Archive for make allowance

$262,000 a Year, Gone: The USDA Formula Change No Milk Check Explains

USDA reset make allowances June 1, 2025, and quietly pulled ~90¢/cwt from Class III/IV. On 1,000 cows, that’s about $262,000 a year — and no line on your check says so.

Executive Summary: On June 1, 2025, USDA reset FMMO make allowances for the first time since 2008, and that single formula change pulled roughly 90¢/cwt out of regulated Class III and IV prices — before global oversupply took a nickel. If your milk flows into cheese, butter, or powder across the Upper Midwest, Plains, or West, this hit you hardest, and nothing on your check spells it out. On a 1,000-cow herd shipping 80 lbs/day, that’s about $262,000 a year, gone; run your own pounds times 90¢, and the number scales straight up. AFBF’s Danny Munch clocked Class III down 86¢ and Class IV down 89¢ in the first three months, and here’s the part that stings: it’s structural, not cyclical, so it won’t bounce back when futures rally. Don’t count on shrinking global supply to bail you out either — Rabobank still has 2026 production up about 1%, and USDA has EU deliveries edging up 0.1%, not down. With 2026 all-milk forecast at $20.70, the real question is whether your operation can run 12 months at that number with 90¢ permanently baked into the floor. The move this month: run your DSCR without any DMC or Dairy-RP payments, and if it lands under 1.0x, that’s a lender conversation now — not at renewal.

make allowance milk price

Picture an Upper Midwest dairy milking 1,000 cows. Same parlor, same cows, same routine that penciled out fine in 2024.

Then the June 2025 milk check came back lighter. And it kept coming back lighter, month after month, with nothing new in the deductions column to point at. Nobody dried off the wrong cows. Nobody blew a ration. The math changed underneath them.

On June 1, 2025, a federal pricing formula quietly shifted. That one change pulled roughly $0.90/cwt out of regulated Class III and IV milk prices — before global supply moved a nickel.

That’s the make-allowance change. And it’s the part of the 2026 squeeze most producers felt in their gut but couldn’t name on paper.

What Actually Changed on June 1, 2025

A make allowance is the processing cost USDA subtracts from surveyed wholesale prices for cheese, butter, nonfat dry milk, and dry whey when it builds your Class III and IV milk prices. Raise that deduction, and the regulated milk price drops by the same amount — dollar for dollar, per pound of product.

It’s not a market force. It’s a formula input.

USDA’s final rule reset those allowances effective June 1, 2025: $0.2519/lb for cheese, $0.2272/lb for butter, $0.2393/lb for nonfat dry milk, and $0.2668/lb for dry whey. The old rates — frozen since October 2008 — were $0.2003 for cheese, $0.1715 for butter, $0.1678 for nonfat dry milk, and $0.1991 for dry whey, according to USDA Agricultural Marketing Service rulemaking.

Run the percentages and the jumps are steep: 25.8% on cheese, 32.5% on butter, 42.6% on nonfat dry milk, and 34.0% on dry whey. Those aren’t tweaks. The cheese number alone — a nickel a pound more carved out before the milk price is even set — is what does most of the damage to a III-heavy check, because cheese yield drives the Class III formula harder than anything else. The Bullvine has shown how thin the link already is between what your components are actually worth and what the formula pays you — and this rule widened that gap.

American Farm Bureau economist Danny Munch, tracking the first three months under the new rule, found average Class III prices fell about 86¢/cwt and Class IV about 89¢/cwt, with the make-allowance bump doing most of the damage, per American Farm Bureau Market Intel. The Bullvine’s own breakdown landed close by, at $0.94/cwt on Class III and $0.87 on Class IV.

The spread between those estimates comes down to method and which orders you weight — which is exactly why “roughly 90 cents” is the honest midpoint to plan around.

And who gets hit hardest? If your milk flows into cheese, butter, and powder — the Upper Midwest, the Plains, the West — your mailbox price leans on Class III and IV, so the haircut lands with full force. Fluid-heavy regions feel it less, because more of their value rides on Class I, which the same rule actually nudged higher in spots.

How This Plays Out in the Barn

Here’s what makes it so slippery: nothing on the check screams “USDA just took a dollar.” Class prices simply print lower.

So you blame exports, or China, or “the market” — and the formula change rides along invisible.

