Breaking free from the chains of the past Where
truth moves faster than a Holstein calf No law
waiting on some printed page We're charting new
ground in the digital age From genomic codes
to robot facts We cut through the noise, no hold
them back not your daddy's dairy news tonight
we're sparking Welcome back to the Bullvine Podcast.
If you're a dairy producer who thinks immigration
raids only target criminals, you're about to
get a reality check that could save your operation
from financial disaster. Today, we're diving
deep into the labor crisis that's about to crash
the dairy industry. We're talking about data
that shows 51 % of your milking crew could vanish
overnight, potentially triggering a 90 % spike
in milk prices. This isn't political theater.
It's cold, hard economics that every dairy operator
needs to understand. You've invested millions
in your parlor, optimized your genetics for component
premiums, and fine -tuned your nutrition programs.
But here's the uncomfortable truth. Without immigrant
workers who milk 79 % of America's dairy cows,
all those investments become worthless overnight.
So grab your coffee, because we're about to challenge
everything you think you know about workforce
stability in dairy farming. This episode could
be the difference between adapting to survive
or watching your operation become another casualty
of policies that ignore economic reality. Let's
get started. Okay, let's unpack this. We are
diving deep today into a topic that hits right
at the core of every dairy operation. Labor,
specifically, you know, the increasingly volatile
situation around immigrant labor and what it
really means for your farm, your balance sheet
and, well, even the price of milk on the shelf.
That's right. We've got a critical article from
the bullvine in front of us, and it pulls absolutely
no punches about the reality of the situation.
It really doesn't. And look, this isn't about
wading into political rhetoric, right? This is
about. Confronting these stark economic and operational
realities that are... laid out with real precision
in this piece. Yeah. The Bullvine article puts
a potential scenario on the table that might
sound, well, unbelievable at first glance, a
projected 90 .4 % milk price hike. Which just
sounds massive. It does. But the power of the
article is really how it meticulously walks you
through the data, showing you why this isn't
just some sensational headline. It's presented
as a potential, maybe even probable consequence
tied directly and mathematically. to the stability
of the labor force that is currently milking
the vast majority of America's cows. And that's
really our mission for this deep dive today.
To go through the details presented in this specific
Bullvine article, understanding the, well, the
harsh realities it describes regarding the dairy
labor crisis. It's deep and frankly undeniable
connection to immigration policy and what this
could fundamentally mean for your operation.
Regardless of its size, its level of technology,
or how sophisticated your genetic program might
be, it really zeroes in on that operational impact.
The stakes, as the article makes abundantly clear,
couldn't really be higher for the industry. It
doesn't shy away from talking about the potential
for operational collapse on individual farms.
The very real threat of farms being forced completely
out of business and the strong suggestion that
the future of milk production in America, like
on a national scale, is inextricable link to
this specific issue. Yeah, an issue that maybe
many might prefer not to confront directly, perhaps
because of its complexity or political sensitivity.
Exactly. But the article forces that confrontation
based on alterational facts. So let's dive right
in following the path the article lays out. It
starts with what it calls an undeniable reality,
a core assertion that once you see the numbers,
becomes absolutely fundamental to understanding
the root of this entire potential crisis. It
goes straight to the heart of the matter. The
dairy industry's fundamental, deep -seated dependency
on immigrant labor. Yeah. It frames this workforce
not as like supplementary, but as the primary
engine room, the essential foundation upon which
current U .S. milk production is built. And the
numbers it cites from researchers like those
at Texas A &M University's Center for North American
Studies, they're not just large, they're absolutely
massive. Huge. It states that immigrant workers
milked 79 % of America's dairy cows. 79%. Think
about that for a second. Truly picture it on
a national scale. Nearly four out of every five
cows producing milk in the entire United States
are being milked by immigrant workers. Staggering
when you put it like that. That's not a niche
workforce. That's the mainstream. That is the
workforce. And extending beyond just the milking
parlor itself. Looking at the entire farm workforce,
the article states that immigrants make up 51
percent of all dairy labor across the country.
More than half. More than half. That's the entire
workforce dedicated to dairy farming, from feeding
crews and herd health to maintenance and field
work. Right. These aren't marginal percentages
that you could just, you know, easily backfill
somehow. These are dominant foundational figures
in the labor pool that keeps farms running day
in and day out. And the direct threat, as the
article frames it, comes squarely from immigration
crackdowns and what it refers to as political
theater. Essentially, the policy shifts, the
enfracement actions, the rhetoric coming out
of Washington that directly threaten the availability
and stability of this absolutely central workforce.
The concern highlighted is the potential for
a significant portion of this workforce to, quote,
vanish overnight. Yeah, that phrase really jumps
out. It does. And in the context of dairy, which.
as you know better than anyone, is a relentless
365 day a year, twice daily operation that doesn't
take weekends, holidays, or snow days off. Never
stops. The implications of losing a significant
chunk of your labor pool instantaneously are,
well, truly devastating. There's just no pause
button on a dairy farm. The work must continue.
