Is there a middle ground for the greater good? Ultrasound operators still jailed, State provides some answers; Legal team responds

Posted on by
5

By Sherry Bunting, special for Farmshine, April 26, 2024 edition

HARRISBURG, Pa. — It has been two weeks since Rusty Herr, 43, of Christiana and Ethan Wentworth, 33, of Airville were arrested on April 10 and 11 and separately incarcerated in Lancaster and York County Prisons — their respective counties of residence.

As of April 24, both men are still in jail, without bail, and without seeing a judge.

“This is an unprecedented case of lawless persecution against two farmers who help other farmers with standard breeding practices, as is their right,” said Robert Barnes, Esq. of Barnes Law LLP, who accepted the case on April 17.

“The Pennsylvania Veterinary trade organizations conspired to protect their own monopoly in violation of the law and in a manner that has hurt farmers throughout Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Department of State (DOS), in a secret star chamber proceeding, ordered the unlawful imprisonment of Rusty Herr and Ethan Wentworth, who have still never seen an arrest warrant, heard the charges against them, had a hearing, or seen a judge,” Barnes continued in a statement provided to Farmshine Wed., April 24.

“In short, their due process rights have been obliterated. I will seek justice for Wentworth, Herr, and their families to the fullest extent of the law,” Barnes asserted.

The only dockets available for prior orders last week were two found on the website of the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association (PVMA) as part of a package on their “advocacy” page asking members to file complaints with DOS by referencing the provided docket numbers, and then report back to PVMA so they can keep track. One was a 2010 docket with Herr as respondent and the other 2018 naming Wentworth. Both orders stated civil penalty, not criminal.

All other court and DOS system searches yielded nothing, and even those docket numbers came up “nonexistent.” 

In a PVMA press release dated April 19, the veterinary trade organization stated: “PVMA is unaware of the circumstances surrounding the arrest of two individuals on April 10 and 11 for contempt of court.”

And yet, in their 2020 Complaint that they had posted at their website before it was removed this week, the PVMA specifically stated: “Since these individuals continue to practice veterinary medicine without a license after their initial order to cease and desist, we request that the state file contempt charges with the Commonwealth Court. PVMA is able to supply additional witnesses upon request.”

Farmers, veterinarians and others in the dairy industry are discussing the case. Calls, texts and emails pour in from dairy farmers who appreciate NoBull Solutions and rely on them for breeding service.

Calls, texts and emails have also come in to make further accusations against the imprisoned men — none of which are mentioned in the PVMA complaint or their links to two previous civil orders, nor in any documentation provided now by the DOS.

After initiating a request for an interview on April 15 and submitting questions to the State Board of Veterinary Medicine on April 16, Farmshine received a few answers on April 24 from the Department of State (DOS).

On the current situation, the DOS responds: “We can neither confirm nor deny the existence of an investigation or matter.”

On the question of what hearing process may or may not have been available to Herr and Wentworth regarding past civil penalties and cease and desist orders, dockets were provided, one with Herr as the respondent in 2010, and one with Wentworth and another individual who has not been arrested named together as respondents in 2018.

“Speaking generally, the Department reviews every potential license violation of which it becomes aware, whether that is through a complaint filed directly to the Department, a notification from local law enforcement or through media reports. After review, a determination is made as to whether formal action is warranted,” the DOS press office explained in their email response. 

The long and short of the DOS response here is that all respondents have due process at some point, which includes notice and an opportunity to participate in those original proceedings, call witnesses, introduce evidence, and testify on their own behalf.

Herr and Wentworth did so, on their own behalf, without legal counsel, in 2010 and 2018, respectively, according to the documents provided by the DOS.

However, they were not noticed since then by the DOS, and nowhere in the responses from DOS or the adjudications they provided is an automatic 30-day prison term without bail stated as a consequence for “continuing to violate the Act” by ultrasounding cows they do not own. No proof of the process has been shown in the responses from the DOS apart from the 2010 and 2018 actions.

On the question about where pregnancy and diagnosis are linked in the law or regulations, the bottomline is they are not. The State Board of Veterinary Medicine decides this through adjudication and orders as the legislature grants the Board this authority.

“The Board adopted the position that, ‘both the performance of a surgical procedure, such as the Gymer/Stemer Toggle Suture Repair, and the diagnosis of a physical condition, such as detecting through ultrasound whether an animal is pregnant, constitute practice of veterinary medicine,’” the DOS reported, adding that the Act contains an exception for any person or an employee of that person or agent while practicing veterinary medicine on his or her own animals. (What constitutes an ‘agent’?)

The DOS included a copy of an Amended Adjudication and Order, Docket No. 2296-57-09, which came before the State Vet Board with Herr as respondent in May of 2010. Performance of toggle on six animals he didn’t own and performing ultrasound for detection of pregnancy on animals he didn’t own were both listed specifically in the determination of civil penalty.

This was 14 years ago, and the docket from 2010 confirms that Herr responded to say he is “no longer toggling other people’s cows.”

The amended adjudication goes on to explain “should the respondent continue to violate the Act, he may be subject to the imposition of a $10,000 civil penalty per act or practice.” 

Nowhere does it mention automatic 30 days in prison for continuing to detect pregnancy through ultrasound.

For Wentworth, the docket history supplied by the DOS began Sept. of 2017 while he and another named individual, who has not been arrested, were previously employed by Select Sires. Docket No. 1928-57-17, simply states “Respondents engaged in the practice of veterinary medicine without being properly licensed to do so under the Act” and describes this as “performed pregnancy examinations on cattle using ultrasound equipment.”

Both responded, and this led to a formal hearing, eventually in April of 2018, when the state’s expert witness, a University of Pennsylvania professor, could be available. 

Both respondents appeared without representation. They testified on their own behalf and were cross-examined. In May 2018, the matter was closed and determinations were made that both men used ultrasound equipment to “determine pregnancy of customers’ cows” and to “determine if cows were in heat or had other medical issues.”

Noted in the history is this statement that begs more questions: “The economic savings to the cow’s owner, based on a positive pregnancy or negative heat result, are outweighed by the risk of harm to the cow posed by the unlicensed practice (of ultrasound).”

That brings us to April 2024, which the DOS will not comment on.

What we are left with on that is a downloaded copy of the PVMA complaint requesting contempt charges via the Commonwealth Court. Attached to the complaint were pictures from the arrested men’s facebook pages showing ultrasound pregnancy detection.

Bottomline, according to the DOS response: “The State Board of Veterinary Medicine is responsible for enforcing the Veterinary Medicine Act as enacted by the General Assembly. Questions about the provisions of the Act (including the exception in 63 Stat 485.32) should be directed to the legislature.”

This response makes the timing and manner of the arrests more curious, coming six months after the Pennsylvania House Ag Committee opened discussion to look at ways to address the statewide shortage of large animal veterinary practitioners, including the Veterinary Practice Act to see if modifications are needed for a “middle tier” to help Pennsylvania farmers cope.

For veterinary practices, the economics are increasingly difficult in attracting and keeping practitioners and vet technicians in the large animal domain. Their financial and time investments are significant, often graduating $250,000 in debt, and the trend is for more to go into small animal practice with pets to realize a return.

“No large animal practitioner is doing this — for the money,” said one central Pennsylvania vet.

Farmers identify with that. They have significant investments, see their costs rising, and in much of the state, see fewer large animal vets and prohibitive costs for basic services from consolidating companies on small farms vs. large ones, so they look for options, including doing more themselves.

“We have good vets, and I have done some ultrasounding with Rusty, but my vet comes in for herd health, and I keep a good relationship with my vet,” said a dairy farmer from Kirkwood in a Farmshine call April 24.

“Rusty is not trying to take work from vets. He is just trying to help the farmers and provide service for them. He has supported me 100% to help me make breeding decisions in my herd. He will even suggest a mating to a bull outside of his genetic lineup. Instead of just trying to get more business for himself, he highly encouraged and helped teach me how to inseminate my own cows. He’s a mentor and true hero. If anything, he’ll come out of this stronger,” the Kirkwood dairyman continued.

There must be middle ground here. Clarity, transparency and solutions are needed.

“As farmers, we put our bodies and souls into this. As everything consolidates in this industry, how do we compete? This is what extinction looks like,” said Ben Masemore, an eastern Pennsylvania dairy farmer and friend of Herr and Wentworth, who is involved in NoBull Sires, a separate business from NoBull Solutions.

He shared a partial statement written by Herr from his prison cell.

“To this day, we have never once had a farmer or caretaker complain to the state about any single issue. I know that we have a tremendous amount of support behind us, and I realize this will all get resolved. I will be a better husband, father, and person because of this entire experience, and for that I am grateful,” wrote Herr.

He expressed his hope that fair-minded people “can come together… to create a level playing field, one in which we can all work together for the greater good of the industry… I hope and pray that good can come out of this and that someday we can all look back on this time as a steppingstone for meaningful and lasting change.”

Thanking the NoBull team and supporters, and grieving what the families are enduring, Herr wrote: “Thank you all so very much for your coveted prayers and support. Thank you for your financial generosity. Keep the faith and be strong, God is always good. This will all be over soon.”

NoBull Defense Funds have been set up at two local banks to help with legal defense to get them home. Separately, an online fund has raised over $17,000 so far at https://www.givesendgo.com/nobull?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=nobull

-30-

‘Pregnancy is not a disease’: Two men jailed without bail for repro ultrasounding of dairy cows

Posted on by
5

Pictured are (l-r) Ben Masemore, Ethan Wentworth and Rusty Herr at their NoBull Sires booth during the World Dairy Expo. Today, Masemore is fielding calls from dairy farmers across Pennsylvania and the nation as Herr and Wentworth have been jailed for ultrasounding cows they do not own and making diagnoses without a veterinary license as part of their NoBull Solutions LLC breeding services. They have not seen a judge, had no due process, were denied bail, and were arrested by local law enforcement in the respective counties in which they live for contempt of court after ignoring a 2010 and 2018 cease and desist order from the State Board of Veterinary Medicine having not been able to present a defense. Barnes Law LLP has accepted the case, and Robert Barnes says the arrest warrants did not come from a court — a bureaucratic veterinary board is not a court. Funds have been set up to accept donations for their legal defense to get them home to their families, their animals, and the dairy farmers they serve. Photo provided

By Sherry Bunting, a developing story special for Farmshine in mailboxes and online at Farmshine.net, April 19, 2024 edition

CHRISTIANA, Pa. — In a move that has shocked members of the local and distant dairy farming community this week, word spread of the Pennsylvania State Veterinary Board’s action through the Department of State, Professional Compliance Office, executing a “contempt of court” order through local law enforcement when none of these agencies are actual courts.

Rusty Herr of Christiana and Ethan Wentworth of Airville have been in prison since their arrest last week, without seeing a judge, without due process, and being denied bail… for what? 

For ultrasounding dairy cows and horses – without a veterinary license — as part of their NoBull Solutions breeding service.

They are two of the three men that were named in the State Vet Board’s cease-and-desist orders as recently as 2018 and 2020.

With this enforcement, the state is essentially considering pregnancy a disease even though federal courts have found, in humans, pregnancy is a condition, not a disease, and even though the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act in Pennsylvania does not mention pregnancy, but latitude is given to the State Board. No definition of diagnosis nor mention of pregnancy or ultrasound appears in the Board Regulations.

According to the nationally-known Barnes Law LLP, serving as the NoBull legal defense team hired April 17, one week after their arrests, “Pregnancy is not a disease. Pregnancy is not an illness. Likewise, confirming pregnancy or successful reproduction is not a diagnosis. Medicinal definitions are clear: Identification of disease is termed diagnosis, the solution design is called treatment planning, and treatment where appropriate is then implemented as the solution.”

In addition, there are dozens of known technicians using ultrasound with livestock in conjunction with reproductive services in the state of Pennsylvania. Yet for this, Herr and Wentworth are being kept away from their families, already imprisoned for one week, and have been told they will be in jail for 30 days.

Furthermore, the circumstances of their arrests are troubling.

