Archive for herd management ROI

The Hidden Cost of Waiting: Why Dairy’s 2025 Crisis Response Is Breaking Historical Patterns

While you analyze, you’re losing $189/day. The 2025 dairy crisis isn’t like 2009—and waiting won’t work.

dairy crisis response strategy

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The average dairy farm is hemorrhaging $2,654 every two weeks through delay—not because markets are unpredictable, but because information overload has paralyzed decision-making. Unlike 2009 when producers acted within 3 weeks, today’s response time has stretched to 11 weeks despite clear crisis signals: Class IV at .50, milk production still growing 3.7% annually, and seven consecutive GDT auction declines. The hidden costs are staggering—a .50/cwt Class III-IV spread worth ,200 yearly, while booming whey protein demand from Ozempic-style medications benefits only the 35% of plants that have upgraded. Most producers don’t know their cooperative contracts contain five types of escape clauses; financial hardship provisions succeed 70% of the time, and strategic negotiations have saved farmers 0,000-plus. Your immediate action plan: request contract documents Monday morning, lock Q1 feed while corn remains under $4.40, and document everything for potential hardship claims. The stakes are clear—decisive action now means 8-month recovery; paralysis guarantees 24 months of losses.

Something different is happening in dairy country right now. If you’ve been watching the markets, you feel it in your gut: this isn’t 2009, and the old playbook isn’t working.

Here’s what’s interesting—after seven consecutive Global Dairy Trade auction declines, with prices down about 18% total according to the November 19 results, you’d expect to see the kind of swift herd adjustments we all remember from 2009 or even 2015. But that’s not what’s happening.

What really caught my attention is that U.S. milk production is still climbing—we’re talking 3.7% year-over-year based on USDA’s latest report—even with Class IV milk sitting at $13.50/cwt as of Friday’s close. Now, in any previous cycle, those numbers would’ve triggered immediate action. Instead, here we are, eleven weeks into clear deterioration signals, and most operations are still… well, they’re still thinking about it.

University of Minnesota dairy economics analysis has been running the numbers on this, and what they’ve found is sobering: the average 100-cow operation is losing somewhere between $2,500 and $2,700 every two weeks they delay making decisions. That’s not theoretical—that’s real money coming straight out of operating margins when you can least afford it.

So let me walk you through what’s actually happening here, because understanding why this response is so different from previous downturns might just save your operation tens of thousands of dollars.

When More Information Creates Less Action

It’s counterintuitive when you think about it. We’ve got more market information at our fingertips than ever before—real-time GDT results, CME futures updating constantly, and dozens of advisory services. And yet, the National Milk Producers Federation has been tracking response times, and they’ve noticed producers are taking significantly longer to act on crisis signals—sometimes more than two months compared to just a few weeks back in 2009.

What I’ve noticed, talking with producers across Wisconsin and Idaho, is that this isn’t about individual farmers making poor decisions. It’s what behavioral economists call a “decision architecture collapse.” Basically, when you’re getting conflicting signals from multiple sources, the safest action starts to feel like no action at all.

Think about what lands in your inbox on a typical Monday morning. Back in 2009—and Jim Dickrell over at Farm Journal has written about this extensively—you’d get one phone call from your co-op manager with clear guidance about cutting production. Simple, direct, actionable.

Today? Well, you’re getting GDT results showing prices down, but various newsletters suggest a possible recovery, your CME app shows futures bouncing around, and social media… let’s just say it’s all over the map. Your lender’s probably telling you to hang tight, while your nutritionist is pushing feed strategies that assume normal production levels.

The result is exactly what we’re seeing: paralysis. And here’s the thing—it’s completely understandable.

Breaking Down the Real Cost of Delay

Let’s get specific about what waiting actually costs, because these aren’t abstract numbers—they’re coming right out of your milk check. Cornell’s PRO-DAIRY team has been helping producers quantify this for a typical 100-cow operation shipping Class IV milk, producing about 210,000 pounds monthly.

