeding 20% by March 2027 when oral formulations hit $150/month

Dr. Sarah Martinez, from UC Davis’s nutrition research program, has been studying the effects of GLP-1 since 2023. What she’s discovered explains a lot. These medications dramatically slow gastric emptying—food stays in the stomach much longer. While that’s great for feeling full, it creates real problems with high-fat foods.

Her research, published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology this September, shows that GLP-1 users experience increased discomfort with foods containing more than 20% fat. Think about that—cheddar cheese is 33% fat. Low-fat cottage cheese? Just 4%. The difference becomes physically uncomfortable for these consumers.

“My patients tell me they can’t even look at a grilled cheese sandwich anymore,” Dr. Robert Chen told me. He’s an endocrinologist at Mayo Clinic who’s prescribed GLP-1s to over 800 patients since 2022. “But they’re desperate for protein to prevent muscle loss during weight loss. We recommend 1.0 to 1.5 grams per kilogram of body weight daily.”

The IFF tracking data confirms what doctors are seeing clinically. GLP-1 households show unmistakable consumption shifts:

Declining consumption:

  • Cheese: down 7.2%
  • Butter: down 5.8%
  • Ice cream and whipped cream: down 5.5%
  • Fluid milk and cream: down 4.7%

Growing consumption:

  • Cottage cheese: up 13%
  • Greek yogurt: up 2.4% overall (premium Greek up 8.3%)
  • Whey protein beverages: up 38%

I’ve noticed something else, talking to grocery store managers from California to New York—the cottage cheese boom isn’t just about protein. It’s convenience. Single-serve containers that provide instant protein when appetite returns. No prep required.

What’s particularly telling is what’s happening in Europe. A dairy economist I know in the Netherlands mentioned their processors are already reformulating products for the “Ozempic generation”—lower fat, higher protein, smaller portions. They’re six months ahead of us on this trend.

Down in New Zealand, where grass-based systems dominate, they’re having different conversations. A producer I spoke with at a recent conference said they’re exploring supplementation strategies they never would’ve considered five years ago. “Grass milk’s great,” he said, “but grass alone won’t hit these protein targets.”

Three Strategies That Are Actually Working

StrategySpeed to ResultAnnual ImpactInvestmentRisk LevelTimeline
Nutrition Optimization60 days$38,000$3,500/monthLowStart immediately
Jersey Crossbreeding18-30 months$850-1,100/cow$18-35/breedingMediumHeifers freshen in 24-30 mo
Processor ContractsImmediate$270,000+ (650 cows)Relationship mgmtLowLock in 30 days

I’ve been talking to producers across different regions, and what’s fascinating is how operations are approaching this challenge. The smartest ones? They’re doing all three of these simultaneously.

Strategy 1: Fast-Track Nutrition (60-75 Day Results)

Mike Johannsen runs a nutrition consulting firm in Madison, working with about 40 dairy operations. “Forget dumping more crude protein in the ration,” he told me at World Dairy Expo. “That’s expensive and usually makes things worse.”

According to Johannsen, what works is precision amino acid balancing. Keep metabolizable protein at requirement levels but optimize the profile: lysine at 7.2-7.5% of metabolizable protein, methionine at 2.4-2.5%, maintaining that crucial 3:1 ratio.

A 480-cow operation near Fond du Lac documented everything for me. Started September at 3.12% protein. By late November, they’re expecting 3.28%. That translates to $38,000 additional annual revenue at current premiums. And here’s the kicker—they actually reduced crude protein by 1.5 percentage points and cut feed costs twelve cents per hundredweight.

Current market pricing for rumen-protected amino acids ranges from $8 to $ 12 per pound for lysine and $6 to $ 9 for methionine. For a 500-cow operation, you’re looking at roughly $3,500 monthly. But the documented returns are $3-5 for every dollar invested when you balance it right.

I talked to a producer near Modesto, California, who’s seeing similar results. “The heat stress out here makes protein optimization even more critical,” she explained. “We’re hitting 3.35% protein consistently now, up from 3.08% in July.”

What’s interesting about seasonal patterns—spring grass tends to be lower in metabolizable protein than people think. A nutritionist in Vermont told me that May and June are actually their toughest months for meeting protein targets in pasture-based systems. “Fresh grass looks great, but the protein’s all degradable. We need to supplement even on pasture.”