Run the math on that 1,000-cow herd. At about 80 lbs/cow/day — swap in your own average — you’re shipping roughly 292,000 cwt a year. A $0.90/cwt haircut works out to about $262,000 gone — every year — before a single cull cow leaves the yard or a futures contract moves.

The number scales cleanly with herd size, because it’s just pounds times 90 cents. Here’s the same math run across four herd sizes, all at 80 lbs/cow/day:

Herd sizeApprox. annual cwtAnnual hit at $0.90/cwt
200 cows58,400~$52,600
400 cows116,800~$105,100
1,000 cows292,000~$262,800
2,500 cows730,000~$657,000

The Bullvine ran a version of this on a 400-cow herd and got close to $105,000 a year vanishing into the formula. Plug in your own per-cow production — a 90-lb herd ships more pounds, so the bite is bigger.

And it didn’t land in a vacuum. The rule took effect just as global milk surged through mid-2025, so the cut and the oversupply hit the same checks at the same time — but only the oversupply made headlines. USDA’s June 2026 WASDE lowered the 2026 all-milk forecast by 55¢ to $20.70/cwt — below 2025 and below full economic cost for a lot of mid-size herds.

Stack the structural cut on top of a soft market, and that “$1.25/cwt even when you do everything right” feeling stops being a complaint. It’s arithmetic.

The Mechanics Nobody Walked You Through

Why didn’t this register clearly? Because USDA bundled the bad news with some good.

The same rule package returned Class I to the “higher of” mover and raised Class I differentials in parts of the East — both lift fluid skim values. And there was a genuine offset for high-component herds: updated skim milk composition factors — protein assumptions raised from 3.1% to 3.3%, other solids from 5.9% to 6.0%, nonfat solids from 9.0% to 9.3% — that lift the calculated value of skim milk.

But that piece didn’t take effect until December 1, 2025, a full six months after the make-allowance cut had already been pulling cash out of checks.

Rule ElementEffective DateWho It HelpsWho It Hurts$/cwt Impact
Make-allowance rate reset (cheese +25.8%, butter +32.5%, NDM +42.6%, whey +34.0%)June 1, 2025ProcessorsClass III/IV producers (Upper Midwest, Plains, West)−$0.86–0.94/cwt
Class I “higher of” mover restoredJune 1, 2025Fluid milk regions (East/Southeast)No direct impact on Class III/IV+Variable
Class I differentials increased (select Eastern orders)June 1, 2025Eastern fluid producers+Variable
Skim milk composition factors updated (protein 3.1%→3.3%; other solids 5.9%→6.0%; nonfat solids 9.0%→9.3%)December 1, 2025High-component herdsLow-component herds+Partial offset
DMC Tier 1 coverage raised to 6M lbs at $9.50 margin2026 Farm BillSmaller herds (≤6M lbs production)Large herds shipping 20M+ lbs — Tier 1 covers <25% of volumePartial floor only
Net structural impact on Class III/IV mailbox priceOngoingAll manufacturing-region producers~−$0.90/cwt permanent

That staggered timing is what muddied the water. The big-picture message could stay neutral-to-positive even while the specific message for cheese-and-powder country was brutal: your core class prices just dropped almost a dollar.

Farm groups didn’t speak with one voice, either. Processors had pushed for higher make allowances for years, arguing real costs — energy, labor, packaging — had outrun rates frozen since 2008. That argument isn’t crazy on its face; nobody’s processing milk in 2026 at 2008 cost. But “the rate was stale” and “the producer should eat the entire catch-up in one step” are two very different conclusions, and the rule landed on the second one. Some producer groups swallowed the higher allowances as the price of getting “higher of” back. So the clean “you’re losing 90 cents” line got lost in the trade.

The distinction that matters: this isn’t cyclical. It doesn’t reverse when futures rally. The Bullvine put it bluntly — “that money is now legally reallocated from the farm to the plant.” It’s welded into the floor now.

Won’t Slowing Global Milk Bail Out Prices?

Every few weeks a hopeful headline lands: the global wall of milk is finally cresting. And there’s truth to it — Rabobank’s Q2 2026 Global Dairy Quarterly, released in June, has Big-7 output growth peaking and milk supply turning negative by the fourth quarter, down an estimated 1.6% year-on-year.

