Editorial Blog

What’s Your Farm's Strategy?

Mon, 07 Aug 2023 14:48:27 GMT

Sure, your day-to-day operations haven’t been as disrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic compared to a restaurant owner or an ethanol plant manager. But you’ve still faced disruption. When business is no longer usual, it’s a great time to reassess your strategic focus. Is your farm still marching toward its goals?

“Strategy is really nothing more than making advance decisions about how to deploy essential resources,” explains Sarah Beth Aubrey , executive coach and Top Producer columnist.

Start with a self-assessment: Are you more of an analytical or visionary thinker?

A good strategy needs both.

“Experience demonstrates even the most highly successful businesses of today are still more accustomed to executing what they already know how to do rather than pausing to consider and then implement a strategy that ensures the operation’s future growth and success,” Aubrey says.

Start Small, Grow Big

Strategic planning combines long-range thinking with short-term goals. Regardless of where you fall on the analytical-to-visionary spectrum, you can make improvements to your overall strategy.

To confirm your current strategy or rebuild it, Aubrey suggests answering these questions:

What is our organization’s vision and the theory on which we operate?
What do we do? Or what part of this market do we want to be in to deliver on what we do?
How do we do it? What actions, adaptations, and models do we create to be successful?
What capabilities do we need in order to implement what we do, such as skills of team, new or updated resources, and new or ongoing training for our people?

Don’t be intimidated by this process, Aubrey coaches. In most cases, you’re just putting to paper your farm’s foundation and priorities. This is an important process in journey to business success.

As Jim Rohn, an entrepreneur and author once said: “Success is 20% skills and 80% strategy. You might know how to succeed, but more importantly, what’s your plan to succeed?”

To learn about Sarah Beth Aubrey’s guide for creating a strategic plan in an hour, visit AgWeb.com/plan-in-an-hour

What Should We Do With Canada?

Thu, 22 Sep 2022 02:16:05 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Since the War of 1812, the relationship between the U.S. and Canada has been as good as any neighborly relationship could be, given it’s lasted a couple of centuries, give or take. We haven’t tried to invade our brethren to the north for more than 200 years, and save for Stanley Cup domination and that curling defeat in the Winter Olympics earlier this year, we’ve gotten along pretty well.

So why can’t we get along with Canada on trade issues?

Our respective dairy markets couldn’t be more different. Canada is carefully controlled under supply management. Ours is a free market system that gives producers the freedom to produce as much as they want (although some coops and processors have implemented their own supply management programs). The Canadian supply management system has kept herd sizes low while dairies in the U.S. continue to grow, with large herds soaking up the cows from smaller dairies as they go out of business.

My parents told me never to do business with family members, and maybe that’s the problem. Those kinds of partnerships always look good on paper and start out swimmingly, then inevitably go south as time goes by. There is always that moment in time when one brother says or does something to make the other brother mad. What starts as a crack grows to a canyon.

The canyon of discontent between our two countries started last February when Canada put the Class 7 pricing system in place. Suddenly, the market for a few U.S. processors dried up, and with it the milk supply contracts for about 100 producers. As a result Canadian imports of milk protein solids dropped 37% in 2017, or about $50 million in value. Meanwhile Canadian cheese production, which is a heavy user of milk protein solids, grew by 7%.

My friend Stan Van Keulen, who dairies near Vancouver, says Class 7 was just a “business transaction” Canada put in place to become competitive.

“Our processors decided to buy from Canada and not the U.S,” he says. “If U.S. processors wanted to continue to ship product to Canada, they could have dropped their price.”

Tensions between Canada and the U.S. grew when President Trump decided to open negotiations around the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Class 7 has been a burning ember of debate in these negotiations. The U.S. wants Class 7 thrown in the dumpster along with the Canadian supply management system. Doing so would break down the fence and allow greater market access for U.S. dairy products.

But as Van Keulen says, “be careful what you ask for.” Breaking down trade barriers would also create greater market access for our competitors. It would also allow Canadian dairy producers the chance to expand. Canada would instantly become a larger player on the world market, and a bigger U.S. competitor. Usually in business you want less competition, not more.

Dairy producers on both sides of the border are waiting to see what NAFTA 2.0 holds. While an “agreement in principle” is due any day now, there’s nothing in the agreement pertaining to dairy. It’s like negotiators decided to focus on what both sides could agree on before tackling something neither could come to a consensus around. Don’t look for a NAFTA resolution anytime soon. Shaun Haney of realagriculture.com in Canada says years passed between when Canada and the EU had an agreement in principle on the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) and when the agreement was actually signed. The same would probably hold true for NAFTA.

While negotiators and politicians on both sides of the border continue to debate, producers go on producing milk. After all, Van Keulen’s dairy in Vancouver is not much different than say, John Jacobs’ dairy north of Green Bay, Wis. They’re both milking cows and relying on the resulting income to help their business survive and thrive. Perhaps a group of Canadian producers should sit down with U.S. producers over a few beers and get the whole thing hashed out.

Because in the end, it really comes down to creating a viable economy for both Canadian and U.S. dairy producers. So let’s let Canada have their system and we’ll have ours. Sure Canada is a significant trading partner for U.S. dairy products—No. 3 on the list—and we should keep that relationship and grow it if we can. But as we try to knock out another brick in the wall and gain greater access, let’s not forget the other burgeoning and untapped markets. After all, it’s always better to do business with members of someone else’s family.

What do you think? What should we do with Canada? Leave them alone or break down trade barriers? Let me know at mopperman@farmjournal.com

Control Flies, Prevent Disease

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:10:51 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

If fly season has not yet begun in your part of the country, it soon will. While we’ll probably never “win” the war on flies, early action and a season-long control strategy can prevent stress, lost performance and disease associated with flies and other external parasites of cattle.

The issue made headlines this week, when an unusually large hatch of black flies, in this case southern buffalo gnats, apparently caused the deaths of a bull and a cow on an Arkansas farm.

In addition to animal-welfare and performance impacts, flies, ticks and other external parasites transmit disease such as pinkeye and anaplasmosis. Prior to last year’s changes to the veterinary feed directive (VFD) rules, producers sometimes used medicated minerals or other free-choice feeds containing chlortetracycline (CTC) for prevention of pinkeye, an extra-label application. By law, medicated feeds can only be used in accordance with the label, and with the VFD rules in place, veterinarians must confirm the intended use complies with product labels before writing a VFD order.

Given those restrictions, and with antibiotic use falling under increasing consumer scrutiny and regulatory action, producers can benefit by working with their veterinarians to focus more on parasite control and less on medicated feeds for preventing those diseases.

Oklahoma State University Livestock Entomologist Justin Talley, PhD, says external parasites cause enormous economic losses to the cattle industry in the United States. Horn flies lead the way, causing an estimated $1.36 billion in annual losses in U.S. livestock herds. Stable flies cause an additional $672 million in losses, followed by horse flies at $296 Million, face flies at $191 million and ticks at $162 million.

Talley says when horn flies are present, control efforts can bring an average of 1.5 pounds of extra gain per week. Generally, 200 to 300 flies per animal constitutes an economic threshold, where treatment will pay.

Stable flies tend to accumulate on the lower part and legs of the animal, with five to 10 flies per leg a typical economic threshold. Populations typically peak in the spring and again in the fall.

Face flies are not a biting fly, but cause stress and play a role in transmission of Moraxella bovis, the pathogen that causes pinkeye in cattle.