The article uses a really effective analogy,
I thought, to drive home why this labor dependency
is so fundamental to the very operation of a
dairy farm. Yeah, it does. It compares the reliance
on this labor force to other practices you would
just never compromise on, stating it's as fundamental
to your operation as maintaining proper dry matter
intake, DMI, or monitoring somatic cell counts,
SCC. It's a perfect and... Powerful parallel
for anyone in dairy, isn't it? Just as you would
never consider feeding your herd half the required
ration of a carefully balanced TMR and expect
them to maintain peak lactation curves, utter
health, and optimal production because you understand
the biological necessity of DMI. Right. The article
argues that the U .S. simply cannot logically
expect to continue producing 79 % of its milk
supply while simultaneously engaging in policy
actions that threaten to remove the very workers
who are essential to performing the physical
tasks required for that production. So it's not
just abstract policy debate happening somewhere
else. Not at all. It's a direct, immediate impact
on the operational reality, the biological reality
of the cows, and the economic reality of the
vast majority of dairy farms in this country.
It really forces Yeah, because the article suggests
that collision point isn't hypothetical. It's
becoming... you know, increasingly likely. Because
that's where the impact is felt, not on cable
news, but right there on the ground where the
work gets done. Exactly. Where the cows are milked,
the feed is mixed, the calves are cared for,
the equipment is maintained. That's the front
line. And the article paints this vivid, almost
alarming scenario of what that collision looks
like right there in the milking parlor that you've
probably invested so heavily in. Imagine your
investment. Maybe it's that brand new state -of
-the -art rotary parlor you just finished installing.
Maybe it cost you $2 .5 million or more, just
like the example mentioned in the article. You
put that in for efficiency, for throughput, to
improve cow flow. Or think about all the progress
you've made genetically. You've invested years,
maybe decades, pushing your herd's genetic merit,
focusing on those valuable component premiums.
Butterfat climbing consistently to 4 .4 year
percent. Protein hitting 3 .40 percent, driving
those pounds of components that are absolutely
critical for profitability in the competitive
market forecasted for 2025 and beyond. The article
delivers a brutal, almost heartbreaking conclusion
to that scenario. It suggests that if you were
to lose a significant portion of your milking
crew using this stark example of 60 percent vanishing
due to an enforcement action. 50 percent gone.
That multi -million dollar parlor, that pinnacle
of efficiency you invested in, becomes nothing
more, according to the article, than an expensive
monument to poor workforce planning. Oof. Yeah,
that phrase carries significant emotional and
financial weight, doesn't it? It really does.
The idea that your primary asset, your largest
single investment, could become effectively useless,
just sitting idle because the... people needed
to run it are suddenly gone. It profoundly highlights
the fact that all the capital investment you
make, all the genetic progress you achieve through
careful breeding and management, all the optimization
of nutrition and management systems, it's all
built upon a fundamental foundation of reliable,
skilled labor. Right. And if that foundation
crumbles, as the article suggests it could under
current policy approaches, the entire structure
no matter how impressive or technologically advanced,
is at severe risk. And to make it clear, this
isn't just, you know, theoretical speculation.
The article provides real -world examples of
specific enforcement actions that have already
occurred, illustrating precisely how this threat
manifests on the ground. It cites incidents like
the one that happened at a dairy farm in Berkshire,
Vermont, back in 2018, where ICE detained eight
workers. Eight workers. Yeah. Migrant Justice,
an organization working with dairy workers, described
it as the largest single immigrant enforcement
action against farm workers in Vermont in recent
history. Imagine the immediate devastating disruption
that caused on that specific farm. Oh, absolutely.
Losing eight people from your team all at once,
instantaneously. Who milks those cows that night?
Who preps the parlor? The operational chaos is
immediate. And another example cited is in Sacketts
Harbor, New York, where ICE picked up four adults
and three children at a dairy operation in 2020.
Again, the article emphasizes this as part of
what the agency called enhanced targeted operations.
Right. And while there's obviously a huge human
element and impact on families in every situation
like this, the article focuses squarely on the
operational impact on the farm itself, the sudden
removal of essential workers from critical roles.
Let's break down, as the article does, what this
kind of loss means for a hypothetical, but probably
very real. Dairy operation. Okay. It uses a 500
cow example, maybe one pushing limits, averaging
75 pounds per cow per day with excellent components
like 4 .44 % butter fat. In numbers. Generating
approximately $315 ,000 in monthly milk revenue
at current -ish pricing levels. According to
the article, losing even 50 % of your milking
staff, not the whole team, just half. Half the
crew. Doesn't just linearly cut your production
by 50%. catastrophically disrupts your entire
operational rhythm. Catastrophically. That's
a powerful word choice, but likely accurate in
that scenario. And the article goes on to detail
the specific practical disruptions that occur.
Maintaining proper milking intervals, for instance.
Absolutely critical. Crucial for utter health,
preventing mastitis, ensuring consistent milk
flow and production volume. If your crew is halved,
those 12 -hour or maybe 10 -hour intervals become
impossible to maintain consistently. Leads to
cow stress, health issues, lost milk. Exactly.
It also impacts executing precision feeding protocols
tying right back to those DMI and ME levels we
talked about. Yeah. If you can't deliver feed
bunks correctly or push up feed often enough
or manage group changes properly because you
just don't have the people. All that nutritional
fine tuning just goes out the window. Precisely.
The complexity of modern dairy management relies
on the consistent, timely execution of highly
specific tasks performed by skilled individuals.
