Farming, SatUtdky, February 1, I£T64
front Where We Stand...
Cut Any Department But Mine!
There is an old saying that every
one is for economy in government as
long as someone eise’s department gets
the cuts.
We believe this is -true. Everyone
believes the cost of government ; is too
high. We are spending too' much bn
services —■ unessential services, they are
sometimes called.
' ' But which are the essential and
which are the unessential services.
We believe it depends on where you
sit.
For years the meat industry has
prided itself on the sfnall amount of
“government regulation and interfer
ence” in that business. Packers, 'ranch
ers and farmers alike have made a great
thing of this.
But this week there came across
our desk a “news release” from the Na
tional Independent Meat Packers Asso
ciation which claims that the industry
is about to be treated unfairly because
one expensive government program may
be charged to the industry itself.
Part of the news release follows:
“A ‘bomb shell which may cause
inestimable damage to the meat packing
industry and to the entire livestock
and food industries’ was the way John
Killick, executive secretary of the Na
tional Independent Meat Packers As
sociation, described President Johnson’s
proposal to burden the meat packing
industry with the cost of meat inspec
tion. Nillick referred to a ‘submerged
passage’ in the President’s Budget Mes
sage, which was delivered to Congress
last Tuesday, that is part of the admin
istration’s cutback in agricultural appro
priations.
“The 1964 budget would reduce
federal payments for agriculture and
agricultural resources mainly through a
reduction in farm commodity programs;
a part, however, would be obtained by
‘a new proposal providing for fees to
cover the costs of meat, poultry, and
grain inspection services.’
“Killick said. ‘Once before, in 1948,
the government imposed the cost of fed
eral meat inspection on meat packers,
but before the year was over, Congress
had acted to protect and safeguard its
long-established policy that meat inspec
tion costs should be borne by the govern
ment, and quickly enacted legislation
that reinstated meat inspection to its
proper status that of a direct obliga
tion and responsibility of the federal
government.’ ~
“ ‘At that time,’ Killick observed,
‘Congress stated that the protection of
the health and welfare of the American
people is a proper function of the
Government and that the inspection of
meat and meat products is a proper ex
ercise of that function. In addition, Con
gress recognized that inspection is ob
viously for the benefit of the general
public, rather than producers and pro
cessors, and therefore the cost of such
inspection should be paid out of the gen
eral funds of the federal government.’ ”
Our purpose here is not to say wheth
er federal grading is good or evil, or
• Soil Conservation
(Continued from Page 1)
Holtwood Rl, 95 acres in Bru
in ore Twp . John B. Heir,
Holtwood Rl, 144 acres in
Marne Twp , Earl Swartzen
liirber, Drumore Rl, 119 acres
in prumore Twp , Eli M Horst,
Leola, 70 acres in Upper Lea
cock Twp , H Melvin Charles,
Lancastei R 2, 23 acres in Man
or Twp ; Edna S Holler, Man
lieim R 3, G 8 acies in Penn
Twp , Malilon Charles, Mariet
ta Rl, 100 acres in Ea-st Done
gal Twrrr *' '
whether the costs should he borne by
the industry or the Federal Government;
Our “point is simply to state that
the public demands a certain number of
services. When the services are provided
and charged to the public-the people
complain bitterly. When the government
tries to institute economies, the people
aiid politicians raise continual howls of
anguish. As a result, government is.
damned if it tries to economize,- and
damned if it does not.
We are going to have to decide-what
is good and what must go. Then we
must accept cuts, even if they hurt our
individual pocketbooks, and we must be
willing to pay for the rest.
At least that’s how it looks from
where we stand.
In a recent issue of The Reader’s
Digest, John Strohm and Cliff Ganschow
two top writers on agricultural and
related subjects dealt, in consider
able detail with “The Great Pesticide
Controversy.” Their purpose was to se
parate fact from fallacy and to deter
mine whether or pot the food we all
must eat is being poisoned by chemicals,
and whether or not they are a menace
to wildlife.
To begin with, they point out that
“Without pesticides, food would have
to be rationed. Housewives would line
up to buy inferior foods, blemished to
matoes, scrawny potatoes and sweet
corn pocked with wormholes.” The price
of most food items, according to one
authority, would double. Chemical con
trol of these multitudinous pests is es
sential to an abundant agriculture which
can feed the nation at minimum cost.
What of the dangers a vital ques
tion, indeed, in the light of all the
controversy this problem has-produced?
Messrs. Strohm and Ganschow do
not minimize them. They have existed
and, no doubt, will continue to exist
nothing in life is totally safe, witness
automobile driving. But pesticide dang
ers seem to have been vastly exaggerat
ed, in the view of leading students and
scientists. Moreover, some $4O million
a year is now being spent on pesticide vr j rpi rp»
research, in a hunt for better and safer IN OW IS X ll© X ItH© * . •
compounds, and a number of dramatic BY MAT
steps forward have already been taken.
At the end of their article, the
authors touch the big point. They agree
that there is a need for stricter control
and use of certain chemicals But then
they say this, and it goes to the root of
the matter: “Equally important are cer
tain things we should not do in the emo
tion of the moment:
“We must not sacrifice proven bene
fits because of unproven fears.
“Red tape and excessive regulation
must not tie the hands of research chem
ists, who are urgently needed to help
meet the greatest challenge of the 20th
century producing enough food for
a world in which half of the people are
hungry.”
★ ★ ★ ★
Lancaster Forming
Lancaster County’s Own Farm Robert G. Campbell,
Weekly
Box 1524
Lancaster, Penna
Box 2G6 - Lititz, Pa.
p a
P O
Offices;
22 E' Main St.
Lititz, Pa.
