10
—Lancaster Farming, Saturday, January 15, 1972
Some Notes on Dairying
Pa. Dairying Strong Now
The Pennsylvania dairy industry
currently is the envy of many other states,
including some of the great dairy states in
the mid-West, which lack many of the
natural advantages we have such as close
markets
Besides thousands of farmers whose
hvlihood depend directly on this vital dairy
industry, many thousands more in agri
business depend on it indirectly. The feed
and supply business, the large system
connected with getting the milk to the
But Dairymen Concerned
In many respects, dairying is a fragile
industry It requires high investment in
land, buildings, equipment and animals. At
a time when labor is increasingly ex
pensive, it is labor intensive
Put another yvay, it is a high risk
business—except possibly for farmers who
have been in it long enough to be debt free,
and even they can never be too sure
The one factor in the past which has
made it possible for Pennsylvania
dairymen to assume the high risks and long
hours with some confidence has been the
assurance of a dependable market and
steady prices—made possible by the state
The milk debate in Pennsylvania is
riddled with little ironies These include.
First Jim McHale Pennsylvania
Secretary of Agriculture repeatedly cntizes
the Nixon administration’s failure to
achieve a better level of farm parity—bring
farm costs and prices into better line so
that the farmer gets more profit
Now, the Pennsylvania dairy farmer is
being told in effect that he’s making too
much money and the consumer is going to
have to get a better break This break,
unless it is too small to be significant, must
come out of the farmer's pocket
One dairyman near Pittsburgh informed
us that loss of the Pennsylvania Milk
Control Board would cost him 30 cents a
hundredweight We don’t know how he
arrived at the figure, but we suggest other
dairymen begin to consider what changes
might be necessary in their milk marketing
operations if milk control is abolished and
other marketing arrangements become
necessary
Second The general feeling within the
Pennsylvania dairy industry is that if Milk
Control is eliminated, tremendous
pressures will be brought to bear on in
dependent local dairies which account for
the bulk of doorstep milk devlivery
We are told that Pennsylvania has,
compared to other parts of the country, a
high milk consumption rate which is based
largely on the high rate of doorstep
deliveries
LANCASTER FARMING
Lancaster County’s Own Farm Weekly
P 0 Box 266 - Lititz, Pa. 17543
Office - 22 E. Mam St., Lititz, Pa. 17543
Phone Lancaster 394-3047 or Lititz 626-2191
Robert G Campbell, Advertising Director
Zane Wilson, Managing Editor $
Subscription price $2 per year in Lancaster £
County: $3 elsewhere
•: Established November 4, 1955
:• Published every Saturday by Lan
•: caster Farming, Lititz, Pa
:• Second Class Postage paid at Lititz, Pa.
j: 17543. ,
:• Members, of
:• Assn., , Pa
V
Newspapers Farm Editors >•
Newspaper Publishers«
and National Newspaper $
ij Association,
•; Association
• •••-•• • • • •V«VAV*V*VAVAW.*AVA*AV. , . , A*
Some Little Ironies
consumer provide employment to
thousands.
The health of the dairy industry, in turn,
contributes substantially to all levels of the
Pennsylvania economy, including both
state and local taxes.
It is significant that dairying ranks
second to steel as a Pennsylvania income
producer.
We suspect that in terms of jobs
provided and taxes paid, dairying is far
ahead of steel.
and federal milk control systems. These
systems were developed only after many
years of work and were the direct result of
hard times in the dairy industry
Political tinkering with the milk price
structure can greatly increase the risks to
the dairyman It can bring severe financial
pressures which will limit the Pennsylvania
dairy industry’s ability to prosper and
grow. It can compel individual dairymen to
seek increased profit margins in order to
off-set increased risks.
Pennsylvania consumers will not benefit
from any situation in which dairymen lose
confidence
We are told that elimination of Milk
Control will virtually eliminate doorstep
deliveries as well as many small dairies.
Fortunately, this comes at a time when
dairymen apparently will have the op
portunity to vote for the chance to pay for
milk promotion.
Third. Secretary McHale repeatedly
states his desire to protect and preserve
the family farm.
When milk profit margins narrow, the
smallest and most insecure family farms
will feel it first Only the larger and more
efficient farms can spread the high
overhead of dairying and still make enough
profit on smaller margins.
Our sources inform us that most 25 head
herds m this area are already feeling
severe pressures to expand The minimum
level of efficient operation is generally
believed to be 35 to 40 head These figures,
however, are based on current milk prices.
The number of animals and captial in
vestment needed to make a successful
dairy farm operation will grow accordingly
as milk profit margins are reduced.
In a profit squeeze, the poorest and the
smallest will be forced out of dairying.
Lowering profit margins would appear to
be a weak formula for strengthening rural
Pennsylvania.