Horse flies and deer flies can serve as mechanical vectors for Anaplasma marginale, the bacteria causing anaplasmosis in cattle. Veterinarian Gregg Hanzlicek, at the Kansas State Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, says flies carry, but don’t amplify the anaplasmosis pathogen, meaning the bacteria flies pick up when feeding is the maximum they will be able to pass on to the next animal when they take their blood meal. Control is important though, as flies can travel significant distances and introduce anaplasmosis into beef herds.

Several species of ticks, particularly the dog tick, serve as biological vectors for the anaplasmosis pathogen. When ticks feed on a positive animal, the bacteria establish inside the tick and reproduce, and the concentration can reach very high levels. When the tick feeds on an animal it will pass those bacteria through the saliva.

Fly control efforts should begin early in the season, before populations explode. Talley says to avoid encouraging pesticide resistance, don’t use pyrethroid tags more often than one year in three, and do not use organophosphate tags more than two years in a row.

Insect growth regulators (IGRs) and feed-through larvicides offer additional options. These generally are formulated with mineral blocks or mixes. They pass through the animal and kill or inhibit fly larvae in the manure. In the southern United States, use these products in the early spring, with timing moving later further north, to match the time flies begin laying eggs prior to the seasonal spike in population growth.

The cost of insecticide ear tags averages around $3.20 to $4.45 per cow per season. Pour-on products range from $2.50 to $9.50, depending on the number of treatments needed. Generally, Talley says, ear tags combined with an IGR provide cost-effective control.

Effective fly control requires planning and flexibility to account for seasonal and regional variation. Your veterinarian can help identify strategies for protecting animal health, welfare and performance while preventing pesticide resistance in flies and antibiotic resistance in pathogens.

Keep Animals First in Treatment Decisions

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:10:38 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Growth in popularity of natural, organic and “antibiotic free” labeling for meat and dairy products has provided options for consumers and opportunities for producers. At the same time, concerns have emerged that incentives in these programs could discourage timely treatment of sick cattle, since antibiotic therapy can disqualify them from “never-ever” programs.

This week, the American Association of Bovine Practitioners (AABP) issued a position statement on raised-without-antibiotics (RWA) programs, emphasizing the need to prioritize animal health and welfare in treatment decisions.

The statement focuses on three critical points:

Within the context of a written Veterinarian-Client-Patient Relationship (VCPR), there must be documented strategies in place that allow for responsible use of antibiotics when needed.
Responsible RWA programs should recognize that some cattle will still develop diseases or sustain injuries that require antibiotic treatment.
Responsible RWA programs must also include alternative marketing plans for those animals that do require antibiotic treatment.

On one hand, efforts to raise cattle without antibiotic use can drive beneficial innovation. Producers in these programs need to focus on prevention, using well-designed vaccination protocols supported with good handling practices, excellent nutrition, biosecurity and in many cases, use of novel products including probiotics, prebiotics and targeted supplements to boost immunity. Without question, innovations in preventive care can benefit producers, animals and consumers.

However, while consumers and regulators want reductions in antibiotic use, society also demands continuous improvements toward animal well-being in livestock production. A critical step for producers should be to establish a VCPR with a veterinarian who understands the operation’s goals. If you market through an organic or RWA program, find a veterinarian who can help you adopt sound, science-based management practices to boost immunity, reduce disease exposure and optimize animal welfare. Within that plan, include specific protocols for timely treatments for sick or injured animals. Also, engage your veterinarian in training your employees, ensuring they understand the reasons for treatment as well as the reasons for preventive management.

The decision to treat a sick animal might seem like a defeat if treatment disqualifies it from a premium marketing program, but it is a win for the animal. And even if that animal fails to earn RWA premiums, timely treatment prevents potentially greater losses from chronic illness, death loss and disease exposure in the rest of the herd. If the need to treat becomes common or excessive, work with your veterinarian to refine your preventive strategies. Use it as a learning experience, but do not delay treatment or penalize employees who pull cattle based on treatment protocols.

Consider Pain-Management Options

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 05:10:30 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Across livestock production, we’ve seen growing acceptance of the relationships between stress, disease and lost performance. We’re also operating in a time when consumer perceptions are evolving rapidly and playing a growing role in how we raise food animals.

Along with those trends, we’re seeing a growing interest in pain mitigation in cattle, particularly in procedures such as dehorning and castration, for improving animal welfare, health and overall performance. Veterinarians and producers have faced a challenge though, with a lack of medications labeled for pain relief in cattle in the United States.

Options are available though, and while pain management involves extra steps, extra labor and expense, potential benefits in performance, animal health, quality assurance and consumer good will could pay off for producers.

Engaging in pain management however, requires conversations between producers and their veterinarians.

For example, Merck Animal Health recently introduced Banamine Transdermal (flunixin transdermal solution) – the first and only FDA-approved product for pain control in a food producing animal. It is approved for the control of pain associated with foot rot and fever associated with bovine respiratory disease (BRD). This is a prescription medication, so producers and veterinarians need to work together to determine how it fits within a particular production system.

Researchers and veterinarians in the field also have seen good results from extra-label use of meloxicam, a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAID), to control lingering pain following procedures such as castration or dehorning. Veterinarians have had the option to prescribe local anesthetics such as lidocaine for those procedures, but effective and affordable options for longer-term analgesia have been limited.

Kansas State University veterinarian Hans Coetzee has conducted extensive research on pain management in cattle and has seen good results with meloxicam, which provides pain relief for up to five days. His trials have shown significantly improved weight gains following dehorning in dairy calves and lower incidence of BRD in beef calves following castration with meloxicam administered at the time of the procedure along with a local anesthetic.

Meloxicam is available through several commonly used distributors, and prices for a 1,000-count bottle of 15 mg tablets mean you can medicate calves at 0.45 mg/lb (1mg/kg) for less than a dime per hundredweight.

Remember though, that meloxicam, and some other drugs used for pain control, are not FDA approved for use in food animals. However, provisions of the Animal Medicinal Drug Use Clarification Act (AMDUCA) allow veterinarians some flexibility in using pain medications, when research and practical experience demonstrate benefits in doing so. Veterinarians must follow AMDUCA guidelines, including having a valid veterinarian-client-patient relationship (VCPR) and maintaining records on animals treated, treatment dates and dosage for extra-label use of meloxicam or other pain medications in cattle. So, producers and veterinarians need to work together in selecting pain-management strategies, but their efforts can pay off in better animal health and welfare, and better answers for consumers when they ask what we do to minimize pain in cattle.

We Owe It To Each Other To Support All Kinds of Dairies

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 03:03:39 GMT

Let’s have a heart to heart, you and me. The outside forces pitting farmers against farmers to drive an agenda are leading to the demise of the dairy industry.

I grew up on what is described, by all standards, as a small cow/calf ranch. My great grandfather bought the section of land when he came to America in 1903. On that land, our family has milked cows, raised hogs and eventually settled on raising commercial beef cows. It was a great childhood and work our family loved, but it didn’t generate enough income for either of my parents to farm full time.

Fast forward to today. My husband and I have what would be considered by most to be a large farm. We milk around 1,000 sheep and goats. Still, the economics of starting a dairy have meant for the past five years we’ve not taken a steady paycheck from the dairy. Instead I’ve worked full time, and we’ve reinvested any and all profits back into the business.

In our extended family, there are four dairies including ours, ranging from 500 cows to 2,500 cows. And you know what? While they have their individual challenges, at the end of the day the four operations share numerous similarities.

They are all owned by people who fill grandma’s house on holidays, enjoy spending time in the mountains, volunteer in the community and prefer hand-cranked ice cream regardless of the season. All four farms provide dozens of full-time and seasonal jobs to members of our community, not to mention rely on the services of plumbers, electricians, mechanics, local hardware and lumber stores and other farmers.