But here’s the catch most of those headlines skip. Rabobank still pegs full-year 2026 global production up about 1%, following a 3.1% surge in 2025. The slowdown is a Q4 story, not a 2026 story. A herd budgeting on a calendar-year basis won’t feel a fourth-quarter dip until the back end of the year — long after the spring and summer checks are already spent.

So why doesn’t your check recover? Because the milk’s still coming. The U.S. is forecast to keep growing for the full year, and even Europe isn’t pulling back the way the “shrinking EU herd” story suggests — USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service, in its June 2026 update, actually has EU cows’ milk deliveries edging up 0.1% in 2026 to about 148.6 million metric tons. That’s not a contraction. That’s flat-to-higher from the one region everyone keeps expecting to ride to the rescue.

The wall doesn’t come down until production actually contracts and stays there — and Rabobank doesn’t see that holding until late 2026 into 2027.

The Bullvine has laid out who actually blinks first in the global milk picture — worth a read if you’re tempted to bank on an overseas rescue.

How Much Does Doing Nothing Actually Cost You?

This is the question worth sitting with at the kitchen table. On a 1,000-cow herd shipping about 24,000–25,000 cwt a month, a $1.00/cwt shortfall against what you budgeted is roughly $25,000 a month — just under $300,000 a year.

The Bullvine’s risk math frames the smaller version cleanly: on 9,000 cwt, every $1.00/cwt gap is $9,000 a month.

Dairy Margin Coverage helps — but know exactly where it stops. Tier 1 coverage rose from 5 to 6 million lbs for 2026, with subsidized protection up to a $9.50 margin. That’s a genuine lifeline on your first 6 million pounds.

But a 1,000-cow herd ships around 29 million pounds, which leaves roughly 23 million pounds with no Tier 1 net under it. DMC puts a floor under part of your milk. It doesn’t fix a model that’s underwater before debt service.

If you want the coverage tables and lane-by-lane strategy, the full 2026 risk playbook breaks it down.

What This Means for Your Operation

Strip away the policy talk and it comes down to three things you can do something about. First, the make-allowance cut is now part of your structural cost of doing business, the same way a higher haul rate or a tighter component schedule would be — so it belongs in your budget as a permanent line, not a bad-luck footnote you expect to bounce back.

Second, the size of the hit scales directly with how many pounds you ship, which means your highest-production strings are also where the formula takes the most. That’s not a reason to pull production. It is a reason to make sure every one of those pounds is either hedged, contracted, or priced into a margin you can actually live with.

Third, the relief everyone’s waiting on — shrinking global supply — is a late-2026-into-2027 event at best, and Europe isn’t even cooperating with the story yet. Budget for the world you’re milking in now, not the one the optimistic headlines keep promising. If your 2026 cash-flow plan assumes a second-half price rally, stress-test it against milk staying near $20.70 and see whether the year still closes in the black.

Is Your Breakeven Number Written Down — or Just a Feeling?

Here’s the one risk-management question most operators aren’t asking out loud: What’s the lowest mailbox price and margin over full cost you can ride for 12 straight months before you’re forced to cut cows, change the model, or get out — and what protection actually kicks in at that line?

Most producers can rattle off their rolling herd average from memory but can’t name that floor. The Bullvine said it plainly: “Your main question isn’t, ‘Where’s Class III going?’ It’s, ‘What’s the lowest mailbox price we can live with and still pay the bills and keep the lender comfortable?'”

Write the number down. Then tie specific hedges, DMC coverage, and cull triggers to it.

If you can’t name it, you’re not managing risk — you’re hoping the wall of milk spares your yard.