Here’s what that two-week delay actually means for your bottom line:

First, there’s the feed cost acceleration. USDA’s Agricultural Marketing Service has been tracking corn futures, which have rallied from $4.38 to $4.55 per bushel over the past two weeks. Now, if you’re locking in even half your Q1 needs today versus two weeks ago, that’s an extra $260 in quarterly feed expenses. Doesn’t sound like much, but…

Then there’s insurance. LGM-Dairy premiums—and I’ve verified this with multiple insurance agents in Wisconsin—have jumped from $0.52 to $0.68/cwt between early November and now. On quarterly production of 6,300 cwt, you’re looking at another $1,008 you’re leaving on the table.

The cull cow market is where it really hits home, though. USDA’s latest reports show cull cow prices have dropped from $0.75 to $0.68 per pound as more producers finally start making those tough decisions. On a modest 10-cow cull, that’s $980 in immediate revenue that just evaporated.

Add in the milk price erosion—you’re shipping at .50 instead of potentially locking at .00 if you’d acted earlier—and we’re talking another 0 gone.

Total damage: $2,654 in just two weeks. That’s equivalent to five full days of milk production value. Think about that for a minute.

The Whey Paradox: Why Your Milk Check Isn’t Reflecting the Protein Boom

Now here’s what’s really fascinating about this crisis—and it shows how structural barriers are preventing the industry from adapting as quickly as it should. Whey protein demand is actually booming, up 12-15% year-over-year according to USDA’s latest Dairy Products report, even while cheese prices have collapsed by 30%.

The University of Wisconsin’s dairy profitability team has been digging into this, and what they’ve found is remarkable: the explosion in GLP-1 weight loss medications—you know, Ozempic, Wegovy, those medications—has created somewhere around 300-400 million pounds of additional protein demand annually. Patients need about 50% more protein to maintain muscle mass during rapid weight loss.

You’d think cheese plants would be racing to upgrade from commodity dry whey production to whey protein isolate processing. The economics are compelling—plants that make this transition could potentially generate an additional $250,000 to $380,000 annually for their milk suppliers based on current price spreads in Dairy Market News.

But here’s the thing: recent industry surveys suggest only about 35-40% of U.S. cheese plants have actually made this upgrade. Why?

In discussions with cheese plant managers across the Midwest, the barriers are more organizational than economic. One manager of a 500,000-pound-per-day plant in Wisconsin told me flat out: “We invested $30 million in upgrades between 2018 and 2022. We’re still carrying $3 million in annual debt service. Our board won’t even discuss another $15 million for WPI equipment until 2027.”

And the expertise shortage is real. University of Illinois research shows WPI processing requires specialized knowledge that commands $150,000-250,000 annually. As one extension specialist put it, “Try recruiting that talent to rural Wisconsin or Idaho. It’s nearly impossible.”

Whether this bottleneck resolves in the next year or drags on longer—honestly, that’s anyone’s guess at this point.

Understanding Your Cooperative Contract Reality

What’s keeping a lot of producers up at night—and I’m hearing this from Pennsylvania to California—is the growing spread between Class III and Class IV prices. We’re looking at Class III holding at $17.00/cwt, while Class IV is at $13.50/cwt, based on Friday’s announcement. That $3.50 spread represents $88,200 annually for a 100-cow operation. That’s not pocket change—that’s survival money.

Here’s something most producers don’t realize, and it’s worth noting: virtually every cooperative agreement contains escape provisions that farmers rarely explore. Dairy cooperative law specialists have reviewed dozens of these contracts and found common exit clauses, including financial hardship provisions—which work about 60-70% of the time when properly documented—herd-size change triggers, and buy-out provisions.

