Al2—Lancaster Farming, Saturday, May 9,1981 OUR READERS WRITE, (Continued from Page A 10) Semantically this would be preferred, as the word “support” has too many unpleasant con notations ranging from “dole” to “subsidy,” for too many citizens. Actually the existing price support program provides a floor, or a minumnm price a dairy fanner can get for milk, not a ceiling. Plus, the program provides the economic incentive a dairy farmer to begin a long-range plan to buy cows, breed and feed them for maximum milk production. Private buyers must at least match this minimum price to get any milk from the farmer. Historically, milk generally sells for more than the set minimum price. Years ago Congress decreed Americans were entitled to an adequate supply of fresh milk at a reasonable price. Since that time many farm programs have'been structured to help dairy fanners fulfill that requiremet. In 1850, when the U.S. population approached 24 million people, half the nation- was involved in agriculture. Today in 1981, with a population of more than 220 million Americans, less than 4 percent are involved in agriculture. There were more than one million dairy farms with about 25 million cows in 1955. Thfc average cow that year produced 5,842 pounds of milk (more than 2,700 quarts). In 1980, dairy farm estimates ranged from 170,000 to 300,000. But the nation’s cow herd numbered 10.8 million with the average cow producing 11,813 MODEL 780 The practical, profitable way to get maximum milk production in conventional stall barns K & S INC. VAN PALE RDI, QUARRYVILLE, PA 17566 PHONE 717-284-3111 AND OTHER OPINIONS pounds of milk. Fewer than half the number of cows in 1955 produced a record annual production of 128.4 billion pounds in 1980. That’s efficiency. U.S. agriculture is the best in the world with each American farmer producing food and fiber for himself and 53 others. And the dairy fanner is often considered the most efficient part of agriculture for breeding and feeding expertise. In spite of that, we point out that diary prices climbed more slowly than the inflation rate since 1967. And today’s floor-level prices for milk can’t match the soaring costs for fuel, feed, fertilizer and equipment The U.S. (bury farmer is caught in the same economic “price squeeze” we all share. Through the years, farm programs have been many and varied. By trail and error, the present minimum price basis evolved that has stabilized the market. Following World War I, a federal farm board took products off the market to keep prices up. But the recession f oUowing the war led to the stock market crash of 1929 and the depression of the early ’3o’s. The Agricultural Act of 1933 kept products from market; pigs weren’t raised, cows weren’t milked and crops weren’t grown. The Act was ruled un consititutional in 1937. Federal milk order agreements signed that year provided the subsidy to produce milk through the shortage years of World War n. UEBLER Feeding Machines Feeding Of: •GRAIN & CONCENTRATES • SILAGE-HATLAGE • TOTAL MIXED RATIONS SALES & SERVICE. . Then in 1949, the Farm Act was passed that provided the dairy farmer 75-90 percent of parity. This means that a dairy farmer’s income on a gallon of milk will buy him 75-90 percent of the goods his grandfather bought m the ben chmark period of 1910-1914. We point out that the parity level had been set at 00 percent in 1980. It was the six-month incremental raise of 7 percent that Congress voted to cancel on April 1. According to the Congressional Budget Office, during the 31 years the dairy program has been operated by the government, it has resulted in average annual pur chases of 4 percent of total dairy production by the Commodity Credit Corporation. The average annual coat was $2BO million a year and raised retail prices from 3-6 percent. The federal minimum price program has avoided chaos in the marketplace. It has provided a stable market for mi|k and has enabled dairy fanners to provide an adequate supply of fresh milk at a reasonable price. / We respect the dairy farmer’s right to be a small, independent businessman doing the work he wants to do. The minimum price program gives him the market for the milk he produces. Most American dairy farmers don’t milk cows just to make a living. Rather, they milk cows as a way of life. We believe dairy farmers pay their dues twice a day at milking time. Thereby, they fulfill their destiny' and meet the Congressional directive to provide milk for all of us. John F. Brookman Vice President, Communications United Dairy Industry Association Dear Editor: I write in response to Dr. Carl G. Troop’s letter of April 25, 1981, in which he takes issue with the manner in which the Veterinary School entered into an agreement with a competing commercial embryo transfer service. Because Dr. Troop is a University of Pennsylvania alumnus and because he received a substantial part of his training in embryo transfer technology at our New Bolton Center campus, I regret that he did not think to discuss his concerns with me before going public. On the other hand, I regret that we didn’t .have the good sense to contact Dr. Troop in order to explain the University’s position. The School of Veterinary Medicine began its embryo transfer service (P.E.T.S.) in 1976 because, despite its obvious im portance to the cattle breeding industry, no embryo transfer service had yet been established in' the Mid-Atlantic region and because my faculty believed that embryo transfer technology was destined to become increasingly important in veterinary medical education and research. We viewed our decision to establish the first embryotransfer service in the region as an ex cellent example of the Veterinary School’s forward-looking concern for the Commonwealth’s cattle breeding industry. In this we were encouraged and materially sup ported by both the Pennsylvania Holstein Association and the Pennsylvania Farmers Association. Dr. James F. Evans, a recent Penn veterinary graduate, was chosen by Professor Robert M. Kenney, Chief of, the Section of Reproductive Studies at New Bolton Center, to receive training in embryo transfer technology and subsequently to take responsibility for developing the School’s embryo transfer service. This was ac complished successfully so that, today, P.E.T.S. serves a large clientele while functioning as a major educational resource on the New Bolton Center Campus. As embryo transfer gained acceptance as a successful and important technique, several other veterinarians in the region, Dr. Troop in Quarryville, the Em-Tran group in Elizabethtown and Dr. William Pettit in Juliustown, New Jersey, established - commercial services of their own. Drs. Troop and Pettit and Dr. Rushmer of Em- Tran received a substantial part of their embryo transfer training at New Bolton Center. Embryo transfer is now of such importance to the cattle industry, that its inclusion in the School’s teaching and research programs has become a matter of necessity. Thus, when Dr. Evans, the able director of P.E'T.S., tendered his resignation in order to pursue other-interests,-Professor Kenney began to search for an academically qualified successor. Because an extensive search (Turnto Page A 29) Farm Calendar ' (Continued from Page AIO) Contest, St. Paul’s Lutheran Church, Red Hill, 6:45 p.m. Saturday, May 16 Wind energy seminar, 8:30 a.m., Keller Conference Center, University Park. Grafting Demo, 9:30 a.m., Ellis Schmidt farm, Flint Hill Rd., Landenberg. MODEL 770 Take The Drudgery Out Of Silage Feeding In Conventional Barns... Save Time and Labor! MODEL 781 WEIGH-MIX The Precision Batch Mixer That’s Designed To Blend total Mixed Rations. A Compact Mixer That Fits In Small Feedrooms. • Space Age Electronic Scale •_ Simple, Efficient Mixing • Low Power Drive Unit MODEL 790 The Ideal Feeding Machine For Stall Barns The extra narrow width and short turning radius of the 790 permits use in barns with narrow alleys and crosswalks. As a rule of thumb, the 790 can be use