Wentworth was told to go to the Courthouse (in York) on the morning of April 10 to pay a fine. He was told he would see a judge. Instead, he was arrested, and seven days later has still not seen a judge, according to friend and associate Ben Masemore, a dairy farmer associated with a sister business NoBull Sires LLC.

Herr was arrested the very next morning, April 11, at 6:30 a.m. at his home in Christiana. He was handcuffed and taken away in front of his wife and children, says Masemore in a Farmshine phone interview.

The new lead attorney for the Herr/Wentworth and NoBull Solutions defense, Robert Barnes, Esquire, even makes the case that the arrest warrants were not “facially valid” because they did not come from a court.

“There is no actual court on it. It is not a court document. Some bureaucratic official sent it to a prothonotary (court clerk), and now these people are sitting in prison because high ranking state bureaucrats have conspired with incompetent local sheriffs to illegally and unlawfully imprison them,” says Barnes.

This amounts to “some rogue officer and agency in Pennsylvania deciding ‘we want to arrest and imprison people whenever we want, with no limitations.’ The statute doesn’t authorize it. The Constitution of Pennsylvania doesn’t authorize it. In fact, it violates both the State and Federal Constitutions,” Barnes explains in his April 17 Viva Locals podcast about the case.

He adds that they must think “These are just some ordinary folks helping the Amish and (that they) can get away with it. Maybe they thought they were Amish, and they’d never sue.”

Barnes further notes that, “Somebody at the (state vet board) got the idea to create something that calls itself ‘arrest warrant,’ make it look like it came from a local court, create a docket number at the top, refer to (their) board’s activities as ‘The Court,’ call it ‘contempt,’ and have these people ordered arrested interminably in prison.”

Robert Barnes, Esq. of Barnes Law LLP has taken the NoBull Solutions Defense case, vowing to get justice for Ethan and Rusty and their families. He talked about it on his Viva Locals podcast April 17, saying “a whole bunch of folks are about to get sued” and citing unlawful detainment and civil rights precedents, among others. Screen capture by Sherry Bunting

In fact, visiting the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association (PaVMA) website under “advocacy,” Farmshine has learned that the contempt-of-court charge was the suggestion made in the PaVMA’s recent complaint it filed on Herr and Wentworth for ignoring previous fines and cease-and-desist orders from the State Veterinary Board.

Farmshine has learned that these fines were ignored on advice of their former attorney, so as not to admit guilt. After all, why should Herr and Wentworth admit guilt for actions that have become commonplace and are open to interpretation of the state’s vague and archaic veterinary law in regard to defining ‘diagnosis’ — especially since pregnancy is not a disease to be diagnosed, but rather a condition to be observed?

There is also the issue of targeted enforcement.

The State Vet Board was prompted to act in the first place by PaVMA filing a complaint seeking to specifically target “three individuals” with fines and cease-and-desist orders for “illegal practice of veterinary medicine by unlicensed individuals.”

These original orders specifically named them as individuals employed with NoBull Solutions LLC and its “all encompassing reproductive management for dairy farms.”

The “documentary evidence” in the official PaVMA complaint was in the form of two pages of Facebook posts that “show non-veterinarians using ultrasounds and making diagnoses.”

Again, what are we talking about here? Ultrasounding cows in conjunction with breeding service — something dozens of proficient ultrasound machine users and breeding technicians do with cattle, horses, and other livestock across the state and around the country.

This is repro, not medicine.

What is the difference between diagnosis and observation? The archaic State Veterinary Law is unclear.

In today’s times, we have breeding technicians using ultrasound in conjunction with pregnancy and reproductive observation that are the lifeblood of a dairy farm. We have hoof trimmers providing essential services that involve observation and treatment of hoof and foot problems, but the state vet law only specifically exempts equine farriers. We have nutritionists body scoring cows for herd nutritional and health status observation and advice. We have FARM program auditors scoring hocks, scoring lameness, scoring body condition and other potential veterinary diagnoses that are referred to as observation.

But somehow, observing pregnancy and reproductive performance through ultrasound is illegal without a veterinary license? All of these examples – including repro ultrasound — show how it takes a village to run a dairy farm these days. How many times do we go to meetings and hear experts tell farmers to get outside eyes observing the cattle on their farms?

Farmers, themselves, wear many hats. They observe, diagnose, and treat many conditions in their own herds. The law recognizes a farmer’s ability to diagnose and treat their own animals and to allow their hired employees to do it for them.

With this action, the state is basically saying small and mid-sized farms cannot pay for the services of others, not being large enough to hire full-time staff to do it. 

This reporter received phone calls from half a dozen farmers, many of them Amish dairy farmers, while completing this report on April 17. One farmer from eastern Lancaster County said “hundreds of farmers in the county don’t know where they would be without Rusty Herr.”

Another from Oxford explained how much Herr has taught him about his livestock, so much more than a veterinarian would have time to teach. He noted Herr’s  “calm personality and precise work,” and how others, including himself, are “now being impacted by not having him on their farms” while he is in jail.

Another from Quarryville said Herr and Wentworth “are keenly missed. They are great people who did a great job and provided great service. This is affecting my dairy farm. I have appreciated how they walked into my barn and did their utmost to help me out with dairy breeding decisions.” 

Pennsylvania, with a small average herd size of 95 cows, has lost 46% of its dairy farms in the five years between the 2017 and 2022 Census of Agriculture. More dairy exits have occurred in 2023 and so far in 2024. Total herd dispersals have become commonplace as the low margins in dairy are a barrier for many farms to continue into the next generation.

How can farm families survive amid rapid consolidation of this industry, if there is not a level playing field? The very largest mega dairy operations in this country can hire full-time staff veterinarians, nutritionists, and technicians as employees and receive the blessing of the law, while small to mid-sized farms stand to lose the service of good people hired independently?

As for the PaVMA complaint that started all of this by citing state veterinary law, that law makes no mention of ultrasound or pregnancy.

It’s important to note that the PaVMA stepped up its drive to get targeted action from the state. According to a February 21 post at the PaVMA website, the organization listed the ultrasound concern as an advocacy position under the heading “Illegal Practice of Veterinary Medicine.”

In the post (see screenshot below), PaVMA states that it “has received many reports of bovine technicians engaging in the practice of veterinary medicine without a license, specifically performing ultrasounds and issuing diagnoses. In the past, the state of Pennsylvania fined three individuals and ordered them to cease and desist their activities. We have received reports that some of these individuals have not stopped and flagrantly promote their use of ultrasounds on Facebook. We have filed a complaint with the Department of State, Professional Compliance Office.”

The organization called its members to action, providing downloadable blank forms and instructions as follows: “We encourage all PVMA Members who have knowledge of these activities to also file complaints. A complaint form and copies of the cease-and-desist orders are available for download. Please reference the docket and case numbers in your complaint. The docket and case number are located on each cease-and-desist order. After filing a complaint, please email us at Membership@PaVMA.org and let us know so we can keep track of our members who have joined us in making the state aware of this problem.”

Screen capture by Sherry Bunting

Parallels can be drawn to other points in the long and legendary history of dairy cattle reproductive progress, whereby the establishment have used interpretations of archaic and vague laws to target progressive individuals, who were helping dairy farmers improve their herds.

One such case was in Canada in the 1980s, as chronicled by Holstein International. The article entitled “Allowing great sires to go everywhere” in the March 2021 edition makes this point:

“Unfortunately, disruption in any established industry does not come without controversy, and in 1987 a charge was made against Transfer Genetics (and its owner) by the Ontario Government for the illegal delivery of semen. The law from the 1950s required semen to be delivered by a licensed Ontario A.I. centre. A fine for this ‘violation’ was suggested, but a guilty plea would delegitimize Transfer Genetics forever. In July 1987 Transfer Genetics was charged – resulting in the closure of Transfer Genetics’ semen distribution.”

After setting up opportunities for farmers to learn to breed their own cows and enduring more than a year fighting this battle, the case was won for farmers, and the achievements for modern-day genetics are well-documented.

Instead of giving in to the intimidation, this entrepreneur, with the help of others in the dairy community, persevered, and the results of those early matings of well-bred Canadian cow families to top U.S. sires of the 1980s have produced legendary lines looked to today.

If that entrepreneur, who went on to be recognized as 2022 World Dairy Expo International Person of the Year, had simply paid his fine in 1987, stopped ruffling feathers, and gone back to the sidelines, who knows what the impact would have been?

Where the similarities are to this Pennsylvania case is that he also chose not to pay fines levied on him and his company by the government as this would “delegitimize (his business) forever.” The rest, as they say, is history.

In the case of Herr and Wentworth using ultrasound, their friend Masemore notes: “There is no guilt because this is an antiquated, vague law. The reality is that times change. Anyone, anywhere, today can buy an ultrasound machine and become extremely proficient in it. This is very commonplace. There are at least 15 to 20 individuals in this state using ultrasound without a vet license. I have dozens of friends, nationwide, that I know personally, who have ultrasound machines. It is a common thing on farms.

“Rusty has a winsome personality and is a man of humility, who is a servant, a hero to farmers as long as I’ve known him,” Masemore observes, adding that dairy farmers in Pennsylvania and around the country have flooded his phone over the past seven days for information on Herr and Wentworth, while their wives worked to retain another attorney. “The phone calls I have received from distraught farmers are overwhelming.”

These calls, he says, show appreciation for the breeding services of these two now-incarcerated men, who are being kept from their families, their animals, and their livelihoods.

Members of the close-knit dairy community in Southeast and Southcentral Pennsylvania — and across the state and nation, in fact — are expressing concern, and a desire to help.

Farmshine’s calls and emails to the offices of the York and Lancaster County District Attorneys have not yet been returned. Messages left for the State Veterinary Board and PaVMA have also not yet been returned.

NoBull Defense Funds have been set up at two local banks with checks payable to the wives of the two men, as noted below, for donations to assist with their legal defense to get them home to their families, their animals, and the dairy farmers they serve. 

Cash donations are discouraged, and all monies unused for bail and/or legal fees will be returned to donors on a percentage basis. Please note in the memo line of the check ‘NoBull Defense Fund.’

The first is at Univest Bank. Checks should be made payable to Heather Herr and mailed to Univest, 1135 Georgetown Rd., Suite 200, Christiana, PA 17509. 

The second is at People’s Bank. Checks should be made payable to Gabrielle Wentworth and mailed to People’s Bank, Brogue Financial Center, 2510 Delta Rd., Brogue, PA 17309.

An online NoBull Solutions Defense Fund has also been established to free Herr and Wentworth from prison at https://www.givesendgo.com/nobull?utm_source=sharelink&utm_medium=copy_link&utm_campaign=nobull

-30-

Pa. orders dairy cattle movement restrictions, testing to protect against HPAI spread; detections now in 8 states

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, April 12, 2024

HARRISBURG, Pa. – Add North Carolina to the list of states with confirmed detections of bird flu in dairy cattle. 

While the USDA APHIS website had not yet updated its daily listing at 4 p.m. on April 10, the North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services issued a press release at noon stating: “The National Veterinary Services Laboratory has detected Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (HPAI) in a dairy herd in North Carolina.”

This would bring the total to 19 dairy herds in 8 states: Texas (9), Kansas (3), New Mexico (2), Michigan (1), Idaho (1), Ohio (1), North Carolina (1), and South Dakota (1). (South Dakota was added to the list after Farmshine went to press)

“This is an evolving situation, and we are waiting for more diagnostics from NVSL and will work collaboratively with our federal partners and dairy farmers in North Carolina,” said Agriculture Commissioner Steve Troxler. “It is important to note the FDA has no concern about the safety or availability of pasteurized milk products nationwide.”

Introduction of HPAI A(H5N1) to dairy cattle has been shown to be by migratory birds, and USDA epidemiological studies show it may also be spreading between cows.

“Both are sources of introduction,” said Pennsylvania’s Assistant State Veterinarian Dr. Erin Luley, answering questions during the second Center for Dairy Excellence (CDE) weekly HPAI update conference call April 10.

USDA, in fact, reported on April 5 during a UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) virtual meeting of scientists that they “have not seen any true indication that cows are actively shedding the virus and exposing it to other animals, or that it is replicating within the body of the cow — other than within the udder.”