In the words of my two-year-old, who notices every time we match, “Same.”

There’s nothing special about these four farms, except the same things that make every dairy farm across the country special.

Every dairy farm in America supports its local community. Every dairy farm provides safe, wholesome milk for all Americans to enjoy. Every dairy farm has struggled financially the past five years, regardless of size.

If you and I can’t agree that dairy farms in America are great, no matter the size, how will we ever convince consumers they are?

Special interest groups, such as HSUS, continue to push the idea the only reason “small” farms are going out of business is because “large” farms stole their markets. That’s simply not true.

I was in the room when a reporter, who already had his story drafted, hammered Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue about small farms going out of business. I then watched as that same reporter weaved the Secretary’s words into his preconceived narrative.

You need to know the Secretary did not say small dairy farms will have to “get big or get out.”

You also need to know a reporter from the same news organization wrote the recent article about DMI salaries . The reporter did not include any answers to the dozens of questions DMI responded to via email. Nor did he take up Tom Gallagher’s offer for a phone interview before the story was released. He did, however, include an interview with a former dairy farmer who serves on a HSUS board. Remember what I said about an agenda?

Do me a favor, would you? Let’s evaluate the facts and draw our own conclusions. Let’s be smart – as well as compassionate – and not allow the forces of HSUS to divide our industry. We owe it to each other.

All Hail The Quesalupa

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:08:35 GMT

Earlier this year I visited Taco Bell. Not the one in my hometown, where they should build a shrine of appreciation to my teenage son who thinks the Crunchwrap Supreme is a ‘light snack’, but the headquarters near Los Angeles.

I didn’t go because I had a burning desire to travel, or to see Los Angeles, or potentially eat copious amounts of Taco Bell food (although that last part was a great incentive). I did it because I had heard a lot about the partnerships Dairy Management Inc. (DMI) has made with prominent retail brands, and I wanted a first-person experience of how these relationships work.

I also went because I know checkoff programs across livestock and crop markets are under constant scrutiny to prove their value, and I wanted to give the folks at DMI a chance to demonstrate theirs. It’s hard for producers to justify the 15-cent per cwt deduction from their milk check when times are tough, like it’s been for the past few years. That investment in a national checkoff program doesn’t seem like much, but it can be significant when every penny is pinched to make ends meet. Producers find it difficult to look past short-term pain to see long-term reward.

Part of that long-term reward is happening at Taco Bell. Part of the family of YUM! brands that includes other restaurant chains like KFC and Pizza Hut, Taco Bell is a huge brand. More than 350 franchise organizations operate more than 7,000 restaurants that serve more than 40 million customers each week, just in the U.S. Another 500 restaurants are in nearly 30 countries worldwide.

DMI began a partnership with Taco Bell back in late 2012. Since then Taco Bell has grown the total volume of dairy products through its restaurants by more than 4% annually, and has reached double digit growth in several of those years. More than 95% of the products on the Taco Bell menu contain dairy products.

To give you an idea of what kind of an impact a company like Taco Bell can have on dairy sales, the Quesalupa was launched over a five-week promotional period. More than 60 million pounds of milk equivalents were sold over that time period, mostly in the form of cheese and sour cream.

During my visit to Taco Bell headquarters I had the opportunity to meet with two of the people directly responsible for bringing new products like the Quesalupa to life. Kimber Lew and Mike Ciresi are two dairy food scientists, employed by DMI, who work onsite at Taco Bell to support product development.

Innovation at Taco Bell follows a stringent path. New product ideas are first developed in test kitchens by a team of product developers. If the chefs can make it the product goes before a series of taste panels where people judge the product on taste, smell, mouth feel and other characteristics. Even if a product passes those tests, it has to be able to be made in regular restaurant kitchens. Several ‘back of store’ kitchens are set up within the headquarters to make sure workers can make the product effectively and in a timely manner.

If a new product passes through all of those tests, and supply arrangements and any equipment adjustments can be made, it enters regional test markets to determine how well it will perform with consumers.
As you can imagine, many more product ideas are generated than what actually make it into restaurants. And of those new products, most contain dairy.

“If it doesn’t have cheese on it, it’s not worth making,” says Ciresi. “Consumers love the taste of cheese so we try to integrate it into everything we create.”

The creation process that takes a new product from idea to something that consumers can buy takes a considerable amount of time and patience. But the effort is worth it when a new product does well in the marketplace.

“It’s really a labor of love,” says Lew. “It’s so gratifying to see an item on the menu that we had a hand in developing.”

For Taco Bell employees, the relationship with DMI has been key to making product innovation happen.
“We wouldn’t have such dairy-focused product innovation had it not been for the work that DMI has done,” says Nola Krieg, product development manager, food innovation at Taco Bell. “We really appreciate the partnership with DMI and the ability to have food scientists on our campus to help drive new product development.”

Through their association with DMI, Lew and Ciresi have an appreciation of how their work impacts dairy producers. DMI representatives regularly bring in dairy producers to tour the facility and talk with product developers and nutritionists. Likewise, Lew and Ciresi get to visit dairy farms to talk to producers first-hand and learn more about what it takes to produce the milk that goes into the dairy products they use.

“Going out to farms, you appreciate the work that is done on dairy farms to produce milk,” Ciresi says. “And getting to talk to producers helps us realize the importance of the work we’re doing to provide a market for that milk.”

Relationships like the one DMI has with Taco Bell happens with other large retail brands, too, including Pizza Hut, McDonald’s, Domino’s and others. By working with these retail partners, DMI is able to increase the use of dairy products by these companies and impact sales of those products to millions of consumers. This approach has proven to be more effective than spending millions on an ad campaign to try and influence each of those consumers individually.

It’s one of the smart ways that DMI is proving their worth as a steward of the funds dairy producers contribute each day. So go to a Taco Bell, order up a Quesadilla and appreciate the work DMI representatives put into making it happen.

Dairy Producers Don't Need A Wall

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:04:36 GMT

In the history of human civilization walls have been built for one of two purposes: keep people out or keep people in.

Probably the biggest and most famous wall is the Great Wall of China. It’s massive, covering more than 13,000 miles of Chinese real estate. It’s not actually a wall, but a series of walls built starting around 250 B.C. and ending with the last parts built around 1878. It’s estimated that it took more than a million men to build the wall, and more than 400,000 lost their lives in the process.

Even something that massive couldn’t keep all of the invaders from the north out of China. Genghis Khan breached the wall in the 13th century. The Manchus invaded and brought an end to the Ming dynasty in 1644. More recently people dismantled parts of walls to build roads and buildings.

Another famous wall was the Berlin Wall. While the official purpose was to keep those from the West out, its real function was to keep people from Eastern Europe in. It was much shorter than the Great Wall of China at 87 miles, and lasted only 28 years. While it offered a formidable physical and psychological border for those trying to cross, it’s still estimated that more than 5,000 East Germans crossed, including 600 border guards.

When it comes to walls, the one being proposed by President Trump to secure the border between the U.S. and Mexico would be formidable. There is already about 500 miles of barrier in place, which means about another 1,500 miles of wall would need to be built to run the full length of the U.S.-Mexico border.

President Trump has stated several reasons for building the wall. Some of them include keeping drug smugglers from bringing product over the border. There is also an assumption that the wall would keep out other criminals looking for a jail-free life here in the States. No one knows what the wall will do to keep out honest immigrants looking for a better life in U.S. factories and farms.

I’m not one to get into a political debate over whether a wall should be built. But I think if the wall is seen as a pillar of immigration reform, we’re missing the boat.

