Archive for milk price suppression

The $100 Per Cow You Never See: How Foreign Subsidies Are Reshaping American Dairy

Three dairy farms close every day while Europe pays their farmers to compete against you.

You know that frustration when milk prices just don’t reflect the work you’re putting in? I was talking with a Wisconsin dairyman last week who nailed it: “I can handle weather variability and market cycles—we’ve done that for generations. What’s harder to navigate is when other governments are actively supporting our competitors.”

Here’s what’s interesting—this concern is popping up everywhere I go. Cornell’s dairy economist, Andrew Novakovic, ran some modeling earlier this year that suggests foreign subsidies might be extracting approximately $90 to $100 per cow annually from your operations through price suppression.

Now, for a typical 500-cow dairy? We’re talking about $45,000 to $50,000 in potential revenue that just…vanishes. Never shows up in the milk check.

What I’ve noticed is this pattern holds whether you’re running 200 cows on pasture in Vermont or milking 2,500 head in a New Mexico dry lot. The dynamics stay remarkably consistent.

Understanding What You’re Up Against

The global dairy market has undergone significant changes, and it’s worth taking a moment to understand how other governments are influencing the playing field.

The European Union has an intervention purchasing system—they actually buy up butter and skim milk powder when prices drop, holding them at levels above where the market would naturally clear. Their own Court of Auditors looked at this back in 2021 and basically said, “Hey, this is causing market distortions.” They even referred to it as “destabilizing.”

European Commission intervention stocks directly suppress US milk prices—when EU stockpiles peaked at 380,000 MT in 2016, American producers lost $0.80/cwt, costing the industry an estimated $2.2 billion in farm income over two years.

But here’s the thing—it continues anyway. Mark Stephenson, over at Wisconsin’s dairy policy program, figures that these interventions might be costing U.S. dairy hundreds of millions of dollars annually in lost competitiveness.

Then you have China doing something different, but equally challenging. They’re offering VAT rebates to processors in special economic zones—we’re talking 8 to 13 percent back on dairy exports, specifically through their State Council Directive 2024-15, which expanded these zones. So, when a buyer in Nigeria or Saudi Arabia is comparing bids? That Chinese supplier has an automatic advantage that has nothing to do with efficiency.

I was chatting with an Idaho producer who runs a pretty sophisticated operation—robotics, precision feeding, the whole nine yards. He said something that stuck with me: “We can match anybody on production metrics. But when their government picks up 8-13% of the tab? That’s a whole different ballgame.”

When Theory Meets Reality: What Happened in Michigan

You want to see how this plays out in real life? Look at what Michigan dairy cooperatives documented in their recent annual report. They lost significant contracts to European suppliers when Algerian buyers shifted their sourcing.

Here’s why: Under the EU-Algeria trade agreement, European dairy products enter the market duty-free. Meanwhile, U.S. exports? We’re looking at tariffs of 25% or more.

Based on typical market pricing with these tariff differences, European suppliers can deliver powder at prices we literally can’t match—not because they’re better, but because the trade structure gives them that advantage.

And when co-ops lose those export contracts, the impact is immediate. Phil Durst, who does dairy education for Michigan State Extension, has been tracking this. Milk prices can drop more than a dollar per hundredweight. Producers start culling—often 10-15% of the herd goes. Processing plants start wondering if they can stay open.

A third-generation Michigan producer told me recently, “Our somatic cell count runs under 150,000 consistently. Components are excellent. We’ve got reproduction dialed in. But being good at your job has limits when the playing field’s this tilted.”

Breaking Down What This Means for Your Operation

Let’s talk real numbers here. A price suppression of $0.35 to $0.40 per hundredweight might not sound like much at first…

The hidden subsidy impact ranges from $17,000-$19,000 for a 200-cow dairy to $212,000-$237,000 for a 2,500-cow operation—money that never appears in your milk check but represents 25-50% of typical operating margins

But think about it this way. Your average cow produces around 240 hundredweight annually—that’s pretty standard, based on the USDA’s latest numbers. Multiply that potential price impact out, and you’re looking at $85 to $95 per cow that could be missing.

Scale it up to your operation:

  • Running 200 cows? That’s potentially $17,000 to $19,000 annually
  • Got 500 cows? We’re talking $42,500 to $47,500
  • Thousand-cow operation? Could be $85,000 to $95,000
  • One of those 2,500-cow facilities? They might be missing $212,000 to $237,000

What really gets me is when you consider that most operations—according to USDA’s economic research—are running margins of maybe $200 to $400 per cow in good years. So, what’s the potential $90-100 impact? That’s 25 to nearly 50 percent of your profit margin. Gone.

How This Changes Investment Decisions

This entire dynamic completely shifts how you view capital investments.

I was working with a California producer near Tulare recently—she has 3,200 cows, a really sharp operator. She ran the numbers on a robotic milking system under different price scenarios, and what she found was eye-opening.