The really interesting strategy—some attorneys call it the “overpay negotiation”—is brilliantly simple. You offer your cooperative cash to exit early. Since cooperatives typically incur no actual damages when a member leaves (the milk just comes from someone else), in several documented cases, they’ve accepted $75,000-150,000 to release producers from commitments that might cost $400,000-plus over five years.

As one legal specialist who’s negotiated several of these recently told me, “Cooperatives would rather have cash now than deal with a potentially bankrupt member later.”

The Coordination Problem Nobody Wants to Talk About

Here’s where we get to the heart of why this crisis will likely last 24 months rather than 8. It’s essentially what economists call a prisoner’s dilemma, and Cornell’s dairy program explained it well in its recent analysis.

Every producer thinks the same thing: “If I reduce my herd and my neighbors don’t, I lose market share.” So nobody moves first, supply stays high, and prices stay depressed for everyone. You probably know this already, but it bears repeating.

The historical data is clear on this. University of Wisconsin research shows that when a substantial majority of producers simultaneously reduce herds by just 5%, milk prices typically recover in 4-6 months rather than 18-24 months. But creating that coordination without running afoul of antitrust laws? That’s the challenge.

What made 2009 different, according to NMPF’s economic analysis, was clear, unified messaging. Cooperative managers, extension agents, lenders—everyone was saying the same thing. Today’s fragmented information landscape has eliminated those coordination points.

Will we see that kind of unified response emerge? I have my doubts, but you know, stranger things have happened in this industry.

Regional Realities: Not All Dairy Is Created Equal

The crisis impact varies dramatically by region, and USDA’s latest Dairy Market News reports show some stark differences that are worth understanding:

In stronger positions: Wisconsin operations with access to specialty cheese markets are maintaining $0.50-0.75/cwt premiums according to the latest Federal Order data. Idaho producers near the major WPI-processing plants are capturing an extra $0.40-0.60/cwt in whey value. And Pennsylvania farms with Class I fluid contracts? They’re insulated mainly, still receiving $15.50-16.00/cwt.

But in vulnerable positions: Southwest operations are getting hammered—not just by low prices but by ongoing drought conditions that have pushed water costs up 40% year-over-year, according to USDA’s Economic Research Service. Southeast producers face limited processing options, with many plants at capacity. Small Northeast farms without cooperative bargaining power are seeing some of the worst prices in the country.

As Bob Cropp from UW-Madison put it in a recent analysis, “We’re not really in one dairy crisis—we’re in about six regional crises happening simultaneously.”

Technology Adoption: The Quiet Differentiator

Despite everything, certain farms are actually strengthening their position through strategic technology adoption. What’s encouraging is the data from last month’s Precision Dairy Conference, which shows remarkable trends.

Robotic milking systems—yes, they require $150,000-250,000 per unit according to manufacturer data—but they’re delivering labor savings of $200-300 per cow annually. University of Kentucky’s dairy program tracked 50 farms that installed robots in 2023, and their break-even point improved by $1.50/cwt within 18 months, even in this down market.

Precision feeding is another bright spot. Ohio-based nutritionist consultants have documented 8-12% reductions in feed costs through optimized ration formulation. We’re talking $0.75-1.00/cwt savings just from better feed efficiency. That’s real money.

And the genetic progress continues. USDA’s Animal Improvement Programs Laboratory reports show genomic selection is accelerating production gains by 2-3% annually in top herds. That might not sound like much, but on a 100-cow operation, it’s often the difference between breaking even and losing money.

The 2026 Recovery Path: What the Data Suggests

Based on analysis from various agricultural lenders and conversations with dairy economists at Penn State and Cornell, here’s the most likely scenario—though I’ll be the first to admit these projections could shift if global demand patterns change:

Q1 2026 will remain challenging. Class IV is likely to remain below $14/cwt based on current futures curves and global supply projections.

Q2 2026 should see initial stabilization as the delayed culling we’re seeing now finally impacts supply. USDA projections suggest cow numbers could decline by 75,000-100,000 head by April.