This is why lactating dairy cattle are the focus of multiple state orders in recent days regarding restrictions, testing, and quarantine of interstate dairy cattle movement.

“The virus might be transmitted from cow to cow in milk droplets on dairy workers’ clothing or gloves, or in the suction cups attached to the udders for milking,” Dr. Mark Lyons, USDA Director of Ruminant Health, shared during the international meeting, according to a University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) report.

The UNMC report also noted that dairy cattle are frequently transported from the southern parts of the country to the Midwest and north in the Spring. They are floating the possibility — without naming specific herds or locations — that all affected cows may trace back to a single farm. In fact, the confirmed positives in Idaho, Michigan, Ohio and now North Carolina are on premises where cattle had previously been brought in from Texas.

“The virus appears to replicate in mammary tissue, so those cattle that are not lactating do not have a high viral load for transmitting the virus,” noted Dr. Luley in the CDE call.

According to the epidemiologic data released by USDA, she said, the early cases, especially in Texas, New Mexico, and Kansas, show that HPAI was predominantly introduced by wild birds.

“For a few other detections, including in Michigan and Ohio, the main source seems to be the movement of animals from other states,” said Luley.

To prevent spread to dairy cattle in the Keystone State, the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture issued an Interstate and International Quarantine Order on April 6 for the restriction of movement and pre-movement influenza testing of dairy cattle from states where HPAI has been detected in dairy cattle.

When asked how the Pennsylvania Order compares to what other states are doing, Dr. Luley said “ours is the most stringent. The goal is preventing the spread of this condition into our state — to proactively protect the animals in our state to the best of our ability.”

In short, the Pennsylvania Order applies to dairy cattle, not beef cattle. It restricts all movement of dairy cattle into the state for any reason from farms where HPAI has been detected.

Furthermore, dairy cattle coming into Pennsylvania for sale or show, must do pre-movement testing if they come from a non-affected farm in a state where HPAI has been detected. Those states to-date are Texas, Kansas, New Mexico, Idaho, Michigan, Ohio, and now North Carolina and South Dakota (updated by APHIS April 11).

The USDA APHIS website is updated daily and includes a map showing the states of HPAI detection in dairy herds at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock

This should be consulted before movement of cattle from other states into Pennsylvania, to be sure the appropriate restrictions and pre-movement testing are applied.

Dairy cull cows from any state with a positive case, even if coming from a non-affected farm, that are destined for Pennsylvania slaughter facilities, are not subject to pre-movement testing if the animals are slaughtered within 72 hours of entry. However, they must go directly to a slaughter plant and cannot be commingled with other cattle at an auction center.

Calves under one year of age are considered low risk and are exempt from pre-movement testing at this time.

Pre-movement testing must be done through a laboratory in the national network, and the results must accompany the shipment. Acceptable test samples for non-lactating dairy cattle, such as bred heifers, are nasal swabs; however, the only acceptable test sample for a lactating animal is a milk sample. Again, this is because the mammary system is where HPAI viral replication is being seen.

“At present, the disease has not been shown to affect beef animals,” said Luley about why the Order is written only for dairy cattle.

She gave examples of how the Order is being implemented:

If a producer wants to import a group of bred heifers from Texas, and they come from a farm that had a confirmed positive, those heifers would not be allowed to come to Pennsylvania. If they come from a non-infected herd in Texas, they would need pre-movement testing with the farm’s veterinarian overseeing the sampling and the analysis done by a national network lab.

If a producer in Ohio wanted to move cull dairy cows directly to a slaughter facility in Pennsylvania, if they are coming from a currently unaffected farm in that state, no testing would be required. But, if they are from an affected farm in that state, those cull cows would not be permitted to come to a Pennsylvania slaughter facility.

If a producer from Virginia, where there have been no detections of HPAI, wanted to ship fresh heifers to Pennsylvania, there would be no requirement to test because no infection has been detected to-date in that state, so there is no movement restriction and no pre-movement testing requirement.

There are no quarantine orders on milk movement at this time; however, this would change if HPAI were detected anywhere in Pennsylvania. If that occurs, the state would enact its “Temporary Order Designating Dangerous Transmissible Diseases” provision, now amended to include “Influenza A Viruses in Ruminants.”

In such a scenario, a quarantine would be set up for an affected farm to work with animal health officials and their veterinarian to show appropriate biosecurity measures to qualify for a 30-day milk movement permit. With that permit, their milk could go only to a processing plant.

“The viral sequencing matches the circulating strains in the (migratory bird) flyways,” said Luley. “We can impose a quarantine, but we can’t apply it to migratory waterfowl, so that risk remains, and it is the reason why biosecurity is our best tool.”

USDA Wildlife Service biologists Tom Roland and Kyle Van Why said their winter surveillance of migratory waterfowl and raptors in the Susquehanna watershed, for example, shows the virus is here in these populations, but at lower numbers than last year.

Even though starlings and pigeons are not good transmitters of the disease, they do carry it, and the numbers of these birds are high, so they bear watching.

Roland said that with restrictions on how to handle migratory birds, including resident Canadian geese and vultures, farmers should contact the national hotline at 1.866.487.3297 to work with the Wildlife Service for case-by-case strategies to manage and mitigate bird use of the farm. They have tools that are not generally accessible.

Dr. Hayley Springer, Penn State extension veterinarian, said opportunities are available to help dairy farms build their own biosecurity plans. In-person open houses are being held across the state at county extension offices, check with yours.

“Everyday biosecurity is the first line of defense, and effective for Influenza A,” said Springer. Biosecurity Kits to assist are available from CDE.

According to Dr. Luley, one dairy farm in Pennsylvania reported signs that met the case definition closely enough to undergo the HPAI testing protocol, which thankfully turned out to be negative.

Dairy farmers seeing signs in their herd should contact their veterinarian. Clinical signs of HPAI in cattle, which the American Association of Bovine Practitioners this week announced it will rename as Bovine Influenza A, include:

1) a sudden drop in feed intake with concurrent decreased rumination and rumen motility;

2) a subsequent marked drop in herd level milk production with more severely affected cows having thickened milk that almost appears like colostrum or may have essentially no milk at all; and

3) changes in manure, especially tacky to dry manure.

Visit https://www.centerfordairyexcellence.org/hpai-industry-call/ for recordings and other valuable information.

Read Farmshine at farmshine.net for continuing coverage and previous articles April 5 and March 29

‘Bird flu’ expands to 13 dairy herds in 6 states

Posted on by
1

CDC confirms one worker in Texas recovered with mild symptoms; Cow-to-cow transmission ‘cannot be ruled out’, biosecurity paramount

By Sherry Bunting, for Farmshine’s April 5, 2024 edition

WASHINGTON — Detections of highly pathogenic avian influenza in dairy cows — HPAI A(H5N1) — have expanded to 13 herds in 6 states as of Wednesday, April 3: Texas (7), Kansas (2), Michigan (1), New Mexico (1), Idaho (1), and Ohio (1).

Some states, including but not limited to Nebraska, Idaho and Utah have begun issuing import permit requirements for cattle and/or restrictions on non-terminal and/or breeding cattle coming from specific areas. These instructions are available from state authorities, not USDA APHIS.

USDA’s APHIS has a new landing page for daily updates and other resources at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-poultry-disease/avian/avian-influenza/hpai-detections/livestock 

In addition, the CDC reported April 1 that a worker on a Texas Panhandle dairy, where HPAI was detected, has tested positive with mild flu symptoms, mainly conjunctivitis (pinkeye), and has recovered. The only other human case in the U.S. was a poultry farm worker in Colorado in 2022.

CDC ‘current situation’ screen capture April 3, 2024 at 4:30 pm ET

According to the CDC, their “human health risk assessment for the general public remains low. There continues to be no concern that this circumstance poses a risk to consumer health, or that it affects the safety of the commercial milk supply because products are pasteurized before entering the market,” and milk from infected animals is to be discarded.

New detections of the virus have not changed the primary belief that HPAI A(H5N1) is ‘seeded’ by migratory wild birds (emphasis on waterfowl and by association, vultures).

Cow-to-cow transmission questioned

Complicating the question of potential cow-to-cow transmission, it was reported that the two confirmed herds in Idaho and Michigan had recently received cattle from other states where HPAI A(H5N1) was detected.

APHIS officials stated on March 29 that, “Spread of symptoms among the Michigan herd also indicates that HPAI transmission between cattle cannot be ruled out; USDA and partners continue to monitor this closely and have advised veterinarians and producers to practice good biosecurity.”

During the April 3 Center for Dairy Excellence (CDE) industry call attended virtually by 189 people – the first such call to occur weekly on Wednesdays at Noon – the Pennsylvania State Veterinarian Dr. Alex Hamberg was asked: How is it being transferred?

Just minutes before the call, Dr. Hamberg had received word that a western Ohio dairy herd had tested positive, which he said “is a little too close for comfort.”

Still, his overall calm and practical demeanor comes from having dealt with Pennsylvania’s poultry industry that is well-acquainted with avian influenza at times through history since the early 1990s, and most recently in 2022-23.

“We’re operating under the bird-to-cow, largely waterfowl, migrating ducks and geese, and focusing on using biosecurity measures to keep them away from cattle,” said Dr. Hamberg. “They excrete virus in large amounts.”

He talked about the poultry farm pattern in Pennsylvania in 2022-23, which also suggests wild bird to farm transmission vs. farm-to-farm spread.

“There is some evidence that could suggest this could be cattle-to-cattle, but this would be novel and relatively new to the world,” said Hamberg, airing his doubts. “As we build a better picture of what it looks like and how it moves through a population, we can do more to protect our cattle. Either way, brush up your biosecurity plans.”

On transfer to people, Hamberg said: “What we know with this virus – as seen in birds – it can infect people, but rarely. Several dozen have been infected worldwide (over time), but what we don’t see is person-to-person transmission or concern for consumers.”

He noted that the Texas dairy employee confirmed positive this week makes two farm workers in history: “one from cattle and one from poultry.”

Wild waterfowl still the focus

The investigation so far has looked at a wide variety of data and didn’t find any common links, other than wild migratory waterfowl, said Dr. Hamberg, and it’s the same strain of the virus in these waterfowl in the Pacific and Central Flyways.

He also noted that the poultry industry’s experience has been that songbirds and starlings “are not effective transmitters. We’re focused on waterfowl.”

Dr. Hamberg advised:

1)  Keep a close eye on your cattle,

2) Ramp up your biosecurity,

3) Keep wild waterfowl away from ponds and standing water,

4) Keep cattle fenced off from water where wild waterfowl congregate,

5) Keep outdoor waterers clean and free of wild waterfowl,

6) Clean up roadkill and manage mortalities.

Penn State extension veterinarian Dr. Hayley Springer also mentioned roping off areas where wild bird feces proliferate to keep tractors from running through it between feed commodities and barn entry.

“There is no definitive evidence that this can move from cow to farm birds or vice versa, but still work on biosecurity to keep those populations separate on the farm,” said Hamberg. “If we get a case in cattle in Pennsylvania, we would quarantine that farm, with a minimum set of standards to ensure movement on and off farm does not cause increased risk to other farms in the community.”

For example, a quarantine may mean milk off farm might be permitted to go to a specific plant following specific biosecurity restrictions such as last stop on a run for the milk truck or feed truck – things of that nature. A quarantine would permit milk off the farm only for pasteurization. Such permits would be case by case IF a dairy herd in Pennsylvania would have detected HPAI A(H5N1).

Bottomline, said Hamberg, this virus deemed to be affecting cows is “remarkably unremarkable, and there is no evidence that it has become mammalian-adaptive,” he said. “Usually when we see spillover events, the transmission between animals tends to be very poor. There is no specific mutation identified in this strain to be mammalian adapted, and it is still unclear what that looks like going forward.”

Hamberg said department guidelines for cattle movement and biosecurity would be forthcoming for Pennsylvania and to find them at www.centerfordairyexcellence.com along with other resources, including advice from Dr. Hayley Springer, who gave practical tips for minimizing waterfowl risk on dairy farms.