A sudden, drastic reduction in your trained workforce
means that carefully optimized protocols for
milking, feeding, cow handling, health monitoring,
they just fall apart. And the consequences aren't
minor inefficiencies. They are immediate and
severe impacts on cow well -being, milk quality,
production volume, and ultimately... Your bottom
line. The article also reinforces these points
with national and state -level data, reiterating
those initial numbers from Texas A &M University's
Center for North American Studies. Those big
ones. The 79 % of milk produced by dairies employing
immigrant labor and 51 % of the total dairy labor
force nationwide being immigrant. These aren't
just statistics. They are the dominant figures
that define the reality of labor on most commercial
dairy farms in the U .S. today. And bringing
it down to a state level, Rick Narabow. who is
the CEO of the Idaho Dairymen's Association,
provides powerful context. Yeah, what did he
say? He estimates that about 90 % of workers
on Idaho dairy farms specifically come from other
countries. 90 % in Idaho. Yeah. Idaho is a major
dairy state, so this figure adds significant
geographic weight to the national picture, showing
just how deeply embedded and essential this workforce
is in major production areas. It's not just a
national average, it's a localized reality for
many. And the University of Wisconsin -Madison
School of Workers study cited in the article
as another crucial, maybe uncomfortable layer
to this reality, finding that somewhere between
46 percent and 70 percent of immigrant dairy
workers are currently undocumented. And this
statistic is absolutely key to understanding
the depth of the crisis and the vulnerability
the article highlights. Why is that? Because
it means that a very large portion of this essential
workforce, the people milking your cows, feeding
your herd, maintaining your equipment, are particularly
vulnerable to enforcement actions. Their legal
status, or lack thereof, is the direct link between
federal immigration policy and the fundamental
stability of your farm's labor force. It creates
a direct pathway for political decisions to translate
into immediate operational risk. So, to summarize
this foundational section. The article concludes
by reinforcing with stark clarity that most dairy
operations face immediate operational collapse
if enforcement proceeds at current rates. It's
a powerful and uncomfortable warning, isn't it?
It is. And it defines immediate operational collapse
not just as reduced profits or tighter margins.
No, it's more fundamental. But as potentially
being unable to continue the core non -negotiable
functions of the farm, like milking the herd.
twice a day, every single day. Yes. The article's
definition of collapse gets right to the heart
of it. It's the inability to perform those essential
time -sensitive tasks consistently and correctly,
the very tasks that maintain herd health, production,
and milk quality. If you can't milk your cows
on schedule every day, you're not just less profitable.
You're facing a cascade of animal welfare issues
and potential cessation of operations. It's an
existential threat. Now, the article moves to
underscore these points with the hard economic
numbers, diving deep into the staggering projections
of what this labor loss would mean for the entire
dairy economy, not just individual farms. It
reiterates those national data points we just
discussed from Texas A &M, the 79 % of milk from
dairies with immigrant labor, the 51 % immigrant
dairy labor force. These are the figures that
provide the baseline for the economic modeling.
And again, Idaho example from Rick Narebout,
90 % of workers from other countries on those
dairies just solidifies that these percentages
aren't uniform, but are incredibly high in key
production states. And the University of Wisconsin
-Madison study's finding of 46 -70 % of immigrant
workers being undocumented is central to why
the economic projections are so dire. Because
that defines the pool at risk. Exactly. It defines
the pool of workers most directly exposed to
enforcement risk. Right. So the article uses
these baseline figures to launch into this massive
economic analysis derived from Texas A &M University
using the Implan model. Which is a pretty standard
tool for this kind of economic impact study.
For those maybe unfamiliar, the Implan model
is essentially a sophisticated economic simulation
tool. Researchers input changes like a reduction
in a specific labor force within an industry.
And the model helps trace how that change ripples
throughout the entire economy, impacting related
industries, jobs, wages, overall output. And
the article presents these numbers derived from
the model with mathematical precision, treating
labor as a critical input. Just like feed or
land. It gives us a clear baseline first. Yeah.
The current economic contribution of the dairy
industry with its current immigrant labor force.
Okay, what's that look like? Totals $48 .1 billion
in nationwide economic activity, supporting 303
,300 jobs across various sectors and generating
$19 .6 billion in value added to the economy.
So significant current contributions that the
article argues are directly dependent on this
labor pool. Exactly. Then it models different
scenarios based on losing that labor. After a
50 % reduction in immigrant labor, meaning half
of that 51 % workforce is gone. The article states
these economic values crash significantly. Nationwide
economic activity falls dramatically to $36 .9
billion. Wow, that's over $11 billion gone. Yeah.
Job support drops sharply to 235 ,000 positions.
And the value added decreases to $15 .1 billion.
That's a loss of nearly 70 ,000 jobs just from
a 50 % reduction. That's not a small dip. That's
a massive contraction. And in the scenario of
complete elimination of this labor force, if
virtually all immigrant dairy workers were removed.
Which is the extreme scenario. The figures plummet
even further. Economic activity collapses to
$25 .7 billion. Only 168 ,100 jobs are supported
and the value added shrinks to $10 .5 billion.
So we're talking about a total loss of over $22
billion in economic activity and over 130 ,000
jobs compared to the baseline. The scale of the
economic loss depicted by this model is truly
staggering and far -reaching. The article brings
this massive economic impact back down to the
farm level using another relatable analogy, connecting
the macro numbers to your feed program. Yeah,
I like this one. It says, think of it as developing
the perfect total mixed ration, TMR, for peak
metabolizable energy, ME levels. Spending all
that time, expertise, money, getting it just
right. Then discovering that your feed mixer
operator might disappear tomorrow. It's such
a perfect way to capture the fundamental disconnect
the industry often faces, isn't it? It really
is. You can optimize every physical input, every
biological process. But if you don't have the
reliable human labor to execute the most basic
tasks like running the equipment to deliver that
TMR, all that optimization is, well, academic.