Why are we missing the boat? What should we be doing? Find out by reading the rest of the article here .

Ahh, Canada

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:00:53 GMT

I’m always amazed at how boxers can beat each other’s brains in for 15 rounds and then shake hands like old friends once the bout is over. Leading up to and during the fight there is a certain level of gamesmanship that has to go on in order to intimidate the other fighter. Once the fight is over the two combatants can put those harsh words and actions aside and show respect for the hard fight put up by their opponent.

Now that the U.S. and Canada have signed a dairy trade agreement, maybe we can all be friends again.

The fight between the U.S. and Canada has gone on for some time. The U.S. has never been a fan of the restrictive Canadian supply management program, and Canadians can’t understand how the U.S. can continue to grow production at an unbridled pace.

Things really hit the fan when Canada started with Class 7 pricing and about 100 U.S. producers had to scramble to find new homes for their milk. Canadians called it a business move to provide more opportunity and level the playing field for Canadian processors. The U.S. and most of the rest of the world said it was a low blow, especially when Canada started escalating exports of whole milk powder at rock bottom prices.

The mudslinging came at the highest of levels. President Trump was quick to bring dairy into the trade debate, elevating the industry overnight in places where dairy producers are rarely thought of. His comments at and about Canadian Prime Minister Trudeau just made the Canadian negotiators more resilient, right up until the last hour.

Even as the two world leaders barraged each other with nasty tweets, the fight never reached the producer level. In fact it was suggested that the whole debate could have been settled in a border bar with a few producers from each side over a pitcher of cocktails. Too bad that never happened.

Now that it’s over, it’s hard to say who won. Certainly U.S. dairy producers were happy to hear good news after months of not so good news. But the new agreement will be phased in over time, so any real benefit won’t be seen for a while. You can read more about the agreement starting on page 14.

It’s safe to say producers north of the border feel like they got the shaft. A Canadian dairy producer friend of mine called me the day after the news of the agreement broke. Needless to say he wasn’t happy. “The Canadian dairy industry was on the trading block,” he said. He and other Canadian producers felt like their industry was thrown under the bus to save what negotiators saw as more important issues.

Whether or not the agreement will mend business relationships lost between processors and their Canadian counterparts remains to be seen. When asked if this deal will mean their company will start shipping ultra-filtered milk to Canada again, Trevor Wuethrich president of Grassland Dairy Products who cut the bulk of lost farmer contracts last May said, “It’s like your ex-wife calling back and wanting to reconcile. I don’t know if I want to take her back.”

Regardless of who won or lost, now it’s time to move on and make amends. After all, even Rocky and Apollo Creed ended up best of friends. Let’s hope there’s not a rematch.

What do you think? Who won the U.S./Canada show down? Send me a note at mopperman@farmjournal.com

You’ve Shared Your Concerns

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 02:00:38 GMT

One of the favorite parts of my job is having the opportunity to talk to dairy producers. It takes me back to my roots, having grown up on a dairy and worked on a dairy for several years. I also have unending admiration for dairy producers and the work and sacrifice that goes into managing a dairy, regardless of size.

For whatever reason, producers see me as an expert and take the time to share their stories and ask difficult questions. Recently I spoke with several producers at World Dairy Expo. Here’s what I learned.

Small dairies continue to struggle. I had the opportunity to have lunch with a producer who milks about 150 cows in in Wisconsin. He and his wife are in their mid 50’s and have managed the dairy all of their married lives. Their passion for dairy farming, the frustration with the current market situation, and the struggle to find a solution was palpable. He knows he needs to reinvest in his operation, but is afraid his processor will cut off his milk supply any day now, even though he sells milk to a coop. He thinks consumers view milk as a four-letter word, and is worried demand for the milk he produces will go south. Given the current situation, he and his wife have encouraged their two daughters not to come back to the farm, even though at least one of them would like to do so.

I ran into another friend of mine who milks about 200 cows in Iowa. He was at Expo to try and find a market for a high genomic heifer he has. The sale from that heifer would probably put them at break-even for the year. He wasn’t the usual jovial person I’ve come to know, given the pressure behind trying to make the sale happen.

Large dairies aren’t immune to the struggle. A 1,100-cow producer was happy that he will be able to cover farm expenses and depreciation just from his milk check this year. But to get there he culled a significant part of his heifer herd and took out all feed additives from his ration. We’ve heard of other producers following the same path. Let’s hope a short term fix doesn’t hamstring their ability to capture opportunities when and if milk prices do recover in the long term.

We also heard the unending rumors of certain large dairies going bankrupt. The current economic situation has gobbled up dairies regardless of size, but we don’t need more rumors about the demise of any producer.

Canadians aren’t happy, either. A good friend of mine who is one of the larger producers in Canada called me after the agreement between the U.S. and Canada was announced. You could hear the disgust in his voice. “We were the trading block,” he says, suggesting that Class 7 pricing and greater market access were offered up to prevent a tariff on autos. He, like many Canadian producers, feels like the Canadian dairy industry was sacrificed in trade negotiations.

While he has ultimate respect for the U.S. dairy producer, he has disdain for the U.S. industry that continues with unencumbered milk production growth. There was frustration in his voice when he asked “When will supply and demand ever come into balance? How far does the U.S. cow herd have to drop before there is an impact? How much do you need to export to soak up the excess production? When will the U.S. stop producing beyond its means?”

As these conversations happened in the setting of World Dairy Expo, creating an almost surreal backdrop to the current market situation. The Exhibit Hall was once again full of companies offering the latest technologies and innovations claiming to improve producer productivity and profitability, while most producers struggle with the means to afford such opportunities. The barns were full of world-class dairy cattle that were beautiful to watch parade around the ring, yet are on the opposite spectrum of what most commercial producers would find viable in their own operations. At least for a few days in early October those producers at Expo could dare to dream about reinvesting in their operations, or breeding that one cow that stands at the front of the class.

What are your thoughts on the current market situation? Are you optimistic about the future? Let me know at mopperman@farmjournal.com

Bye, Bye rBST

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 01:58:23 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

It’s fitting that the most recent issue of MILK, which focuses on sustainability, hits mailboxes at a time when the industry may have seen the last of rBST. In early August it was announced that Elanco had sold the Posilac (brand name for rBST) business to a Brazilian company, including the manufacturing facility. Today, rBST is cleared for use in only a few pockets of the dairy industry.

Of the many definitions around sustainability, the one that guides people the most is the ability to maximize inputs by creating as much output as possible. More bushels per acre of land. More pounds per cow from the same amount feed. It’s an important part of sustainability as we look toward feeding a growing global population from dwindling acres of tillable land.

There are few products that improved milk production efficiency as easily as rBST. With the right management adjustments, that shot of rBST every two weeks could bring as much as 10 pounds more production. Producers, nutritionists and veterinarians quickly learned how to manage cows that were on rBST to maximize the response without impairing animal health.

At its height, it’s estimated that as much as 20% of the U.S. dairy herd was on rBST. But the success, unfortunately, was short lived.

Once consumers caught wind that dairy producers were giving cows growth hormones every two weeks just to drive up higher production, the tide turned. What was a useful production tool soon became the target of consumer backlash.

The story of rBST is a case study of the dominance of consumer perception, and honestly the dairy industry never had a chance. Keep in mind that rBST was really the first product to have such negative press, and the dairy industry wasn’t prepared to respond. Consumer groups attacked the technology, and soon retailers banned the use of the product to appease consumer wishes. Pretty soon only a handful of producers could legally use the product.