Strategy 2: The Genetics Play (18-30 Month Payoff)

This one’s controversial, I know. But the University of Minnesota’s 20-year crossbreeding study, which wrapped up in 2023 under Dr. Les Hansen, makes you think. Jersey × Holstein F1 crossbreds produce milk with 4.0-4.3% protein versus purebred Holstein’s 3.1-3.2%. Yes, they produce 3,000-4,000 pounds less milk annually, but their net income matches or beats purebreds due to better fertility (4-17 fewer days open), lower replacement costs, and those protein premiums.

Amy Steinberg, a genetic consultant working across Minnesota and Wisconsin, breaks it down simply. “This isn’t about converting your whole herd to Jerseys,” she explains. “Use Jersey AI on your bottom 40% ranked for protein genetics. Keep your top 30% pure Holstein with sexed semen for replacements.”

Jersey semen costs $18-35 per unit—same ballpark as decent Holstein genetics. Those F1 heifers will freshen at 24-30 months with 4%+ protein. At today’s premiums, each F1 cow could generate $850-1,100 extra annually just from protein.

I watched a breeding at a third-generation farm near Shawano last week. The producer laughed, “Grandpa would roll over seeing Jersey semen in our tank. But grandpa wasn’t dealing with GLP-1 drugs and protein premiums.”

Even producers in Texas are exploring this. One 2,000-cow operation near Stephenville told me they’re crossbreeding their bottom third. “The heat tolerance of the F1s is a bonus we didn’t expect,” the manager said. “They’re handling 105-degree days better than our Holsteins.”

Strategy 3: Direct Processor Deals (Immediate Impact)

Several producers aren’t waiting for their co-ops to act. One Green Bay area producer—let’s call him Steve—just locked a three-year contract with a regional yogurt manufacturer. He guarantees 95% of production at 3.8-4.2% protein, 3.7-4.0% butterfat, and somatic cells under 200,000. In return? $1.50 per hundredweight premium over base. That’s $270,000 extra annually on 650 cows.

The processor gets consistent milk that they can standardize products around. Steve gets price stability while neighbors scramble. Both win.

A Northeast producer near Lancaster, Pennsylvania, negotiated something similar with a specialty cheese maker. “They wanted consistent components for their aged products,” he explained. “We’re getting $1.65 over base for hitting their targets.”

Quick Math: Your Three Options

  • Nutrition route: $3,500/month cost, $3-5 return per dollar, results in 60 days
  • Genetics route: $18-35 per breeding, $850-1,100 annual premium per F1, results in 18-30 months
  • Processor contracts: $1.00-1.75/cwt premiums, 3-year stability, starts immediately

The Calendar Is Not Your Friend

Looking at what’s coming, the window for positioning is narrower than most realize:

December 1, 2025: FMMO protein baseline shifts. Below 3.3%? Deductions start.

January 15-31, 2026: Annual bank reviews. Mark Stevens from Farm Credit Services of Southern Wisconsin tells me they’re already identifying operations with debt-to-asset ratios over 60% and protein under 3.2%. “We’re not trying to force exits,” he emphasizes. “But farms without component improvement plans raise viability questions.”

April 1, 2026: Canadian pricing shifts take effect, influencing cross-border dynamics.

2026-2027: New processing capacity from Lactalis, Leprino, others comes online. Competition for high-protein milk intensifies.

March 2027: FDA expected to approve oral GLP-1s based on current trials. When pills cost $150 instead of $1,000 for shots, adoption explodes.

Who’s Most Vulnerable Right Now

Farm vulnerability matrix maps debt-to-asset ratios against current protein production, revealing three distinct zones: thriving operations (low debt, high protein), vulnerable farms requiring immediate action (moderate debt, marginal protein), and critical situations where strategic exit preserves equity

Let’s be honest about who needs to act immediately. Based on what lenders and co-op reps are telling me, here’s the danger profile:

  • 500-1,500 cow operations shipping commodity milk
  • Testing 3.0-3.2% protein currently
  • Debt-to-asset ratio over 55%
  • Production costs $18-21 per hundredweight
  • Milk price averaging $13.50-14.50

If this describes your operation, December’s protein shift could eliminate your remaining margin. You’ve got 60 days to make nutrition changes, or you need to start planning an exit that preserves equity.