Options and Trade-Offs

Producers are handling this squeeze a few different ways. None is a silver bullet, and each one costs you something. Here’s how they stack up — scan the bold, then dig into the one that fits your operation:

  • Layer DMC and Dairy-RP together: This remains a no-brainer for 2026, especially with the 6-million-pound Tier 1 bump. Just remember: DMC only protects your first slice; Dairy-RP has to handle the rest without capping your upside too heavily if the market rallies.
Protection ToolCoverage TriggerMax Covered VolumeApprox. Annual PremiumAddresses Structural Cut?Lender Comfort?
DMC Tier 1 (2026)Margin < $9.50/cwt6M lbs (~75 cows)~$800–$1,200 subsidizedNo — formula loss not a DMC triggerPartial — floor on first slice only
DMC Tier 2Margin < $9.50/cwtUnlimited (unsubsidized)Rises steeply above 6M lbsNoPartial
Dairy-RP (Class III/IV floor)Declared price < insured levelUp to ~100% of production$0.05–$0.15/cwt depending on coverage %Yes — if floor set below current pricesYes — quantifiable hedge
DMC + Dairy-RP layeredCombined triggersFull production volume$0.08–$0.20/cwt combinedBest availableStrongest lender case
No program$0NoDSCR risk: <1.0x on many 1,000-cow herds
Futures hedge onlyCBOT Class IIIVariableBasis risk + margin callsPartial — doesn’t recover formula lossDepends on structure
  • Run a “No-Program” DSCR Test within 30 days: Calculate your debt-service coverage ratio without any safety-net payments. If your herd sits below the 1.15x–1.25x benchmark your bank demands — The Bullvine’s 400-cow analysis found one at just 0.9x even after a $16,600 DMC “win” — you need a proactive conversation with your lender today, not at loan renewal.
  • Audit your basis and your buyer: This matters most in manufacturing regions, where plant closures or consolidation can widen basis $2–3/cwt. The risk you can’t hedge is the one to name out loud: a buyer that simply stops taking your extra milk.
  • Tighten breeding and replacement decisions before the cushions thin: Beef-on-dairy premiums and strong cull prices have been quietly masking the milk-margin problem — and both could face pressure by late 2026. The trade-off is real: more dairy replacements means giving up some beef-cross cash flow today.

Key Takeaways

  • If you ship to a Class III/IV-heavy order, treat roughly $0.90/cwt of your 2025–26 price drop as structural, not market — and build your cash flow as if it’s permanent.
  • Multiply your annual cwt by $0.90. If that number rattles you (a 1,000-cow herd: about $262,000; a 2,500-cow herd: north of $650,000), it belongs in your 2026 budget, not your blind spot.
  • Run your DSCR without program payments this month. If it’s under 1.0x, that’s a lender conversation now — not at renewal.
  • Don’t budget around a global supply rescue. Rabobank still has 2026 production up about 1%, and even the EU is edging up, not down — so the relief is a late-2026-into-2027 story at best.
  • Watch your cushions. If beef-on-dairy premiums or cull prices soften while milk stays flat, the margin you thought you had disappears fast.
  • Write down your 12-month floor — the lowest mailbox price you can survive — and attach a specific action to it before futures test that line.

So — Where Does Your Floor Actually Sit?

If milk holds near $20.70 and that make-allowance cut stays baked in, can your operation run 12 months at that number without leaning on the cushions? It’s not rhetorical. It’s the question your lender will ask at renewal, and the one your milk buyer is already modeling.

Pull last June’s milk check and this one, lay them side by side, and see how much of the gap you can actually explain. The part you can’t? Some of that is the formula.

Calculate Your Structural Make-Allowance Hit

Enter your herd size or annual milk volume to see the real impact of the USDA formula shift on your operation.

cows
lbs/day

Calculated Annual Shipped Vol. 292,000 cwt
Estimated Annual Margin Loss $262,800
Monthly Cash Flow Hit: $21,900 / mo

*Based on a baseline structural loss midpoint of $0.90/cwt across Class III and Class IV pricing formulas following the June 1, 2025 FMMO modifications.

Editor’s Note: The 1,000-cow operation described below is a composite scenario, modeled from typical Upper Midwest herds shipping to Class III and IV markets. It does not represent any single real farm. The dollar figures are drawn from USDA, the American Farm Bureau, and published Bullvine calculations, as cited throughout.

Learn More

The Sunday Read Dairy Professionals Don’t Skip.

Every week, thousands of producers, breeders, and industry insiders open Bullvine Weekly for genetics insights, market shifts, and profit strategies they won’t find anywhere else. One email. Five minutes. Smarter decisions all week.

NewsSubscribe
First
Last
Consent

USDA Proposes Return to ‘Higher-Of’ Method for Fluid Milk Pricing: What It Means for Dairy Farmers

Learn how USDA’s plan to bring back the ‘higher-of’ method for milk pricing might affect farmers. Will this change help dairy producers? Find out more.

