Across the
Editor's Desk
Editor’s Note: Remember
Lancaster Farming’s article the
past summer on Robert Arm
strong, the Southern Lancaster
County farmer who had out
standing results in his first year
with the new crop, triticale?
Well, the crop may catch on.
Here’s the word from the Nor
theastern Poultry Producers
Council in its recent issue of
NEPPCO News:
Triticale is a high yielding
grain; a cross between wheat and
rye developed by Jenkins
Foundation for Research in
California for use in winning the
race against world famine. It was
grown this year on farms in
Lancaster County, Pa., and
Hagerstown, Md. It yields 85 to
100 or more bushels per acre;
contains 17 per cent crude protein
(9 per cent for corn); 14.6 per cent
digestible protein (7.2 per cent
for corn); and 80.2 per cent TDN
(82.3 per cent for com). It could
r WELCOME | IT S THE J
I . CASHWAYk ISjcE® I
■ P ML rKIU ■
I fi THAT COUNTS I
I m i R COMPARE AT CASH WAY |
I ■' - pi BEFORE YOU BUY ■
I | THESE AR£ CASHWAY'S EVERYDAY LOW PRICES | I
I mmmmmm foiled faced I
I IWBH ceilJn 9 s Ifi mam insulation I I
I IHBL in y® 118 2%”Thickx 15” Wide 1005q.Ft.R011.*5.20 I
I I' 3%” Thick x 15” Wide 70Sq.Ft.RoU- . $ 4.71 I
■ [*<>-. ( 6” Thick x 15” Wide 50Sq.Ft.RoU- .*5.90 I
I I" 2%” Thick x 23” Wide 153 Sq. Ft. RoU- .*8.05 I
I X< *TnlP9lilE 3%” Thick x 23” Wide 107 Sq. Ft. RoU. .*7.20 I
■ 6” Thick x 23” Wide 77 Sq. Ft. RoU.. <9.05 I I
I DISAPPEARING in masonite PARTICLE I
I STAIRWAY PANELING BOARD I
I BIG 4xB PANELS ■
iw* crestwan s4s9 ::: i
I ’Sf URGE SELECTION OF FINISHES % ” 5 3.65 I
I I INTERIOR PAINTS 11
I JSS o VINYL LATEX LATEX ELOOR I
I "'Sm™ 1 * 16 wall paint slmi-gloss = I
■ a jaap ENAMEL ENAMEL ■
I B'9" Colors & Whits Matching Colors White, Gray, Red H
■ I V CEILING HEIGHT & white Green & Black ■
I »«La- *39 S S S J 5495 |
H Current Price* Subject to Chen*e Without Notice
I [ HAUL VOU R OWN AND SAVE ... DELIVERY AVAILABLE J I
I 3 Miles East I
■ on Route 340 Phone; 397-4820 I
■ 2275 Old Philadelphia Pike vOT/ I
■ Phone: 397-4820 ■
■ LANCASTER, PA. J
be what we need in the Northeast
to combat the high cost of im
ported grain.
Editor’s Note: The Golden
Guernsey Dairy Co-op has paid a
premium for high-protein milk
since 1962. The following report
on how the protein milk pricing
system is working was reported
in the January-February issue of
The Furrow:
When Stephen Babcock in
vented the first practical test for
milk fat in 1890, he probably
didn’t realize how important his
discovery would be to the dairy
industry ... or how long his
simple test would endure.
More than 80 years later, the
Babcock butterfat test is still the
basis for buying and selling
milk—and often for culling cows.
But now, there seems to be
growing sentiment in favor of
paying for milk on the basis of
protein content as well as but
terfat. Advocates of protein
pricing offer these reasons:
—Because of health scares and
low-priced competition, demand
for highfat dairy products has
tumbled in the past few decades.
At the same time, sales of skim
milk products have soared, and
the surplus of skim-milk powder
has diminished.
—As a result, the value of
nonfat solids (of which protein is
the most important and variable
part) has increased substantially
relative to butterfat. Between
January, 1969, and January, 1971,
skim values in Class I (bottled)
milk went up eight times more
than butterfat values in the
Chicago federal milk order
market.