Dr. Chris Wolf, Cornell’s dairy economist, sees a clear split developing. “Operations that pivot to high-protein, quality milk will find opportunities. Those locked into commodity production with high debt face significant challenges.”

What worries me is the middle group—farms that could adapt but are waiting to see what happens. Every week of delay is a week competitors lock contracts and implement changes.

The Community Impact We Can’t Ignore

What really keeps me up at night is what happens when 20-30% of farms in a region exit within two years.

Wisconsin has lost thousands of dairy farms over recent decades while maintaining stable production, according to USDA data. Fewer families, smaller tax bases, struggling Main Streets. Rick Peterson from Crawford County’s economic development office showed me projections—losing 25% more farms by 2027 means $400,000-600,000 less for schools annually. The hospital might close its birthing unit. Main Street loses another third of its businesses.

“Each farm exit eliminates five to seven related jobs,” Peterson explains. Feed dealers, mechanics, accountants—it cascades through the community.

I drove through Richland County last month. Three dairy farms for sale in ten miles. The café owner told me business is down 20% this year. “When farms go, everything follows,” she said quietly.

But I also visited Tillamook County, Oregon, where processors and producers worked together on component premiums early. They’ve maintained farm numbers better than most. “We saw this coming and acted collectively,” a local co-op board member explained. “Not everyone can do that, but it made the difference here.”

What Success Looks Like in 2030

Five-year financial transformation projection for a 500-cow dairy operation: protein optimization combined with genetics and market positioning drives net income from $127,000 to $495,000 annually while improving debt-to-asset ratio from 62% to 38%

But it’s not all challenging news. Producers who execute this transition well achieve remarkable improvements.

Jim Bradley, a dairy nutritionist and economist consulting for Upper Midwest banks, helped me model a typical 500-cow operation. Starting point: 3.10% protein, $13.90 milk, 62% debt-to-asset. By 2030, with proper execution:

  • Protein reaches 4.05% through nutrition and F1 genetics
  • Milk price hits $17.00/cwt with premiums
  • Net income grows from $127,000 to $495,000 annually
  • Debt-to-asset improves to 38%

“This isn’t speculation,” Bradley insists. “These projections reflect actual results from operations that started transitioning in early 2024.”

A Vermont producer who started his transition 18 months ago confirms this. “We’re already seeing $180,000 more annually just from protein premiums. The genetics haven’t even kicked in yet.”

Your Action Plan for the Next 30 Days

After dozens of conversations with producers from California to Vermont, here’s what separates those who’ll thrive from those who’ll struggle:

Make your strategic decision by December 15: Pivot to capture premiums or plan a strategic exit? Both are valid. Waiting to see isn’t.

If pivoting:

Call your nutritionist this week. Amino acid balancing can boost protein 0.15-0.25% within 60 days, often reducing feed costs. Budget $0.03-0.08 per hundredweight for protected amino acids.

Rank cows by protein genetics. Bottom 40% get Jersey AI. Top 30% get sexed semen for replacements. Middle tier? Consider beef semen—those calves bring $800-1,200 versus $50 for Holstein bulls.

Meet with three processors before November 30. Your current handler plus alternatives. Bring component data and projections. Producers securing $1.40-1.75/cwt premiums are negotiating now, not during the crisis.

Talk to your lender before January reviews. Present your plan. Show market understanding. Lenders support strategic direction, question apparent oblivion.

If exiting:

Engage transition specialists immediately. Strategic exits preserve 70-80% equity. Forced liquidations preserve 40-50%. The difference determines retirement versus bankruptcy. The National Farm Transition Network has advisors who can help.

The Choice Facing Each of Us

This transformation is happening now—in bulk tanks, processing plants, and lending offices across dairy country. The convergence of GLP-1 adoption, FMMO reforms, and processor consolidation creates unprecedented challenges and significant opportunities for those positioned to capitalize on them.

The strategic window measures in weeks, not years. Producers who make informed decisions by December 15 and execute systematically will likely view November 2025 as the month they secured their future. Those who delay may remember it as the moment when opportunity passed by.

