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<J in
barns with a combined alley
cross walk width of 90 to 97
inches.