A2frLanenttr Farming, Saturday, May 1, 1993
Graybeal:
(Continued from Page A 1)
increased over the years to the pre
sent 380 milk cows and corres
ponding young stock.
The heifers are housed on vari
ous bams on the farms, and the
cows are housed in free stalls. A
computerized double eight milking
parlor automatically identifies
each cow at milking, and the DHIA
test weight comes within one tenth
of one percent of the bulk tank
shipment weights.
“The system is incredibly accu
rate and makes the process of going
to computers worth the effort,”
Graybeal said. Now the informa
tion on the cows is available, and I
don't have to fight for it. The man
agement is so much easier.”
Graybeal does fault the milking
machine companies who each ha ve
their own computer programs that
will not speak to the DHIA DROP
systems.
“The companies need to study
how helpful they are being with the
DRCP's and have their programs
communicating better. Programs
should be helping dairy formers get
on and stay on official test rather
than take them away from it just to
keep their own little nitch in the
market. We need computer prog
rams like hydraulic hoses. They all
must be compatible.”
According to Graybeal, the farm
generates a lot of cash flow, and
many companies want to get in on
this flow by selling their products.
And that is expected. But that isn’t
Graybeal’s purpose. He wants to
keep the cash flow at home. That’s
why he has not gone to TMR
mixing.
On the Graybeal farms, a self
unloading wagon is used in place
of a TMR mixer. Haylage and com
silage is put on the wagons together
at a ratio of two to one, and concen
trate is placed on top. The feed is
somewhat mixed in this way, but
not as well as TMR.
“Maybe a TMR mixer would be
what we need to raise our level of
production over the 21,000 lb.
Joan Sheets works with the milking machines.
mark,” Graybeal said. “But the
mixer wagon is a lot more expen
sive. And you need a back up in
case one breaks down. “We have
not seen the justification for com
plete blending.”
As for BST, Graybeal thinks it
will not have much use in their
herd. “If cows are under stress
now, they don’t need extra stress
unless someone sees a way to man
age it that I don’t,” Graybeal said.
“The extra milk is nice, but I think
we are reaching a plateau with our
nutrition. BST steps beyond that,
and I’m not sure the nutrition needs
of extra milk production from BST
can be easily met I don’t want to
put more expensive feed into the
cow unless I can make a better bot
tom line.”
The day of this farm visit Har
old Lindicamp, Lancaster DHIA
tester, was on the job. Lindecamp
said Lancaster’s change to Raleigh
and the computers involved with
the change has gone well for him.
At the time, Lindecamp had all his
herds changed over to computer
except the herds with more than
one group. As of press time, 60 per
cent of all cows in Lancaster Coun
ty were on Raleigh’s computer sys
tem with more added weekly.
Graybeal is Lancaster DHIA’s
representative on Raleigh’s DRCP
committee. “I’m very pleased with
what they (Raleigh) are doing,”
Graybeal said. “They are on top of
things. Their board of directors is a
cross section of dairy farmers from
across the nation. Board members
have a lot of ability and anywhere
from 2500 cows to 60 cows in their
herds at home.”
“In Lancaster County it’s going
good. We are working toward 100
percent on computer by June. I
give the supervisors a lot of credit
They have taken on a momumental
task to learn something so quickly.
“Lancaster DHIA is trying hard
to give the supervisors all the sup
port they can,” Graybeal said.
“And Raleigh’s program is keyed
from the supervisor right into their
mainframe computer in South Car
olina. I think Lancaster DHIA is on
the right track.”
Robert Barr, pi of 21st , :ury Appraisals, explains the ramifications of
joining Clean and Green tax abatement program to 125 Dauphin County landowners
who either are part of the program, or are eligible. This Is one of three meetings Dau
phin County held to correct a 6-yearold tax assessment mistake on Clean and Green
participants.
Farmer Action Corrects
(Continued from Pago Al)
dairy farm family,'whose farm
lands arc located between Harris
burg and Hershey.
At heart of the issue was that
county officials operated under the
philosophy that every landowner
should be treated equally; ignoring
the fact that the constitution of
Pennsylvania had been changed to
allow preferential treatment
through reduced taxation, paving
the way for the Clean and Green
Act.
The apparently successful battle
led by Russel Cassel (Cassel said
the case is not completely over)
has been lauded by the Pennsylva
nia Farmers Association and the
state Department of Agriculture as
key to keeping any farmland as
farmland.
The key protection under Clean
and Green land is that it is valued
according to its ability to
produce not according to real
estate market value.
Without the support from the
county courts to reinforce this dis
tinction, officials worried that all
the millions of dollars county and
state government has paid for
development rights would become
wast^f.
According to Cassel, Fred
Wertz, director of the state Farm
land Preservation Program for the
PDA, “helped out a lot.”
Cassel said Wertz not only glad
ly testified after getting a subpeona
to free him from work, but indi
cated that should Cassel fail, the
state’s farmland preservation
program “could be out the win
dow. The key thing is that there is
no commonwealth ruling. There
still is no state ruling on land use
assessment,” Cassel said.
The need for a ruling may or
may not become evident. It
depends on how other counties
treat Clean and Green properties.
