—Lancaster Farming, Friday, December 24. 1971
6
Pa. Grange Backs Milk Marketing Board
The Pennsylvania State
Grange this week issued the
following statement in support
of the Pennsylvania Milk
Marketing Board:
The Pennsylvania dairy in
dustry is the most important
segment of the Agricultural
economy of our Commonwealth
today. Dairying today is
responsible for better than 40 per
cent of the total cash farm in
come in Pennsylvania and credit
must be given to our dairy far
mers who provide the 11.8 million
consumers of Pennsylvania with
an adequate supply of pure and
wholesome milk
Pennsylvania today is fifth in
the nation in terms of milk
production, with only the states of
Wisconsin, New York, Minnesota
and California exceeding us. In
1970 Pennsylvania produced over
6 per cent of the total milk
production.
Yes, the dairy industry in
Pennsylvania is big business.
wish you a
d
John J. Hess, 11, Inc.
Ph: 442-4632
Paradise
West Willow
Farmers Assn., Inc.
Ph: 464-3431
West Willow
John B. Kurtz
Ph: 3549251
R. D. 3, Ephfata
Thanh you for your friendship and oaironaget
88888888 B fl B B B B
When you add to the farm value
of milk, the cost of goods and
services created by receiving,
processing, packaging,
refrigeration and distribution,
Pennsylvania’s dairy industry
approximates a billion dollar
business.
What were some of the con
ditions leading to the enactment
of the State Milk Control laws:
1. Low returns to producers.
The first milk control law in
Pennsylvania was enacted
during the well known economic
depression of the early 30’s. By
1933, prices for milk had been
falling rapidly with serious
economic consequences to dairy
farmers. By 1932 there was a
wide disparity between the price
farmers received for milk and
the prices they had to pay for
goods and services
2. Decreased effectiveness of
collective bargaining. Prior to
the early 30’s producers relied in
general upon collective
all of us
Ira B. Landis
Ph: 3947912
1912 Creek Hill Rd., Lane.
James High & Sons
Ph: 3540301
Gordomdlle
Wenger's Feed Mill
Inc.
Ph: 367-1195
Rheems
bargaining through cooperatives
and producer organizations to
obtain better returns for thfe sale
of their milk. However, under the
burden of the adverse economic
conditions of the early 30’s and an
over-abundant supply of milk, the
producer organizations were
unable to maintain a stable price
structure for milk or to obtain
satisfactory returns for farmers.
3. Destructive competition. In
the early 30’s many milk dealers
found themselve*handicapped as
a result of several extenuating
circumstances. Milk wars were
frequent and supplies to con
sumers were disrupted Costly
competitive, unfair trade
practices and price wars
demoralized the distribution
picture.
At the time that the Penn
sylvania Milk Control law was
enacted in January, 1934 a price
war was in progress in some of
the major markets in the State,
wherein consumers were
receiving milk at ,05c a quart
delivered at their doorstep and
dairy farmers were receiving
about 02V 2 c a quart This painful
effort of price cutting was con
sidered an important cause of low
prices to dairy farmers.
At the same time dairy farmers
were forced to subsidize price
cutting practices of milk dealers
by supplying them milk at any
price the dealers were willing to
pay.
Moreover, dairy farmers were
at times obliged to extend credit
to milk dealers for considerable
periods of time subject to the risk
and actuality of bften finding
themselves in a position where
milk dealers were unable to pay
for milk purchases.
4. Danger to public health and
welfare. The preamble of the
Pennsylvania Milk Marketing
law emphasizes still another;
important reason for the enac
tment of the State Milk Control
PROSPEROUS NEW YEAR
I I
I *
I Your Loco! John Deere Dealer j
legislation. The effect of con
tinued low prices to farmers
endangered the production of an
adequate supply of wholesome
milk and if permitted to continue,
strikes and disorders might
occur, thus affecting the flow of
milk to market.
Since milk is regarded as an
essential food, especially for
children, it was the responsibility
of the State to insure a continuous
and adequate supply of pure and
wholesome milk.
Therefore, the Legislature at
the outset of the enactment of
state milk control, justified the
control of milk prices as essential
and in the public interest.
All in all, the situation resulting
from this vicious cycle was
nothing short of tragic:
producers had to accept
disastrous prices forced upon
them; milk dealers, even some of
considerable size, could not
protect themselves indefinitely
and accordingly were in turn
forced out of business.
What I have been saying is:
Because of the inability of the
dairy industry to stabilize itself
Merry Christmas
and Sincere Wishes for a
and inasmuch as the supply of
tflilk to consumers was seriously
jeopardized, the Legislature
responded by enacting the first
milk control law in 1934 which has
not only been a help to the dairy
industry, but more important,
has assured every consumer in
Pennsylvania a fresh continuous
and adequate supply of pure and
wholesome milk at all times.
This is what the Milk
Marketing Board has meant to
Pennsylvania the past 37 years.
When we look to other states
surrounding us, let us take a
lesson. If the family dairy farmer
is to continue in Pennsylvania
and the consumers are to be
insured a. fresh, wholesome
supply of milk, the Milk
Marketing Board is a MUST.
I am sure that if the governor
and the secretary of agriculture
have any concern for the dairy
farmer, they will change their
present attitude in regard to the
needs of this most vital industry.
We resent the fact that the
Governor of this Commonwealth
and the Secretary of Agriculture
(Continued on Page 7)
mum'.
XK»9