Two days earlier, in the April 1 webinar put on by NMPF and attended virtually by around 1000 people, veterinarians noted that while HPAI is believed to be introduced by migratory wild birds, veterinarians do not yet understand the mode by which it entered dairy cattle systems for the first time in history, nor do they know how it may or may not be transferred between cows. (Listen to NMPF’s Jamie Jonkers who moderated the webinar discuss it on a podcast March 28.)

Investigations look for multiple ‘pathways’

It’s important to note that veterinarians are operating off the premise that they want to understand the entirety of the situation to be sure other pathways are not involved in the underlying illness in dairy cows causing decreased lactation, low appetite, and other clinical signs.

Toward that end, federal and state agencies continue to conduct additional testing in swabs from sick animals and in unpasteurized clinical milk samples from sick animals, as well as viral genome sequencing, to assess whether HPAI or another unrelated disease may be underlying any symptoms.

Dr. Mark Lyons, National Incident Health Coordination Director at USDA’s Ruminant Health Center, noted on the NMPF webinar that while HPAI A(H5N1) has been detected through the sampling, he suggested that it might not be the only disease or factor at play.

“I don’t think we have a clear picture to say that HPAI is causing the illness we’re seeing displayed in these cattle. I think there’s still a chance that we might be seeing multiple different pathways playing out,” said Lyons, adding that additional sampling needs to be done with the expertise of producers, industry persons, and veterinarians.

Because lateral transmission has been recognized, but the mode of transmission is unknown, biosecurity measures are the most proactive approach producers and industry personnel should be focusing on to protect herds, said Lyons.

When asked if the disease is being found in non-lactating animals, Lyons said that he was unsure of how much testing, if any, had been done on non-lactating cattle because it has been lactating animals that have exhibited clinical signs. 

On movement and biosecurity

While Dr. Lyons said USDA has no plans to ban or restrict cattle movement at this time, it is recommended to limit movements as much as possible and to test any animals destined for movement to be sure they are clear of HPAI at the time of movement. Animals moved should be quarantined.

USDA and its partners are now advising veterinarians and producers to:

1) Practice good biosecurity,

2) Test animals before necessary movements,

3) Minimize animal movements, and

4) Isolate sick (and new) cattle from the herd.

In the NMPF webinar, veterinarians said the focus of biosecurity should be protecting the dairy, preventing exposure to cattle and calves, and precautions for caretakers and veterinarians, including:

1) Manage birds and wildlife on the dairy,

2) Delay or stop movement of animals,

3) Quarantine animals for 21 days because the incubation period is unknown, 

4) Clean and disinfect trailers and equipment,

5) Delay or stop non-essential visitors,

6) Those who do come into the operation should wash hands, change clothes, clean boots, or use disposable boots,

7) Any equipment coming onto the farm should be disinfected before entering,

8) In “abundance of caution”, on farms where HPAI A(H5N1) has been confirmed or is suspected, milk intended to be fed to calves or other livestock (including pets) should be pasteurized or otherwise heat-treated,

9) The recommendation for caretakers and veterinarians working with confirmed or suspected animals is to wear gloves, N95 masks, eye protection and monitor themselves for respiratory or flu-like symptoms.

When asked about the safety of infected cows destined to be culled, Dr. Lyons said cows exhibiting signs should not be sent to slaughter. He noted that, “in an abundance of caution,” milk samples should be used to screen animals from affected herds before moving a cow to slaughter, whether or not signs are being shown.

With the strength of the federal meat inspection process, “we have no reason to believe the meat would be unsafe, and we have not found any virus presence in meat tissue. But, out of extreme caution, we want to do testing or limits. There are already parameters and buffers in place not to send sick animals into the slaughter system,” said Lyons. 

Experiences on affected dairies

APHIS reports that affected animals have recovered after isolation with little to no associated mortality reported.

Dr. Brandon Treichler, quality control veterinarian for Select Milk Producers has witnessed infected herds and has been in contact with others dealing with the disease firsthand. During the NMPF webinar, he shared the signs and symptoms of what they have experienced.

Initial signs are consistent among all the herds. Farms that have the monitoring capability to test conductivity in overall milk will see a spike because of the immune response occurring, he said.

Initially cows rapidly go off feed, stop ruminating or stop showing signs of chewing their cud, and their milk production is suddenly gone, he explained, noting that what milk they do have is thick and resembles colostrum. Not all four quarters are always affected this way, which is a curious finding in how the disease presents.

Other symptoms vary. Some cows have firm, “tacky” manure, which could be a secondary issue from dehydration or cows not being able to regulate fluid. Other cows exhibit systems of diarrhea. Various respiratory symptoms have been reported with the most common being clear nasal discharge and increased respiratory rate. Fevers have been reported in some herds while others have not. 

Secondary infections are also coming in behind the original HPAI A(H5N1), perhaps accounting for variability in reported symptoms.

Most severe cases are shown in older and mid-lactation cows, with some severe cases happening in first lactation or in fresh cows. There has been very little evidence of it impacting dry cows or young stock.

“That’s not to say they aren’t being affected, but the most obvious signs are decreased rumination and loss of milk production, so the signs might not be observed in non-lactating animals,” said Treichler.

This could also be why it doesn’t seem to be affecting beef animals whether cow/calf or feedlot. “It’s not to say they aren’t being affected at all, but it’s hard to see these severe cases in these (non-lactating) groups,” he said. 

“When people are talking about the 10-20% of the herd involved they’re talking about these severe cases. My personal clinical impression is that much of the lactating herd is impacted by this because when you look at things like rumination and milk production, they’re down overall on a herd level,” said Treichler. “At some point most of the cows in the herd are being impacted by this, so you’ll have mostly subclinical cows.” 

The reported production loss estimates range from 4 to 20 pounds/cow/day to 10 to 30 pounds/cow/day.

The worst of the cases appear to be within the first week of the outbreak. Affected cows begin to go back on feed within a few days, and herds go back to pre-infection milk production and SCC levels within a month of the initial outbreak. Some cows will recover, but there are some that will not recover, especially if secondary infections follow.

While cows might show clinical signs of mastitis or abnormal milk, it is not a mastitis pathogen that can be treated traditionally. It does not respond to antibiotics.

Additionally, abortions are being observed in herds that have been through the process, probably not due to the virus, but most likely from high fever in the immune response or metabolic stress that the cows went through. Future fertility or cyclicity problems could be expected. 

“Please don’t hesitate to report to your veterinarian. I know it’s scary, but it will help the whole industry if we can find out about it and learn from each case,” said Treichler.

Responding to a question about what treatment plans are working for sick cows, Dr. Treichler said supportive care includes keeping them hydrated and treating any obvious symptoms from secondary issues, and treating for fever if there is fever.

There is much yet to learn in this rapidly evolving situation. Biosecurity efforts are the best course to follow as more testing and epidemiological study is underway to understand all that is a part of it.

This story follows Farmshine’s coverage in the March 29 edition

-30-

‘Bird Flu’ deemed culprit in dairy cow ‘mystery illness,’ migratory wild birds blamed

Posted on by
2

Texas detections point to wild migratory birds as source; Public risk remains low; Cows exhibit low appetite, reduced rumination, sharply reduced milk production

Symptoms of what officials are saying are the first ever detections of bird flu in dairy cows include a sharp drop in milk production, reduced appetite, reduced rumination, and colostrum-like milk appearance. As the investigation continues in the Texas Panhandle region, incl. Kansas and New Mexico, dairy producers are implementing advanced biosecurity measures. Texas Ag Commissioner Sid Miller cited “ongoing economic impacts to facilities as herds that are greatly impacted may lose up to 40% of their milk production for 7 to 10 days until symptoms subside. There is no threat to the public,” he said. S. Bunting file photo

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, March 29, 2024 (updated since print edition went to press)

WASHINGTON – Federal and state officials confirmed this week that highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), otherwise known as bird flu, has been detected and deemed the culprit in the mystery illness “among primarily older (mid-lactation) dairy cows in Texas, Kansas, and New Mexico that is causing decreased lactation, low appetite, and other symptoms.” 

USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) believes “wild migratory birds to be the source of infection as viral testing and epidemiological efforts continue.”

In an email exchange with the APHIS press office on Wed., March 27, Farmshine asked if cow-to-cow transmission has been ruled out at this juncture.

They could not answer directly, but on background, gave this response that mirrored a portion of the March 25 APHIS press release: 

“The testing from Texas shows consistency with the strain seen in wild birds. As the release shared, based on the findings, the detections in Texas appear to have been introduced by wild birds. Federal and state agencies are moving quickly to conduct additional testing for HPAI, as well as viral genome sequencing, so that we can better understand the situation, including characterization of the HPAI strain or strains associated with these detections.”

The answer appears to be that cow-to-cow transmission is not suspected as birds are the vector in what APHIS describes as a “rapidly evolving situation” and one in which they are continuing to investigate, working closely with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as state veterinary and public health officials.

Furthermore, if migratory wild birds are the source, then this could be a seasonal anomaly that may shift or dissipate soon.

Word spread quickly on Monday, March 25 as public announcements from federal and state agencies and industry organizations were released in rapid, near simultaneous succession within minutes of the USDA APHIS press release announcing that, “Unpasteurized, clinical samples of milk from sick cattle collected from two dairy farms in Kansas and one in Texas, as well as an oropharyngeal swab from another dairy in Texas have all tested positive for HPAI. Additional testing was initiated on Friday, March 22, and over the weekend, because farms have also reported finding deceased wild birds on their properties.”

Preliminary testing by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories further confirmed that, “No changes to the virus have been found that would make it more transmissible to humans, which would indicate that the current risk to the public remains low.”

Announcements from all corners of health and industry conveyed this main message: “At this stage, there is no concern about the safety of the commercial milk supply or that this circumstance poses a risk to consumer health. The commercial milk supply remains safe due to both federal animal health requirements and pasteurization.”

Bird flu (avian influenza) is a disease caused by a family of flu viruses primarily transmitted among birds.

According to USDA, there are two classifications, and the ‘high’ or ‘low’ pathogenic acronyms are based on the genetic sequence and the severity of disease caused in poultry: HPAI (high pathogenic, meaning it causes severe disease in poultry), which is found mostly in domestic poultry and LPAI (low pathogenic, meaning it causes no signs or few signs of disease in poultry), which is often seen in wild birds.

“It is too soon to predict if all of the recent reports of unexplained illnesses in dairy cattle in the U.S. are due to HPAI. Veterinarians and the dairy industry are working collaboratively with state and federal officials during the ongoing investigation,” noted the American Association of Bovine Practitioners in a March 25 press release

AABP reports that HPAI (H5N1) is most commonly found in birds and poultry with wild waterfowl as known carriers. According to the USDA, 48 states have had cases of HPAI in poultry and wild birds since the outbreak began in 2022. Over 82 million birds have been affected. There have also been reports of over 200 mammals diagnosed with the virus.

The samples from Texas and Kansas are the first confirmed detections of HPAI (H5N1) in cattle anywhere in the U.S. and only the second mammalian detection in Texas, the first being a skunk. 

This marks the second detection in a ruminant animal in the U.S. The first was just a week prior, when HPAI was detected in a goat on a Minnesota farm where chickens and ducks had been quarantined for previous HPAI detection.

In a March 26 American Veterinary Medical Association newsletter, Dr. Brian Hoefs, Minnesota state veterinarian, noted that, “Thankfully, research to-date has shown mammals appear to be dead-end hosts, which means they’re unlikely to spread HPAI further.”

“Mammals, including cows, do not spread avian influenza — it requires birds as the vector of transmission, and it’s extremely rare for the virus to affect humans because most people will never have direct and prolonged contact with an infected bird, especially on a dairy farm,” a joint dairy industry statement by National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF), International Dairy Foods Association (IDFA), Dairy Management Inc (DMI), and U.S. Dairy Export Council (USDEC) reported on March 25. 

