(Continued from r p«ge A 10) This brings me back to the same question I have seen in farm magazines over the past 12 years Who really owns the co-ops? I have always thought that’s a simple question and all the co-op owner/members need to do is as sert their rights under the co-op by-laws. I now know that’s not true in my co-op Land-O-Lakcs. Our representation is not 1 member equal -1 vote at all levels of governance, when it comes to our board of directors it is by vol ume of milk shipped. The new Land-O-Lakes board of directors will reinforce volume has power, California Group 240 members - 3 board members, Midwestern Region 3,300 mem bers - 3 board members, and Mid- Atlantic Region 2,900 members = 3 board members. This is not rep resentation as the co-op by-laws presently state. Which brings me to my next point When I asked the Land-O- Lakes administration for a mailing list to discuss the representation problem with other co-op mem bers I was mislead, badgered, and out right lied to for 5 days. Once I located the administrator who had the list and the authority to give it to me, he simply said, if you asked me for it today. I’ll say no, if you ❖ Farm Forum ❖ give me a week I will be able to consider it better, but I don’t be lileve you need to have a meeting. Apparently this administrator has never read the U.S. Constitution or our co-op by-laws which give the right of assembly. The fastest way to take power from a group of people is to segre gate them. Segregation is the de nying of a mailing list, which is the thread of communications that binds members separated region ally and nationally, the lack of proper representation, and hinder ing the right of assembly, these combined actions are called, population resource control man agement, which was the number one national goal for 70 years of the old Soviet Union. There will be a meeting of Land-O-Lakes members at the Hoffman Building, Quarryville, PA, Wednesday, February 17, 1999 at 7:30 p.m. to consider a special resolution asking the ad ministration to follow the by-laws of the co-op. Allen D. Weicksel Peach Bottom Editor, The quote (Successful Farming Feb. 1999 p. 45) “This is not about saving the pork industry. It is about saving families. The indus try will survive." targets the issue completely. The ‘Pork Power houses’ celebrated annually by Successful Farming have been fol lowing a formulated package to control the industry: Control the product handling and distribution and the great majority of the pro duction and then the price can be fluctuated to eliminate the compe tition. Andrew Carnegie perfected this technique for industry during the industrial revolution. The poultry industry perfected it for agriculture. As Donna Reif schnieder, President of the Na tional Pork Producers Council said, “The poultry industry inte grated in 90 days; we are already, in day 50.” A pile of farms went down the tubes then. What will' happen this time? Farmers have been chasing the carrot mote evenly and predict ably than the mule ever did. What other industry gets its suppliers to make large capital investments “under contract” that do not last any where near the payback per iod? The author does not have dir ect experience with pork produc tion contracts though the pre sumption is they are modeled after poultry: The grower has to pro vide the investment in facilities with a many year payback to get a contract with the producer that lasts for one growing cycle with only the inference that it will be renewed. At the producers whim they can either delay sending the next batch of animals or cancel. In that event one hopes there is an other producer company around to contract with and pay off those buildings. Even if the previous producer decided to renew after all any delay is an interest cost to the farmer that will never be re covered. Lancaster Farming, Saturday, February 13, 1999-A3l The other part of the faiiytale is that all the profits in world and do mestic markets will be distributed to everyone in the system. We all learned in Econ 101 the profit for a corporation is in keeping costs minimal and profit is returned to the shareholders. The contract farmer, like the independent, is a cost. In the Wal-Marting of America finding the lowest cost irregardless of other consequences is worshiped. The part that may be historically unprecedented is the demonstration of “buy low, sell high.” It would be interesting to get accurate data on the number of stocks the packers and big produc ers own of each other and just how completely they control the mar ket. After all excessive profits in one division make up for losses in another. Do not be fooled by the factory producers complaints of losses as it is only in one division. Overall the big boys arc making out just fine and get to watch what is left of the competition wither away to boot Milk just recently began trading on the board of trade. This could easily be takeh as a first step down Lancaster Farming ✓Check Out Our Web site www.lancaster farming, com this same path. At the risk of alert ing the corporate mega-dairies, Daitymen watch your back or you too will be integrated just as ruth lessly. The grain industry merger is another step, which would give Cargill and ADM 70% of the ele vator capacity on the Mississippi which is also the delivery point for the Chicago BoaH of Trade Soy bean Contracts. While the debate has been how much domestic mar ket will be concentrated has any one looked at global concentra tion? The fanning tradition has been to produce and let someone else market the product. The percent age taken for that marketing has been steadily increasing in all areas of agriculture. By direct marketing, co-ops, and other means the independents that are going to make it are the ones in volved in getting their product to the consumer. Die balance will be economic serfs hoping to receive a profit (sec Econ 101 above) or will be wiped off the farm landscape. That is the way I sec it Doyle Freeman Cherry Tree, PA
Significant historical Pennsylvania newspapers