Ironically, dairy products perfectly match GLP-1 users’ nutritional needs—quality protein in digestible formats. But capturing this requires acknowledging that successful strategies from the past twenty years won’t work for the next five.

The market has clearly stated its protein priorities. Whether you’re milking 50 cows in Vermont or 5,000 in New Mexico, the question isn’t whether to adapt, but whether you’ll adapt quickly enough to capture premiums before they become the new baseline.

In our rapidly evolving industry, decisive action—even if imperfect—often beats waiting for complete information that never materializes. This might be one of those moments where the cost of inaction exceeds the risk of imperfect action.

For implementation guidance on protein optimization or transition planning, consult your regional extension dairy specialist or agricultural lender familiar with current market dynamics. Time-sensitive conditions make professional consultation advisable.

KEY TAKEAWAYS

  • Protein is now king: GLP-1 drugs affecting 30M Americans killed butterfat’s 20-year reign—protein premiums hit $1.40-1.75/cwt while Class IV milk trades $3.53 below Class III
  • December 15 = Decision Day: Make your strategic choice before December 1st’s 3.3% protein requirement triggers deductions and January’s bank reviews force your hand
  • Three paths to profit: Fast nutrition fix ($38K return, 60 days) | Jersey crossbreeding ($1,100/cow/year, 18-30 months) | Direct processor deals ($270K+/year, immediate)
  • The survival line: Farms below 3.2% protein with >55% debt face elimination—but strategic exits now preserve 70-80% equity versus 40% in forced liquidation
  • First-mover advantage expires soon: Producers securing premium contracts today will be selling commodity milk to those same processors in 2027

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

Who Speaks for Your Milk Check? The Push to Reform Dairy’s Voting Power

Not every deduction on a milk check is math—some are politics. Here’s how U.S. farmers lost $337 million without casting a single vote

Executive Summary: In 2025, U.S. dairy farmers lost $337 million in just three months following FMMO reforms that increased processor make allowances using voluntary, unverified cost data. The change exposed a fundamental flaw: most producers never voted on the rule that reduced their pay. The American Farm Bureau Federation is now leading a campaign for modified bloc voting, restoring producers’ right to vote independently rather than through cooperative boards. At the same time, pressure is growing for USDA audits of processor costs and itemized cooperative milk checks, ensuring transparency and accountability from plant to producer. A similar structure in Canada illustrates the power of individual voice—where direct farmer ownership and votes drive protective policy outcomes. Together, these reforms mark a turning point toward verified data, fair pay, and representation that aligns with the farmers doing the milking.

Milk Check Transparency

You know that feeling when the milk check comes and something doesn’t line up. The herd’s healthy, butterfat performance is steady, feed costs haven’t spiked—but the final number is off. That’s been a common story across farms this year.

Earlier this fall, both the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) and the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF) confirmed what many suspected. The most recent Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) pricing reforms shifted about $337 million from farmers to processors in just three months.

What’s striking isn’t just the number—it’s how the decision happened. Most producers never saw a ballot. And that missing vote might be the most expensive one they never got to cast.

How a Technical Rule Became a Real Pay Cut

Make allowances surged 32-48% in June 2025 based on unverified processor data—the highest jumps in dry whey and cheese directly slashed what farmers received per hundredweight

Here’s what set this off. In June, USDA raised make allowances—the assumed cost of processing milk into dairy products—by 25 to 43 percent. The reasoning was simple enough: labor, packaging, and energy costs have risen since the last review in 2008.

Here’s the part that farmers are still talking about. Those numbers came from voluntary processor surveys and not from audited financials. By law, USDA still lacks the authority to require processors to open their books under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937.

As AFBF dairy economist Danny Munch explained during the organization’s fall dairy policy update,

“We’re basing a national pay system on unverified numbers, and the only side that benefits is the one submitting the data.”

USDA’s Pool Settlement Reports show how fast that imbalance added up: $64 million in the Upper Midwest, $62 million in the Northeast, and $55 million in California.

For a 150-cow herd shipping about 24,000 hundredweight a year, that’s about $18,000 to $20,000 gone—roughly equivalent to this year’s surge in energy costs, or a major herd health outlay.