Since early 2022, when HPAI was first confirmed in wild waterfowl in the Atlantic flyways and the first domestic poultry flocks were affected, APHIS has been tracking wild mammal detections in the U.S. The list includes skunks, racoon, red and gray fox, coyote, several types of bears, mountain lions, bobcats, fishers, opossums, martens, and harbor seals – all having in common their known contact with wild waterfowl and/or domestic poultry and/or their eggs. 

The APHIS webpage devoted to avian influenza notes that, “Wild birds can be infected with HPAI and still show no signs of illness. They can carry the disease to new areas when migrating, potentially exposing domestic poultry to the virus.”

This is why APHIS conducts a wild bird surveillance program to provide early warning system for the introduction and distribution of avian influenza viruses of concern in the U.S., allowing APHIS and the poultry industry to take timely and rapid action to reduce the risk of spread to the poultry industry and other populations of concern.

For the U.S. poultry industry, HPAI detection in domestic flocks means implementing response programs for flock depopulation and geographic quarantine to prevent the spread because of the high mortality rate in domestic poultry and bird-to-bird transmission within a production setting. According to USDA, approximately 58 million birds were killed in such depopulations in the U.S. last year.

The current detection in cattle is different because there is no confirmation of cow-to-cow transmission, and according to AABP, “there have been no confirmed deaths in cattle due to this disease. Cattle appear to recover in two to three weeks with supportive care.”

“Unlike affected poultry, I foresee there will be no need to depopulate dairy herds. Cattle are expected to fully recover,” said Texas Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller in a press statement March 25, noting that the Texas dairy industry contributes roughly $50 billion in state economic activity, ranking 4th in milk production nationwide in 2023, moving up to 3rd since the start of 2024.

Assuring consumers of rigorous safety measures already in place and soothing concerns about potential milk supply shortages, Commissioner Miller highlighted pasteurization and milk diversion protocols and the “limited number of affected herds.”

The required dumping of abnormal-appearing milk or milk from sick cows, as well as pasteurization as a fail-safe inactivation of bacterial and viral agents were stressed in the variety of press releases as normal public health safeguards already in place.

“There is no threat to the public, and there will be no supply shortages,” assured Commissioner Miller. “No contaminated milk is known to have entered the food chain; it has all been dumped. In the rare event that some affected milk enters the food chain, the pasteurization process will kill the virus.”

He also noted that, “Cattle impacted by HPAI exhibit flu-like symptoms including fever and a sharp reduction in milk production averaging between 10-30 pounds per cow throughout the herd.”

“On average about 10% of each affected herd appears to be impacted, with little to no associated mortality reported among the animals,” the USDA APHIS report stated, with declines in milk production described as “too limited to impact the supply and price of milk and dairy products.”

Yet in an AABP webinar March 22, before the HPAI strain was confirmed in the Texas and Kansas samples, the findings of veterinarians involved early-on over the past four to six weeks were described, and presenters were asked about the numbers of affected dairy cattle.

An effort is underway “to count them up, but the number is significant, and I’ll leave it at that,” said Dr. Brandon Treichler, DVM, who was joined by Dr. Alexis Thompson with Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory (TVMDL) in presenting AABP webinar information.

Treichler hails from a family dairy farm in eastern Pennsylvania and serves as a quality control veterinarian, primarily working with large dairies in West Texas and eastern New Mexico. He is active with AABP and National Mastitis Council.

Previously mentioned are the higher rates of culling in herds where an economic decision is made about affected cattle in mid-lactation, when their production is not regained after recovering to health.

Dr. Treichler talked about practitioner findings as “inclusion criteria,” and mentioned some herd to herd variations as well.

“The most consistent factors seen across herds include a decreased feed intake in the herd and at the same time less rumination… These cows are being sorted for us for changes in the milk, and (the facilities that have) conductivity available will see conductivity spike on a large number of cows, and then decreasing milk production across the herd, with individual cows seemingly more severely affected, going from a high production cow to dry or very nearly dry, very quickly. Some of those cows appear to have colostrum-like milk that is either thickened, or thickened with some discoloration,” he said.

According to Treichler, manure among the more severely affected cows is reported to range from dry or tacky to some diarrhea. Other signs that vary include fever, which is potentially attributable to the impact on the immune system from the metabolic disruption of being off-feed with reduced rumination.

In his March 25 press statement, Texas Ag Commissioner Miller cited “ongoing economic impacts to facilities as herds that are greatly impacted may lose up to 40% of their milk production for 7 to 10 days until symptoms subside. It is vital that dairy facilities nationwide practice heightened biosecurity measures to mitigate further spread.”

He advised dairies in the region “to use all standard biosecurity measures, including restricting access to essential personnel only, disinfecting all vehicles entering and leaving premises, isolating affected cattle, and destroying all contaminated milk. Additionally, it is important to clean and disinfect all livestock watering devices and isolate drinking water where it might be contaminated by waterfowl.”

No affected beef cattle have been reported, only older primarily mid-lactation dairy cows. This is interesting, considering the fact that the number of cattle on feed — mostly in open lots similar to drylot dairies that are prevalent in the Panhandle region of the No. 1 cattle feeding state of Texas and No. 3 Kansas – far outweigh milk cow numbers by 5 to 1.

The region’s milk cows are most concentrated in and around the Panhandle of the No. 3 dairy state of Texas, No. 9 New Mexico and No. 17 Kansas portions of the Central Flyway for ‘migratory wild birds.’

Also within this zone are the country’s 5th and 14th largest poultry states of Texas and Oklahoma, respectively, totaling a combined nearly 1 billion head of poultry.

Farmshine asked APHIS and the Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) about the status of beef cattle monitoring, to which a TAHC spokesperson responded by email noting: “TAHC and Texas A&M TVMDL have, and continue to ask for, samples from affected and unaffected dairies to gather the full scope of the situation. The feedlot and beef cattle industry are monitoring and doing similar surveillance among their producers that many dairy operations have been conducting — not specifically screening, necessarily, but many are watching for clinical signs of illness that they can identify in the operation and keeping a close eye for abnormal health events among their herds.”

On other questions about whether there are any differences or commonalities in terms of external contributing factors among affected herds, the TAHC spokesperson stated “No dairy specific information could be provided related to type of facilities or other factors where HPAI was detected.”

Dairy industry organization statements point to the National Dairy Producer FARM Program (NDPFP) as the go-to for specific biosecurity, reporting, and recordkeeping measures that are urged on all U.S. dairy farms, including much emphasis being given to the safeguard of milk pasteurization.

“Dairy farmers have begun implementing enhanced biosecurity protocols on their farms, limiting the amount of traffic into and out of their properties and restricting visits to employees and essential personnel,” the NMPF-IDFA-DMI-USDEC joint statement noted.

They cite biosecurity resources, including reference manuals, prep guides, herd health plan protocol templates, animal movement logs, and people entry logs that dairies can use “to keep their cattle and dairy businesses safe.”

USDA APHIS encourages farmers and veterinarians, nationwide, to report cattle illnesses quickly so they can “monitor potential additional cases and minimize the impact to farmers, consumers and other animals.”

Industry announcements urge dairy farmers to immediately contact their veterinarians if they observe clinical signs in their herds that are consistent with this outbreak, such as a significant loss of animal appetite and rumination or an acute drop in milk production.

In turn, veterinarians who observe these clinical signs and have ruled out other diagnoses on a client’s farm should contact the state veterinarian and plan to submit a complete set of samples to be tested at a diagnostic laboratory.

Animals may also be reported to the APHIS toll-free number at 1-866-536-7593.

In Pennsylvania, where HPAI depopulations and quarantines have occurred over the past two years in the poultry industry, there have been no reported cattle affected. However, the state is monitoring the situation, and the Center for Dairy Excellence is conducting a conference call by zoom and telephone at Noon EDT on Wed., April 3 for dairy producers and dairy industry service providers, featuring state veterinarian Dr. Alex Hamberg and Penn State extension vet Dr. Hayley Springer.

-30-

Investigation underway on emerging dairy cattle illness in Texas Panhandle

Posted on by
1

Here’s what we knew as of March 22, 2024

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, March 22, 2024

AMARILLO, Tex. — The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) and USDA — in coordination with industry and veterinary medical partners — are investigating emerging cases of illness in mid-lactation dairy cows in the Texas Panhandle of as-yet undetermined cause and transmission. 

The TAHC circulated a letter March 16 to veterinarians and dairy producers concerning the emerging animal health situation in dairy cattle that is at this point limited to an undetermined number of dairies in the Texas Panhandle. No reported cases outside of the Texas Panhandle are confirmed at this time. 

A TAHC spokesperson told Farmshine Tuesday in a phone interview (March 19) they are not ready to put out a media statement, but in the interest of full transparency, would brief on what is known and being done at this time. 

“We are aware of an animal health situation affecting dairy cattle and are working with USDA and Texas A&M with Dr. Alexis Thompson at the Diagnostic Lab — and with dairy veterinarians, the industry, and other partners — to coordinate an efficient plan to monitor and evaluate affected cattle, and to develop a case definition and conduct additional diagnostics,” the TAHC spokesperson said.

In response to questions, she noted that the Texas State Veterinarian is in contact with counterparts in other states as part of this coordinated effort.

“Right now, our main message is for dairies to conduct standard biosecurity measures, and if they have enhanced biosecurity plans in place, now is a good time to implement those,” the TAHC spokesperson said. She could not say how many herds or what percentage of those herds are affected.

According to the TAHC letter to veterinarians and dairy producers, the clinical signs include decreased herd level milk production; a sudden drop in production with some severely impacted cows experiencing changes in milk appearance (thicker, concentrated, colostrum-like). Affected cows also experience a decline in feed consumption with a simultaneous drop in rumen motility, abnormal tacky or loose feces, and some fever.

“Impacted herds have reported older cows in mid-lactation may be more likely to be severely impacted than younger cows and fresh cows or heifers. Dry cows and heifers do not appear to be affected,” the letter stated. 

The TAHC spokesperson did confirm that death loss from this condition is low.

In other industry correspondence, Farmshine has learned that while cattle recover, not all affected cattle recover their milk production, which has led to some increased culling in the face of high feed costs and high prices paid for market cows for beef. 

Even though this is an emerging situation, not a regulated disease, the TAHC spokesperson observed: “There are no milk and meat concerns at this time,” due to both the Pasteurized Milk Ordinance (PMO) and the Federal Meat Inspection Act that together ensure safe and wholesome milk and meat products enter the food chain.

The PMO dictates best practice to divert from the saleable milk supply any milk that is abnormal in appearance. 

Additionally, the Federal Meat Inspection Act requires ante- and post-mortem examination of every animal presented for slaughter. 

The TAHC encourages veterinary practitioners to report affected animals, by calling Dr. Alexis Thompson with Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory (TVMDL) (806.651.7478) concerning questions related to case-specific diagnostic plans. Dr. Thompson can provide specific guidance on sample collection as data-driven diagnostics are key to evaluation and understanding transmission and prevention.

As this work is being done, dairy producers are advised to review biosecurity protocols for their farms, take note of declines in production, appetite and rumination, and contact their veterinarians if such are noted.

(Author’s note: The Texas Animal Health Commission, USDA, TVMDL, industry, and veterinary medical practitioners are working on this as they are committed to animal health and well being as well as food safety — and while this is happening, systems are already in place that make the U.S. food supply the safest in the world.)

To be continued

-30-

Seeds of doubt being sown, Part III: Will it reduce butterfat supply and impact industry’s cheese-focused future?

Posted on by
Reply

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, March 1, 2024

EAST EARL, Pa. — As seeds of doubt are being sown internally within the dairy industry about whole milk in schools, we have discussed Confusion (will it help milk prices?) and Consternation (unfounded fear about what will processors do with ‘all that skim?’)

This week, we look at the third of the 5 C’s.

‘Competition’: If schoolchildren are offered whole milk, will it significantly impact butterfat supplies, raise butter prices, and compete with the industry’s cheap milk cheese-focused future?

Every winter conference for the past few years has had at least one speaker telling dairy farmers that fluid milk sales are declining because Americans are eating more of their milk instead of drinking it. 