Phone - Lancaster
394-3047 or
Lmtz B2G-2191
★ ★
WHAT WE MUST NOT DO
Jack Oven, Editor
Advertising Director
When the wool grows lons it try It is very difficult to ewp
„NoTfimbear t 4 * CIMCS l * e " rea ar T 3 * he pash the feed nutrients h«rv4.
1955. Published every Satttr-eyes and the animals have ted from a m
day by Laneaster-Farming, Lit- trouWe in seein £ normally. M In mtEutang p Ua| fer
it*. Pa. This should toe cut out 'with the m 4 pfodh
w t re - Al + l°’ «»" «e urged to include cot*
Entered as and class matter , ° e ® a ™ ag seasoll acres for sHage: This type of
long wool Should he trimmed •
at Lititz, Pa. under Act of a * ay (rom the udder! this will
March 8, 1879. make it easier nursing ior-the' - t - . f .
new-honi famh. ---- - - ' --
would have happened. If when
•he talked about the right nlace
to worship God, he had said,
‘That’S a-good question—but let’s
not get into an argument, it’s too
hot;” or if when she said "1 have
no husband” he had said nothing
but “Oh,” it would indeed have
beat a casual meeting, nothing
more. But Jesus turned that meet*
lug into a milestone for the. worn*
an’s life. Before she met Jesui
she was a woman living only for
pleasure and not getting much
out of It. After she met Jesus she
became an enthusiast about him.
I She is interested in her fellow*
. Backlrmaid Strip tore; John 4:1-42. citlxens—for the first time, W*
Derotinul Iteadinsr P»im 42:1-6, may Suppose—BO longer 1U K self*
THE WORD “casual” has vari- *“*>»«• *•*'*'*
1 ous meanings. It makes, you them Cbrwtaiso. She has
think of leisure-time- carnal
clothes or off-hand casual' re* first torn* her life has/ounda
macks.it is the oppositeof form* 5?? s?^?’
si. plannedr carefully prepared, P*™ -J™ 4
You don’t look forward to a casu- new while he htiseif wmti
al you havc morff meaningful hour* thab
don’t even iive it thi f’ kn . e " lh * t
a thought till you not allf«h«ngmg moment**
run across this kini » jt was for her * And he dtalt
person unexpect- e l vro ”f l in f£ rd !“ c 4
ediy. Many meet* w ‘ h +^ e topf 4 "*® £ hour
tags in life are the meeting for her.
planned, more No brush-off
are not. A casual one of most faumillatlnf
acquaintance is and disappointing experiences in
one you meet ***« is to be the victim of it
Dr. Foreman once and then not “brush-off” from someone who
again. A casual meeting is the stands above us. Those who havb
opposite of an important meeting. s °me importance recognized bp
Most people don’t expect much others might remember this;
from casual acquaintances or cas Christians especially. Parents, for
ual occasions of any kind. example, may make fun t)f sont*
No one is unimportant *Jf d ha * mad « at P
Jesus, as usual, was different. in strument, f high-
He met many persons casually, as
we would say. He would talk with a^ count m
a stranger a few moments and a . lot to tho
then they would part never to see Sn Z™ - W ?° sf* “ s s*
each other again. But for Jesus no f^w 11 waste *
meeting was merely casual, be- bous * «
cause no person was unimportant, ®“ vdlQ doe f h ‘ s b«t
and every moment was bound up " n nf fJ, ma !J task ( to hav ® *
with Eternitv ignored—these incidents are soon
That woman at the well is a by parent ’ emptaycr or
good example. Jesus did not in- Jf,' h bu 316
quire her name. She lived in a f an ” , The ©**‘
village he never had .visited and meetm &>
never would visit again so far as into memorable
we know. As the world counts yourself m
such things, she was not im
portant. Notorious in her home ? he
town, maybe; but not important. Jj* rpr 0 H J alw / ys ’
In fact, from the viewpoint of the' ha ™ or *«•'!
disciples, she was so far beneath
the notice of Jesus that when * have toe for peo*
they found him talking with her, S“ y ff e U44 kf
they were astonished. And yet than ourselves. Perhaps if we took
Jesus did talk to hex with such mtb P®?? 1 ® we could
leisurely seriousness that you begin to see more in them,
might have thought she was ftr D £S*J a c SSS£
only person in me world. He Council of th« Church** of Christ in tho
to her some profound tru f ’ s e 'm«.l* Bd “* ed bT Commuaitr Fr «»
If Jesus had treated
that casual meeting
Casual Meeting
To Discard Direct-Cut {Silage Making (
Dairyman who are planning to make gras*
;i 1 age this summer are urged to return io
'he wilting method rather than the direct
jut The degree of wilting will depend upon the type of silage
desired. Prom wilted silage down to loVr-moisture silage (Q*
haylage) may he Obtained hy the degree of time permitted iu
the field before ensiling The direct cut method meana high
moisture silage and creates a. storage problem with lower 'Qual
ity silage for the herd.
MAX SMITH
To Inspect (Breeding Ewes
Sheep growers .are reminded au dnlrjimen and eabtl*
of the problem of iwool blind- r , , , . ~ „ .
feeders are nrged to reodjsnue
ness that might he present
with sheep that 'have consider- teed value in eoim
ahle wool about the head, silage. In this part of the couh-
Lesion forFebrnuy Z, IIH
To (Plan For Early JiCgum© Seeding
Many acres el new clover and alfalfa ■will
be seeded by the broadcast method this
sipring in winter grain If this method is to
be used, it is important to make the broad
cast during late February or the first 10 days
in March. Research eiipernnents have proved
these eaily seedmgs to be more successful
than late March, April, or May. The alternate
freezing and thawing of the ground is impor
tant in trying to get a good stand. Grower*
ire urged to make their plans tor this earty
work.
, l»
A J
.jtmng -
To Recognize Com (SBog*
.3,
k
-V
•V’
A