Regional distribution of the $337 million in FMMO losses reveals that smaller regions collectively bore nearly half the burden, intensifying the impact on individual farms

Regional Impact Summary (June–September 2025)

  • Upper Midwest: –$64 million
  • Northeast: –$62 million
  • California: –$55 million
    (Source: USDA AMS, Q3 2025 Pool Data)

Who Cast the Vote That Changed It?

AspectCurrent Bloc VotingModified Bloc Voting (AFBF Proposal)
Who Controls Your Vote?Cooperative board decides for all membersYOU decide—opt in or vote independently
Member ChoiceNone—vote cast automaticallyFull choice: authorize co-op or vote direct
Transparency LevelLow: No individual vote trackingHigh: Individual votes counted
Conflict of InterestHIGH: Co-ops process AND voteLOW: Direct farmer control
Individual AccountabilityNone—members never see ballotFull—every producer has voice

That question gets to the heart of a deeper issue. When FMMO proposals go out for a referendum, producers are supposed to decide. But under the current system, most never touch a ballot.

That’s because cooperatives cast bloc votes representing all their members. The idea was originally intended to save administrative time in the 1940s, when local co-ops marketed milk from small family dairies.

Fast forward 80 years. Dairy Farmers of America, Land O’ Lakes, and California Dairies Inc. now handle more than 60 percent of the nation’s milk, according to the USDA’s Economic Research Service (2024). Those organizations don’t just market milk—they process it. When processing margins rise, they gain on one side while the member pay price shrinks on the other.

That’s why AFBF, joined by several state-level farm bureaus, is pressing for modified bloc voting.

Under this approach, co-ops could still submit bloc votes, but only for members who authorize them. Others could opt out and cast their own ballots directly. It’s a small procedural shift with big implications for fairness.

As Munch told producers in Wisconsin, “If your paycheck depends on it, you should get to decide how it’s structured.”

Why Voting Reform Comes First

Some producers have asked why start with voting rights rather than mandatory audits or cost-verification reforms? It’s a logical question—but one with a simple answer.

Every major FMMO change still requires a producer vote to pass. If co-ops continue controlling those votes, the same imbalances in representation will persist—even with better data. Modified voting gives individuals a voice before the next cost survey or order amendment lands on the table.

Think of it this way: fair data means knowing the numbers are right; fair voting means knowing your opinion counts before the next decimal gets moved.

The Transparency Gap That Shows Up Every Month

For most of us, the problem isn’t hidden in Washington—it’s sitting right on the milk check.

Private processors are required to list detail on component prices, deductions, and the Producer Price Differential (PPD). Cooperatives, though, are exempt. Since they’re considered farmer-owned, they aren’t required to disclose the same payment details.

That might sound routine, but it creates an information gap. A University of Wisconsin Extension report (2024) found that 70 percent of cooperative pay statements lacked full explanations for deductions over $0.25 per hundredweight. Terms like “market adjustment” or “balancing charge” were often used without further specification.

As Mark Stevenson, emeritus policy specialist at UW–Madison, put it, “You can’t manage what you can’t measure.”

Plenty of producers can relate. Even herds with solid butterfat and protein trends are seeing unexplained adjustments that chip away at gross pay. That lack of clarity feeds the same frustration driving the broader voting reform effort: farmers want transparency, not theory.

Looking North: What Canadian Quotas Tell Us About Voice

Canada’s dairy producers own individual quotas and cast direct votes that shape trade policy; U.S. farmers are fighting to regain that same power through modified bloc voting and mandatory processor audits

It’s worth pausing to look north for perspective. Canada operates under a supply management system that balances domestic production and demand through quotas. Each farmer owns a quota, currently worth about CA $30,000 per cow (Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, 2025), and that ownership translates directly into control.

In 2017, Canadian dairy farmers organized a significant voter push within the Conservative Party, ultimately flipping a leadership contest by less than 1%. This year, the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C‑202, which makes it illegal for ministers to negotiate away dairy protections in trade deals.

The U.S. doesn’t have a quota system, and few producers would want one. But here’s the takeaway: when farmers hold direct, non-negotiable voting authority, policy outcomes tend to protect producers instead of eroding them.

Where These Reforms Stand Now

For the first time in years, the groundwork for reform is visible.