“We did sensitivity analysis on three different parlor upgrade options,” she explained. “The difference between current pricing and what we’d see with even partial relief from these subsidies changed our internal rate of return by nearly 40 percent. That’s literally the difference between our lender saying yes or no.”

At current subsidy-suppressed prices, critical investments like environmental compliance show negative returns and facility upgrades don’t meet lending thresholds—but even partial price recovery (+$0.20/cwt) makes most investments viable, explaining why your banker needs to see the full competitive picture.

Think about that. Agricultural lenders base everything on debt service coverage ratios tied to your operating margins. For a 500-cow operation, if you’re missing $45,000 annually due to price suppression, that could mean $200,000 less borrowing capacity.

That’s your parlor upgrade. That’s your environmental improvements. That’s the difference between modernizing or watching things slowly fall apart.

And succession planning? Boy, that’s where it really hits home. Iowa State Extension keeps data on this, and there’s a clear correlation—when margins look thin, the next generation looks elsewhere.

I know several Vermont families right now where kids with ag degrees are wondering if it makes sense to take on the farm debt or just go work for Land O’Lakes corporate. Can’t say I blame them for thinking it through.

Where We’re Headed: The Long View

Looking at the bigger picture, USDA data shows we’ve gone from over 70,000 dairy farms in 2003 to about 26,500 today.

U.S. dairy farms have collapsed from over 70,000 in 2003 to 24,810 today, with projections showing a potential decline to just 17,000 operations by 2035—that’s three farms closing every single day

Marin Bozic, who does dairy economics at the University of Minnesota, presented some modeling at the industry meetings last year. He projects that we could drop to somewhere between 17,000 and 20,000 operations by 2035. That’s another quarter to a third gone.

What’s really interesting is how this plays out regionally:

  • Traditional dairy states in the Northeast? Could see losses over 50-60 percent
  • The Upper Midwest might drop 40-55 percent
  • But certain Western and Southern states keep growing

Here’s what’s happening—at really large scale, say 3,000-plus cows, you can sometimes absorb these competitive disadvantages through sheer volume and efficiency.

But those mid-scale operations, the 300 to 1,000 cow dairies? They’re in a tough spot.

The consolidation pattern is stark: operations under 1,000 cows are exiting at rates of 5.5% to 12% annually, while farms with 1,000+ cows are actually growing at 2%—demonstrating the brutal economics of mid-scale dairy farming in a subsidized global market.

Bozic figures that these trade-related factors might accelerate consolidation by 15-25 percent beyond natural market evolution. Some consolidation makes sense—technology improves, efficiencies develop. But acceleration driven by trade distortions? That’s a different conversation.

You know what’s interesting? When apple producers faced similar subsidy competition from China a few years ago, they documented the situation, presented the economic harm, and had Section 301 tariffs implemented. Within two years, U.S. apple exports to key Asian markets recovered by nearly 30 percent. There may be lessons to be learned from dairy.

Three Ways Producers Are Responding

What I’ve found talking with producers around the country is that folks are generally taking one of three approaches—and here’s the key thing, these aren’t mutually exclusive. Plenty of operations are combining strategies.

Making the Scale Decision

If you’re between 500 and 1,000 cows right now, you’re facing some tough choices.

Several Wisconsin producers I know are crunching the numbers on borrowing to acquire 1,500-plus cows. They’re basically betting scale can overcome the subsidy disadvantage.

Others are choosing to exit while they’ve still got equity. One Pennsylvania dairyman put it to me this way: “I can get $1,500 per head in an orderly sale today. Wait three years if margins stay compressed? Maybe it’s $800 in a fire sale. That’s $350,000 difference on 500 cows.”

Finding Premium Markets

Some operations are successfully capturing premiums—organic, A2/A2, grass-fed—that help offset these competitive challenges.

A Vermont producer who went organic shared his experience: “Took 18 months of disrupted cash flow during transition. About $280,000 in market development over three years. We’re capped at 400 cows because of pasture requirements. Works for us—we’re close to Boston. But it’s not for everyone.”

USDA’s marketing service data suggests that maybe 10-15 percent of operations have the right location and resources to make premium strategies work.

Interestingly, some of these individuals are also among the loudest voices in advocacy, using their privileged position to highlight how conventional dairy faces unfair competition.

Getting Organized and Speaking Up

Groups are becoming more savvy about documenting their impacts and communicating with policymakers using real data.

The Wisconsin Dairy Business Association compiled member data showing over $45 million in annual trade-related losses across their membership. Their executive director told me, “Generic complaints don’t move policy. But when you show up with spreadsheets documenting specific economic harm? That gets attention.”

Many operations pursuing scale or premiums are also participating in these advocacy efforts. They recognize that addressing structural disadvantages benefits everyone, regardless of the strategy.