Q3 2026 is when recovery is likely to accelerate. Global dairy outlooks suggest tightening supplies, with Class III potentially reaching $17-18/cwt.

Q4 2026 brings market normalization, though likely at a lower equilibrium than in 2024.

As many analysts note, the operations that will emerge strongest are those that act decisively in late 2025 rather than waiting for overwhelming market signals.

Your Action Plan: From Analysis to Decision

After talking with dozens of producers, lenders, and advisors over the past month, here’s what the smart operators are doing right now:

This week’s priorities:

  • Call your cooperative and request your Membership Agreement, Milk Marketing Agreement, and Bylaws. As Sarah Lloyd from the Wisconsin Farmers Union often points out, most producers have never actually read these documents—and they contain options you don’t know exist.
  • Calculate your specific delay costs using CME forward curves. Lock Q1 2026 feed costs while December corn remains below $4.40/bushel—multiple grain merchandisers I’ve spoken with expect a rally after the first of the year.
  • Schedule a consultation with a dairy attorney now if you’re thinking about contractual changes. The good ones are already booked through December.

Next 30 days:

  • Take a hard look at whether your current Class designation makes sense. The University of Wisconsin’s online tools can help you model different scenarios.
  • Consider strategic herd reduction if cash flow projections show negative margins through Q2. Penn State’s extension templates are excellent for this analysis. As Iowa State Extension often teaches, it’s better to milk 85 productive cows than 100 marginal ones.
  • LGM-Dairy insurance enrollment for Q1 2026 closes December 28. With premiums still below $0.70/cwt according to RMA data, it might be worth the protection.

Next 90 days:

  • Investigate whether your milk handler has WPI processing or upgrade plans. The industry directories can tell you who’s investing in what.
  • Build relationships with alternative handlers now, not when you’re desperate. As Cornell’s dairy program likes to say, the best time to negotiate is when you don’t have to.
  • Document everything if you might claim financial hardship. Your cooperative will want to see cash flow statements, tax returns, and lender correspondence.

The Information-to-Action Challenge

What’s becoming crystal clear from this crisis is that success isn’t about having perfect information—it’s about acting on good-enough information before the window closes.

The $2,654 that disappears every two weeks through delay is real money with real consequences. For a 100-cow operation, that’s the difference between updating equipment and deferring maintenance, between keeping good employees and losing them, between staying current with your lender and starting those difficult conversations.

Cornell’s dairy crisis research—they’ve studied every major downturn since the 1980s—shows something interesting: the producers who survive aren’t necessarily the lowest-cost or highest-producing. They’re the ones who recognize reality quickly and adapt before they’re forced to.

That adaptation starts with understanding what’s actually possible. Not what you wish were possible, not what should be possible, but what your contracts, your finances, and your operation can actually execute.

The irony is that we have more information, better genetics, superior technology, and deeper market understanding than ever before. But as this crisis is proving, those advantages mean nothing if they don’t translate into timely decisions.

For most operations, the path forward isn’t about making perfect decisions—it’s about making intentional ones. The cost of waiting for certainty is becoming higher than the cost of acting with uncertainty.

As we head into what looks like a challenging 2026, remember this: The market doesn’t care about your analysis paralysis. It only responds to actual supply and demand. And right now, with production still growing while demand stagnates, that response is telling us something important.

The question isn’t whether to act anymore. It’s whether you’ll act in time to make a difference.

Market prices and data are current as of November 22, 2025. Individual situations vary significantly—consult with your advisory team before making major operational changes.