The article's point is crystal clear here. You
can invest in the best genetics, fine -tune your
nutrition program down to the last gram of protein,
implement the most sophisticated management systems,
invest heavily in cutting -edge technology. All
the things smart producers do. But all of those
sophisticated, expensive investments become effectively
worthless, stranded assets, if you don't have
the skilled workers required to execute the precision
protocols day in and day out. The human element
is presented as the non -negotiable foundation
for everything else. The article details other
staggering projections based on broader research
that support this economic picture. It suggests
that eliminating immigrant labor could reduce
the U .S. dairy herd by a massive 2 .1 million
cows. 2 .1 million cows. Think about the scale
of that reduction that's potentially losing the
equivalent of the entire dairy populations of
several major dairy states combined. And correspondingly
slash national milk production by a projected
48 .4 billion pounds annually. is huge. What's
the total U .S. production, roughly? Currently
around 220, 230 billion pounds. So 48 .4 billion
pounds is roughly a quarter to a fifth of the
entire national supply, just vanishing from the
market, according to these projections. That
would fundamentally reshape the dairy landscape,
prices would. Well, that 90 % figure starts to
seem less theoretical. Exactly. It also projects
forcing 7 ,011 dairy farms completely out of
business. Over 7 ,000 farms. That's a huge number
of operations. That's families, communities.
Generations, often. Immense disruption to rural
communities that rely on these businesses. And
a significant restructuring of the entire U .S.
dairy industry. Potentially consolidating production
onto far fewer, larger farms that might somehow
manage to adapt or weather the storm. And the
economic ripple effects don't stop at the farm
gate, do they? No, they extend far beyond, across
the entire agricultural supply chain that supports
dairy and is supported by dairy. The article
mentions a projected $32 .1 billion reduction
in output across that entire supply chain. And
a corresponding loss of 208 ,208 jobs across
that same supply chain. Wow. So jobs in feed
mills, vet supply companies, equipment manufacturers,
transport, processing plants, distributors, retail.
The whole network. This crisis isn't confined
to the milking parlor. Its economic impact is
felt across the vast network connected to dairy.
Broader economic research cited in the article
suggests that mass deportations across the economy,
of which agricultural labor is a significant
part, could reduce overall U .S. GDP by anywhere
from 2 .6 percent to a staggering 6 .2 percent
over the next decade. That's huge for the whole
country's economy. With agriculture specifically
facing projected annual losses of $60 billion
across all sectors. And the article highlights
that states with large immigrant populations
and significant agricultural sectors, specifically
mentioned in California, Texas, and Florida.
The key dairy states. Which are also key dairy
production regions, would likely face the most
severe and immediate economic impacts from such
labor disruptions. So the crisis would hit hardest
precisely where milk production is most concentrated.
The article also includes a finding that might
be uncomfortable or counterintuitive for some,
referencing historical data from previous large
-scale deportation campaigns. What does it say
about those? It states that these previous campaigns,
contrary to some assumptions, didn't increase
wages or job opportunities for U .S.-born workers
in the sectors affected. Interesting. So it didn't
help native -born workers. In fact, instead of
boosting wages and employment for native -born
workers, as some might assume, such actions,
according to the historical data presented, actually
lowered wages and contributed to job losses overall.
Lowered wages. It cites a specific statistic
to illustrate this point. Removing an estimated
500 ,000 immigrants from the labor market could
potentially lead to 44 ,000 fewer jobs for U
.S.-born workers across the economy. Fewer jobs
for U .S. workers? That does seem counterintuitive.
It directly challenges a common assumption about
the economic effects of removing immigrant labor.
It's a crucial, if potentially controversial,
point from the article that warrants careful
consideration. presented here impartially as
a finding within the source material. It suggests
a much more complex economic reality than just
simply replacing one worker with another. Which
brings us neatly to the idea that technology,
you know, the precision agriculture revolution
we discussed earlier, is going to be the silver
bullet that solves this labor challenge. Right,
just automate everything. Essentially allowing
farms to operate with far fewer people. The article
acknowledges the incredible advancements in precision
ag within dairy. We see it everywhere now. Automated
milking systems, AMS, sophisticated activity
monitoring callers providing real -time data
on... health and heat. Advanced real -time data
analytics platforms guiding everything from individual
cow nutrition to predict your health interventions.
Absolutely. These technologies have definitely
been instrumental in enabling things like higher
component percentages, pushing butterfat to 4
.4 euro percent and beyond, and driving significant
efficiency gains. But... There's always a but,
isn't there? There is. The article delivers a
crucial reality check here, describing it as
the uncomfortable truth that industry leaders
and policymakers sometimes refuse to acknowledge.
And what's that truth? Even the most sophisticated,
technologically advanced dairy operations, the
article argues, remain fundamentally dependent
on human expertise and skill to function effectively.
Ah, so tech doesn't eliminate the need for smart
people. And it's quite clear and firm about this.
This essential expertise, the nuanced understanding
of cows, equipment, complex systems, it can't
simply be automated away with the push of a button.
It uses the AMS example to illustrate this point
vividly, doesn't it? It does. Yeah. Even installing
a multi -million dollar robotic milking system
setup doesn't eliminate the need for skilled
workers. It changes the type of skills needed.