Fair enough. Cheese is the future, and the industry wants to make more of it. Lots more of it. So much more cheese, in fact, that inventory is growing. Analysts at conferences put up slides with the words “Export or perish!” in large font. 

Yes, U.S. Dairy wants to export more cheese, including mozzarella. U.S. Dairy wants to export more butter and cream products. U.S. Dairy wants to export more of the higher-value products. (And we want to sell more cream to the upscale coffee houses and downscale McCafe drinks we adults get to choose while junior sips a paltry half-pint of fat-free chocolate milk, sugar water, in the back seat. What’s wrong with us?)

This map shows the over $7 billion in new processing coming online between now and 2026. “There’s a lot of cheese on this map,” said IDFA CEO Michael Dykes, presenting at the Georgia Dairy Conference. This slide has also been popping up in other industry conference speaker powerpoint decks this meeting season. IDFA data

The industry also wants to take milk down to its molecular level – to turn the jug of milk into ingredients at the start — to make new function-targeted products for the beverage space outside of Class I parameters within an increasingly Class III dominated processing infrastructure.

Toward that end, new processing capacity won’t convert milk to traditional products, leaving elements to be marketed as ingredients. Instead, these new state-of-the-art cheese and ingredient plants start by taking milk apart to the ingredients-level to be used in making health beverages, bars, and other products, as well as to make cheese. 

At the Georgia Dairy Conference in January, IDFA CEO Michael Dykes mentioned IDFA’s support for the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, giving attendees a QR code to weigh-in with their Senators. 

Later in his presentation, he noted that a shift to more fat in school milk would make a 3% impact on the butter supply.

“I’m a believer that the markets work, when you take it one place, you make a difference and change it someplace else. Those are the things we can work through,” said Dykes.

So, we reached out to Calvin Covington, a former cooperative CEO who is intimately familiar with component pricing as it became part of the Federal Milk Marketing Order (FMMO) system over 20 years ago. We asked his thoughts on how increasing fat in the school milk supply would impact butter. 

“Increased Cheddar cheese production has used millions and millions of pounds of butterfat. No one complains about this. Doesn’t the dairy industry want to increase demand for all milk components?” he replied and sent forth his own calculations, providing a spreadsheet showing his estimates of milk used in schools and the additional fat that would be needed for all of that milk to go completely to 3.25% (whole) milk.

Covington ran the numbers, moving methodically through assumptions on Table 1 to conclude the impact of shifting from a school milk fat percentage of 0.5% (half fat-free and half 1%) all the way to 3.25% (whole milk) would have a small impact on the butterfat supply — raising the school milk’s usage of butterfat from 0.25% of total butterfat production at the current national average fat test of 4.11% to being 1.47% of total butterfat production at the average 4.11% fat test.

Using the identified assumptions, Table 1 shows estimates on school milk volume and use of butterfat under today’s fat-free and 1% low-fat milk requirement compared with a scenario in which all school milk pounds were at 3.25% fat as standardized whole milk. Provided by Calvin Covington

He estimates public schools use 9.72% of all fluid milk, and for the purpose of the spreadsheet exercise, he assumed that half of those school milk sales are currently fat-free and half are 1%. If that is the case, then going to 3.25% (whole) milk for all pounds of school milk sales, the additional fat that would be needed is almost 114 million pounds, he reports.

“This should be a non-issue,” Covington concludes, using estimates that are based on all of those school milk pounds moving to 3.25% fat. 

The more likely scenario, however, is that schools would implement a more gradual increase in fat percentage. If it mirrored the national average for fluid milk sales at 2% fat, the increase would be smaller initially. Using Covington’s chart and assumptions, the additional fat that would be needed if school milk fat content averaged 2% is closer to 84 million pounds, going from using 0.25% of total fat production to 0.9% of total fat production.

Not all schools will choose to offer all milk at 3.25%. Some may offer 2% milk, which has also been banned since 2010 and would be given regulatory relief under the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act. 

Even if 3.25% fat milk is universally offered, some schoolchildren will continue to choose low-fat milk, as they did in the Pennsylvania trial, where the preference was 3 to 1 for whole 3.25% over low-fat 1%.

While a potentially higher fat content in school milk is being scrutinized for its impact on butter and butterfat, the impact of aggressive increases in cheese production is ignored. This speaks a bit to industry priorities.

“As butter and cheese consumption increase, processors do not argue against the increase because utilizing more fat would increase the fat price,” Covington observes, wondering why anyone would be concerned about the impact on butterfat supply if children get to choose whole milk while not being concerned about the impact on butterfat supply in any other sector.

“An increase in fluid milk sales, in schools, or anywhere, benefits all dairy farmers. With all things being equal, it would shift milk from Class III and IV to Class I, which is a (normally) higher milk price,” Covington explains. “If Class III or IV need more milk to replace the loss to Class I, more money would need to be paid by Class III and IV milk buyers, again, helping dairy farmers.”

So, what is the current status of butterfat production and usage? 

The national butterfat average is 4.11%. A decade ago, it was 3.69. From 2011 to 2022, total butterfat pounds produced on farms in the U.S. grew by 2 billion pounds from 7.3 billion to 9.3 billion. That’s a butterfat volume response to a price signaling demand.

Where’s it all going? Around 20% goes to butter production, 8% to ice cream and frozen desserts, 10% in fluid milk sales, and close to 50% is used in cheese production. And then there is this growing market for cream used in coffee drinks.

Meanwhile, dairy producers out West report receiving a letter from a large cheese plant, putting in a new base program at 1.5% over base. 

Another producer in an unregulated state in the West reported receiving a letter from his cheese plant stating they will reduce the butterfat multiple in their cheese milk payment, beginning April 1. The reason, according to the letter, is the farms are making too much butterfat, and the plant is having to buy condensed solids (skim) to pair with the additional fat or sell the extra fat as excess sweet cream at a loss.

During the FMMO hearing, fluid milk bottlers complained that the higher fat and component levels in milk today are more costly for them to deal with, that they must move the excess cream at a loss, and they have to clean the separator more often because of ‘sludge’ buildup. (I kid you not, one witness called it ‘sludge.’)

Processors have petitioned USDA with multiple proposals to get regulated minimum prices down to their definition of a ‘market clearing’ level that then allows them to add market premiums to attract new milk. Read that sentence again.

Who would be paying those premiums to grow milk supply? Not the processors. It would be revenue coming out of the regulated minimum price benchmarks for all farmers, including farmers that are not growing, to then get added back in by the processors wherever they want to direct growth.

Cheap milk is the name of the game, while at the same time, dairy farmers are being challenged to grow to meet the future ‘demand gap’ to fill $7 billion in new processing investments that will become operational over the next few years.

Dairy analysts tell how milk production expansion to meet this investment will not be as easy to do and will take longer than in the past because of the shortage in replacement heifers. 

We’re at a standoff, so to speak. 

Dairy producers have bred beef-on-dairy to bring margin back to their farms after 10 years of dairy margin compression. This strategy has been a good hedge against overproduction of milk in the era of sexed-semen, and it has helped protect farm balance sheets by reinforcing the value of the cattle as collateral.

So, what tool will be used now to drive consolidation and growth in dairy? Dykes told Georgia producers that, “Sustainability will be one of the biggest drivers of consolidation we’ve seen in a generation. Why? Because it’s going to take investment, and it’s going to take scale. We need to figure it out, to measure it, verify it, account for it, not double count it. We’re going to need investments to make sure we have the infrastructure.”

He said sustainability will become the gateway for exports where countries have mandates and carbon taxes for purchased ag products.

So, here we are back at the question about milk supply, butterfat supply, skim supply and school milk. Wouldn’t whole milk sales to schools offer a much-needed tug on the demand side to help shift some milk away from this runaway, market-depressing, buildup of excess cheese production that elicits the powerpoint headline: ‘Export or perish?’ 

Just think, if the fluid milk sales to schools increased as they did in the Pennsylvania trial by 52%, or even half that, by 25% as more kids choose milk instead of refusing it, market principles could work — gaining something in one place to affect it someplace else. 

Meanwhile, the industry can do some soul-searching and adapting amid the double-speak. If more milk, fat and components are needed, then farmers need to be able to make a living milking cows and producing fat and components.

Is the problem not enough milk? Or too much milk? Not enough fat? Or too much fat? Not enough skim? Or too much skim? Or is the problem rooted in making sure milk can be bought cheap and that farmers are forced to find revenue in other ways, such as carbon monitoring?

Let’s get it straight please.

In Part IV, we will look at the fourth C: ‘Commitments.’ Will it interfere with checkoff-funded fluid milk innovations for new beverages that identify and separate specific milk molecules for specific benefits (sleep drinks, energy drinks, immune function drinks, specific protein type drinks)? 

-30-

Seeds of doubt being sown, Part II: ‘What will processors do with all that skim?’ Oh my!

Posted on by
2

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Feb. 23, 2024

EAST EARL, Pa. — The status of the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, S. 1957, has 17 Senate sponsors from 13 states, including 12 Republicans, 4 Democrats, and 1 Independent. 

Even though both NMPF and IDFA have shown support for the measure, a bit of resignation can be sensed — riding the overwhelming House vote as enough progress for one legislative session. After taking bows for the performance of the bill in the House, representatives of both NMPF and IDFA – while speaking at winter meetings – have indicated a prevailing view that Senate opposition to S. 1957, is a big barrier. 

They say they are working to get the science in front of the Dietary Guidelines Committee, which has been tried before – over and over.

The DGA committee operates under a USDA that does not want whole milk options in schools or SNAP or WIC. This same USDA is proposing to remove chocolate milk options from schools, except for senior high students, and is proposing to reduce WIC milk by 3 gallons per recipient per month. This same USDA projects 20 billion more pounds of milk will be produced in the U.S. by 2030, according to IDFA CEO Michael Dykes, presenting future trends at the Georgia Dairy Conference in Savannah.

Seeds of doubt about the whole milk bill are being sown among farmers. Some asked me recently if their co-ops will lose money on the deal.

Last week, we discussed ‘Confusion’ — the first of 5 C’s (maybe 6) that are facing the whole milk bill within the dairy industry. 

This week we look at the second C: ‘Consternation’ — a fancy word for fear.

“What will they do with all of our skim?” farmers asked me at a recent event. Is this something they are hearing from a milk buyer or inspector?

Here are some facts: Whole milk sales move the skim with the fat — leaving some of the fat through standardization, but not leaving any skim. Therefore, an increase in whole milk sales does not burden the skim milk market.

Surely, the practice of holding schoolchildren hostage to drinking the byproduct skim of butter and cream product manufacturing is a poor business model if we care about childhood nutrition, health, and future milk sales. 

Furthermore, the market for skim milk powder and nonfat dry milk is running strong as inventories are at multi-year lows in the U.S. and globally.

Cheese production, on the other hand, is what is cranking up, and it has been the market dog for 18 months. Like whole milk sales, cheesemaking uses both fat and skim. But cheesemaking leaves byproduct lactose and whey, and it can leave some residual fat depending on the ratios per cheese type.

Things are pretty bad for farmers right now in cheesemilk country. Some tough discussions are being had around kitchen tables. The 2022 Ag Census released last week showed the dire straits for farmers nationwide over the last five years as the number of U.S. dairy farms declined below 25,000, down a whopping 40% since 2017.

Wouldn’t an increase in whole milk sales through the school milk channels help pull some milk away from rampant excess cheese production that is currently depressing the Class III milk price, leading to price divergence and market dysfunction?

While there is no one data source to specifically document the percentage of the milk supply that is sold to schools, the estimates run from 6 to 7% of total fluid milk sales (Jim Mulhern, NMPF, 2019), to 8% of the U.S. milk supply (Michael Dykes, IDFA, 2023), to 9.75% of total fluid milk sales (Calvin Covington, independent analysis, 2024). 

If even half of these sales became whole milk sales, it could modestly positively impact the amount of excess cheese being made even as processors say they plan to make more cheese because people eat more of their milk than are drinking it. (Fig. 1)

Meanwhile, the cheese price is under so much downward price pressure that there is a $2 to $4 divergence of Class IV over Class III causing farmers to lose money under the ‘averaging’ formula for Class I milk. In many parts of the country, farmers lose additional money when the milk that is used in Classes II and IV is depooled out of FMMOs.