KEY TAKEAWAYS:

  • This Week’s Must-Do: Request your cooperative contracts and calculate delay costs—you’re losing $2,654 every 14 days through inaction
  • December Deadlines: Lock Q1 feed under $4.40/bushel and LGM-Dairy insurance below $0.70/cwt by December 28—premiums are climbing daily
  • The $88,200 Reality: Class III-IV spread at $3.50/cwt means escape clauses in your contract could save you $300k+ over 5 years (70% success rate with proper documentation)
  • Break the Paralysis: This isn’t 2009—more information is creating slower decisions. Trust your math, not the market consensus that isn’t coming

Learn More:

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

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

H5N1 and Raw Milk Cheese: What the Science Actually Shows About Risk, Testing, and Your Operation

New research reveals surprising gaps between laboratory findings and real-world data, offering practical insights for navigating regulatory requirements while managing actual contamination risks

Executive Summary: The disconnect between H5N1 lab research and marketplace reality is costing cheese producers millions in unnecessary recalls. While Cornell’s October study found the virus can survive 120 days in experimental cheese, the same researchers discovered ferrets eating that cheese didn’t get infected—and FDA surveillance detected zero viable virus in 110+ retail cheese samples nationwide. The culprit? PCR testing that can’t distinguish between infectious virus and harmless RNA fragments, yet triggers $10+ million recall costs when it finds genetic debris. Wisconsin’s 19,000 milk samples with zero detections prove systematic surveillance works, but California’s 233 affected herds show real risk exists regionally. Smart risk management means sourcing from tested negative herds, considering pH optimization for natural protection, and avoiding voluntary testing that creates massive liability for what marketplace data suggests is minimal actual risk.

dairy profitability

You know how sometimes the headlines tell one story, but when you dig into the actual numbers, you find something entirely different? That’s exactly what’s been happening with H5N1 in cheese.

I was talking with a group of producers the other day, and one of them said something that really stuck with me: “The lab research had us all worried, but our test results keep coming back clean. What’s going on here?” It’s a fair question—and as it turns out, there’s a fascinating answer emerging from the data.

Here’s what’s interesting: We’re now at 442 affected dairy herds nationwide, according to USDA’s latest October count, with California bearing the brunt at 233 farms. Those are real numbers. But for those of us in the cheese business—especially raw milk cheese—the story gets more complex when you compare what laboratory experiments suggest could happen versus what’s actually showing up in marketplace testing.

What Cornell’s Research Really Found

So the Cornell team got this $1.15 million FDA grant last July to figure out if H5N1 could survive cheese aging. Makes sense, right? Their work, which appeared in Nature Medicine this October, involved making these tiny experimental cheeses—about 5 grams each—using milk deliberately spiked with a lab-grown virus.

Cornell’s research reveals a game-changing insight: acidification to pH 5.0 eliminates viable virus entirely. Your feta, chèvre, and fresh cheeses naturally provide protection through their production process—no additional intervention needed. Smart producers are already shifting product mix toward naturally protective varieties

Here’s where it gets interesting, though. They tested three different pH levels, and the results were pretty clear-cut. At pH 6.6 and 5.8—that’s your typical aged cheddar or gouda range—the virus did persist through 120 days of aging. But at pH 5.0? Nothing. No viable virus at all. And you know what runs at pH 5.0? Your feta, your chèvre, most of your fresh cheeses.

But wait, it gets better. When the full paper came out (not just the preprint), it revealed something crucial: they fed this contaminated cheese to ferrets. Now, if you don’t know, ferrets are basically the canary in the coal mine for flu research—they’re incredibly susceptible. And guess what? Not a single ferret got infected from eating the cheese. Not one.

Meanwhile, some ferrets drinking contaminated raw milk did get sick. The researchers think—and this makes sense when you think about it—that the solid structure of cheese might trap the virus differently than liquid milk, where it’s just floating around freely. In cheese, you’ve got this protein matrix, salt everywhere, enzymes breaking things down… it’s actually a pretty hostile environment, even if the virus technically survives.

Understanding the Testing Game: PCR vs. Viability

What I’ve found is that most producers don’t really understand the difference between PCR testing and viability testing—and honestly, why would you? But it matters enormously.