Right. You still need highly competent technicians.
for routine maintenance, for troubleshooting
when things inevitably go wrong, which they do,
and for monitoring herd health signals that the
robots might flag but require human interpretation
and intervention. The article uses a very relatable
scenario for any farmer, needing experienced
workers at 3 a .m. during peak lactation when
one of your critical AMS units goes down. Been
there, done that feeling. In that moment, you
don't just need someone who can follow a basic
checklist. You need experienced workers who understand
both the complex technology involved and cow
behavior. And can work under pressure. Who can
quickly diagnose the problem and get the system
back up and running. You can't simply hire someone
off Craigslist with no dairy or technical experience
to handle that kind of high -pressure situation.
No way. The article also connects the significant
cost of technology directly to the labor issue.
A robotic installation is a massive capital investment.
It's huge. Potentially $150 ,000 to $275 ,000
per robot unit, plus substantial infrastructure
upgrades. And the crucial point the article makes
is that for operations already struggling with
volatile milk prices, thin margins, and labor
instability. Which is a lot of operations. These
massive capital investments require a stable,
skilled workforce not only to operate the technology,
but to justify the significant return on investment,
ROI. Right. downtime caused by lack of skilled
labor to fix a robot is lost milk, lost revenue,
directly impacting that ROI calculation. And
research concerns this point, according to a
specific study cited in the article. It found
that farms implementing AMS actually maintained
essentially the same total number of employees
after the installation as they had before. That's
a critical detail that really flies in the face
of the tech replaces workers assumption, doesn't
it? It does. The jobs changed roles, becoming
less physically demanding in some aspects, but
often demanding higher skilled workers capable
of managing complex computer systems, data analytics,
and sophisticated equipment maintenance. Which
leads to the article's conclusion on this point.
The assumption that automation fundamentally
reduces overall labor needs in dairy is presented
as flawed. Right. Rather than eliminating the
need for people, it changes the nature of the
requirements, demanding a different type of skilled
labor, often a higher level of technical and
analytical skill. So if technology isn't the
universal silver bullet, What about the H -2A
program? It's often pointed to by policymakers
and industry stakeholders as the existing solution
for agricultural labor shortages. And the article
acknowledges the program's significant growth,
highlighting its expansion from issuing just
44 visas in 1987 to approving over 378 ,000 temporary
positions in fiscal year 2023. On paper, that
sounds like a robust system providing a large
pool of workers. It does. But the article meticulously
explains why it funds fundamentally fails to
address dairy's core labor needs, citing USDA
data on the program's structure. What's the core
problem? The core insurmountable problem, according
to the article, is that H -2A is designed for
temporary or seasonal labor requirements. Yeah.
The average certification duration for an H -2A
job in fiscal 2023 was only 5 .75 months. Just
under six months. The fundamental mismatch for
dairy is glaringly obvious. Cows need milking
365 days a year, twice daily, without any seasonal
breaks or downtime. Right. Dairy's essential
labor needs are year -round, non -seasonal, continuous.
The H -2A program in its current form simply
is not built for that reality. And the cost implications
of using H -2A for year -round work, even if
it were somehow structured differently, are significant,
and the article argues... probably prohibitive
for dairy margins. He references analysis from
Michigan State University economist Zach Rutledge.
What did he find? He estimates that while domestic
workers might cost $15, $25 per hour, including
payroll taxes, H -2A workers can cost almost
twice as much, in the range of $25, $30 per hour.
Wow, nearly double. And that $25, $30 figure
he notes in the article emphasizes... is just
the wage cost. The total cost is significantly
higher when factoring in mandatory requirements
like providing housing, transportation, and other
expenses for H -2A workers. Which are substantial
costs. Absolutely. For dairy operations already
running on razor -thin margins, facing volatile
milk prices, that represents a substantial, potentially
unsustainable financial burden for their core
labor needs. The article mentions the National
Milk Producers Federation, NMPF, lobbying efforts
to try and expand H -2A access for year -round
dairy operations. We've been working on this
for years. Highlighting a persistent frustration
and, frankly, an irony. Even sectors like sheep
herding, another year -round animal ag enterprise,
have somehow gained access to H2A for their core,
continuous labor needs. But not dairy. But dairy,
a multi -billion dollar industry foundational
to the U .S. food supply, still does not have
H2A access for its essential year -round milking
and herd management labor. And despite years
of effort and advocacy, the article states the
persistent reality clearly. Dairy farms currently
do not have access to the H -2A farmworker program
for their essential non -seasonal labor needs.
So it remains a program fundamentally unsuited
and unavailable for the core workforce required
to milk cows every day of the year. Pretty much.
The bottom line on H -2A, according to the article's
analysis, is that while it might serve its purpose
for seasonal fruit and vegetable crops with defined
harvest periods and potentially higher margins
per acre, it is presented as economically devastating
and practically impossible for dairy operations
that have thin margins and non -negotiable year
-round labor requirements. And it's not just
the year -round aspect, is it? It's the skills,
too. Exactly. The specialized skills required
for dairy work, handling large animals safely,
operating complex milking equipment, identifying
subtle signs of illness. understanding feeding
protocols. These aren't skills quickly acquired
by a temporary workforce rotating every six months.
Dairy requires experienced people. And H -2A
is just not built for long -term skilled employee
retention in that context. The article then shifts
gears a bit, moving from problem analysis to
what it calls smart producers are already adapting.