Without the ‘higher of’ pricing mechanism that was in place from the year 2000 until May 2019, Class I can fall below the higher manufacturing price, removing incentive to pool, which leaves pooled producers with smaller payments for their milk and leaves the decision about what to pay depooled farmers up to the processors after they’ve succeeded in reducing the benchmark minimum by depooling.

Ultrafiltered (UF) milk represents 2.4% of fluid milk market share, having grown by more than 10% per year for four years with sales up 7.7% in 2023 vs. 2022, according to Circana-tracked market data shared by Dykes.

UF milk is also cheese-vat-ready-milk with capability to remove not just the lactose but also the whey as permeate at the front end for use in distilleries that are now funneling lactose into ethanol production in Michigan and whey into alcoholic beverages in Michigan and Minnesota.

Processors want farmers to do “a tradeoff” to decide how much revenue comes to their milk checks and how much goes to processing investments for the future. The future is being dictated by where we are in fluid milk consumption relative to cheese production.

This is one reason IDFA and Wisconsin Cheesemakers, as well as NMPF, had proposals asking USDA to increase the processor credits (make allowances) that are embedded in the dairy product price formulas. IDFA and Milk Innovation Group also put forward other proposals to further reduce regulated minimum prices.

We wonder with these new processing investments, how is it that the make allowances are too small? Only bulk butter, nonfat dry milk, dry whey, 40-lb block Cheddar and 500-lb barrel cheese (yellow not white) are surveyed for the circular class and component price formulas. Everything else that doesn’t meet CME spec for these specific product exchanges is excluded.

This means the costs to make innovative new products and even many bulk commodity-style products, such as bulk mozzarella, unsalted butter, whey protein concentrate and skim milk powder, can be passed on to consumers without being factored back into the FMMO regulated minimum prices paid to farmers.

If market principles are applied, processors wanting to encourage more milk production, to make more cheese, would pay more for the milk – not less. But when the margin can be assured with a make allowance that yields a return on investment, all bets are off. Cheese gets made for the ‘make’ not the market.

We saw processors petition USDA in the recent Federal Milk Marketing Order hearing to reduce the minimum prices in multiple ways so they can have the ability to pay market premiums to attract new milk. This would be value coming out of the regulated FMMO minimum price benchmark for all farmers to get added back in by the processors wherever they want to direct it.

Cheese is in demand globally, and the U.S. dairy industry is investing to meet this. Dykes told Georgia producers that processors want to grow and producers want to grow. He wasn’t wondering what to do with all of the skim when he asked: “Where will the milk come from for the over $7 billion in new processing investments that will be coming online in the next two to three years?”  

This is happening, said Dykes, “due to market changes from fluid milk to more cheese production (Fig. 1). There’s a lot of cheese in those plans. With over $7 billion in investment… These are going to be efficient plants. You’re going to see consolidation. If you are part of a co-op, you’re going to decide how much (revenue) comes in through your milk check and how much goes into investment in processing for the long-run, for the future. That’s the debate your boards of directors will have.” 

Even the planned new fluid milk processing capacity is largely ultra-filtered, aseptic and extended shelf life, according to Dykes.

“That’s the direction we are moving,” he said. “We are seeing that move because as we think about schools, are we still going to be able to send that truck driver 20 miles in any direction with 3 or 4 cases of milk 5 days a week? Or do we do that with aseptic so they can store it and put it in the refrigerator one night before, and get some economies of scale out of that, and maybe bring some margin back to the business?”

As the Class III milk price continues to be the market dog, we don’t see milk moving from Class III manufacturing to Class IV, perhaps because of the dairy processing shifts that have been led by reduced fluid milk consumption. 

Allowing schoolchildren to have the choice of whole milk at school is about nutrition, healthy choices, future milk consumers, and the relevance of fresh fluid milk produced by local family farms in communities across the country. Having a home for skim does not appear to be the primary factor affecting milk prices where Class III is dragging things down.

Bottomline, dairy farmers should have no consternation (fear) over what processors are going to do with “all of that skim” once they are (hopefully) allowed to offer schoolchildren milk with more fat.

Next time, we’ll address the third ‘C’ – Competition – If kids are offered whole milk in schools, will it reduce the butterfat supply and impact the industry’s cheese-centered future? 

A final note, just in case the question about ‘what to do with all that skim’ still bothers anyone… What’s wrong with animal feed markets for skim milk powder? Protein is valuable in animal health, there are livestock to feed, and people spend major bucks on their pets too. Did you know dog treats made with nonfat dry milk powder, flour and grated cheese are a thing?

That idea got a good laugh from those farmers when I suggested it.

However, Cornell dairy economist Dr. Chris Wolf noted recently how China’s purchases are what drive global skim milk powder and whey protein prices, and that much of that market for both is to feed… you guessed it… Pigs. 

Seeds of doubt being sown, Part One, Confusion: ‘Will this bill really improve milk prices?”

Posted on by
2

By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Feb. 16, 2024

EAST EARL, Pa. — The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, S. 1957, gained another cosponsor for the week ending Feb. 16: Senator Mike Braun, a Republican from Indiana. He is the Ranking Member of the Senate Ag Subcommittee on Nutrition. This means the Nutrition leadership is now totally on board because the Chair of the Nutrition Subcommittee, Senator John Fetterman, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, has been a cosponsor of S. 1957 from the beginning. 

As of Feb. 14, 2024, the bill has 15 Senate sponsors from 12 states, including 11 Republicans, 3 Democrats, 1 Independent. Among the 15 are 7 who represent one-third of the Senate Agriculture Committee.

Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) chairs the Ag Committee and has stated her position that this should be left up to the Dietary Guidelines Committee, not the United States Senate.

This line of thinking is mirrored by Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) in his form-letter responses to constituents who have written to ask him to cosponsor S. 1957. He has not cosponsored the bill but says he will keep constituent views in mind if it comes to the floor for a vote. Senator Casey is up for re-election this year. Senator Stabenow is retiring after this year.

The trouble with their reasoning is that the five-year Dietary Guidelines cycles have ignored the science on milkfat. Nina Teicholz, author of the Big Fat Surprise and founder of Nutrition Coalition has exposed the bias in the subcommittee that looked at the saturated fat question in the 2020 DGA cycle. Four had ties to promotion of vegan diets.

When Congressman G.T. Thompson’s House bill, H.R. 1147 went to the Education Committee for markup last June and ultimately to the House floor for an overwhelming 330 to 99 passage in December, a little over one-quarter of the full House (157) were signed on as cosponsors. To reach this level in the Senate, at least 10 more cosponsors are needed to get to 25 out of 100 Senators.

Another key would be to get more Ag Committee Senators on board and to get all 24 major dairy states uniformly represented (See Map). Check out the past four editions of Farmshine for details, or visit www.97milk.com/take-action/

While decades of scientific debate in terms of childhood health and nutrition is the curtain opponents hide behind, the anti-animal agenda is the top hurdle for the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act in the Senate.

Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kan.) is the prime sponsor of S. 1957. He is a medical doctor in obstetrics and is taking a beating from billboards sponsored by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) in his home state of Kansas. PCRM is a known arm of PETA. This tells us quite a bit, doesn’t it?

Meanwhile, the top 5 C’s facing the bill within the dairy industry, itself, need to be addressed. 

1) Confusion… Will it really improve milk prices? 

2) Consternation (fear)… What will processors do with “all of that skim”? 

3) Competition… Will it reduce the butterfat supply and affect the ramp up in cheese manufacturing or other dairy products? 

4) Commitments… Will it interfere with checkoff-funded fluid milk innovations for new beverages that identify and separate specific milk molecules for specific benefits (sleep drinks, energy drinks, immune function drinks, specific protein type drinks)? 

5) Cost… Will the whole milk option cost too much for schools to provide?

All of these questions are quietly floating around and sowing seeds of doubt, leading to analysis-paralysis, while the industry focus is on innovation and exports, not on fresh milk, or a healthy next generation of U.S. milk consumers.

All of these questions will be answered one at a time over the next several weeks, starting with the first “C”: Confusion.

“Will this bill really improve our milk prices?” was the question I was asked by a few farmers at a recent farm show. My response was to ask them if they are concerned about kids having healthy milk options they enjoy and if they are concerned about seeing further erosion of fluid milk sales, and losing another generation of milk drinkers?

I reached out to Calvin Covington, former milk cooperative CEO in the fluid milk markets of the Southeast and a primary architect of pricing milk by component yield even before Order Reform during his years with American Jersey Cattle Breeders.

Covington ran the numbers using 2023 average prices, and calculating pounds of milk, fat, and skim, utilization, and values, which yield a gross value of a hundredweight of milk being used for fluid processing at different fat levels. 

“At a $3.00 Class I differential, a hundredweight of milk going for 3.25 fluid milk (whole milk as standardized), returns an additional 25 cents per hundredweight over skim milk,” Covington writes, noting that the difference will change based on different Class I differentials.

Even in the counties with small or zero location differentials on the map, the base differential of $1.60 per hundredweight is still included, which means at least a 13 cents per hundredweight difference.

Previously, Covington has noted in presentations that milk prices improve as the average fat level of total fluid milk sales increases. The current average of all sales, nationwide, stands at 2%. A few years ago, it was below 2%. A fractional change in either direction influences Federal Milk Marketing Order blend prices.

Fluid milk demand also plays a role in manufacturing class prices, affecting farmers in regions where prices are based almost exclusively on cheese. 

That’s especially true right now as cheese production has been exploding, and the Class III milk price has been imploding, creating a wide spread below Class IV and pushing FMMO blend prices lower as milk is not moving out of Class III to the higher value Class IV. But the Federal Milk Marketing Law gives Class I dibs to attract milk. So Class I demand is relevant for cheese milk pricing too.

As whole milk sales have increased year-over-year, whole milk became the largest category of fluid milk sales in 2021. It is a bright spot in the fluid milk category.

In 2023, gains in whole milk sales and in lactose-free milk sales are credited with boosting the entire fluid milk category for year-over-year gains in back-to-back months of October and November. This helped flatten the year-to-date loss-curve on total fluid milk sales that had been running 2 to 4% lower year-over-year to be just 1.5% lower cumulatively at year end compared with 2022, according to USDA’s December estimated packaged fluid milk sales report, released in mid-February.

Still, there is ground to make up, as fluid milk sales volume in 2023 is 7.8% lower than pre-Covid 2019, when volume totaled 46.24 billion pounds, down 1.8% from 2018. Then, during pandemic lockdowns, milk sales stabilized, putting the total at 46.2 billion pounds for 2020, virtually unchanged from 2019. In 2021, fluid milk sales volume declined 4.1% to 44.3 billion pounds, followed by a 2.4% decrease in 2022 to 43.3 billion pounds, and now a 1.5% decline in 2023 at 42.6 billion pounds.

NMPF chart, Circana Inc. full-year 2023 data

Meanwhile, the big news reported recently is that plant-based fake-milk beverages saw sales decline by 6.6% in 2023, the second straight year of declines and the smallest sales since 2019, according to data from Circana Inc reported recently. 

Real dairy milk sales volume of 42.6 billion pounds in 2023 is not only a much larger category than the lookalikes at 337.7 million pounds, real dairy milk outperformed lookalikes on a trend basis in 2023 — down just 1.5% vs. plant-based being down 6.6%.

By comparison, plant-based beverage sales volume in 2023 was a fraction of 1% (0.8%) the size of real milk sales volume.

Whole milk education and awareness have helped drive this result. Consumers are paying attention to food science, even if the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, USDA (and FDA on labeling) continue to ignore it. Still, more education and freedom for children to enjoy milk is needed. The concern is that even though it is a smaller percentage loss, the 1.5% sales volume loss in the real milk category in 2023 represented 644 million pounds; whereas a 6.6% sales volume loss in plant-based beverages in 2023 represented 24 million pounds.

