Dio-Lancaster Fuming Saturday, Decunbar 21,199 t
(Continued from Page 04)
During March and April, committee members along with Jay
Mylin and an outside hired consultant conducted a fairly thor
ough research of the subject. We contacted National DHIA,
other state DHIA's, dairy record processing centers (DRPC's),
and talked with others familiar with DHIA such as extension per
sonnel. We also talked with our supervisors.
The committee met on April 16 to discuss our findings. There
are.three basic areas of a DHIA testing program, and we studied
them all;
1. Field Service - this involves the supervisors and everything
involved in getting the samples and data collected from the
farms.‘This is where about 70% of the cost to members is
incurred. This is what we do best, probably as well as anywhere
in the country because of our high concentration of cows. Every
one we talked to said we should not give up control of this. We
agreed, since if we have control of this area we control the major
ity of the cost.
2. Laboratory - testing of samples for buttcrfat, protein and
aomatic cell count. Currently this is done by the PaDHIA lab
which is an excellent lab, one of the best in the country Mary
land has a lab at Hagerstown that we could use. We could also
start our own locally but it would probably not be cost-effective
since the high cost of start-up and certification would not be
offset by lower labor and sample shipping costs.
3. Data Processing - calculating the records and producing
your reports. There are only nine processing centers in the U.S.
Some states, like Pa. still do their own, but many states use some
of the larger, regional centers. In processing records, once the
computer programs are developed, the more cows going through
the center, the less the cost per cow.
As a county organization, we must be affiliated with a state to
be certified by and hold membership in National DHIA (NDHI
- We looked at prices from Maryland for certification and lab
service. For processing, we looked at the DRPC's at Provo, UT,
and Raleigh, NC.
We found the prices to be very competitive; in fact, lower than
we have now. We also found that these other organizations were
very eager to work with us. The two processing centers that we
looked at had some advantages and were farther ahead of Pa.
The answers to our two questions, then, were: 1) No, we did
not think it was best for our members and supervisors to central
ize, and 2) Yes, we did have the option of going elsewhere for
service.
It was decided, however, that before we pursue other options
any further, we should ask PaDHIA if they would be willing to
change their position and work with us on a lab and processing
basis only, allowing us to maintain our county organization.
We thought this was a very good idea, not only for Lancaster
County members, but for the whole state as well, for two reasons;
1. We would be delivering nearly 1/5 of their total lab and pro
cessing business with very little of the costs and headaches of
field service. This large volume with relatively low cost would
keep costs down for all PaDHIA members.
2. Competition - The existence of a large segment of business
that is independent and could go elsewhere if prices got too high
would force the state to keep costs down, ultimately benefitting
members statewide.
At our April 22 county board meeting, the committee's
research and findings were presented to the board. The board
adopted the following course of action: 1) Do not centralize. 2)
Try to negotiate with PaDHIA to provide lab and data processing
for us and 3) if this fails, continue to pursue our other options.
The committee was instructed to set up a meeting with PaDHIA
staff to begin these negotiations.
On August 16, the committee met with Dick Barth, Jim Garri
ty and Dean Amick in Lancaster. We outlined the board's posi
tion, as stated above. They said they did not have the authority to
allow us to work in this way; that would have to be a state board
decision. They suggested we take our proposal to the state execu
tive committee.
I talked with state president Bill Itle by phone and told him of
our board's position. We set up a meeting for October 1, their reg
ularly scheduled meeting. As to our position, he asked me, "Are
you guys serious?" I told him we were.
At our August 26 board meeting, I announced the October 1
meeting date between our committee and the PaDHIA executive
committee. We again discussed our position and agreed that
while we hoped we could work something out with PaDHIA, we
were prepared to go "on our own" if we couldn't. A motion to this
effect was passed unanimously by our elected directors.