Okay, so what are they doing? The point here
is that forward -thinking, resilient operations
aren't sitting back, passively waiting for Washington
to suddenly pass perfect legislation. Because
that could be a long wait. They are proactively
taking action on their own farms, implementing
strategies to build resilience against this ongoing
crisis. And the article suggests that these proactive
strategies are what will ultimately separate
the survivors from casualties as the labor crisis
deepens. Hoping for a policy fix isn't a viable
operational plan, basically. Right. So what's
strategy one? The first major strategy detailed
is comprehensive worker retention and development
programs. This goes way beyond just paying a
wage. Okay, like what? What these programs include,
according to the article, are addressing workers'
long -term needs and well -being through tangible
support systems. This can involve providing or
assisting with access to health care, offering
housing assistance or high -quality on -farm
housing, providing English language training
to improve communication and integration, and
creating skills development pathways within the
operation to offer opportunities for advancement.
So investing in the people you have. Exactly.
The core argument presented here is that investing
meaningfully in worker stability and well -being
isn't just, you know, a humanitarian concern.
It's a direct investment in operational resilience.
Makes sense. The article frames it as protecting
your existing massive investments in genetics
and technology and management systems. A stable,
skilled workforce is what makes all those other
investments actually pay off. And the article
cites a crucial statistic that powerfully backs
this up. What's that? Research shows that dairy
operations with stable workforces, farms with
lower turnover rates, and more experienced staff
consistently achieve significantly higher rolling
herd averages, RHA, often 12 % higher or more.
12 % higher RHA? That's massive. And experience
dramatically lower productivity losses directly
related to high employee turnover and constant
retraining. Think about what a 12 % higher RHA
means for your milk check that's a clear, measurable
ROI on treating your labor as a valuable long
-term asset to be invested in. Absolutely. Okay,
what's strategy two? Strategy number two is meticulous
I -9 compliance and audit preparation. This might
sound like just paperwork, but the article highlights
it as a critical defense against immediate operational
disruption. Right, because those audits can come
any time. Penn State's Brooke Dewar is cited,
strongly emphasizing the absolute necessity of
having systematic, ongoing I -9 audit preparation
in place now. Not when you get the notice. Exactly.
The critical rule from Immigration and Customs
Enforcement, ICE, is non -negotiable. If they
arrive on your farm and request your I -9 forms...
you have precisely three business days to produce
any documents they request. Three days. That's
not much time if things aren't organized. Not
at all. And the challenging reality is that,
as the article notes, ICE officers may show up
unannounced. or with very little prior warning,
presenting a notice of inspection for your I
-9 forms. So you have to be ready constantly.
Smart operations, the article stresses, don't
scramble when the notice arrives. They maintain
meticulous, organized, and up -to -date employment
records at all times and have already developed
clear response protocols before enforcement arrives.
This preparedness protects you from potentially
crippling fines, which the article summary implies
can run into hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Serious money. Okay, strategy three. Strategy
number three is strategic technology integration.
Revisiting technology, but with a different,
more nuanced focus than the simple idea of replacement.
Right, not just tech for tech's sake. The goal
here... as defined by the article and seen on
successful farms is to strategically adopt technology
in ways that enhance worker productivity and
efficiency rather than solely attempting to replace
workers makes sense examples examples cited include
integrating precision feeding systems that reduce
manual mixing errors and labor automated health
monitoring systems that free up skilled labor
time from observation rounds to focus on intervention
letting people focus on the high value tasks
and data analytics platforms that empower managers
and skilled workers to make better decisions
faster. These tools, the article argues, don't
eliminate the need for people, but they allow
existing skilled workers to manage larger herds
more effectively, improve accuracy, and reduce
some of the more physically demanding or repetitive
labor. So this type of technology investment
complements rather than attempts to replace the
essential skilled human labor on the farm. Okay,
and the last one, strategy four. Finally, strategy
four is supply chain diversification. This involves
actively reducing your operations dependence
on single suppliers who might themselves be vulnerable
to labor disruptions like those described earlier.
Ah, looking beyond your own farm gate. Exactly.
This is about building resilience upstream and
downstream. It involves diversifying your vendor
networks, maybe having multiple sources for feed
ingredients, working with several transportation
companies, or building relationships with multiple
processing facilities if possible. Spreading
the risk. And a key factor mentioned is actively
working with vendors and partners in your supply
chain who themselves have demonstrated stable
labor practices. Why is that important? By collaborating
with businesses that value and retain their workforce,
you are indirectly protecting your own operation
from potential supply chain disruptions caused
by labor issues further up or down the chain.
Like your feed mill suddenly closing or transport
becoming unavailable? Exactly. Building a resilient
network. The article then takes a step back to
look at the broader global competition angle.
Right. How does the U .S. situation stack up
internationally? it points out that while the
u .s dairy industry is grappling with this fundamental
labor crisis and the uncertainty it creates global
competitors are not standing still they're moving
ahead they're actively building structural advantages
related to labor that position them better in
the international market so stable predictable
labor policies in other dairy producing countries
the article argues are directly helping those
competitors capture expanding global market share
while the U .S. struggles with inconsistency
and potential production losses. And it provides
specific examples. New Zealand, a major dairy
exporter. Huge player. Has well -established
seasonal worker programs, like their recognized
seasonal employer RSE scheme, that provide dairy
farmers with predictable, legally authorized
labor pools. So they have reliability. This predictability,
the article suggests, enables consistent 2 -3
% annual production growth and supports ongoing
farm modernization and investment, because farmers
know they'll have the workforce to utilize those
investments. Makes sense. Who else? Canada, our
neighbor to the north and another significant
dairy producer, is highlighted for its even longer
track record over 50 years of managed agricultural
immigration through programs like their Seasonal
Agricultural Worker Program, SAWP. 50 years,
that's established. This half century of planned,
consistent labor supply supports long -term investment
planning on Canadian farms and helps them avoid
the volatile, unpredictable boom -bust cycles
seen in the U .S. labor market. And Europe. Within
the European Union, regional worker mobility
policies effectively eliminate the kind of national
level immigration uncertainties that plague U
.S. operations. workers can move more freely
within the EU to meet agricultural needs, supporting
stable planning horizons for European dairy producers
who are also competitors in the global market.