A provision in the 2025 Farm Appropriations Act now gives USDA AMS the authority to conduct audited processor cost surveys. The agency plans to begin that process in 2027, replacing voluntary surveys with verifiable data collection.

Meanwhile, new proposals are emerging to standardize cooperative milk-payment statements so co-op members receive the same level of itemized transparency as proprietary producers.

And finally, AFBF’s modified bloc voting proposal continues building bipartisan traction, with several state delegations already urging USDA to schedule a hearing for 2026.

These are all incremental steps—but together, they form the backbone of a more accountable system.

What It Means for Different Dairies

Whether you milk 80 cows in New York’s Finger Lakes or 8,000 in a California dry lot, clarity is good business. Verified cost surveys stabilize Class III and IV price forecasts. Transparency builds trust and simplifies planning.

Cornell University’s Dairy Markets Research Program (2024) notes that “information symmetry improves efficiency and stability at every scale.” In simpler terms, fair data and fair governance don’t pick winners—they lift the whole market.

Co-ops That Are Already Leading

Some cooperatives aren’t waiting for regulation to catch up. Rolling Hills Dairy Cooperative in Wisconsin already provides members with detailed monthly pool and freight summaries through an online portal. Select Milk Producersin Texas publishes audited hauling and balancing charges so members can see exactly what the deductions mean.

Rolling Hills general manager Tom Larkin says the results were immediate: “Once members could see where their money went, trust followed. Transparency lined us up on the same side again.”

That kind of leadership shows reform doesn’t have to start in Washington—it can begin wherever farmers demand a clearer deal.

Five Things Producers Can Do Now

  1. Compare your check. Match component prices to your federal order’s monthly reports; the differences may surprise you.
  2. Ask for documentation. Request written breakdowns for deductions labeled “market adjustment” or “balancing.”
  3. Collaborate. Compare notes with neighboring farms—shared data reveals patterns.
  4. Engage early. Follow your state Farm Bureau updates and dairy policy hearings.
  5. Exercise your vote. Whether under current co-op structures or future modified voting, make sure your ballot represents your voice.

The Bottom Line

After covering dairy policy for years—and spending plenty of time around farmers who live it—I’ve noticed that most producers can handle market volatility and feed swings. What they can’t handle is opacity.

The call for reform isn’t rebellion; it’s about modernizing a system that no longer reflects how milk is marketed or how producers define ownership.

If democracy belongs anywhere, it’s in the milk check. Because when producers see the numbers, cast their own votes, and know where their dollars go, trust stops being a slogan—it becomes part of doing business.

Key Takeaways:

  • $337 million disappeared from producers’ milk checks in three months following FMMO reforms based on voluntary processor cost data that USDA could not verify.
  • Most farmers never voted on the rules that reduced their income, because cooperatives cast bloc votes on behalf of all members—often blending farmer and processor interests.
  • AFBF’s proposed modified bloc voting system would restore the right for every producer to cast an individual ballot, bringing direct democracy back into milk pricing.
  • Mandatory processor cost audits and itemized co-op pay statements are now gaining traction, opening the door to verified data, clear deductions, and accountable pay.
  • Transparency isn’t anti-cooperative—it’s pro-farmer. As seen in Canada’s producer-driven system, ownership and voice together equal stability and fair value for milk.

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

Is the Federal Milk Marketing Order Reform Benefiting Dairy Farmers or Only the Processors?

Does the Federal Milk Marketing Order reform help dairy farmers or benefit processors? Find out if these changes are truly advantageous for your farm.

Is the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) reform truly beneficial for dairy farmers, or does it primarily benefit processors? This pressing question has ignited a heated debate as the industry is poised for significant changes. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) proposes revisions to update pricing formulas for all 11 FMMOs. A referendum until December 31, 2024, allows eligible dairy producers to vote on these proposed changes. If two-thirds agree, new pricing models will roll out; if not, some FMMOs might be dissolved, creating more uncertainty. This referendum will significantly impact whether these changes strengthen the farmers’ position or continue tilting the scales in favor of processors, affecting the industry’s financial health and future direction.

The Federal Milk Marketing Order: A Tale of Market Evolution and Modern Reform

The Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) has a rich historical context, dating back to the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937. This act, born out of the tumult of the Great Depression, aimed to stabilize chaotic agricultural markets. The FMMO, a key component of this act, was designed to mitigate milk price fluctuations that adversely affected producers and consumers. It achieved this by establishing fair minimum prices based on the intended use of the milk, whether for fluid consumption or the production of products like Cheese and Butter. 