On October 1 our committee travelled to State College to meet
with the state executive committee. Again we stated our position,
gave our reasons, and asked them to consider working with us for
lab and processing while allowing us to continue to operate our
own field services. We stated that we were prepared to go else
where for these services if necessary. During the meeting, one of
the executive committee members restated our position back to
us just as we had presented it to be sure they understood what we
were asking.
We asked for an answer by January 15, since that would allow
the state board time to discuss it, three months to work on details,
and their January 7-8 board meeting to act on it. The next day the
state board voted that as of October 1,1992, Pennsylvania DHIA
will provide services to direct members only. In a letter notifying
us of this decision, state Preaident Bill Itle stated, "This action
means that Lancaster County members will not be able to get ser
vice of any kind from PaDHIA starting next October unless they
are direct members of the state association. It also implies that if
a separate association still exists in Lancaster County at that
time, then the PaDHIA will compete with it for membership."
After we learned of the state board's decision, we did what we
had said we would do began pursuing our other options. Jay
Mylin travelled to the Maryland lab at Hagerstown and also con
tacted the processing centers at Provo and Raleigh. The commit
tee met on October 22, including county vice-president Bob
Wenger and extension agent Glenn Shirk. Jay presented details
on the Maryland lab he said it was an well-run lab
with low'overhead. Ije also presented cost figures from Mary
land and the two processing centers. Costs were very favorable -
we could actually save several cents per cow. We decided to go
ahead. The next step was to meet with supervisors to bring them
REORGANIZATION COMMITTEE REPORT
up to date and be sure they still supported the county. They were
given a questionnaire asking for their thoughts on salary, bene
fits, etc. with a place at the bottom for them to sign their names as
to whether they wished to stay with the county or the state. They
took these home and returned them during the next week. Of the
17 supervisors, 16 said they would stay with the county and the
other one said he hoped Lancaster and PaDHIA could continue
to work together.
On October 23, Dave Dum and I attended a meeting in Mif
flintown, which had been called by Bradford County for any
concerned members to discuss concerns about centralizations.
Four PaDHIA directors were present, including President Bill
Itle. At this meeting, we restated outboard’s position and said we
were going ahead with plans.
At the request of some concerned industry leaders, Lancaster
Farming editor Everett Newswanger arranged a meeting
between state President Bill Itle and myself in Everett's office on
November 11. We had a very good, friendly meeting, but I again
reaffirmed our position on centralization and said we were pre
paring to meet with the two processing centers. Later that same
week, Lancaster president Cliff Blank met with Bill in Johns
town. About two weeks later. Cliff and I met with one of our state
directors; later Cliff also visited with our other state director. At
no time during any of these discussions did we receive any indi
cation of a change in the state's position.
About this same time president Cliff Blank sent a letter to our
membership, outlining our position. From then on, board and
committee members began receiving comments, not only from
members, but also from other co-op and industry leaders who
overwhelmingly supported the board's position.
On November IS, Bliss Crandell and Steve Smith from the
Provo processing center came to Lancaster along with Gene
Long from Maryland to show us what they had to offer. Our com
mittee along with five supervisors and Glenn Shirk met from
9:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.
The following week, on November 19, the same group met
with Ken Butcher, Gary Griffin and John Clay from the Raleigh
processing center, again with Gene Long from Maryland in
attendance. Everyone who saw these presentations was very
impressed with both processing centers. They both have more
information and options available than we now have and at very
reasonable cost and they both offer the individual cow page that
many dairymen like. We scheduled a meeting for the afternoon
of Monday, November 25, the day of our board meeting, to dis
cuss the information we had received and make a recommenda
tion to the board.