So the implication for U .S. market share, as
the article points out, is clear. Yeah. When
U .S. dairies face production volatility or inability
to expand due to labor shortages and uncertainty,
international suppliers who do have stable labor
frameworks are well positioned to fill the gap
in global demand, often at freemium prices. This
directly impacts the competitiveness and global
standing of the U .S. dairy industry. We lose
out. Potentially, yes. The article then transitions
to discussing potential policy solutions, suggesting
that meaningful long -term solutions require
a fundamental shift in approach. Moving beyond
just enforcement. Moving beyond enforcement -only
strategies that primarily disrupt the workforce
and towards policies that address the reality
of dairy's year -round labor needs. And as we
noted earlier, we'll present these impartially
as the solutions specifically discussed and advocated
for within the article. Right, so what's solution
one? Solution number one discussed is modernized
guest worker programs. This involves reforming
existing programs, like H -2A, and developing
new ones specifically tailored to meet the unique
needs of year - around agricultural sectors like
dairy. So fixing H -2A or creating something
new for dairy is reality. Yeah. The goals would
be to accommodate continuous labor requirements,
strengthen worker protections, remove those restrictive
seasonal limitations that make H -2A incompatible
with dairy, and streamline the application process
for legitimate employers to reduce administrative
burden. Okay, solution two. Solution number two
is advocating for earned legalization for current
workers. This involves providing pathways to
legal status, potentially permanent residency,
for the significant population of long -term
undocumented workers who are already integrated
into the U .S. dairy workforce. The people already
here doing the work. The article highlights the
point that these workers are integral to dairy
operations, possessing years of experience and
training that is not easily replaced. And it
mentions NMPF supports this. It explicitly mentions
the National Milk Producers Federation's call
for permanent legal status for these workers,
tying it directly back to avoiding the economic
catastrophe scenario outlined by the data. Makes
sense. Solution three. Solution number three
is advocating for balanced enforcement priorities.
The article notes the striking current disparity
in federal spending, citing a rough 14 .1 ratio
favoring immigration enforcement budgets over
budgets for enforcing labor standards. 14 to
1. That's a big difference. The argument presented
is that the severe imbalance not only leads to
disruptive immigration raids. but also by failing
to adequately enforce labor standards, can enable
worker exploitation, and ultimately undermine
fair wages and working conditions for all agricultural
workers. Including native -born workers. Exactly.
Rebalancing priorities could lead to more stable
employment practices across the board. And the
last one, solution four. Solution number four
is exploring the potential for regional labor
compacts. This suggests developing agreements
potentially between states or regions that could
facilitate managed seasonal or year -round worker
mobility across different agricultural sectors
and geographic areas based on need. So more flexibility
across state lines, maybe. Yeah. The goal would
be to reduce some of the administrative complexities
of national programs while maintaining necessary
oversight and ensuring robust worker protections
are in place. Okay. So those are the policy ideas
discussed. The article's core message really
culminates in a section titled Adapt or Perish,
revisiting the stark choice facing dairy producers
in light of the data and the policy challenges.
Bringing it all together. It brings the conversation
full circle back to that seemingly unbelievable
90 .4 % milk price increase projection. Yeah,
that number again. Hammering home the point that
it's not a theoretical fantasy or political hyperbole.
It's presented as the direct mathematical result
of removing the immigrant work. The economics
presented earlier, the loss of production in
farms, mathematically leads to extreme scarcity
scenarios in the market, driving prices up drastically.
In connecting it back to your operation, the
article reinforces that all that genetic progress
you've painstakingly built, all the component
optimization you've achieved, pushing butterfat
to 4 .40%. All the tech investment. The rotary
parlors, the AMS units, the activity monitors.
All of it becomes vulnerable, potentially worthless,
without the skilled workers needed to execute
the daily protocols, to milk the cows correctly,
to feed them precisely, to manage the machines,
and to care for the animals. Labor underpins
everything else. The article then poses four
critical questions directly to you, the listener,
suggesting that your answers determine your readiness
for the unfolding crisis. Okay, what are they?
The first is sharp and immediate. Can your operation
realistically survive a 50 % labor loss occurring
within just 30 days? Wow. And the article doesn't
leave that question hanging, does it? It immediately
provides the answer based on the Texas A &M research.
Which says... The data suggests most dairy operations,
in their current structure, cannot survive that
kind of sudden, drastic workforce reduction.
It highlights the immediate existential vulnerability.
Okay, tough first question. Question two. Are
your technology investments truly labor -dependent
or labor -independent? Ah, digging into that
tech piece again. The article states that an
honest assessment here is crucial for determining
your vulnerability level, tying back to that
point that much of today's sophisticated dairy
tech still requires skilled human oversight and
maintenance rather than operating truly autonomously.
Got it. Question three. Question three cuts directly
to financial risk. What's your contingency plan
if, for some reason, H -2A costs were to double
overnight? Referencing Zach Rutledge's analysis
that current H -2A costs are already potentially
double domestic wages when all expenses are included.