While many marginal Southeastern
Pennsylvania dairymen would undoubtedly
be forced out of business and some others
would have to upgrade the scale of their
operation if any significant drop in milk
prices occurred, we believe that our
dairymen in general are probably better
prepared to meet tighter margins than
farmers in most other parts of the state
Secretary McHale repeate'dly states his
concern about the problems of rural
Pennsylvania, including high levels of
poverty and outmigration. Secretary
McHale is right in being deeply concerned
and distressed by these problems. He is
right in his determination to reverse many
years of neglect by Pennsylvania in
meeting these problems.
It is true in Pennsylvania, as it is true
nationally, that the bulk of poverty exists in
rural areas—and not in the cities, where it
has received so much attention.
(Continued on Page II)
NOW IS
THE TIME . .
By Max Smith
Lancaster County Agent
To Segregate Livestock
With the Farm Show fresh in
our minds we are once again
reminded to take precautions
when introducing new animals
into an established herd or
returning show animals to the
home farm. Animals that have
spent a week at a cattle show
have undergone a heavy stress.
They have also come in contact
with the many other animals
each of which could possibly be
carrying a disease producing
organism. The combination of an
animal under stress and this
exposure to foreign organisms
could develop into a serious
disease threat to the animal and
the rest of the herd. The same is
true with new animals from a
single source. The disease
organisms might not be a great
threat but the stress factors
might be even greater. The
animal not only has the stress of
hauling and moving but the
added stress of new feed and
water. Additionally the animal
has the psycological stress of new
surroundings and new stable
mates. Isolation of new or show
animals is ideal but not always
possible. Weigh carefully the cost
of isolation and proper handling
and against the possible affects of
a major disease problem in your
herd. As with everything else, to
cope with this potential problem
we must use common sense as a
part of good management.
GOD WILLS
WHOLENESS
Lesson for January 16,1972
Background Scripture: Luke 4 31 -40. 5
12-26; 1-1-3, 25-56
Devotional Reeding: Isaiah 61:1-7.
No concept so disturbs me in
my pastoral work than the fre
quently -enmmciated belief that
tragedies represent God’s will. A
child is killed and someone “com
forts” the parents with the assur
ance that “It must have been
God’s will.” A
husband is lost to
the ravages of
cancer and we are
told that “It was
meant to be.”
The enemy of
God
Remarks such
i>„„ as these, well-in-
Eev. Althouse tentlone< i though
they may be, verge on blasphemy,
for they make God the source of
evil as well as good. Jesus, how
ever, never saw it that way.
Thumb through the gospels and
you will find that Jesus regarded
illness and brokenness as the
enemies of God. The evil spirits
he cast out of the possessed were
never addressed as God’s little
“helpers.” Healing and the be
stowal of wholeness were always
regarded as a divine victory over
evil, the vanquishing of a foe.
Look again at the stories of
Jesus feats of healing. Even
though he was frequently ap
proached by the less desirable
elements of society, we never
To Control Parasites
All livestock and dairy
producers should be certain that
they are not supporting a
parasite infection in any of their
animals. Body lice on the outside
can do as much damage as
worms in the stomach. Efficient
milk production and weight gains
are necessary in order to make
any profit; any kind of a parasite
will decrease the efficiency. Two
treatments two weeks apart are
needed to clear out body lice.
Stomach worms may be iden
tified by submitting a fecal
sample to your local
veterinarian.
To Recognize The Value
Of Insulation
Buildings filled with livestock
during cold weather may need
some attention to both ventilation
and improved insulation. When
warm air strikes a cold surface,
condensation takes place and we
get sweating and dripping from
the walls, windows, or ceilings. In
some barns a six-inch cover of
straw or hay on the barn floor
above the livestock will serve as
good insulation and reduce
condensation. Some system of
moving out the warm foul air in
confinement barns is necessary.
find Jesus saying, “I’m sorry, you
are not righteous enough to re
ceive healing.” Although requests
for his healing ministry frequent
ly came from those who were not
even Jews, he never turned any
one away because of their the
ology, their doctrines, their re
ligious practices—or the lack of
them. Healing was never meted
out to people because they de
served it.
Nor do we find Jesus ever say
ing, “I’m sorry, but I think you
will be better-off by remaining
ill ” He never suggested that God
had made them ill for their own
good, their spiritual growth. In
short, Jesus seems never to have
wondered whether it was God’s
will to heal anyone. He never
prefaced his prayers for whole
ness with “If it be your will,
heal ”!
The will of God
Have you ever stopped to think
that if illness were God’s will,
Jesus would have been opposing
the will of God with his ministry
of healing? If God wanted people
to be broken, why would Jesus
have set them free’ Further
more, if you believe God may will
you to be ill or broken in some
way, why do you go to the doctor
to be made whole? If God wants
you to be ill, are you not oppos
ing him by seeking medical help?
Jesus apparently believed that
God’s will for men is wholeness
just as it is righteousness. Just as
he wants us to live by the laws
of righteousness, he desires us to
live by the laws of wholeness and
health.
So Jesus came as the healing
Christ because he knew that God
wills wholeness for his children.
(Kased on outlines copyrighted by the
Division of Christian Education, National
Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.
Released by Community Press Service.)