You could probably credit rBST with starting absence label marketing. As retailers realized the consumers wanted products without rBST, you started to see labels on dairy products like “hormone free” or “made from cows not administered rBST”. Now it’s hard to find any food label without some sort of absence claim.

As critical as rBST was to the growth in production here in the U.S., it’s gratifying to see how producers have adapted without the use of the technology. Most of the herds that were on rBST regained the production in a short period of time. It was easier for those that phased out over time rather than quitting cold turkey, but management changes allowed for the production to come back.

Producers figured out how to improve production efficiency without the use of rBST. Now that’s sustainable.

What are your thoughts on rBST? Are you concerned about what could happen to other production practices? Drop me a note at mopperman@farmjournal.com.

Immigrants Are Our Backbone

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 01:56:30 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Last spring during a trip to New York City my family had the chance to visit Ellis Island. It was fascinating to think of the millions of immigrants that came through that facility. Each had their own unique story, but all shared a desire for a new life.

Most had nothing when they arrived. When ships came in bearing European passengers, the first and second-class citizens could get off the boat and immediately assimilate into society. Everyone else who didn’t have the proper status were shipped to Ellis Island for processing. If you had money and status, you were in. If not, you might get sent back home.

Once they made it through the processing and were free to leave, the new immigrants took a ferry from the island back to the mainland. One can only imagine what was going through their minds as they sat at the bow of the ferry, looking at the buildings of the mainland, wondering what their new life would hold.

Most had nowhere to go, nor a job to pay them wages. Most couldn’t speak English. Many ended up taking jobs other Americans didn’t want. Their meager paychecks offered a life in the States, plus helped support families still in the homeland. Over time other family members came, too.

The courage and fortitude to start a new life drove immigrants to surpass barriers. Those immigrants, and those that came before and since, have formed the backbone of our country. The ones that made it settled down to start families and strengthen new branches to their family tree.

You can find many of the stories of people and families that came through Ellis Island here . As you read those stories, you will note that many aren’t different from the stories of the immigrants who milk and care for our cows every day.

Now, there’s no Ellis Island for today’s immigrants. The people working on today’s dairy farms came to America through a much different path, albeit many choosing to enter the U.S. illegally. But they share the same “new life” aspirations as those early immigrants.

And those immigrants have become the backbone of our industry. Workers that started milking cows as teenagers are now 40-something middle managers with 20 years of experience. They manage teams of other immigrant employees. They put their families through the local school system and pay taxes like any other citizen. And new immigrants milk, feed and breed the cows that make the milk that support dairy businesses across the country.

In the early 1900’s the U.S. government put restrictions on immigration for a variety of political and non-political reasons. Today, the government continues to struggle with how to manage immigration issues to protect rights while still maintaining a stable workforce. Most of the producers I talk to aren’t worried about border regulation—they want to make sure they can keep the workers they already have. President Trump vows to lead us to an immigration solution .

Whatever the resolution it will be another step toward providing those that want to enjoy our way of life the opportunity to do so, while protecting the rights that make that way of life possible. It’s a difficult journey, and one that America has been on for decades.

What do you think? What are your thoughts on immigration reform? Send me your comments at mopperman@farmjournal.com

How Is Your Transparency?

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 01:56:10 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Before I started at Farm Journal almost two years ago I spent nearly 15 years at an advertising agency. I did a lot of different things, but most of what I did involved helping agriculture companies do a better job of communicating to current and prospective customers. A majority of that work was in public relations, but I also managed several crisis communications events. No, it wasn’t anything like Mad Men.

My team encouraged clients to focus on two critically important strategies: being proactive and being transparent. There are many other strategies that go into effective communications, but those two are probably the most important. If communications are not proactive and transparent, messages from competitors and adversaries will block any otherwise positive messages.

We counseled a lot of companies. It’s obvious there are still many companies within the dairy industry that could have used our advice.

As industries go, the dairy industry is a relatively small community. Small towns and rural communities are still the backbone of this business. Neighbors talk to neighbors. While that thread of communication weaves the fabric that strengthens rural America, it’s also a great conduit for gossip and innuendo.

What’s worse is, in this day and age, the talk that was once confined to the local coffee shop now spreads through social media where it’s picked up as gospel by a much larger audience. Social media doesn’t fact check to make sure the story is right - it’s just out there for everyone to read and believe.

If you don’t think this is true, let me share with you an example that just happened today. Our editorial team has been following the conversation around supply management. Nothing has happened on the national level, but we’ve heard about cooperatives implementing different supply management programs to limit over production and save some of their capacity. We’ve even heard of some cooperatives implementing quota systems similar to what goes on in Canada.

Like any good editorial team we reached out to different cooperatives for comment. Here was the perfect opportunity for them to be proactive and transparent, to get out in front of the rumors and set the record straight.

What did we get? We got the response most often heard in the old days of public relations when the best practice was to keep everything closed up: No Comment.

When I was working at the agency I helped a company through a significant product issue that had the potential to cause concern among a wide consumer audience. Through our counsel the company decided to take the situation head on. We met with every customer face to face, explained the situation and offered our assistance to help alleviate the situation. Customers were angry that they had to go through this process, but were thankful that our client took control of the situation. We were proactive and transparent.

Had the cooperatives been proactive and transparent with communications, there would have been an opportunity to get in front of rumor and innuendo. Maybe even an opportunity to guide conversation and grow understanding. Instead small talk and rumors continue on, unabated.

Unfortunately this isn’t limited to just cooperatives, or just the dairy industry, or just agriculture. It’s endemic across all industries. We’ve made progress, but there is still a lot of work to be done.

Maybe companies could follow the lead of their patrons and customers? Dairy producers are infinitely more open and transparent than they were even 10 years ago. Scores of dairies open their doors for tours, are active on social media and engage with consumers in a proactive, transparent way. Some even have hired public relations agencies to help in their outreach efforts.

And I do have to admit that there is a long list of companies that do a great job of communicating the what’s and how’s of their business in an effective, engaging way. And they do so in a way that doesn’t give up trade secrets or proprietary information. Ask them and they will tell you that being transparent benefits their business and their industry. They would tell you that transparency leads to trust, and that brings loyalty and a deeper customer relationship. I only wish that there were more companies like that.

What do you think? Could companies be more transparent, within and outside of the dairy industry? Do you have an example you would like to share? Drop me a note at mopperman@farmjournal.com

Are Activists Winning?

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 01:56:06 GMT

Activist groups have been haunting production agriculture for decades. I remember how the livestock industry shuddered at the first undercover video. About 10 years ago I spent a long, long Labor Day weekend helping a company overcome an undercover video shot at a poultry operation.

Back then we all hoped activist organizations would eventually dry up and go away. The ag industry didn’t know how to handle these organizations at first—“throw our science at them” we said—but over the years we’ve learned how to communicate more effectively and a significant amount of progress has been made. There is more empathy in our communications with consumers, our tone is less condescending.

Regardless of real or perceived success, activists haven’t gone away. It’s not because the issues have been resolved, it’s because business is just too good.

Unknowing consumers fork over millions of dollars to activists groups every year. For example, take a look at Mercy for Animals (MFA). Their 2017 financials show an income near $13.2 million. Compare that to 2011 when total revenue was listed at $1.6 million, and you realize that business has been good and getting stronger.

If you want to know what impact $13.2 million can have, I suggest you take a look at the 2017 MFA Annual Report. You can find it here . While MFA determines their own impact, the effect the organization has on shaping the view of animal agriculture in the minds of some consumers is significant.

Unfortunately MFA is just one organization. There are many more, smaller and larger, like it. Agriculture continues to fight an ongoing and often uphill battle. And in many ways animal activist have already won.