Right. The question forces you to consider the
economic viability of relying on or being forced
into such a costly program. Do you have a plan
B for that? And question four broadens the scope
beyond the farm gate. How are you actively building
political capital for fundamental immigration
reform? getting involved. Emphasizing the article's
point that while farm level strategies are essential,
individual operators cannot solve this systemic
national policy issue alone. It requires collective
action and political engagement through industry
organizations. Based on these challenges, the
article provides an implementation timeline for
immediate action. Concrete steps. Outlining concrete
steps. A producer can, according to the article,
should take now, starting this week, to position
their operation for resilience. Okay. What's
the first step? Week one. The very first step
recommended within week one to two. Immediately
contact your state dairy association to get involved
and join advocacy efforts. Don't wait. No. The
article specifically mentions the National Milk
Producers Federation and the American Farm Bureau
Federation as leading national initiatives, but
stresses that they need unified vocal producer
support on the ground to effectively influence
policy outcomes in Washington. Makes sense. Month
one. Month one. Conduct a comprehensive I -9
audit of your current employment documentation.
Get those papers in order. Reiterate Brooke Dewar's
urgent guidance. You only have three business
days to produce documents when ICE arrives for
an inspection. Highlights the absolute necessity
of proactive, meticulous preparation before you
receive a notice. Maybe hire someone to help?
Yeah. Might involve hiring an external consultant
or using resources from your industry association
to ensure everything is absolutely in order.
Okay. Months two to three. Months two to three.
Actively develop and implement worker retention
programs on your farm. Refer back to the research
showing the benefits of stable workforces. Investing
in your people. This involves dedicating resources
to things like assessing housing needs, exploring
healthcare access options, offering English language
training, and creating pathways for skills development
and advancement for your existing team. And months
four to six? Months four to six. Make strategic
investments in technology, focusing specifically
on systems that enhance, support, and improve
the productivity of your skilled workers. Not
just replace them. Rather than technology purchased.
with the flawed assumption that it will simply
reduce the total number of people you need. Follow
the models of successful AMS integration that
maintain employment levels, but shift job roles
towards higher skill sets. The article concludes
this section with a powerful assertion that serves
as a summary of its recommended approach. The
smart money in dairy is now fundamentally in
operations preparation. Operations prep, that
covers a lot. This preparation, as outlined,
covers comprehensive worker retention programs,
strategic and thoughtful technology investment,
robust risk management, including I -9 compliance,
and dedicated political engagement through established
farm organizations. It's not about passively
waiting for a hypothetical policy fix. It's about
actively building operational resilience on your
farm today, while simultaneously advocating for
the systemic change that the industry desperately
needs. So what's your concrete, actionable next
step, according to the clear direction provided
in this Bullvine article? It's presented as immediate
and essential. Contact your state dairy association
this week to get connected and join the ongoing
advocacy efforts for agricultural labor reform.
Reaffirming why this is the crucial first step,
unified collective producer support is absolutely
necessary to influence policy outcomes in Washington.
Your individual voice is important, but it is
amplified exponentially when combined with the
voices of thousands of other dairy farmers facing
the exact same challenges. And to leave you with
a final thought, building on the article's closing
lines and the stark reality it presents. Yeah.
This isn't just about abstract politics or policy
debates happening far away. It's fundamentally
about protecting the future viability of your
specific operation, your livelihood, your way
of life. Especially in a market where optimizing
components like butterfat and protein and maximizing
operational efficiency are absolutely key to
survival. The crisis the article describes isn't
some distant possibility looming on the horizon.
It's coming, or perhaps, as the article strongly
suggests and recent events indicate, it's already
here. manifesting in the daily grinding challenges
of finding, training, and keeping the skilled
labor you need to milk cows 365 days a year.
Frame the choice the article presents. Will you
be ready, prepared, and proactive when that political
theater the article talks about translates into
enforcement action that hits your milking parlor?
Potentially at 4 a .m. tomorrow morning. Leaving
you shorthanded. The stark reality the article
leaves you with is this. Washington may be engaged
in complex, often unpredictable political theater,
but your cows still need milking twice daily.
Every day. Your components still need optimizing
to capture market value. Your TMR needs mixing
and delivering, and your entire operation needs
proactive protection. The producers who recognize
this fundamental truth about their labor dependency
and act accordingly, focusing on their people,
their preparedness, and their collective voice
through industry action are the ones who the
article suggests are most likely to still be
standing when the dust settles on this undeniable
labor crisis. Something definitely worth thinking
about and acting upon this week. Here's the bottom
line, folks. While Washington plays political
games with immigration policy, your cows still
need milking twice daily. your components still
need optimizing, and your operation still needs
protecting. The 90 .4 % milk price increase we
discussed isn't some distant theoretical possibility.
It's the mathematical result of eliminating the
workforce that produces 79 % of America's milk
supply. Every day that passes without policy
solutions moves our industry closer to that economic
cliff. The producers who recognize this fundamental
truth and take action now will be the ones still
standing when the dust settles. The question
isn't whether this crisis will affect you, it's
whether you'll be ready when it hits your milking
parlor at 4am tomorrow morning. Your next step?
Contact your state dairy association this week.
Join the advocacy efforts for agricultural labor
reform. The National Milk Producers Federation
and American Farm Bureau Federation are leading
these initiatives. but they need unified producer
support to make real change happen. This has
been the Bullvine Podcast. Remember, we don't
just report the news, we give you the insights
to profit from it. Until next time, keep challenging
conventional wisdom and stay ahead of the curve.
Visit us at www .thebullvine .com for more industry
-disrupting content that separates leaders from
followers. Thanks for listening.