At this meeting, everyone who had seen both presentations
was present, and all were asked to comment. The concensus of
the group was that, while both were excellent, the Raleigh sys
tem would meet our needs a little better and would be easier to
change over. Also, they are way ahead in the area of on-farm data
entry via supervisors using lap-top computers, whereby many
reports can be back in the dairyman's hands before the supervisor
leaves the farm on test day. Currently 65% of their data is being
entered this way rather than on bam sheets. Both supervisors and
committee members alike were excited about using the Raleigh
program. It was decided to recommend to the board to proceed
with plans to use the Maryland lab and the Raleigh processing
center. The committee felt the decision had to be made now to
allow time to finalize agreements and especially to get our
records transferred from Pennsylvania to Raleigh. A February 1
changeover date was recommended. This would also allow time
after that for educational meetings to help members with -the
change before spring field work starts.
That evening, November 25, our board met with both state
directors present. The committee's report was presented. The
Raleigh system was explained to the board as well as cost figures
for both Maryland lab and Raleigh. A motion to use the services
of Mid-East DHIA (Maryland) for laboratory and certification,
Raleigh DRPC for processing, with a February 1 changeover
date, was presented. President Cliff Blank stated that all directors
would be asked for their opinions. The motion was on the floor
for a good half hour or more. Every director spoke in favor of the
motion, and many said they were receiving support for this posi
tion from their members. After this, the state directors were
given opportunity to comment; both said they stood by their staff
board vote of 10/2/91. The motion passed with all elected direc
tors voting in favor and both state directors against. In the end,
the board's decision was made not because we were forced to, but
because we wanted to. We are getting a superior-records prog
ram for less cost.
The next day Cliff notified Raleigh of our decision and-asked
about transfer of records from Pa. Maryland was also notified.
Cliff then contacted Dick Barth, telling him of our decision and
asked him about the cost of getting our records transferred. Dick
indicated to Cliff that they had to do something about the situa
tion. Later that afternoon, one of our state directors called me and
said "we have to lalk-about this." He suggested the possibility of
working with us just for lab and certification; I said that would
probably be the only possibility. He and Cliff had a similar dis- *
cussion later that day.
On Wednesday, Dr. Stanley Curtis, head of department of
dairy and animal science at Penn State, called Cliff to ask if he
could come and present to us a letter stating their position. On
Saturday afternoon Dr. Curtis and Bill Heald met Cliff and me at
Cliffs home. Their letter expressed concern about the current
situation, and said that while they support reorganization, it *
should be accomplished by reason and'persuasion, rather than
denial of records. I would like to quote a few paragraphs of their
statement;
Penn State University's mission is to serve the public to the
best of its 'abilities, but now Penn State employees would in
effect be denying records to a considerable segment of the state's
dairy industry. Thia would be unacceptable (and possibly illegal)
behavior on the part of a public land-grant education institution.
The Penn State faculty struggled successfully to make AM/
PM programs official NCDHIP records for all dairymen in Pen
nsylvania who elected to use them. Now we want to rally the
dairy industry in support of production records for every dairy
man in the state, whether centralized, federated, or independent.
The operational organization of the program necessarily deter
mines the quality of neither the records produced nor the services
rendered to dairymen. The authority to rule is limited to the con
sent of the governed. A considerable segment of the governed
membership of PaDHIA is now challenging the current authority
of the PaDHIA. We would hope that reason will prevail, and that
Pennsylvania dairymen can remain united in this matter.
As noted above, faculty members of the Department of Dairy
and Animal Science at The Pennsylvania State University are in
favor of the reorganization of PaDHIA, but would prefer to see it
accomplished by reason and persuasion rather than by denial of
records. Reorganization of PaDHIA can improve the quality of
the total state program, with appropriate leadership. Recent
actions by the PaDHIA Board of Directors has unsettled many in
the industry and raised concerns among cooperators. It is time to
collectively renew our efforts to build a stronger dairy industry in
friendly fellowship rather than continue having destructive
confrontations.
In their conversation with us, they said that they would sup
port whatever decision we make, but urged us to look at the big
ger picture, the unity of the state dairy industry, and give Pa-
DHIA another chance. Cliff and I indicated that we would bo
willing to talk to our committee and board about the possibility
of keeping a tie to PaDHIA through lab and certification.