FDA’s own data exposes the PCR paradox: 17% of samples test positive for viral RNA, but viability testing reveals zero infectious virus in 110+ retail cheese samples. This gap between detection and actual risk is costing producers millions in unnecessary recalls

Quick Reference: Testing Types and What They Mean

PCR Testing:

  • Detects as few as 5-10 viral RNA copies per microliter
  • Results in 3-7 days
  • Can’t distinguish between live and dead virus
  • Like finding footprints—proves something was there, not that it’s still dangerous

Viability Testing:

  • Uses egg inoculation to grow the virus
  • Takes up to 30 days for results
  • Confirms if the virus can actually cause infection
  • The only way to know if there’s a real risk

PCR is incredibly sensitive. According to research published in the Journal of Virological Methods this September, we’re talking about detecting as few as 5 to 10 copies of viral RNA per microliter. That’s… well, that’s basically nothing. It’s like being able to find a single grain of salt in a swimming pool.

But here’s the thing—and this is crucial—PCR can’t tell you if what it’s finding is alive or dead. It’s just finding genetic material. Think of it like finding footprints in your barn. Those footprints tell you something was there, but they don’t tell you when, or if it’s still around, or if it was even a threat to begin with.

Now, the FDA has been running this massive surveillance program, and its March update revealed something really eye-opening. They found viral RNA fragments in about 17% of some dairy products they tested. Sounds scary, right? But then they took those same positive samples and did viability testing—that’s where you actually try to grow the virus in chicken eggs to see if it’s infectious—and every single sample came back negative. Every one. No viable virus.

Why does this matter? Well, Food Safety Magazine’s analysis puts the average food recall at over $10 million in direct costs alone. So if you’re destroying product based on PCR positives that turn out to be just RNA fragments… you can see the problem.

State Strategies: From Wisconsin’s Testing Blitz to California’s Realities

California’s dairy outbreak concentration reveals why risk management strategies must be regional, not national. While California battles 233 affected herds, Wisconsin’s 19,000 tested samples show zero detections—proving surveillance works and geography matters more than headlines suggest

What’s fascinating to me is how differently states are handling this. Wisconsin—and you’ve got to hand it to them—they’ve gone all-in on testing. They’re processing over 5,000 milk samples every month through their state lab. The result? As of October, they’ve tested more than 19,000 samples with zero H5N1 detections. Zero. That’s not luck, that’s systematic surveillance working.

Pennsylvania took a more measured approach. Their State Veterinarian, Dr. Hamberg, caught some flak back in March when he basically said, “Let’s wait for the full peer-reviewed study before we panic.” Looking back now? Smart move. Pennsylvania has maintained what USDA calls Stage 4 status—that is, no H5N1 present—with over 100 dairy herds. They’re actually the only state with that many herds to achieve that status.

Then there’s California. Different story entirely. With 233 of the 442 affected herds nationally—we’re talking over half the outbreak—they’re dealing with real contamination. I was talking with a Central Valley producer recently who put it this way: “We’re not worried about theoretical risk here. We’ve got affected herds all around us. Our testing is about survival, not compliance.”

And what about operations in the Southeast or Mountain West? They’re watching all this unfold, implementing practical measures based on their regional risk. A Georgia operation I heard about is focusing testing at their processing facility rather than individual farms—makes sense given their smaller dairy sector and limited resources.

The Raw Farm Story: A Cautionary Tale

The Raw Farm situation from last November and December really shows how this all plays out in real time. Santa Clara County found influenza A virus through routine PCR testing on November 24th, right before Thanksgiving—couldn’t be worse timing. This triggered recalls of everything produced after November 9th.

Now here’s what’s important: Despite multiple PCR-positive results across different products, California’s health department confirmed on December 3rd that not a single person got sick. Not one. But the damage was done—holiday sales season shot, product destroyed, consumer confidence shaken.