The USDA plans to bring back the ‘higher-of’ pricing method for fluid milk, a move intended to modernize federal dairy policy based on a comprehensive 49-day hearing that evaluated numerous industry proposals. This method picks the higher price between Class III (cheese) and Class IV (butter and powder) milk, which could signify a notable shift for the dairy industry. Previously, the 2018 Farm Bill had replaced the ‘higher-of’ system with an ‘average-of’ pricing formula, averaging Class III and IV prices with an additional 74 cents. While switching back might benefit farmers, it also introduces risks like negative producer price differentials in 2020 and 2021. The USDA’s proposal seeks to mitigate these challenges and provide farmers financial gains amidst modern dairy economics’ complexities.

Understanding the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) System 

The Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system, established in 1937, plays a crucial role in ensuring fair and competitive dairy pricing. It mandates minimum milk prices based on end use, providing price stability for dairy farmers and processors across the U.S. Each FMMO represents a distinct marketing area, coordinating pricing and sales practices. 

The ‘higher-of’ pricing method for Class I (fluid) milk has long been integral to this system. It sets the Class I price using the higher Class III (cheese) or Class IV (butter and powder) price, offering a financial safeguard against market volatility. This method ensures dairy producers receive a fair price despite market fluctuations. 

However, the 2018 Farm Bill introduced an ‘average-of’ formula, using the average of Class III and IV prices plus 74 cents. While aimed at modernizing milk pricing, this change exposed farmers to greater risk and reduced earnings in volatile periods like 2020 and 2021.

A Marathon Analysis: Unraveling Modern Dairy Policy over 49 Days in Indiana

The marathon hearing in Indiana highlighted the complexities of modern dairy policy. Spanning 49 days, from Aug. 23, 2023, to Jan. 30, it reviewed nearly two dozen industry proposals. This intensive process reflected the sophisticated and multifaceted Federal Milk Marketing Order system as stakeholders debated diverse views and intricate data to influence future milk pricing.

Decoding Dairy Dilemmas: The “Higher-Of” vs. “Average-Of” Pricing Methods

The “higher-of” and “average-of” pricing methods are central to understanding their impact on farmers’ incomes. The “higher-of” process, which uses the greater of the Class III (cheese) price or Class IV (butter and powder) price, has historically provided a safety net against dairy market fluctuations. This method ensured farmers got a better price, potentially safeguarding their income during volatile times. Yet, it increased the risk of negative producer price differentials, which reduced earnings in 2020 and 2021. 

On the other hand, the “average-of” method, introduced by the 2018 Farm Bill, calculates the price as the average of Class III and IV prices plus 74 cents. While this seems balanced and predictable, it often fails to deliver the highest financial return when either Class III or IV prices exceed expectations. Farmers have noted that this method might not reflect their costs and economic challenges in volatile markets. 

The “higher-of” method often offers better financial outcomes during favorable market conditions but brings increased uncertainty during unstable periods. Conversely, the “average-of” method offers stability but may miss optimal pricing opportunities. This debate within the dairy industry over the best formula to support farmers’ livelihoods continues. Thus, the USDA’s proposal to revert to the “higher-of” method invites mixed feelings among farmers, whose earnings and economic stability are closely tied to these pricing mechanisms.

Examining the Potential Implications of the USDA’s Return to the ‘Higher-Of’ Pricing Method 

The USDA’s return to the ‘higher-of’ pricing method, while potentially beneficial, also presents some challenges that the industry needs to be aware of. This approach, favoring the higher Class III (cheese) or Class IV (butter and powder) prices, seems more beneficial than the ‘average-of’ formula. However, deeper insights indicate potential challenges that need to be carefully considered. 

The ‘higher-of’ method usually leads to higher fluid milk prices but poses the risk of negative producer price differentials (PPDs). When the Class I price far exceeds the average of the underlying class prices, PPDs can become negative, as seen during the harsh economic times of 2020 and 2021, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic

Negative PPDs can hit farmers’ financial stability, making it harder to predict income and manage cash flows. This reflects the delicate balance between gaining higher milk prices now and ensuring long-term financial reliability. 

