{"id":5423,"date":"2025-07-22T17:00:00","date_gmt":"2025-07-22T21:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.farmforward.com\/?post_type=publication&p=5423"},"modified":"2025-07-23T10:02:33","modified_gmt":"2025-07-23T14:02:33","slug":"subsidizing-the-spread-bird-flu-bailouts-expand-from-poultry-to-dairy","status":"publish","type":"publication","link":"https:\/\/www.farmforward.com\/publications\/subsidizing-the-spread-bird-flu-bailouts-expand-from-poultry-to-dairy\/","title":{"rendered":"Subsidizing the Spread: Bird Flu Bailouts Expand from Poultry to Dairy"},"content":{"rendered":"\t
\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t

ISSUE BRIEF<\/h2>\n

Since the beginning of the current H5N1 outbreak in early 2022, the federal government has been bailing out meat and dairy companies for losses related to the virus. These bailouts come in the form of so-called \u201cindemnity payments\u201d\u2014federal funds designed to compensate producers for the value of animals or animal products (e.g., milk) lost due to the epidemic. However, these payments aren\u2019t just acts of emergency relief; they can function as subsidies that prop up a system of industrial animal agriculture, whose core practices are driving the same bird flu crisis these payments are intended to address.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, Farm Forward reported that USDA had made $1.25 billion in indemnity payments to the poultry industry to compensate producers for economic losses from bird deaths, including funds allocated for the “depopulation” (that is, culling) of infected birds (see Farm Forward’s report <\/a>for an analysis of poultry indemnities). Now, Farm Forward presents new data, gathered through the Freedom of Information Act, that shows a similar pattern of harmful indemnities to farms raising dairy cows affected by bird flu. The extension of indemnity payments to dairy producers reveals how the federal government continues to fail in its bird flu response and prop up the industry’s reckless practices that threaten public health. The FOIA data1<\/a> obtained by Farm Forward reveals four key findings:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The large-scale dairies most responsible for endangering public health reap the most benefit from taxpayer bailouts.<\/strong><\/li>\n
  2. USDA repeatedly bails out the same producers for ongoing outbreaks, with over forty percent of payments going to recipients who received multiple disbursements.<\/strong><\/li>\n
  3. By making losses the financial responsibility of the taxpayer and requiring no changes in behavior from operators, the USDA payments incentivize producers to continue their risky practices that exacerbate the outbreak.<\/strong><\/li>\n
  4. Federal agencies are neglecting the threat of bird flu and deliberately sidestepping common-sense solutions because of industry pressure.<\/strong><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In July 2024, USDA began to compensate dairy producers for losses associated with the virus.2<\/a> The Emergency Assistance for Livestock, Honey Bees, and Farm-Raised Fish Program (ELAP) is a federal program administered by USDA to compensate producers for losses in response to a range of events (e.g., disease outbreaks, adverse weather, or feed shortages) that impact livestock, honeybee colonies, and farm-raised fish. In response to the growing impact of bird flu on U.S. dairy herds, USDA expanded ELAP eligibility to include dairy producers affected by the virus. This move allowed dairies to access federal compensation for losses linked to infection, such as decreased milk production and the costs of testing and containment.3<\/a> The original intention of the ELAP program is a good one; it is reasonable to protect farmers from extreme weather and disasters outside of their control.<\/p>\n

    Bird flu, however, is not an act of God\u2014it is often the direct result of routine practices in industrial animal farming operations, whose crowded, filthy, cramped conditions create and exacerbate disease outbreaks.<\/strong>4<\/a> Unlike a corn or soybean farmer, who can\u2019t meaningfully change their farming practices in ways that would reduce the risk of future extreme weather events, animal farming operations can and should make changes to reduce future risk of pandemic diseases. Common sense policy for animal operations indemnity payments should be to a) encourage producers to test and report outbreaks, and b) create incentives for producers to change practices in ways that will reduce the spread of the disease (e.g., lowering animal density).<\/p>\n

    As of January 2025, USDA has distributed over $80 million through ELAP to assist dairy producers, including large-scale producers, in covering losses from H5N1-related milk production declines.5<\/a> Despite tens of millions in taxpayer bailouts for these dairy companies, there\u2019s little sign that such operations or the animal farming industry as a whole are making progress to improve their farming practices in ways that would reduce the risk of the virus spreading.6<\/a><\/p>\n

    The bailouts from the ELAP program are just one part of the ongoing failure of both the Democratic and Republican parties to respond to the bird flu outbreak robustly. In April 2025, the FDA suspended its testing program for milk, which would improve bird flu testing and milk safety. The Trump administration also made sweeping cuts to an already limited staff responsible for testing, tracking, and controlling the virus;7<\/a> canceled plans for an H5N1 poultry vaccine;8<\/a> and cut funding for the development of a human H5N1 vaccine.9<\/a> Taken together, our findings highlight the repeated failures of the federal government to contain the H5N1 outbreak and protect public health.<\/p>\n

    1. The large-scale dairies most responsible for endangering public health reap the most benefit from taxpayer bailouts.<\/h3>\n

    Our review of FOIA payment data indicated that large-scale dairies in major dairy-industry areas like Tulare County and Kings County in California (as well as Weld County in Colorado) received some of the largest payments, with many receiving nearly $1 million. While operations with more animals will have greater losses than a smaller operation with fewer, and therefore will have more losses and receive higher payments, this approach reflects the business-as-usual approach of subsidizing large-scale farms for externalities they themselves create and exacerbate. Many of these operations use large freestall barns, typified by high-confinement conditions with limited outdoor access, all of which require massive cesspools of manure, creating the perfect breeding grounds for disease.10<\/a><\/p>\n

    The top three individual payment recipients are all large-scale industrial dairies, confirmed through analyzing satellite imagery (see Appendix):<\/p>\n