While Raw Farm hasn’t released exact figures, industry standards indicate that recalls of this scope typically exceed $10 million in direct costs alone. That’s before you factor in lost sales, brand damage, all of that. And remember, this happened during the peak holiday season when specialty cheese sales traditionally surge.

The Economics Nobody Talks About

Let’s get real about the numbers here. Research from the Journal of Dairy Science shows that aging facility costs range from $0.25 to $0.27 per pound for the entire aging period. So if you’ve got 10,000 pounds aging for 120 days—pretty standard for a mid-sized operation—you’re looking at $90,000 to $130,000 in product value, plus another $10,000 or so in aging costs you’ve already paid.

Key Financial Considerations for Producers

  • Aging costs: $0.25-0.27 per pound for the entire aging period
  • Product Contamination Insurance: $1,000-$20,000 annually (varies by size)
  • Voluntary testing: $50-$150 per sample
  • Average recall cost: $10+ million in direct expenses
  • Viability testing wait: Up to 30 days (during which the product is quarantined)

And insurance? Don’t get me started. Agricultural insurance data shows that Product Contamination Insurance ranges from $1,000 to $20,000 a year, depending on your size. But—and this is the kicker—standard policies usually exclude most recall costs. You need special coverage, and good luck affording it after any claims.

What’s really tough is how this hits different sized operations. If you’re running 500 cows and making commodity cheese, you can spread these costs across volume. But if you’re a 50-cow farmstead operation? These compliance costs can wipe out your entire margin.

I’ve been hearing from a lot of smaller producers who are rethinking voluntary testing. University labs charge $50 to $150 per sample—seems reasonable, right? But if you test voluntarily and get a PCR-positive result —even if it’s just dead virus fragments —you’re often required to report it. That can trigger recalls before anyone even checks whether there’s an actual infectious virus. And that viability testing? Takes up to 30 days. By then, you’re already destroyed.

Some cooperatives are starting to pool resources for testing—spreading costs across multiple small operations. It’s one way smaller producers are adapting, though it’s not yet available everywhere. The Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association has been particularly active in helping members navigate these challenges—they’re a good resource if you’re looking for guidance.

What’s Actually Working Out There

So what approaches are proving effective? From what I’m seeing across the industry, a few things stand out.

First, source control is absolutely critical now. With the USDA’s National Milk Testing Strategy mandatory since December 6th, systematic bulk tank surveillance is underway. If you’re working exclusively with tested, negative herds, you’ve got documentation and significantly lower risk.

pH management is proving to be another practical tool. The Cornell findings that pH 5.0 is protective align with what many of us have long known about acidification. I know several Vermont operations that have shifted toward more acidic varieties—their chèvre naturally hits pH 4.6, which, according to this research, provides inherent protection through normal production.

But here’s something that might surprise you: voluntary finished product testing might actually increase your risk rather than reduce it. Legal guidance emerging in trade publications suggests really thinking twice before implementing voluntary testing unless customers demand it. The liability exposure from triggering costly recalls due to RNA fragments… it’s just not worth it for many operations.

The Market Reality

Here’s what’s encouraging: Grand View Research projects that the specialty cheese market will reach $81.44 billion by 2034. Consumer demand isn’t going away. University of Vermont research from this August shows buyers will still pay good premiums for local, artisanal, traditional methods.

But—and this is important—H5N1 testing as a marketing point doesn’t work. Trade publications have been reporting that producers who try advertising their H5N1 testing actually see sales drop. It introduces a concern customers hadn’t even considered. It’s like putting “arsenic-free” on bottled water—suddenly everyone’s worried about arsenic.

Despite H5N1 headlines, specialty cheese market projections remain bullish with $81.44 billion expected by 2034. Smart producers who master risk management today position themselves for tomorrow’s premium-paying consumers who still value traditional, artisanal methods

What Europe’s Doing Differently

The European approach is worth noting. Their Food Safety Authority concluded in June that H5N1 trade risks are, quote, “a lesser concern” compared to migratory birds. They require demonstrating that actual risk exceeds thresholds before restricting traditional products.