Take a look at some of the advancements in animal care in our own industry. We’ve banned tail docking. Dehorning needs to be done with pain remediation. Antibiotics are under strict regulation. There are guidelines on handling downed animals. These requirements and more are part of the National Farmers Assuring Responsible Management (FARM) program.

All of these changes have been for the better. Do you think they would have happened without pressure from activists? We can say that they came in response to consumer demand, but where do you think consumer demand came from?

There are environmental activists as well, many of which are local organizations that oppose large animal operations. A group of such activists recently won a lawsuit against Smithfield Foods around odor originating on hog operations. The first price tag was $50 million, it’s been whittled down to $2.5 million. Still, that group won and now there is precedent for more such lawsuits.

A dairy in Wisconsin is under fire by local activists groups. Pinnacle Dairy is going up south of Madison, Wis., and its faced pressure from environmental organizations every step of the way. The dairy is progressing, but it’s been slow and laborious. (Incidentally, here’s a great, balanced article on the topic.)

There are a number of causes and charities that are worth supporting. Those that help children, fight disease, or help right a wrong top the list and deserve all of the donations of money and time that people can give.

I’m even all for some of the organizations that support animal rights. I think humane shelters are great and worthy institutions. Rescue organizations that save pets from bad environments deserve all the support they can get.

But some organizations that appear altruistic are really in it for the money. Unfortunately those are the ones that continue to win consumer hearts and minds.

What do you think? Are activists winning? Do you have a story to share about an experience with activist groups? Send me a note at mopperman@farmjournal.com

I’m Not Drinking Pea Milk

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 01:55:02 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Remember when all milk came from cows? Those were the good ol’ days. You could go to the store, walk proudly up to the dairy case and choose between skim, 2% or whole. Maybe even chocolate.

Unfortunately, that was long ago. I walked into our local grocery store recently and took note of how many of the products in and around the dairy case weren’t even dairy. Talk about confusion. And talk about a weird marriage.

There are any number of self-proclaimed health food sites that list non-dairy alternatives. The site www.healthline.com lists the nine best non-dairy substitutes for milk. Soy milk leads the list, followed by almond and coconut. The next three are oat, rice and cashew, followed by macadamia, the always interesting hemp milk (which no doubt pairs nicely with chocolate brownies) and quinoa. I just heard of pea milk, although the manufacturers might want to market is as milk made from peas and hope the ‘s’ never gets left off.

So how did we get here?

It’s pretty basic. People in America have choices when it comes to food. You’ve probably heard the saying “people with plenty of food have many problems; people with no food have just one.” So many choices lead people to make decisions based on suspect information. Some believe these milk alternatives are more nutritious than real milk, or they believe that dairy animals are treated poorly and feel morally obligated not to drink that milk. If food was hard to come by and not as plentiful, as it is in many parts of the world, those choices would not be available.

Consumer choice creates markets and competition – it’s the American way. Sure, awesome technology makes it possible to get some kind of liquid from quinoa and turn it into a white substance people can actually drink. But that whole process was developed because marketing people thought consumers would buy the resulting product.

The real genius comes from tying the “juice” from these products to the milk brand. Anyone that knows anything about branding knows why this happened. Milk’s brand has been golden in the marketplace. Nature’s most nearly perfect food. Scads of vitamins and nutrients made from cows quietly munching in a lush meadow. The brand has been pristine. So manufacturers of the milk alternatives stuck the word “milk” at the end of “soy” and never looked back.

The fact that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) let it happen is probably more due to the under-the-radar nature of the initial products. No one could have imagined the success of these plant-based squeezings. It was only when these products started to become a real threat that folks in the dairy industry took notice. The National Milk Producers Federation has petitioned FDA to crack down on the use of the word milk on non-dairy products. They are making headway – the most recent spending bill approved in the House and Senate directs FDA to take action against mislabeled imitation dairy foods.

The whole situation has created a rather unseemly marriage. Companies have created products based on a perceived consumer demand for non-dairy milk products, while tapping into the brand equity inherent in the word milk. But that’s how it is when you are fighting for market share.

Admittedly some people can’t drink milk from cows, and the Healthline website points that out while admirably talking about the nutritious benefits of real milk. Milk and some dairy products don’t sit well with my teenage daughter. Others have milk allergies or are lactose intolerant. For them the milk alternatives are quite beneficial.

One alternative that isn’t an alternative, and is quite beneficial, is Fairlife. There has been some conversation that Fairlife is actually a milk alternative, which of course is blatantly false. It’s made from cows. A processing method makes it higher in protein and slightly more nutritious than regular milk. The argument that people are buying Fairlife instead of milk is like saying people are buying Cheerios instead of cereal.

Back to the real alternatives. In my opinion, if companies want to make a nutritional product from some kind of nut, go for it. Just call it what it is, and not what it isn’t. It’s not milk.

What do you think? Do you think non-dairy milk alternatives should be called milk or something else? Let me know at mopperman@farmjournal.com

Is Trump Good for Dairy?

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 01:54:48 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Recently I was listening to a morning news program—one of those “fake news” shows—and the person being interviewed had just finished a book on how President Trump was reshaping the White House. The author made the comment that President Trump could be mentioned in the same breath as President Ronald Reagan when experts talk about some of the greatest presidents in American history.

That almost caused my morning coffee to come shooting through my nose.

The author said that, after you strip away all of the tweets and scandals, name calling and nasty rhetoric, which admittedly is a very difficult task, some the results that President Trump has achieved in the first 14 months of office are very positive.

The economy is strong. Figures released by the U.S. Department of Commerce showed that Gross Domestic Product (GDP) grew by more than 3% in the second and third quarter last year after cooling off to 2.6% growth in the fourth quarter. Recent rhetoric around the President’s attack on Amazon and China tariffs aside, the stock market has seen significant growth since President Trump took office. And then there’s that Christmas present of a tax bill that he signed.

The unemployment rate is at a 17-year low and there are more jobs available. President Trump made good on his promise to send criminals back to their homeland, and there are fewer illegal immigrants crossing the border. There are fewer regulations, too, thanks to his ‘two for one’ stance of cutting two regulations for every new one proposed.

As I said, taking away all of the cringe-worthy commentary and actions, it appears that President Trump may be good for the economy. But, drilling down further, is he good for dairy producers?

The answer? We’ll see.

Certainly if Sam and Jane consumer have more money in their wallets that’s a good sign for domestic demand. It’s always been said that people with greater income spend more money going out to eat, and that generally means more consumption of higher-end dairy products. We’ve seen consumption of products like butter and cheese continue to grow, and fluid milk has at least slowed its decline. Dairy producers need consumers to keep spending money on dairy products to grow domestic demand. After all, about 85% of the dairy products produced in the U.S. stay in the U.S.

It’s the other 15% that gets exported that will tell if President Trump is good for dairy. So far President Trump has pulled out of any free trade deal that he views as detrimental to U.S. interests. The U.S. opted out of the Trans Pacific Partnership and, until recently, looked like it was going to pull out of the North American Free Trade Agreement. So far China has not targeted dairy products as retaliation for the steel and aluminum tariffs, although it remains to be seen how China’s tariffs on soybeans and ethanol impact feed prices here in the U.S.

Perhaps the movement out of or adjustment to these free trade agreements will work out in the end. But one of the underlying problems with the ongoing negotiations is that while the U.S. is focused on these deals, our competitors are busy securing trade agreements with our core customers. Any new agreements set up more business for those countries and take business away from the U.S. In this global era where prices ride a razor-thin balance between supply and demand, any change in market access or share has a direct impact on your milk price. How trade agreements shake out, and how President Trump can impact those agreements one way or another, should be concerning to U.S. dairy producers.