That same day the state executive committee concluded a spe
cial meeting that had begun the previous evening. President Bill
Itle called us at Cliffs that afternoon saying they had come up
with a proposal for us, but couldn't give us the details over the
phone. We asked him for cost figures for lab services; he said
they would not have these figures until the next Friday, Novem
ber 6.
Everett Newswanger, on Monday, suggested that the two
committees meet for lunch at his office on Friday, November 6,
at which time the two sides could discuss the proposal. Our com
mittee members were contacted and while all agreed to meet, not
all agreed that we should reconsider.
On Wednesday, they faxed the proposal to Everett's office. At
1:00 p.m. we called a committee meeting for 2:30 that same day
at my home where Everett met us with copies of the proposal.
Most of the committee was in attendance. While we had some
concerns about some aspects of it, we felt it was still a good prop
osal and agreed to go ahead with the meeting.
Last Friday, December 6, both committees met at the Lancas
ter Farming office. Following lunch we began discussions. Their
proposal allowed for our members to process at Raleigh, but they
had no cost figures for transfer of records. We indicated that it is
our intention that all of Red Rose DHIA members' records be
processed at Raleigh. They agreed to start as soon as possible the
process needed to transfer the records.
They were also willing to provide lab service to us, but to our
disappointment were not able to quote us a price on this.
Our main concern with their proposal was that while it made
Lancaster a "partner" with PaDHIA, it was business as usual for
the rest of the counties, as it stated that the new by-laws going
into effect on 10/1/92 would not have to be changed. We, aa a
committee, could not go along with a proposal that would force
other counties, by denial of records, to centralize by 10-1-92
while making us exempt. The whole reason we agreed to recon
sider our decision was because of a plea by Penn State personnel
to by to maintain state unity. Such a proposal could potentially
be more divisive to the state than if we just went somewhere else
for service. Also with not even half of the cows in the state yet
centralized, there is the potential for the loss of many more caws,
especially in counties along the borders, either as individual
herds or by groups, if counties are forced against their will to
centralize.
For this reason, we asked that the state call a meeting of their
board to rescind its decision of October 2, thereby abolishing the
10/1/92 deadline and allowing counties to centralize on their
own. They asked us if we would in turn call a meeting of our
board to consider their proposal. Cliff agreed on the spot to do so,
and even set the time and place for 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday,
December 10. They did not commit to do so, but said they would
let us know on Monday. We left at about 7:00 p.m.
Yesterday morning. Bill Itle called and said they had decided
not to call a meeting. We went ahead with our meeting however,
starting at 10:00 this morning and concluding about an hour ago.
The proposal was discussed and the board passed a motion to
authorize the committee to continue to negotiate with PaDHIA.
There were two dissenting votes from county board members
who felt we should discontinue negotiations with PaDHIA.
This docs not at this point change the board's decision of
November 25, but simply allows us to also consider PaDHIA for
lab and certification before final arrangements are made.
Lifetime Records
The following list of outstanding lifetime records
include those cows with 200,000 pounds of milk andlor
6,000 pounds of butterfat.
Production Records
Eight hundred and fifteen (815) cows produced over 5,000 pounds
of butterfat or over 150,000 pounds of milk by lactation in the Red
Rose Dairy Herd Improvement Association. Their listing follows;
Birth Lifetime Production Pro- Of
Marne Bid Date Days Milk Fat Tain Lad
Melvin R. Eby, GordonviDe
Whitey RH 1-20-74 4,819 267,375 10.361 5,164 11**
Carol ' RH 4- 3-78 3,205 201,831 8,085 5,088 10“
Knitter's & Nickle, Quanyvits
224 RH 11- 9-75 3,998 274,002 9,556 8,421 12“
Calvin 0. Bailor, Paradisa
234 RH 3-21-76 4,085 226,553 9,353 5,102 10*
(Turn to Pane Dl2)