—Protein has a good ring to it,
butterfat doesn’t. A protein
pricing plan would give
marketers a chance to play up
protein and stimulate increased
consumption of dairy products.
—Reliable tests for deter-
Lancaster Farming, Saturday, February 19,1972—15
mining protein content in milk
are now available.
Opponents of protein pricing
argue that it is debatable whether
dairymen can substantially in
crease the protein content of milk
through feeding or breeding.
They also say the difference in
payments using protein pricing
instead of the current system
would be only a few cents per
hundred—hardly enough to pay
for making management
changes.
Opponents also raise legitimate
questions about who would set the
protein standards and whether
consumers, in fact, are willing to
pay a premium for milk with
higher protein.
9-Year Test
To try to get answers to some of
these questions, the Furrow
visited officials and members of
the Golden Guernsey Dairy
Cooperative in Milwaukee, Wis.,
which adopted a combined fat
and-protein pricing plan way
back in 1962. Producers are now
paid a variable premium of from
two to three cents for each one
tenth of a per cent of protein over
3.2 per cent.
Protein payments are made
from a fund acquired by checking
off a flat three cents per hundred
on all milk delivered, discounting
milk when butterfat levels go
above certain fat standards
established for each breed, and
deducting quality premiums for
high bacteria counts. In 1970, the
co-op paid out $132,852 in protein
premiums to 250 producers.
“I think the acceptance of
protein pricing shows the far
sightedness of our dairymen,”
says Gavin McKarrow, general
manager of Golden Guernsey.
“With the emphasis on butterfat
diminishing, it seemed proper to
start playing up that part of milk
solids that people need and want.
.. protein. Preaching that milk is
healthful is not enough
nowadays.”
Golden Guernsey links protein
with good-tasting milk in Jts
advertising campaigns.
McKarrow says protein is one
reason Golden Guernsey’s 2-per
cent-fat sales have tripled since
1962 and the co-op has not found it
necessary to take part in local
price wars.
While many Golden Guernsey
members are working for more
protein and less fat, McKarrow
says, others feel the protein
payments are not high enough to
warrant making any
management changes. “Part of
this because of the emphasis on
;fat all these years,” McKarrow
explains. “But we think we’re
making headway. On the whole,
our protein content has im
proved.”
Gib and Hal Roberts, who milk
123 Guernseys near Wales, Wis.,
are two of about 20 Golden
Guernsey members who test
their cows for protein production
every other month. They say the
herd’s average protein is 4.3 per
cent, although it fluctuates. It has
been as high as 4.6 and as low as
3.5. Extra protein added $438 to
the Roberts’ paycheck in 1970.
Alvin Basse, Muskego, Wis.,
says he has been working for
higher protein and lower fat since
Golden Guernsey went to protein
pricing eight years ago. Basse
milks 50 head of Guernseys and
farms 250 acres of alfalfa, corn,
and oats.
“I’ve gained a few points each
way,” says Basse. “In 1963, my
herd average was 3.5 per cent
protein, 4.6 per cent fat. This year
I’m running 3.9 per cent protein
and 4.0 per cent fat. Last year my
fat was 4.3.”
Basse credits his protein
progress to protein testing and
using the results to cull cows.
“The problem in selecting for
higher protein and lower fat is in
the bulls. We don’t have enough
volume here to get the A.I.
stations switched to testing for
protein. So the only thing I can
work with is cow families and
that is a very slow process.”
Basse does feel protein pricing
is a valuable goal for the dairy
industry. “You have to produce
what the consumer wants. We’re
not testing for the fun of it. I think
protein pricing is more important
than the actual dollars we’re
being paid for it now.”
Truman Graf, extension
marketing specialist at the
University of Wisconsin, and a
leading advocate for protein
pricing, admits that the dairy
industry is making no major
effort to change milk-pricing
policies at this time. But, he says,
interest in protein pricing is at an
all-time high and Graf hopes it
will be adopted “as soon as
possible.”
“The psychological advantage
in playing up protein and playing
down butterfat could help sell
more milk at higher prices,”
Graf says.
“I think protein pricing could
help the whole dairy industry in
its struggle to hold and expand
markets.”