Fast-forward to today: The dairy industry has transformed, sparking the need for reform. When these orders were first implemented, they didn’t foresee shifts like changes in consumer preferences or technological advances in processing. Present-day producers face challenges like increased supply chain consolidation and international trade pressures that the original pricing formulas didn’t consider. 

The USDA regularly updates these orders through its Agricultural Marketing Service to reflect current market realities. A recent 49-day hearing initiated by the dairy industry highlighted the urgent need to revise these orders due to changing dynamics. The hearing focused on necessary changes to factors like milk composition. It surveyed commodity prices, addressing long-standing inefficiencies in the pricing system. 

The proposed amendments are a wide-ranging effort to modernize milk pricing and marketing. They are meant to align the FMMO with today’s market and ensure this framework benefits all involved—producers, processors, and consumers. As the USDA progresses with the referendum, it is dedicated to balancing federal oversight with industry flexibility, keeping the American dairy sector competitive and sustainable in our rapidly shifting agricultural economy. 

A New Era for Milk Pricing: Unpacking the Reflective Amendments to Federal Milk Marketing Orders

The Federal Milk Marketing Orders are getting a makeover to suit today’s market needs better. Here’s a simplified look at what’s changing: 

  • Milk Composition Factors: Protein is now at 3.3%, other solids at 6.0%, and nonfat solids at 9.3%. This update aims to match the milk farmers’ supply more accurately with pricing.
  • Surveyed Commodity Products: Forget the 500-pound barrel cheddar cheese prices. Based on market realities, the focus is shifting to the 40-pound block cheddar cheese prices.
  • Class III and Class IV Formula Factors: Manufacturing allowances adjust to new rates, such as $0.2519 for Cheese and $0.2272 for Butter. The butterfat recovery is bumped to 91%, reflecting more efficient costs and methods.
  • Base Class I Skim Milk Price: The pricing will stabilize the market by taking the higher Class III or Class IV skim milk prices and making a new adjustment for products with an extended shelf life.
  • Class I Differentials: The changes will better reflect the costs in varying counties, ensuring that milk pricing is locally fair and transparent.

These updates aim to align milk marketing with modern-day realities, striving for a fairer and more transparent pricing system in light of evolving production and market conditions.

The Great Milk Debate: Are Farmers Being Milked?

The Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) changes have sparked serious debate among dairy farmers nationwide. These updated pricing formulas promise to modernize milk price settings, offering potential benefits. Adjusting milk composition factors and surveying commodity products aim to align prices with current production costs better. With its high-Class I milk utilization, the Southeast stands to gain from these updates, possibly seeing improved returns. This potential for improved returns should bring a sense of hope and optimism to dairy farmers. 

Yet, there’s significant criticism, especially from farmers who fear financial loss. Concerns arise in areas like the Upper Midwest, where farmers predict a potential revenue drop of $0.70 to $0.80 per hundredweight. This is especially worrying in a sector already under pressure. Regional differences in impact also raise issues of market control. In areas dominated by processors, there’s fear that they could further tighten their hold, leaving farmers with little say over milk prices. This is a significant worry where cooperatives blur the lines between producers and processors, leading farmers to question the benefits of these reforms. 

Ultimately, these reforms aim to align pricing with today’s economic reality. Still, their success depends on local dynamics and market structures. Dairy farmers must weigh modernization against the risk of financial instability.

Processors vs. Farmers: Who Really Benefits from the FMMO Amendments?

As the controversy over the Federal Milk Marketing Order amendments grows, many are eyeing the potential benefits for milk processors. The adjustments, which focus on pricing formulas and allowances, seem poised to bolster processors’ margins. 

Updating the manufacturing allowances for Cheese, Butter, NFDM, and dry whey might reduce processors’ financial strain. These changes could help them manage costs efficiently while providing a safety net to protect their profits. 

The shift to using only 40-pound block cheddar prices instead of including 500-pound barrels simplifies the pricing process. This might benefit processors focusing on block cheese, allowing for a more stable financial outlook. 