Speaking with a local milk bottler and ice cream maker recently – a producer handler – I learned he focuses on how his cows are fed to maintain their rolling average 5% butterfat during the summertime to make ice cream and satisfy consumer demand for whole milk. Their whole milk sales have skyrocketed, and this in turn, to the delight of the grocery store they are in, has helped boost sales of all fluid milk as a category in that store.

This has him thinking of doing a 5% butterfat, non-standardized, maybe even cream top, full-fat milk in glass bottles for the store. The store displays a 97 Milk banner at the entrance and 97milk.com website stickers at the dairy case.

Speaking with a manager at a different grocery store chain with stores in Pennsylvania and surrounding states, I learned their sales of whole milk have also increased by leaps and bounds in the past several years, boosting the entire fluid milk category by 14% at their stores throughout the region. They include the 97milk.com website and information in their sales circulars to their shoppers.

As for the schools — If even half of the schools offered a mix of milkfat choices as the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act would allow them to do, the amount of butterfat sold as Class I would increase. This would improve the fat side of the fat/skim pricing in the three Southeast Orders and Arizona. It would also help the Federal Order pool dollars reach after actual components are paid first in Multiple Component Pricing Orders everywhere else.

Total Class I fluid milk sales have dropped like a rock since Congress passed the Healthy Hunger Free Kids Act in 2010, which removed whole and 2% milk options from school meals, followed by USDA in 2012 further banning whole and 2% milk as a la carte or vending machine ‘competing beverage’ options in the Department’s Smart Snacks regulations.

Look at the graph above. It was shared as part of Dr. Mark Stephenson’s testimony in the recent USDA FMMO milk pricing hearing.

Improved total sales of school milk hold potential to increase total Class I fluid milk sales. A Pennsylvania school trial in 2019 showed a 52% increase in milk sales when whole and 2% milk options were offered. Students showed a 3 to 1 preference for whole milk over the 1% milk option.

When their options were expanded, more students chose milk instead of refusing it. Students were able to choose, and some of them continued to choose low-fat, and that’s okay! The Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act is about choice.

A conservative estimate of a 25% increase in school milk sales can be anticipated if Whole Milk for Healthy Kids gets over the finish line in the Senate after its overwhelming passage in December in the House. That is half of the increase seen in the Pennsylvania school trial. If realized, a 25% increase in school milk sales equates to a little over one billion pounds of additional annual milk sales, which could raise the entire Class I fluid milk category by a little more than 2%.

This is based on the fact that kids aren’t just throwing away milk at school. Some are refusing to take the milk they are offered with school meals. This means sales are being lost.

Fluid milk sales declines will only get worse if USDA implements one of two draft proposals the Department announced a year ago. One would eliminate flavored milk from elementary and middle schools altogether. The other would require added sugar levels to be reduced dramatically in flavored milk at school. It’s widely known that when milkfat is retained in making chocolate milk, less added sugar is needed! 

Demand for whole milk is beneficial on both the milk fat and skim sides of the equation because whole milk sales move the nearly-complete product – the skim with the fat — leaving some of the fat through standardization, but not leaving any skim.

The result of these options in schools could be even better depending on how many schools choose to exercise these options.

If the industry doesn’t supply what consumers demand, sales are lost. Schoolchildren are already the dairy industry’s consumers, and they will hold the purse strings in the future.

Just as the Dietary Guidelines Committee and USDA continue to ignore science on milkfat, we are all ignoring our nation’s schoolchildren and what they are telling us about why they are turning away from nutrient-dense milk at a time when the nutrients milk delivers – that we may think they are receiving — have never been more important.

When the Pennsylvania school trial ended after one school year, a 95% reduction in the average daily volume of discarded milk was recorded. The school Student Council did an environmental project to measure this by measuring the volume of milk thrown away in unopened and partly consumed half-pint containers.

Shouldn’t we be listening to what the young people are telling us? They are our future, after all.

In the next part of this series, we’ll address the question: “What are the processors going to do with all of that skim?” Oh my!

In the meantime, consider this: Fresh fluid milk is the most notably locally-produced dairy product maintaining dairy farm relevance in regions and communities across America. What will the dairy industry look like five years from now, even one year from now? Maybe we should be asking the schoolchildren to answer that question.

As of Feb. 14, 2024, the Whole Milk for Healthy Kids Act, S. 1957, has 15 sponsors from 12 states as illustrated on this map. Graphic by Sherry Bunting

AFBF seeks ‘whisper of hope’ in request for USDA emergency decision on Class I mover

Posted on by
Reply

Farm Bureau economist Danny Munch closes FMMO hearing Jan. 30, 2024 with emergency request for USDA to return Class I ‘mover’ formula to ‘higher of’


By Sherry Bunting, Farmshine, Feb. 2, 2024

CARMEL, Ind. – Over 5 months and 500 exhibits have gone by in the nearly 50 hearing days since the long-awaited national hearing on Federal Milk Marketing Order modifications began Aug. 23, 2023. It ended Tuesday, Jan. 30th with a last-minute witness bringing forward American Farm Bureau’s request for an emergency decision by the USDA Secretary to restore the ‘higher of’ method for calculating the skim portion of the Class I ‘mover’ price.

This hearing went on longer than expected, and the implementation of any final decisions from a multitude of proposals in various areas of FMMO milk pricing are at least 12 to 18 months away under ordinary post-hearing processes, hence the AFBF request for emergency decision-making on the Class I mover to go back to the higher of.

“If USDA would implement this on an emergency basis, it helps with the confidence and perception piece of it. So, if there is a whisper of hope, to see that there will be a positive outcome coming soon, an optimistic change that is coming that fuels them. Do they see things getting better? Or are things going to stay the way they are? ” said AFBF economist Danny Munch while being cross-examined after reading into evidence the letter signed by Sam Kieffer, AFBF vice president of public policy.

The letter stressed that FMMO reform is in step 5 of a 12-step process and a long way from a final rule. Meanwhile, the change in the Class I mover formula was intended to be revenue neutral to farmers, but farmers have lost over $1 billion in 56 months of implementation. This does not even include further losses from depooling of manufacturing milk when the Class I fluid milk price has been out of alignment in FMMO revenue-sharing pools.

“The comprehensive process of amending federal orders, though important, means dairy farmers remain stuck with current pricing regulations until USDA publishes a final rule,” Kieffer wrote in the letter Munch read into evidence. “The current Class I mover was a well-intentioned policy misstep that has reduced dairy farmers’ checks, with little relief in sight. Emergency implementation of the ‘higher-of’ Class I mover formula will help buffer against persistent losses associated with mistaken and outdated policies that have left dairy farmers struggling to make ends meet.”

Munch noted that members re-affirmed going back to the ‘higher of’ calculation in policy meetings during the AFBF National Convention last week, and they voted to make it a priority of urgency.

“Dairy farmers are facing closure. A lot of our members are facing the hard decision about whether to sell their cattle or not. That’s a little window into what our members mentioned last week,” said Munch.

The other reality that is setting in is the fact that large losses are mounting quickly again. The Class IV over III divergence is quite wide – ranging $3 to $4.00 per hundredweight – and the futures markets show it could be above the $1.48 per cwt threshold through the end of 2024.

Farmshine’s Market Moos columnist Sherry Bunting has updated the graph showing how the supposedly revenue-neutral change from the ‘higher of’ to an averaging formula for the Class I mover May 2019 through March 2024 will have reduced Class I value in farm milk checks over 59 months of implementation. This graph of cumulative and year-to-year losses does not include additional losses many farmers have incurred when manufacturing class milk is out of alignment with Class I, and is depooled, with the revenue excluded from the FMMO pools and benchmarks.

In fact, the Class I mover prices announced for January and February 2024 could produce well over $80 million in losses in just the first two months of 2024 once the pounds of Class I milk are sold and counted.

Munch also took the opportunity to remind everyone that when AFBF held the dairy stakeholders forum in Kansas City in October 2022, returning the Class I mover calculation to the ‘higher of’ was the main item that got consensus from every table in the room.

When the difference between the manufacturing classes exceeds $1.48 per cwt, then pooled producers receive less money for their milk under the averaging formula compared with the previous ‘higher of’ formula. When the difference between Class III and IV is $3.48, for example, that lowers the Class I price by $1.00 per cwt. In an FMMO with 75% Class I utilization, that’s a 75-cent loss on all of the milk, not just Class I. In an FMMO with 25% Class I utilization, that’s a 25-cent loss on all of the milk.

Even members of Congress have been doing the math and have talked about putting reversion language in the Farm Bill. They are aware of their role in putting what they were told was a “revenue neutral” change into the 2018 Farm Bill that IDFA and NMPF at the time agreed upon, while adding language that USDA could hold a hearing in two years to vet it for the future. 

We are now nearly five years into this change, and it is just one piece of the hearing that just concluded, which included many proposed modifications from milk composition and price surveys, to make allowances and differentials.

Without emergency decision-making by USDA on the Class I mover piece, any potential changes from this hearing are a good 12 to 18 months away, depending on how the post-hearing processes move along, from post-hearing briefs due April 1st to rebuttles, draft decisions, comment periods, referendums, final decisions, and there are proposals that have asked for further delays after the process plays out to avoid “affecting” exchange-traded risk management instruments. 

Dairy farmers are just looking for some relief and transparency for the future, according to Munch. 

Meanwhile, IDFA and Milk Innovation Group (MIG) have opposed returning to the ‘higher of’ and have proposed several averaging methods for the Class I mover that would continually look backward to compare and change adjusters to make up past losses gradually out into the future.

Farmers have testified that this doesn’t help if it takes two to three years to get that money back after they’ve already lost the farm.

What it boils down to on the Class I mover is the industry wants to move toward more fractionation of milk, more aseptic and shelf-stable beverages, and away from fresh fluid milk. These are the products that can sit in a warehouse for 9 months and for which processors testified they do 9-to-12-month pricing contracts largely with foodservice and convenience stores. Fresh fluid milk already has advance pricing that aligns with the turnaround of that product so hedging on the futures markets is not typically done, and averaging is not needed.

When asked whether AFBF has looked at how the spread may continue in the future to make the averaging formula a loser for farmers, he said Class IV will likely persist above Class III, and yes, they expect the spread to remain large.

Earlier testimony by processor witnesses blamed these Class I formula losses on Covid disruptions, food box programs and large government cheese purchases, but as Munch pointed out, the driver of these losses is something else. When Class IV is over III, we don’t see it in a negative PPD, but milk is depooled, and the full extent of the depooling losses are incurred by farmers, they just aren’t easily enumerated.

“In 2020, the losses (in Class I value, alone, without including the impact of depooling) were over $700 million. In December 2023, the losses crossed over $1.05 billion as they have continued to add up,” said Munch. “The financial detriment is not solely due to a ‘black swan’ event. Some of our farmers were waiting to see if it showed markets shifting. Now, years later, this is still an issue.

“That’s another reason why we are asking for an emergency decision on this right now, and why it came up at our meeting at the convention last week,” Munch testified. “It was intended to be revenue neutral, but it has turned out not to be.”

During cross-examination, Munch also confirmed there hasn’t been much trust by producers to believe processors will replace the dollars they are asking to be removed from FMMO pricing by paying over-order premiums, instead.

“There is a lack of trust and not knowing where their price comes from. There has been a lot of concern about how their milk checks are calculated,” Munch related. “That’s one of the proposals that the American Farm Bureau put forward is more uniform, clear milk checks. There is a perception that things in milk checks have been manipulated. There is a perception of mistrust.

“If there are ways we can build back the trust, and if one of those ways that our farmers have targeted is switching back to the ‘higher of,’ then it’s easier for farmers to understand that calculation, and it has shown, in the most current of times, to be more advantageous to them.”

“It is my pleasure at 10:18 a.m. on 2024 January 30 to determine that this Hearing has ended,” said U.S. Administrative Law Judge Jill Clifton after 506 exhibits have been entered into evidence for and against 21 proposals in various areas of FMMO pricing modification during the 49 Hearing days that stretched over 5 months since its start on Aug. 23, 2023 in Carmel, Indiana. Screen captured from Hearing livefeed

-30-