So is President Trump good for dairy? Consumers have a few extra dollars to spend on dairy products, but consumers in other countries may be purchasing EU Gouda rather than U.S. Cheddar. It’s all a very tenuous balance.

What do you think? Is President Trump good for dairy? Let me know what you think by sending me an email at mopperman@farmjournal.com

Walmart: Friend or Foe?

Fri, 20 Nov 2020 01:54:31 GMT

The following commentary does not necessarily reflect the views of AgWeb or Farm Journal. The opinions expressed below are the author’s own.

Dean Foods recently joined the fraternity of companies that have terminated producer contracts based on changing marketplace dynamics. When the announcement was made, a Dean spokesperson said the change was due to “companies assertively entering or expanding their presence in the milk processing business.”

While Dean doesn’t come out and say who those “companies” are, it doesn’t take much detective work to realize that Walmart is that company. There is a bottling plant near Fort Wayne, Indiana owned by Walmart set to go online any day now. That plant will bottle Great Value milk and supply stores throughout the Midwest. Dean had been bottling the milk going into those plastic jugs. With this plant going online, Dean loses out on a significant portion of its private label business, even though it will continue to bottle milk for the Great Value brand in other regions.

These events have led several to question if Walmart getting involved in the dairy industry is good or bad for our future.

Certainly the Walmart story is well known. The company pioneered the big box store model. Huge supply agreements are negotiated with national suppliers so that prices can be driven down in each local store. As consumers have enjoyed access to national brands at a low cost, hundreds of mom-and-pop stores have been driven out of business.

It’s no secret that Walmart carries a big stick with suppliers. The company can drive down supplier prices based on the sheer volume of product bought on an annual basis. When it comes to food, Walmart can wield its power in other ways as well, forcing suppliers to comply with certain production practices.

Like other major retailers, Walmart supported the reduction of the use of antibiotics across all protein classes. It advocated for greater space requirements in gestation crates for sows and cages for laying hens. Companies in those protein markets made changes to maintain supply contracts. Those changes impacted management practices at the producer level.

Walmart will source most of the supply for this new plant from cooperatives, with the balance supplied directly by producers ranging in size. On the surface it appears the new plant is a way for Walmart to reduce the costs of processing milk. It’s what could be under the surface that makes people uneasy.

People are always unsettled by the unknown, especially as it relates to Walmart. There is fear that the same approach to supply constraints seen in other sectors will be applied to dairy. That unreasonable management practices will be enforced at the producer level. That prices will be driven down, and the only producers to benefit will be the very large. There is fear that this is just one step closer to vertical integration, the same path taken by pork and poultry industries.

Some will see Walmart as a threat, a company driven to extract value out of the supply chain to drive down prices and increase their own margins. At the same time, other producers will see this as an opportunity to establish a direct relationship with a retail brand with the premise of creating a more stable milk market. The former will continue making commodity milk and taking whatever milk price their coop sets. The latter will have an opportunity for greater price stability, if they can meet market demands.

Do you see Walmart as a friend or a foe? Let me know at mopperman@farmjournal.com.

Oxpeckers And Zebras

Fri, 13 Nov 2020 05:50:39 GMT

There are dozens of instances where smaller animals coexist with much larger animals. African oxpeckers, for example, feed on the backs of zebras, elephants, hippopotamuses and other large African animals, according to Cosmos magazine. The relationship isn’t all symbiotic, as the Oxpeckers are actually vampire birds that do eat ticks, but then suck the blood out of open-tick wounds.

Over the past several weeks I’ve sat in on presentations by a number of small, startup companies that produce and market alternative food products. One product was produced from grass-fed Guernseys. Another yogurt was made from family-owned organic dairies in Oregon.

One of the more interesting presentations came from Miyoko Schinner, CEO and founder of Miyoko’s, a company that makes vegan cheeses. We decided to interview Schinner and provide her remarks for everyone to see. You can read her comments here .

As you read the story, you may feel your heartbeat accelerate, your face get red and an anger well up inside you, because she says things that drive dairy people nuts. The fact that she calls her vegan products cheese, for example, even though there’s no dairy in them. Or that they milk cashews. Or that she calls our current methods of food production unsustainable.

One might ask why in the world we decided to print such false information. Good question.

A colleague once told me that it is important to keep your friends close and your enemies closer. I think what he meant was we need to know as much as possible about those who have opposing views so we can see things from their viewpoint, and thereby learn in the process.

I’m not calling Schinner and her company enemies, by any means. I think they are more like the oxpecker, living off of the much larger dairy industry. Had the dairy industry not laid the brand development groundwork for things like artisan cheese and yogurt it would be hard to imagine that Schinner’s product or other products in that category would be successful.

That being said, I would assume that the larger dairy industry derives at least some benefit from these smaller, niche market products. If someone is eating yogurt because it comes from milk from grass-fed, locally owned Guernseys, at least they are eating dairy products. And maybe if someone eats a vegan cheese that tastes like high-end cheddar, they will at least appreciate what full-fledged cheddar tastes like.

Even though the dairy industry is huge and these startups are very small in comparison, it does accentuate the fact that a considerable effort needs to be made to educate consumers about modern agricultural practices. Swisslane Farms has developed a Dairy Discovery center to educate kids and their parents about life on a dairy. It’s also comforting to have experts like those at the National Dairy Council to make sure dairy is prominent in dairy nutrition guidelines.

While I appreciate that these small companies are trying to carve out a niche for themselves, I could do without the disparaging remarks these companies make against modern production agriculture. They’re playing on uneducated consumer emotions to gain differentiation, and that’s not right. After all, you’d never hear the oxpecker say a disparaging word about a zebra.

What do you think? Should dairy alternative companies be allowed to market their products as dairy? Send me your comments at mopperman@farmjournal.com

I Drink fairlife And I Feel Good About It

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 05:01:36 GMT

Last night I went to the store and bought a half-gallon of fairlife chocolate milk. Then I went home, poured a glass and drank it. And I felt good about it.

Recently a video was released showing some pretty despicable treatment of calves by employees at Fair Oaks Farms. Fair Oaks Farms has a connection to fairlife. The owners of Fair Oaks, Mike and Sue McCloskey, started Select Milk cooperative, which partnered with Coca Cola to create and market fairlife. The product has been one of the most successful fluid milk innovations in the history of the dairy industry.

The activist group that produced the video is calling for a boycott of fairlife as a way to protest the acts shown in the video and in some way punish Fair Oaks for allowing those acts to happen.

On the contrary, I poured that glass of milk and drank it because I support Fair Oaks. I did it because of what I know, not because of what I don’t know.

I know the practices shown on the video were conducted by people who have no regard for animal care. I also know that within the employee pool at Fair Oaks, they were the exception and not the rule. I sense this because three of the four employees were fired even before the video was released because other employees adhered to the “see it, say it” rule and reported them for other animal abuse violations.

By the way, the undercover activist who shot the video obviously did not adhere to that rule.

I am also able to put context around the footage shown in the video and, therefore, assume that what happened was an isolated incident. That undercover employee collected a vast amount of video over their several months of employment. From that vast amount of video they were able to find a few minutes of abuse. Let’s see the rest of the footage that shows animals being cared for the right way.

I also bought fairlife because I know that when bad things like this happen, boycotting a product is a way of turning your back on those actions. You’re angry about what you saw, and therefore you’re going to punish the company responsible. As you walk away, you’ve done nothing to effect change, in fact you just exacerbated the problem rather than being a part of the solution.