The 24-month rolling adjuster for extended-shelf-life milk introduces further uncertainty. Its effect on milk pricing needs to be clarified, potentially causing fluctuating incomes for farmers in this segment. 

In conclusion, while the ‘higher-of’ pricing method may offer immediate benefits, risks like negative PPDs and uncertain impacts on extended-shelf-life milk pricing demand careful consideration. Farmers must balance these factors with their financial strategies and long-term sustainability plans.

New Horizons for ESL Milk: Navigating the 24-Month Rolling Adjuster Amidst Market Uncertainties

Under the USDA’s new proposal, regular fluid milk will revert to the ‘higher-of’ pricing. In contrast, extended-shelf-life (ESL) milk will follow a different path. The plan introduces a 24-month rolling adjuster for ESL milk to stabilize prices for these longer-lasting products. 

Yet, this change brings uncertainties. Laurie Fischer, CEO of the American Dairy Coalition, questions the impact on farmers. The 24-month adjuster is untested, making it difficult to foresee its effects amid fluctuating market conditions. ESL milk’s unique production and logistics further complicate predictions. 

Critics warn that the lack of historical data makes it hard to judge whether this method will help or hurt farmers. There’s concern that it could create more price disparity between regular and ESL milk, potentially straining producers reliant on ESL products. While USDA aims to tailor pricing better, its success will hinge on adapting to real-world market dynamics.

Make Allowance Controversy: Balancing Processor Profitability and Farmer Finances

The USDA also plans to increase the make allowance, a credit to dairy processors to cover rising manufacturing costs. This adjustment aims to ensure processors are adequately compensated to sustain profitability and operational efficiency, which is expected to benefit the entire dairy supply chain. 

However, this proposal has drawn substantial criticism. Laurie Fischer, CEO of the American Dairy Coalition, argues that the increased make allowance effectively reduces farmers’ milk checks, disadvantaging them financially.

Pivotal Adjustments and Economic Realignment in Dairy Pricing Formulas

The USDA’s proposal adjusts pricing formulas to match advancements in milk component production since 2000. This update ensures that farmers receive fair compensation for their contributions. 

The proposal also revises Class I differential values for all counties to reflect current economic realities. This is essential for maintaining fair compensation for the higher costs of serving the fluid milk market. By reevaluating these differentials, the USDA aims to align the Federal Milk Marketing Order system with today’s economic landscape.

Recalibrating Cheese Pricing: Transition to 40-pound Cheddar Blocks Only

Another critical change in USDA’s proposal is the shift in the cheese pricing system. Monthly average cheese prices will now be based solely on 40-pound cheddar blocks instead of including 500-pound cheddar barrels. This aims to streamline the process and more accurately reflect market values, impacting various stakeholders in the dairy industry.

Initial Reactions from Industry Leaders: Balancing Optimism with Key Concerns 

Initial reactions from crucial industry organizations reveal a mix of cautious optimism and significant concerns. The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) showed preliminary approval, noting that USDA’s proposal incorporates many of their requested changes. On the other hand, Laurie Fischer, CEO of the American Dairy Coalition, raised concerns about the make allowance updates and the impact of extended-shelf-life milk pricing, fearing it might hurt farmers’ earnings.

Structured Engagement: Navigating the 60-Day Comment Period and Ensuing Voting Procedure

To advance its proposal, USDA will open a 60-day public comment period, allowing stakeholders and the public to share insights, concerns, and support. This process ensures that diverse voices within the dairy industry are heard and considered. Once the comment period ends, USDA will review the feedback to gain a comprehensive understanding of industry perspectives, informing the finalization of the proposal. 

Afterward, the USDA will decide based on the collected data and input. However, the process continues with a voting procedure where farmers pooled under each Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) cast votes to approve or reject the proposed amendments. Each Federal Order, representing different regions, will vote individually. 

This voting process is crucial, as it directly determines the outcome of the proposed changes. For adoption, a two-thirds majority approval within each Federal Order is required. Suppose a Federal Order fails to meet this threshold. In that case, USDA may terminate the order, leading to significant changes in how milk pricing is managed in that region. This democratic approach ensures that the final policies reflect majority support within the dairy farming community, aiming for fair and sustainable outcomes.

