*l2—Lancaster Farming, Saturday, April 17,1982
OUR READERS WRITE,
AND OTHER OPINIONS
program. Net farm income may
drop to the levels of 1930 this year.
Many farmers today are in
desperate straights tyring to pay
their debt and operating expenses.
Farmers today should be ad
vised not to increase added ex
penses by supporting this
promotion program.
Question II: Pennsylvania lawa
allow for milk advertising costs to
be included processing and
distribution expenses. The point is
made that the producers of raw
products should not bear the cost of
advertising the finished product.
The strongest supporters of milk
promotion see the wisdom in
having the funds come at least in
part from processing and
distribution. Many farmers ex
press concern that there will be no
end to adding cost to farm ex
penses with one program after
another if this one is approved.
Question III: Professionals in
the field of advertising have
periodically presented well
prepared papers indicating “that
these programs ate almost
completely unsatisfactory because
they have no control over product
and product lines, packing and
branding, distribution, personal
selling and pricing.
Responsible economists point
out “hard statistical data fail to
show conclusive evidence that
these programs improve milk and
dairy product sales.” Some point
out that if the program was suc-
cessful, price would be enhanced.
producers would increase milk
production and benefits derived
would be wiped out. Many who
COMPUTERIZED GRAIN MANAGEM.
How would you like to save
the energy cost of grain drying?
You can with AeroDry.
Compared with conventional
high temperature gram drying,
AeroDry can
• Save up to 90 % energy cost.
• Reduce shrink loss by 50%.
• Increase feed value in gram
Plus you get a 25°/o tax credit.
The AeroDry System can be
fitted to your existing bin
Ask about our lease plan
For more information contact
Milford Mast
E Iverson, PA. 215-286-9118
Ken Sauder
Brownstown, PA. 717-656-6519
Paul F. Detweller
Newville. PA. 717-776-3288
biggest improvement in grain drying since the corn crib.
(Continued from Page A 10)
referred to advertising and
promotion at the Dairy Sym
posium in Kansas City said ad
vertising and promotion is not the
solution to the problem facing the
industry today. It has not been
proven this program will mcrease
□ass I sales or be beneficial.
Question IV: Congressman
Jeffords, member of the House
Agriculture Committee, speaking
at the recent Northeast Dairy
Conference, assured the group that
his Milk Promotion legislation is
not compulsory. It provides for
cooperative block voting, un
dermines the freedom of choice for
the individual dairymen.
Moreover, many make the charge
that block voting undermines our
democratic system of government.
They argue that eventually labor
unions might want to exercise an
equal right for block voting or any
organization including a political
party.
What concerns me very much is
that perhaps dairy farmers have
been given wrong signals and false
hopes of increased sales and
consequently, the industry has
been led into trouble. Hopefully,
those who help shape dairy
programs will learn from the
mistakes of the past and start
using their energy on programs
designed for producing milk to fit
the needs of the market.
It is quite obvious the weight of
arguments as I hear them fall on
the side of voting against this
mandatory five year milk
promotion expense. Even
Wisconsin has voted a similar
Beef grade changes , unhealthy cure
I’m an Angus breeder, so supermarket. Safeway is quoted in
everyone expects me to be opposed headlines as reporting tremendous
to the beef grading changes and acceptance for their house brand
everyone is right. Safeway Lean in small print
But let me tell you, my op- well down in the article they say,
position has little to do with the “it does not appear customers will
breed of cattle I raise Angus pay as much for Safeway Lean as
cattle have enough going for them they will for USDA Choice.” The
to get along pretty well in kind of preference 1 have always
whatever grading system is used. paid attention to is expressed with
Unfortunately, our industry is the pocketbook!
far from healthy today and We are told the new grading
those who believe the proposed system will shorten feed lot time
grade change will return it to and thereby make beef production
health would treat a broken leg more efficient this (me is no
with a dose of salts and exercise. doubt true but more efficient for
Let’s review some of the facts. who? No one has come up with a
We are told our product is no program to shorten the gestation
longer m demand—matter of fact, period for a cow, or pre-weaning
the chairman of the NCA beef time for a calf. Of course, the
grading committee in an interview implication is if the feeder is
with the Wall Street Journal, was allowed more efficiency, he will
quoted, in an article that went pay more for his feeders and if
nationwide, as saying that talk you behave that, see me soon
about promoting your product! I’ve got some tooth fairy stock I’d
Fact is, beef is still by far the like to move,
number one American meat We are told the new grading
counter purchase, though per system will cut down on the
capita consumption has dropped number of yield grade 4 and 5
steadily since 1976. Interestingly cattle produced. Perhaps, but one
enough, that was the year cattle thing that has always bothered me
industry leadership last convinced is why more 4s and 5s always show
the USDA to add water to the soup, up mi a down market than when it’s
We are told the reason our up. Fact is, holding cattle, hoping
product has dropped from favor is for an improved market, has
because it’s too fat. Sorry, but you always produced more over fast
can’t plow that mule either our cattle than any grading system
present grading system makes and believe me, that won’t change!
available Prime, Choice, Good and We are told the new grade
Strandard beef. change will be popular with the
If leaner beef was really what consumer. They told us the same
the people wanted, the Good grade thing in ’76, but I can still
would very quickly replace Choice remember a nice looking little lady
as the number one seller at the appearing on the 6 o’clock National
news, so mad she was shaking, but
still saying very distinctly, “The
new beef grade change is of the
cattle people, by the cattle people,
for the cattle people to np off the
consumer” and you think it will
be different this time?
“The USDA proposal is great for
program down. I urge every
dairyman to vote.
John C. York, precident
York & Associates
Consultants Dairy & Food Industry
ISTRIBUTED EXCLUSIVELY BY
Khniiml Ag Systems Inc.
3
cattleman and bad for consumers”
said Tom Smith, an agricultural
economist with the Community
Nutrition Institute m Washington.
“What the cattlemen proposed is
a system that would lower quality
standards for all beef,” said Smith.
“What we feel should have been
done is...change the nomemclature a
to give consumers a new lean 1 *
grade of beef.”
Fact is, consumers were not an
important consideration in the
proposed grade change.
Fact is, the present beef
production system won’t produce a
profit with today’s cost imputs and
the leadership m the American
Beef Industry decided it would be
easier to change the end product,
regardless of consumer wishes,
than to change the productive
system.
We are told marbling only ac
counts for about 10 percent of the
eating quality of beef can you
imagine how much the Pepsi Cola
Company would give for a formula
that would improve Pepsi 10
percent.
Here are some more facts: beef
is still the meat of preference m
this country for one reason; people
like beef, that's our one hope and
we better be sure we are not
stampeded into hasty action that
will jeopardize that position;
American beef will never by
cheap, there is not cheap land or
cheap fertilizer or cheap barbwire
or cheap gasoline, etc., etc.
Let’s realize we have got to
depend on customer satisfaction to
sell our product, and be certain no
action of ours will ever diminish
the table quality or consumer
image of that product.
Dave Pingrey
Angus breeder
Benton, Miss.
(Turn to Page A 29)