What we’re asking for on pricing reform

Milk prices have had a better spring than most of us expected in January. Class III has come up meaningfully off its winter low, mostly on the back of lower national milk production rather than any change in demand. That's a relief for members with a foot in fluid milk or a co-op contract. It has not, however, quieted the complaint we hear most from small and mid-size producers: the pricing formula itself still lags the market it's supposed to reflect, and a lag that's tolerable in a flat year turns painful the moment prices move fast in either direction.

That's the substance behind the dairy pricing reform push a number of members have signed onto this year, through both a formal letter campaign and a standing petition the Membership & Outreach Committee has kept open since winter. The ask isn't exotic. It's a request that the federal make-allowance figures used to set minimum pricing be reviewed on a shorter, published cycle, so that a producer's contract price reflects processing costs closer to when they're actually incurred — not costs last revisited several years back.

Why the timing matters more than the number

A stale make allowance doesn't just cost money in the abstract; it changes behavior. When the gap between what a formula assumes and what a plant actually spends gets wide enough, processors have less room to pay above minimum, and the squeeze lands hardest on the smallest suppliers who have the least pricing power to begin with. Members who've been through a margin-tight year know this instinctively even if they've never read the formula itself. The ask for a shorter review cycle is really an ask for the number to keep up with reality, whichever direction reality moves.

We'd also note, because it comes up on every call about this: reform of the formula is not the same conversation as a request for a specific price floor, and we're careful to keep them separate in what we file. One is a mechanical fix to how a number gets calculated; the other is a policy choice about what the number should be. Federal comment processes tend to move faster, and take petitions more seriously, when the ask is narrow and procedural rather than a request to pick a winner.

If you want to add your name

The petition has been open since earlier this year and stays open through the summer comment window. If you haven't signed and you think a shorter review cycle would have changed how last winter went for your operation, the Membership & Outreach Committee can add you — a short note describing how the current lag has actually affected a contract or a budget carries more weight in the filing than a signature alone. If you'd rather write your own letter, the committee also has a template covering the technical language, which you're welcome to adapt in your own voice.

None of this is fast. Formula reviews at this level typically take a full comment cycle plus a response period, so don't expect a change by fall. But the record only builds if members who felt this squeeze actually say so on paper, and a quiet spring is exactly when that record tends to go unwritten.

---

The International Cheese Federation (ICF) and More Cheese are entirely fictional. This post is demonstration content created for MemberJunction. All people, organizations, events, courses, certifications, figures, and quotations in it are invented, and nothing here represents a real association, a real business, a real person, or real professional advice.