Regional Impacts: Navigating the Complex Landscape of FMMO System Changes

The proposed changes to the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system are bound to impact various regions differently, given each Federal Order’s unique economic landscape. Federal Order 1, covering most New England, eastern New York, New Jersey, Delaware, southeastern Pennsylvania, and most of Maryland, may benefit from more favorable fluid milk pricing due to the higher-of method. With significant urban markets, this region could see advantages from updated Class I differential values addressing the increased costs of serving these areas. 

On the other hand, Federal Order 33—encompassing western Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Indiana—might witness mixed outcomes. This area has substantial dairy manufacturing, especially in cheese and butter production, which could gain from the new cheese pricing method focusing on 40-pound cheddar blocks. However, the higher make allowance might stir controversy, potentially cutting farmers’ earnings despite adjustments for rising manufacturing costs. 

The future remains uncertain for western New York and most of Pennsylvania’s mountain counties, which any Federal Order does not cover. These areas could feel indirect effects from the new proposals, particularly the revised pricing formulas and allowances, which could impact local milk processing and producer price differentials. 

While the higher-of-pricing method may benefit farmers by securing better fluid milk prices, the regional impacts will hinge on each Federal Order’s specific economic activities and market structures. Stakeholders must examine the proposed changes closely to gauge their potential benefits and drawbacks.

The Bottom Line

The USDA’s push to reinstate the ‘higher-of’ pricing method for fluid milk marks a decisive moment for the dairy industry. The 49-day hearing in Indiana underscored the complexity of the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) System. Key aspects include reverting to the ‘higher-of’ pricing from the 2018 ‘average-of’ formula, new pricing for extended-shelf-life milk, and the debate over increased make allowances. Significant updates to pricing formulas and cheese pricing methodologies were also discussed. 

The forthcoming vote on these changes is critical. With the power to reshape financial outcomes for dairy farmers and processors, each Federal Order needs two-thirds approval to implement these changes. Balancing modern dairy policy advancements with fair profits for all stakeholders is at the heart of this discourse. 

Ultimately, these decisions will affect dairy practices’ economic landscape and sustainability nationwide. This vote is a pivotal moment in the evolution of the American dairy industry, demanding informed participation from all involved.

Key Takeaways:

  • The USDA plans to reinstate the “higher-of” method for pricing Class I (fluid) milk, reversing the “average-of” formula introduced in the 2018 Farm Bill.
  • A 332-page recommendation outlines the USDA’s proposed changes, following a comprehensive 49-day hearing in Indiana.
  • The reinstatement is anticipated to benefit farmers most of the time, though it may introduce risks like negative producer price differentials.
  • New pricing structures will affect regular fluid milk and introduce a 24-month rolling adjuster for extended-shelf-life (ESL) milk.
  • The USDA will update pricing formulas to reflect increased milk component production and adjust Class I differential values to better capture the costs of serving the fluid market.
  • There will be changes in cheese pricing, with average monthly prices based solely on 40-pound cheddar blocks.
  • The proposal also includes an increase in the make allowance for processors, a point of contention among industry stakeholders.
  • The USDA will open a 60-day public comment period before making a final decision, with each Federal Milk Marketing Order region voting individually on the proposed changes.

Summary:

The USDA plans to reintroduce the ‘higher-of’ pricing method for fluid milk, a move aimed at modernizing federal dairy policy. This method, which selects the higher price between Class III and Class IV milk, could be a significant shift for the dairy industry. The 2018 Farm Bill replaced the ‘higher-of’ system with an ‘average-of’ formula, averaging Class III and IV prices plus an additional 74 cents. This change could benefit farmers but also introduce risks like negative producer price differentials (PPDs). The Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system ensures fair and competitive dairy pricing, and the ‘higher-of’ method usually leads to higher fluid milk prices but also poses the risk of negative producer price differentials (PPDs). Negative PPDs can impact farmers’ financial stability, making it harder to predict income and manage cash flows. The 24-month rolling adjuster for extended-shelf-life milk introduces further uncertainty, potentially causing fluctuating incomes for farmers. The USDA’s proposal to increase the make allowance, a credit to dairy processors, has been met with criticism from industry leaders. The USDA will open a 60-day public comment period to advance its proposal. The proposed changes to the FMMO system will impact various regions differently due to each Federal Order’s unique economic landscape.

Learn more:

Send this to a friend