If Cassel would have lost his
legal battle, the scenario which
caused dread among those seeking
ways to keep prime farmland in
fanning was that landowners who
had sold development, rights to the
local governments would-have the
land taxed according to market
value.
Since the market value of farm
land is usually higher than the
land’s ability to produce, those
who would try to make a living
farming would be hit with high
taxes, which is converse to the
intent of the farmland conservation
laws.
The only drawback to the entire
Cassel lawsuit is that it didn’t go to
a state-level court to arrive at the
same decision. It would have
served as a stronger precedent for
future battles to maintain preferen
tial tax treatment for Clean and
Green properties.”
However, the case is symbolic
of an increasing rift between
understanding by agricultural peo
ple and non-agricultural people.
This situation and others points
to the need for those engaging in
agricultural activities to at least
stay in touch with local govern
ment operations and decision
making.
For Russel Cassel, the Dauphin
County problem was one in which
he was involved in local govern
ment, but at the time wasn’t in a
position to stand up to county gov
emmentas effectively as he said he
would have liked.
“At the time of the reassess
ment, I was chairman of the con
servation district board and we
knew the reassessment was com
ing and we knew how it was being
done, maybe a week before it was
coming out,” Cassel said.
“And I brought it out to the com
missioners that it wasn’t right and
they said they agreed, but when the
assessment came out that’s the
way it was,” he said.
“I covninced the (conservation)
board to fight about it, but at that
time we were trying to build the
natural resources building. We
were in a position of saying,
‘You’re not giving (agriculture)
enough money, but you’re taxing
us too much.”’
According to Cassel, the natural
resources building had to .come
first His personal disagreement
with taxing had to wait until he
could separate himself from his
other community obligations.
At first the battle to correct the
tax assessment got off to a bad
start. He said he got some advice
about filing a suit and thought that
once he initiated it he could later
transfer the case to a class-action
suit.
With a class action suit, all land
owners would have received the
same final judgement that Cassel
apparently has received
reduction in tax assessment based
on value of the productivity of his
farmland, and he would receive
payment of all taxes paid at the
wrongfully higher rate.
However, since the filing of the
suit was done the way it was, Cas
sel is the only one to receive back
taxes. The judge ruled that Cassel
was the only one to reap the bene
fits of the individual suit.
However, Cassel didn’t force a
court showdown with government
officials until exhausting the regu
lar avenues of appeal.
“If we used our farm and won
the appeal (through the assessment
appeal board), the county would
have based” the other Clean and
Green properties the same way,”
Cassel said “So we appealed it to
the board of assessement appeals
and were turned down.
“The more research I did. the
more I felt that something should
be done.” he said
According to Cassel. he tried to
get the county conservation board
to file a lawsuit on behalf of the
Clean and Green participants, but
the board was not in a position to
hire an attorney.
“So our farmily decided to go
ahead and do this and see what
happened and that’s when we got
An attorney.”
That was in 1986. In 1993, the
county is Anally taking action.
‘‘At this point, we’re not exactly
sure we will get anything back.
Our taxes here have been going up
about $l,OOO a year with the
increase in school taxes and every
thing. There’s a lot more wrong in
Dauphin County that this, but it
boiled down to Act 319 takes
precedence.”
The county Anally came around
to understanding the intent of
Clean and Green, and when faced
•with a court order to correct its re
assessment procedures, stalled at
Arst. Cassel, through his attorney,
complained about the lack of
action and the courts found the
county in contempt of its order.
The county took action.
Cassel’s actions and the benefit
to the rest of his countians may
largely go unnoticed. County offi
cials hired a mass tax appraisal and
reassessment service to change the
taxing rate, but there has been no
publicity that each and every land
owner under the Clean and Green
could also file suit for back taxes.
Just because the judge found for
Cassel only, doesn’t mean the
same decision should not be held
for others in the same position.
However, the cost to the county, in
legal fees and in back taxes would
be large compared to the way it is
being handled.
In order to prevent that kind of
chaos, the county hired the mass
reappraisal and reassessment busi
ness and is not publicizing the
result of the lawsuit
So far it appears that their
actions will end the 6-year dispute
amiably.
'However, Cassel warns all land
owners and agriculturalists to keep
their eyes open especially
those in Lancaster County.
“Lancaster County assessments
are low compared to the rest of the
state. They’re going to get a
reassessment.”
The saga for Cassel isn’t over.
Change is inevitable and he sees
more coming.
Bom on a farm where his father
lives, and that was included in the
suit, Cassel said he doesn’t know
how much longer the area will be
compatible with agriculture.
“When I went to high school,
there were only seven of us who
rode the school bus. Now I don’t
know how many school bus routes
there are. And there used to be a
regular milk route through the val
ley. Now we’re the only ones in the
township shipping milk.”
However, Cassel said that all
farmers should keep a vigilance,
even though it gets more difficult
all the time to stay in touch with the
operations of local officials.
‘Too often the public doesn’t
know what’s going on. I guess it
gets too hard to get farmers to do
much more right now, with prices
low and everybody stretched to the
limit. It’s hard to get them to meet
ings anymore.
“But you should be involved
and anything that you’re not in
agreement with, you should defi
nitely appeal.”