Dairy farmers, however, express concerns that these changes seem skewed. They worry about a widening gap between their earnings and processors’ profits. Pressure mounts as farmers fear losing significant earnings per hundredweight, and they question whether these reforms genuinely support them. 

The debate is lively. Critics argue that processors might exploit these new conditions at farmers’ expense. As the dairy industry shifts, tensions run high, and farmers are unsure how these changes will affect them.

Regional Ripples: Navigating the FMMO’s Uneven Impact Across America 

Understanding the impact of the Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms across regions is essential as they approach. The Midwest, a cornerstone of the dairy industry, faces challenges different from those in the Southeast. By understanding these regional differences, dairy farmers can feel more informed and prepared for the potential impact of the reforms. Skepticism surrounds the proposed changes in the Midwest, which has strong milk production. High production costs and minimal Class I milk usage limit the benefits. Farmers in states like Wisconsin may find these reforms disrupting their delicate financial situation. 

In contrast, the Southeast presents a different picture. Here, higher Class I usage offers the potential for increased revenue. In states like Florida, where demand for milk exceeds supply, these reforms could be favorable. The area’s unique pricing structure and dependence on imported milk might make the changes advantageous. 

The regional adjustments within these reforms are crucial. In the Northeast, where production costs are similar to those in the Midwest but Class I usage is high, opinions are divided. Some see the changes as a step towards market stability, while others doubt long-term benefits. With such varied conditions, the FMMO reforms could create division rather than unity among dairy farmers. As the referendum continues, these regional differences will influence discussions, affect votes, and shape the agricultural story.

The Bottom Line

The path of Federal Milk Marketing Order reforms is stirring tensions in the dairy world. These changes aim to bring milk pricing up to speed with industry developments. Yet, there’s a conflict: do they favor processors more than farmers? This varies across the country. The Southeast may benefit, while the Midwest has reservations. Here’s the big question: Will these reforms make things fairer or widen the gap even further? 

If you’re involved, it’s crucial to participate. Voting in the referendum is your chance to protect your interests. Joining industry groups and sharing your thoughts with processors can boost your influence. 

Dairy producers and professionals must stay informed and use their power. The USDA website and agricultural groups have plenty of information and ways to get involved. As the vote deadline nears, remember that your decision today shapes the future of dairy. Are you ready to drive this change?

Key Takeaways:

  • The USDA’s referendum on the Federal Milk Marketing Order reflects significant proposed amendments to milk pricing categories aimed at modernizing industry standards.
  • The proposed changes are controversial, with debates centered around whether they substantially benefit farmers or disproportionately favor milk processors.
  • Regional disparities exist, with some areas potentially benefiting more than others, highlighting the complexities of the US dairy market.
  • The referendum’s outcome could result in either implementing new pricing structures or terminating certain FMMOs if not approved by a two-thirds majority.
  • Industry stakeholders express skepticism regarding the long-term benefits of government reform for dairy farmers, suggesting that the influence of processors remains a critical concern.
  • The discussions emphasize the persistent tension between the need for fair pricing mechanisms and the interests of different market players.

Summary:

The National Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) referendum, driven by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, addresses key shifts in the dairy industry with proposed amendments to modernize milk pricing systems. From updating milk composition factors to revising cheese price surveys and altering Class III and Class IV formula factors, these changes aim to reflect evolving market dynamics better. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) seeks to modernize milk pricing to benefit producers, processors, and consumers by aligning milk composition factors with modern standards and focusing on 40-pound cheddar cheese prices. With manufacturing allowances adjusted and butterfat recovery increased to 91%, the Base Class I Skim Milk Price is stabilized, and Class I Differentials are updated for county-specific costs. However, the initiative raises a critical question: Are these proposals genuinely advantageous for farmers, or do they primarily benefit processors? Some farmers fear a potential revenue decline of $0.70 to $0.80 per hundredweight, highlighting the need to balance modernization with financial stability.

Learn more:

Join the Revolution!

Bullvine Daily is your essential e-zine for staying ahead in the dairy industry. With over 30,000 subscribers, we bring you the week’s top news, helping you manage tasks efficiently. Stay informed about milk production, tech adoption, and more, so you can concentrate on your dairy operations. 

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent
Send this to a friend