Al2—Lancaster Famine, Saturday, February 27,1982
OUR READERS WRITE
production to restore a profitable
price?
Psychologically
farmers do not like to cut
production. They know nobody
ever paid for a farm by cutting
production.
But when you have a govern
ment using farm crops for in
ternational political leverage by
constantly threatening embargoes,
keeping exports and prices down,
don’t farmers then have a right to
take a subsidy to reduce produc
tion?
Farmers In ranch areas pasture
off a lot of wheat every year. If
they pasture off 10 percent more
acreage this year in order to get a
Better to buy groceries
As a northeastern Pennsylvnaia
dairyman, I would like to voice my
opposition to the proposed milk
referendum for advertising based
on the following reasons:
First, the whole issue has come
about as a result of the support
price freeze. It is understandable
that the government is looking for
ways to lower their expenditures
for surplus dairy product pur
chases, and we know in theory the
surplus could be lowered as a
result of one of two factors or a
combination of both; that is,
producing less milk, or getting the
consumer to buy more milk.
Can we expect the consumer
to pick up the ball when be is in a
financial bind like all of us today as
a result of high energy costs
(gasoline, electricity, etc.), not to
mention the high cost of borrowing
for autos, homes, and other
household items? Many more are
unemployed now compared to two
years ago.
1 believe the results of the New
York dairy farmers experience in
spending 11 cents per cwt for
advertising last year and milk
consumption declined anyway,
(Continued from Page AlO)
subsidy payment on remaining
acreage yield, what’s wrong with
that?
speaking.
You are critical of Secretary
Block’s “too-late” with his
programs. Did he or you know last
August that Secretary “I am in
charge” Haig was going to an
tagonize Russia by saying “We
may embargo.” These charges
caused Russia to reduce purchases
of wheat.
You suggest Secretary Block
should go to Walter Reed hospital
for Jet-lag disease. 1 suggest you
go with him for faulty post-facto
editorial disease.
should tell us something about the
times we are living in. Either the
consumers never saw the ads, or
they chose to buy less milk because
they had no other choice from a
food budget standpoint. It would be
interesting to see if cereal sales
were off also.
Let’s face it. . . no matter how
foolish it may seem, milk will
usually be eliminated from the
shopping list before coffee, tea,
soft drinks, tobacco, etc. Since it is
not known to be addictive, milk has
tough competition when cuts have
to be made in the budget, and
common sense does not always
rule. None of us can argue that
point.
Can we expect the dairy farmer
to cut back production voluntarily
and lower his cash flow which isn-’t
what it should be right now
because of higher production costs,
which boils down to the same
problems the consumer faces?
Should the dairy farmer shoulder
the expense of advertising milk?
The farmer already has a
market for his milk; he sells it
wholesale to the folks that do
whatever they do to put milk and
C. Stanley Short, Sr.
Kenton, Del.
other dairy products in the retail
stores. These folks we sell our milk
to take all we have and must pay
for all they take. These folks and
their responsibility for advertising
the milk is not clear to me, but
maybe it’s because 1 haven’t been
in this business long enough.
It seems that with all the
headaches and heartaches that go
into getting the milk into the tank
ready for the milk truck to pick up
in the first place ... that should be
enough. Farmeis pay freight on
milk iu the folks that prepare U tor
the store ... this charge was in
creased last fall. The milk now
belongs to them to do what they
want with it. Enough said.
The government is the only one
left to look at. The government
likes to see things run smoothly
now and in the future. I am sure
that their concern for farmers to
get a fair and equitable price, and
for consumers to have an adequate
continuous supply of wholesome
milk were among the reasons the
government got into the milk
business in the first place in the
19305... not to mention the impact
the farm purchasing power has
upon the general economy of our
nation. We spend it all.
I just wonder if the same
government is doing all it can to
help with the surplus. It is no
secret that our dairy products
compete with artificial dairy
products and imported dairy
products. Certainly this has to
contribute to the fix our industry is
in.
I’ve heard of government
financial studies regarding
cholesterol in milk, etc., which
didn’t help sales. The matter of
government loans to keep a
business going when it can’t get
credit any longer through normal
channels, does this help us? Why
do this if there is in fact, a surplus?
Is it any wonder that this nation
has lost 30 per cent of its Class 1
A
alus-chalmers
SEE THE NEW ALLIS CHALMERS
8000 SERIES TRACTOR
10% OFF ALL PARTS ALL WEEK
- March Bth thru 13th • Cash Purchases Only
BHM FARM EQUIPMENT INC.
HOLLAfND
PARTS and SERVICE
fluid milk sales over the past 10
years? How about the statistic of
8,000,000 abortions in the last
decade (and it continues)?
Youngsters that would be drinking
milk today, had they been allowed
to be bom, would have an impact'
on our industry and other in
dustries as well. Something is
wrong isn’t it time the left band
of the government knew what the
nghthand is doing?
1 do not intend to offend anyone,
but in view of the New York dairy
farmers’ experience of lower milk
consumption in spite of their 11
cent per cwt advertising effort, 1
fail to see how the authors of the
proposal expect to do the opposite
in a worse year. Instead of pointing
the finger at the dairy farmer to
Let me come
Stewart’s defense.
It was refreshing to read about a
famrer’s wife who didn’t seem to
be wearing a halo; le: she did so
much you wondered if she ever
slept.
1 happen to be a farmer’s wife
who never went to the barn. 1
won’t bore you, with all the things 1
did that didn’t include sewing,
gardening, canning, and milking
cows.
1 too am concerned about animal
rights. The Bills being introduced
and the editorials being written are
extremely unfair and
unreasonable.
But, 1 must say we in the mdusry
must clean up our act. 1 have seen
and 1 am sure others have also,
piles of dead veal calves outside of "
poorly managed veal barns; have
had a neighbor who left the country
in a bad winter and left several
hundred brood cows without food
or water (which made the
Washington Post;; and in my own
OPEN
HOUSE
TUESDAY, MARCH 9
AUTHORIZED
In defense
to Barbara
Right or wrongs
9 AM to SPM
get itf'out of this one, we would do
well to point the finger at those
responsible for bringing our
country to its knees.
Frankly, the $9,000,000 proposed
advertising fund isn’t
compete with the beer and Soft
drink ads on billboards, radio and
TV. This is where our competition
gets the job done not in farm
magazines, etc. 1 believe our
competition passes its advertising
expenses on to consumers we
have to remember we are
regulated and cannot do the same.
The 10 cent per cwt might be
better spend putting groceries on
the table as we wait out the storm.
We don’t need this proposal.
I contributed just as much as the
so-called barn wives, but didn’t
teel it necessary to wave a flag.
From my point of view farm
publications are mciuied to make
farm wives sound super human.
Kitty Birch
Stewartstown, Pa.
P.S. 1 got a manure spreader tor
Christmas once.
P.P.S. You should hear my views
on the politics in tarm
organizations.
case went out ot the veal call
business because ot ibe way
livestock barns mistreated calves
after 1 purchased them. Injured
eyes, legs, knots on their heads,
etc., make it hard to get them
started right.
If we give these umnlormed
critics proper ammunition, they
will in fact shoot us down. They are
wrong; but we must be right m
order to prove them wrong.
Frank B. Darcey, Jr.
Fairfield, Pa.
A
AUl$-CHALMERS
REFRESHKNTS
BALER TWINE
*24.00 Per Bale
RDI, Annville, PA
717-867-2211
PaulJ.Ulmka
Nicholson, Pa.
-
AND
MOVIES