People who boycott brands act the same as the cooperatives and retail brands that cut off the milk supply from dairies that have been part of undercover videos. I know why they do it – to appease consumer outcry. But it tells me that those brands have no real vested interest in dairy farmers or the animals on dairy farms. If they did, they would help work with those dairies to make sure changes are made so those heinous actions never happen again. Instead backs are turned and, for all they know, those actions continue unabated.

Wouldn’t it be great if the folks at fairlife came out and said that they stand beside Fair Oaks Farms? That they know that the incidents were isolated and done by rogue employees and not a reflection of what happens every day on the farm? Wouldn’t it be great if they vowed to work with Fair Oaks to make sure this didn’t happen again? Wouldn’t it be great if they were a voice of reason and not a voice of reaction? Maybe someday a brand will have enough gumption to take that stand.

Until then, I’ll do my part to support the dairy producers who make the milk that goes into great products like fairlife. And I’ll do it with a clear conscious, knowing that I’m supporting a solution, not growing the problem.

What do you think of the Fair Oaks situation? Are you boycotting fairlife? Let me know at mopperman@farmjournal.com

Check out these related headlines:

Activist Video Shows Abuse At Fair Oaks Farms

Chicago Grocery Chain Drops fairlife Following Activist Video

Also, I discussed the Fair Oaks video and response on Overhe(a)rd, the Farm Journal Livestock podcast, here:

Secretariat and $20 Milk

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:57:15 GMT

Secretariat is considered the greatest race horse of all time. I had the pleasure of seeing him in his paddock when I was young and he was retired. Even at an advanced age he was spectacular to see.

Recently I went back and watched the races he ran in 1973 when he won the triple crown. In the first race, the Kentucky Derby, he was held back by his jockey, Ronnie Turcott, before winning by a few lengths at the end. In the Preakness, the second race, the same thing happened although he won by a larger margin.

In the third race, the Belmont, Secretariat ran what is widely considered the greatest race run by any horse in history. Turcott didn’t hold his horse back. He blazed a mile-and-a-half in a pace that has never and probably won’t ever be broken. Turcott let him run, and run he did.

In many ways, dairy producers over the past few years have been like Secretariat in those first two races. Held back by the burden of low milk prices, poor margins, tight processing capacity and labor issues. Lenders have been willing to lend to improve efficiency, if borrowers are credit worthy. Lending for expansion has slowed down, and now occurs only with solid verification that a processor will take the extra milk.

This week at the MILK Business Conference a panel of experts predicted that the industry would see $20/cwt milk prices within the next five years. You could almost feel the producers in the audience straining at the bit, getting ready to take off even as those words still hung in the air.

That level of milk price would certainly be welcomed. Producers could pay down debt and regain equity, or maybe just be able to pay bills again. But as normally happens when prices go up, a number of producers will get bigger. They’ll add cows, add barns, add locations and make more milk. It’s the American way.

But one thing scares me about such good news, and I go back to when Secretariat won the Belmont. In that race another horse, Sham, was neck-and-neck with Secretariat for the first half of the race. His jockey was letting him run, too, under the assumption that he could keep up with and eventually beat the great Secretariat. But Sham couldn’t keep up with the blistering pace. He eventually fell further and further behind, and finished the race in fifth place.

Higher prices would be wonderful, but can producers keep up with the pace? There would be more milk in an already saturated market, a market where even now processors are fighting to keep up. “We’ll finish investing $450 million in a new plant, and we’ll have to start on another plant once that’s finished because we’ll already be at capacity on the new plant,” Rick Smith, CEO of Dairy Farmers of America, said at the MILK Business Conference.

My fear is that higher prices will lead to more production which will lead us right back to where we started, which is the extended low-price period we are currently suffering through. Or, worse yet, producers anticipating $20 milk will hold on to try and re-capture some equity, only to burn through equity and be in a worse position if, God forbid, $20 milk doesn’t happen.

Believe me, I’m all for price relief. God knows we need it. But when prices get better, my fear is that our industry will end up like Sham, who ran too fast for too long and ended up at the back of the pack. Perhaps producers can learn to pace themselves, making wise decisions that lead to stronger businesses and a stronger industry as a whole. Not everyone will win, but at least they will be in the running for the entire race.

How would you react to a $20/cwt milk price? I’d like to know. Drop me a note at mopperman@farmjournal.com

Is That a Light?

Thu, 12 Nov 2020 04:52:31 GMT

I’ve always been a glass-half-full kind of person. Spring exacerbates the condition.

Maybe I’m feeling more optimistic than usual because temperatures are warming up, farmers are in the field and it’s time to get my lawn mower out of the garage. I’m seeing a light at the end of the milk price tunnel. Am I delusional?

Before you think I’ve gone crazy, I’m not saying milk prices will hit $25 by August, but I do think we are in the midst of a slow, gradual milk price rise.

Futures prices have been trending up, in general over the past month. In the CME spot trade, butter bottomed out at $2.09 per pound in mid-February. And although there have been a few bumps in the road since then, on April 23 it traded at $2.32. Block and barrel cheese markets have also had their stumbles, but both markets are up almost 20 cents each, respectively, since their lows at the beginning of the year. If we look at Class III futures, the May 2018 contract bottomed out at just under $14 per cwt in mid-March. At press time, the contract was trading at just over a dollar per cwt higher. If you follow our Know Your Market blog, you’ll know that toward the end of April the average Class III futures price for the balance of 2018 was at nearly $16.

Plus, although prices have not been good, it could have been worse. In the past higher production and a continual increase in cow numbers would have signaled a more significant price down turn. Mike North, president of Commodity Risk Management Group, says it could be worse given the normal spring flush. “The fact that with as many cows as we have, as big of inventories as we have, and as much milk as we have coming at us right now, the fact that we’ve been able to sustain you know $14 and near $15 prices for this time of the year is actually something that makes me happy.”

The upward trend in futures prices isn’t overly dramatic. But at least they aren’t dropping. A producer friend of mine was ecstatic when they were able to contract milk in the second half of 2018 at a price above their break even.

In order for milk prices to come up, production has to drop and, so far, production could be starting to slow down. While the March production totals were up, the gain wasn’t as great as what we saw in January or February. Cow numbers in March were up over last year, but lower than February, so culling is on the rise. Unfortunately, that may be the result of more dairies going out of business.

There is renewed help on the margin side as well. Updates to the Margin Protection Program make it more palatable for producers. Premiums have dropped from 47 cents to 14.2 cents per cwt. Margins should be set at a level where producers participating in the program will get some return on their premium payments over the next few months.

Producers in California may be able to take advantage of being in a Federal Milk Marketing Order . USDA predicts as much as a 45 cent per cwt milk price boost over the next 8 years. That’s a long time, but at least it’s something for an industry that has seen its fair share of hard times over the past several years.

Maybe I am crazy to see a light at the end of this long, low-milk-price-tunnel. Maybe it’s just a result of milk prices being down for so long. It just pains me to see producers suffering. Many are barely getting by or having to sell off many generations of sweat and blood poured into the family business.

I’m ready for relief to come, and the little bit of good news that comes with it. Hope always springs eternal.

I’m interested to know what you think. Are you optimistic about milk prices? Or do you think prices will go even lower? Let me know at mopperman@farmjournal.com

Happy Perpetual Casual Friday!

Sun, 08 Nov 2020 17:26:07 GMT

I had the pleasure of doing an early morning/live FaceTime segment on CBS13 Sacramento about navigating the world of humor through the current crisis.

Thought it would be fun to share with you all!

Be sure to laugh a lot. I hear it’s good for boosting the immune system!

Leigh

Click here for video: