** <
VOL. 28 No. 44
ELIZABETHTOWN - A seven
year-old boy, too young to compete
In 4-H, showed tais Suffolk lamb,
which weighs three times as much
as he does, to the supreme
championship of the
Elizabethtown Fair.
Mark Tracy was the first winner
of the new Supreme Championship
Award, in which the grand
champions of the four major
species shows compete against
each other for the revolving
trophy. The lamb, steer, hog and
dairy grand champions are judged
against the “ideal” of its par
ticular species.
The Supreme Champion Suffolk
comes out of the flock of the Gerald
Tracy family. Tracy manages
Masonic homes. It was sired by the
fifth indexing ram purchased at
last year’s Penn State Ram Test
Sale. The ewe is among a group of
commercial unregistered but
purebred ewes ■ purchased by
California promotion
This is the way they promote milk in California. For more on
California milk promotion and a trip with Sally Bair to the
huge dairies of the Chino Valley, turn to the A and B sections.
'Four Sections
Mark Tracy and his supreme champion lamb.
Tracy from John Kimbark, of
Elstonville.
The Tracy flock not only took the
grand championship of the market
lamb show and the supreme
championship, but penmates in
cluded the reserve champion
sold to a Dauphin County exhibitor
and a couple of class winners.
“We must be on the right track in
our breeding program,” Tracy
commented.
The supreme champion was not
sold but returned home for
Lancaster County adds all of Pa’s new cows In 1982
LANCASTER Lancaster
County alone accounted for the
entire increase in Pennsylvania’s
dairy herd in 1982.
Last year, the statewide dairy
herd throughout Pennsylvania
increased 9,000 cows from 721,000
to 730,000.'
In Lancaster County, the total
Lancostor Faming, Saturday, Saptanbor 3,1983
showing in the open market or
carcass class at KILE.
The Tracys are only in Lan
caster County about four years,
moving from Centre County - the
traditional sheep capital of Penn
sylvania with names like
Kuzemchak and Harpster.
The supreme champion will not
be shown before KILE because
Mark at seven is too young for 4-H.
But Elizabethtown is his home fair.
(Turn to Page A 22)
number of cows jumped from
101,900 to 111,000 - an increase of
9,loocows.
In all of the other counties
throughout the state, there were
fluctuations in cow numbers, but
they balanced each other. Some
counties added cows and some
reduced herds.
For example, in the second, third
and fourth-place counties in cow
numbers, Bradford in second spot
dropped 500 cows. Third-place
Franklin added 800 cows. Third
place Chester County dropped 500
cows.
The 9,100-cow increase on
Lancaster County’s 1,850 dairy
farms pushed the farm value of
milk marketings to $211,779,000, up
$16,762,000 from the $195,017,000 in
1981.
In addition to the increased
number of cows being milked,
Lancaster County's average per
cow production increased 200
pounds from 13,200 to 13,400.
"This increase in cow numbers
is due entirely to the economics in
the dairy industry,” explained jay
Irwin, County Extension Director.
“They had to increase their
herds and become more efficient.
They had to cover their increased
costs of production.”
He cited the following example:
Dairy legislation
merry-go-round
continues to spin
LANCASTER In the wake of a
recent stream of reports dealing
with estimated crop reduction due
to the drought and reports
projecting increased prices for
feed commoditities, dairy fanners
across the country were quick to
criticize last week’s presidential
veto that blocked efforts to delay
collection of the second SO cent per
hundredweight assessment on
milk marketed by dairy producers.
On Tuesday, August 23,
President Reagan vetoed Senate
Joint Resolution 149. The defeated
resolution was designed to delay
the start of collection of the second
50 cent assessment until October 1,
in order to give Congress time to
pass new dairy legislation. Veto of
S.J. Res. 149 meant tlpt Secretary
‘ Block -was, obligated to start
collection of the second 50 cent per
cwt. assessment or a total of |1 per
cwt on September 1.
Keith W. Eckel, president of the
Pennsylvania Farmers’
Association commented, “The
Reagan Administration' demon
strated a total lack of un
derstanding of the dairy situation,
and the assessment is nothing but
an economic straight jacket on
dairymen’s efforts to stay afloat.”
“President Reagan is using his
veto in a symbolic gesture of
balancing the federal budget,”
Eckel stated. “What the farmer
See editorial AlO
In the past year or so, one
Lancaster County dairy farmer
has seen $3.20 per hundredweight
eroded from bis income. Eighty
cents of that amount is the ex
pected support price increase that
never took effect in 1982. The two
50-cent deductions add another
$l.OO. And this farmer estimates
his outright increase in production
costs at $1.40 per hundredweight.
“These dairy farmers have
about reached their limit in im
proving efficiency to cover in
creased expenses,” Irwin added.
In 1982, for the first time in 26
years since records have been kept
$7.50 per Year
needs is a partner in government
willing to work for practical
solutions to the dairy problem.”
"Congress gave the assessment
power to' the Secretary of
Agriculture Block, but by passing
S.J. Res. 149 it wanted to at least
delay the assessment until it could
adopt a sensible legislative
solution,” Gckel said. “But,
President Reagan failed to take
the collective advice of Congress
and dairy industry experts when
be vetoed this legislation.”
In a prepared statement from
Coming, lowa, DeVon Woodland,
president of the National Farmers
Organization responded to the veto
with these comments, “When
President Reagan vetoed the
measure,be chose a tune when
Congress was out of town so he and
his ag planners could quietly slip
something over on the dairy far
mers.”
“For one thing,” said Woodland,
“taxing farm production is un
precedented in a farm law. For
another thing, the additional 50
cent tax to be brought on by the
president’s veto of the joint
resolution to bold back on it, won’t
really cause any dairy fanner to
reduce production. The USDA says
this latest added tax can be
avoided by an 8 percent reduction
in production. But reducing
(Turn to Page A 24)
by the Pa. Crop Reporting Service,
Lancaster County showed a drop in
the value of total farm marketings.
Farm marketings in Lancaster
County in 1982 totaled |697,111,770,
down $12,406,530 from the
$709,518,300 in 1981. This was the
first drop since 1957 when annual
figures were first available on the
county level.
And wtach out for this year,
warns Irwin. While 1982’s drop in
the total* value of Lancaster
County’s livestock and crops was
primarily economic in nature,
another expected decline this year
will likely be related to the drought
affecting crops and the heat stress
affecting livestock.
For example, last year Lan
caster County had an average
grain com yield of 120 bushels to
the acre with a total countywide
value of more than $36 trillion.
This year, that average yield may
be nearly cut in half to 65 bushels to
the acre.
Likewise, com silage tonnages
may be cut from last year’s
average of 20.1 to the acre to about
10 this year. Last year, silage
added another $3l million to crop
values.
The value of hay and haylage in
(Turn to Page A 24)