The UK’s surveillance data backs this up. Food Standards Agency testing of 629 raw milk cheese samples found that 82% met satisfactory standards, and zero human infections were reported in their 2024 summary. They’re monitoring, not prohibiting. Different philosophy entirely.

Where This Leaves Us

After looking at all this—the research, the surveillance data, what producers are experiencing—a few things become clear.

The science suggests aged cheese poses minimal real-world risk. Cornell’s ferrets stayed healthy eating contaminated cheese. The FDA found zero viable virus in over 110 retail cheese samples. Wisconsin’s 19,000 tests came back clean. At some point, you have to acknowledge what that’s telling us.

But regulatory frameworks don’t pivot quickly. FDA’s March guidance still says aging “may not be effective,” despite their own surveillance data. That’s just how these systems work—once precautionary measures are in place, they rarely get walked back.

For those of us actually making cheese, this means developing strategies based on real risk assessment, not just regulatory compliance. Source from tested herds—that’s foundational now. Consider pH optimization where it makes sense for your products. Carry adequate insurance, but understand what it actually covers. And think very carefully about voluntary testing that could trigger massive recalls for what might be harmless RNA fragments.

Your geographic location matters enormously here. Operating in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania with comprehensive surveillance and zero detections is fundamentally different from operating in California, where outbreaks are ongoing. Know your state’s status and plan accordingly.

And if you’re a smaller operation—under 50 cows—the economics are completely different. You might need to explore cooperative testing approaches to reduce testing costs, focus on direct sales where relationships matter more than paperwork, and maintain product diversity to spread risk.

The Bottom Line

You know, the specialty cheese market’s going to keep growing. Consumer demand for quality, artisanal products isn’t disappearing. What we’re learning is that producers who understand both the science and the regulatory landscape—who can implement practical risk management based on actual rather than theoretical threats—they’re finding ways forward.

Understanding the difference between finding viral RNA and finding infectious virus, knowing what your state’s surveillance shows, making informed decisions for your specific operation—that’s what gets you through this.

The gap between laboratory worst-case scenarios and what we’re actually seeing in the field tells us something important. While it’s appropriate to be cautious with new threats, there’s a point where precaution becomes… well, maybe overcautious.

This situation’s going to keep evolving. What we know today builds on yesterday, and tomorrow will probably bring new insights. But armed with good science, awareness of regional differences, and practical approaches, we can navigate this while protecting both public health and our operations.

Every producer meeting I attend, every conversation at the co-op, we’re all trying to figure this out together. And that’s actually encouraging—we’re not just reacting anymore, we’re understanding. That’s real progress.

Key Takeaways

  • PCR’s $10 million problem: Testing detects harmless RNA fragments but can’t identify actual infection risk—triggering massive recalls for dead virus that FDA surveillance shows doesn’t exist in retail cheese
  • The data is reassuring: Cornell’s infected ferrets stayed healthy eating contaminated cheese, Wisconsin tested 19,000 samples with zero detections, and the FDA found zero viable virus in 110+ retail samples nationwide
  • Geography drives strategy: California’s 233 affected herds require aggressive risk management, while Wisconsin and Pennsylvania’s comprehensive surveillance with zero detections means regulatory compliance matters more than contamination risk
  • Your three-point action plan: Source exclusively from tested negative herds (non-negotiable), optimize toward pH 5.0 or below for natural viral inactivation, and avoid voluntary finished product testing unless customer-mandated—it creates $10M liability exposure for detecting fragments that pose no risk

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

Information current as of October 28, 2025. Regulations and surveillance data continue evolving. Always consult current USDA and FDA guidance, along with your state regulations, for the most up-to-date requirements. For more information on navigating these challenges, the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association (www.wischeesemakers.org) and your state dairy associations can provide valuable resources and support.

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