Here’s an encouraging example: A group of Michigan producers recently met with their congressional delegation, armed with specific documentation of lost contracts and price impacts. Within three months, they had both senators co-sponsoring legislation to examine dairy trade enforcement. It’s not a solution yet, but it’s a movement.

What Recovery Might Look Like

If we achieve policy adjustments similar to those in other agricultural sectors, recovery probably wouldn’t happen overnight.

The modeling from Texas A&M’s policy center suggests that we might see initial improvements within 12-18 months, with more comprehensive adjustments over 2-3 years. For that 500-cow operation we keep talking about? Even a partial improvement could mean tens of thousands of dollars in additional revenue.

Various analyses suggest addressing these imbalances might help preserve several thousand dairy operations through 2035. Won’t stop all consolidation—technology and efficiency gains are real. But it might slow things down to a more natural pace.

Practical Considerations for Your Operation

After all these conversations with producers and lenders, here’s what seems to be working:

When you’re evaluating break-even, run scenarios both ways—current conditions and with potential trade improvements. If you’re struggling now but would be profitable with modest price improvements, maybe the problem isn’t your operation.

Document everything for your lender. Several Farm Credit personnel have informed me that they’re more flexible with covenants when producers can demonstrate that market distortions, rather than management problems, are driving the pressure.

For investments, model three scenarios:

  • Keep going as is (baseline)
  • Partial improvement ($0.20/cwt better)
  • More normalized pricing ($0.40/cwt improvement)

Focus on investments that work in at least two scenarios. Gives you flexibility.

And on the advocacy side? Specifics matter. Document your impacts, work with neighbors to aggregate data. Ten farms speaking together carry more weight than ten separate complaints.

The Bigger Picture

What strikes me most about all this is how subtle it is. The normal fluctuations in milk prices often mask these impacts. Easy to overlook if you’re not paying attention.

We get our milk checks, maybe grumble about prices, and get back to work. Meanwhile, these complex trade structures may be systematically affecting everyone of us.

The co-ops losing export contracts, generational farms closing, kids choosing other careers—maybe this isn’t just efficiency sorting things out. Maybe it’s what happens when trade structures tilt the playing field.

An old-timer in Wisconsin—fourth generation, been milking since the ’70s—said something that really resonated: “I’ve managed through weather, disease, market cycles for four decades. That’s dairy farming. But competing against foreign treasuries? That’s not something you fix by working harder.”

Understanding this concept changes how you view everything—investments, debt, succession, and daily decisions. We probably need both operational improvements and engagement on trade policy. Neither alone seems sufficient.

Current projections suggest we might drop to 17,000-20,000 dairy farms by 2035. With more balanced trade conditions? Maybe we keep a few thousand more. Those farms aren’t just businesses—they’re the difference between rural communities thriving or hollowing out.

These aren’t abstract policy debates. This is about whether you can justify that parlor upgrade, whether your kids see opportunity in dairy, and whether your town keeps its feed mill.

How we respond—through strategic planning, working together on advocacy, or just adapting to what is—will shape not just individual farms, but American dairy for the next generation.

Understanding what we’re up against, challenging as it may be, might be the first step toward taking action. Because at the end of the day, we’re all trying to produce quality milk, support our families, and keep viable operations going. Recognizing the full competitive landscape enables us to make more informed decisions about the path forward.

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

  • Your missing revenue: Foreign subsidies suppress milk prices by $90-100/cow annually—that’s $46,000 for a 500-cow dairy that never reaches your milk check
  • Capital access crisis: This hidden loss reduces borrowing capacity by $200,000+, explaining why your banker says no to viable improvements
  • Three strategic paths: Operations are successfully (1) scaling past 1,500 cows for efficiency, (2) capturing premium markets, or (3) documenting losses for collective policy action
  • Smart investment framework: Model every decision using three scenarios—current prices, partial recovery (+$0.20/cwt), and normalized pricing (+$0.40/cwt)
  • The opportunity: Documented advocacy is working—apple producers secured relief in 2019, and Michigan dairy has senators engaged. Your specific data matters.

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

Learn More:

  • The Dairy Producer’s Guide to Navigating High Input Costs – While the main article explains lost revenue, this guide provides tactical strategies to protect your margins from the other side. It reveals proven methods for reducing feed, labor, and energy expenses to build operational resilience against price suppression.
  • Navigating the Tides: A Deep Dive into the 2024-2025 Dairy Market Outlook – To make informed strategic decisions, you need the full picture. This analysis expands on the main article’s trade focus, breaking down all key global and domestic market drivers, from consumer demand to supply-side trends, impacting your milk check.
  • Unlocking Efficiency: The Real ROI of Robotic Milking Systems – The main article highlights how suppressed prices threaten modernization. This piece demonstrates exactly what’s at stake, providing a detailed framework for calculating the true ROI of automation and making data-driven decisions on major capital investments for long-term viability.

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