Features Compact Support Rally
n
(Continued from Pago A 22)
the fanner receives more.
High prices last year were due,
in part, to natural meterological
disasters in other milk-producing
states, which drove down national
availability and increased market
price and farmer price for those
who could still farm.
Recovery from weather disas
ters, such as in California, is
expected to result in recovery of
milk supply and lower fanner
prices.
Through testing of market
demand for commodities derived
from milk components, specifical
ly for butter, cheese (protein), and
non-fat dry milk powder, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture sets a
base price for milk, called the Bas
ic Formula Price (BFP).
Once the BFP is established,
certain other factors, such as dis
tance to market, are used to estab
lish “differentials" which are cor
rections to the BFP according to
bow the milk was used. Differen-
&
tials are area-specific and use
specific.
The demand for drinking milk
changes very little, though the
price for drinking milk varies
because its price is linked to the
value of commodities manufac
tured with what is essentially surp
lus milk.
Because of the way milk is
marketed and supplied, the rela
tively constant drinking milk (fed
eral Class I use) processors fill
their needs first, because they can
pay fanners the most money.
Additional milk is marketed
according to who will take it, or
who needs it, many times at a loss
(if compared to cost of production
of milk used for Class I) to the
producer.
Further complicating the actual
price a fanner gets for his milk is
the blending of prices for all milk
marketed.
A blending of the values (of the
milk sold for beverage uses and the
milk sold for other uses) results in
- ? 3
‘C- satjA;
>
c »w»-i
?*
a blend price.
Some farmers have no control or
knowledge as to how their milk is
to be marketed, nor at what price it
is being negotiated.
Depending on how a fanner’s
milk is marketed, be will receive a
blend price that reflects marketing
negotiations.
Those who sell their milk to pro
cessors who primarily focus on
bottling beverage milk receive
more money than those farmers
who sell their milk to processors
who use the majority of the milk
for its components, such as pro
teins for cheese.
(The real fife marketing and
pricing structure is more compli
cated than that.)
The Compact would restrict
how much less the farmer could
get for his drinking milk, and not
limit how much more he can
receive.
However, it would not affect the
blend price, except that, if a far
mers’ milk is primarily marketed
for drinking milk, his income
i V
would stay relatively stable under
a Compact
Some opponents to Compacts
cite the fact that the industry is
quick to state the axiom that, "Milk
follows the money,” yet if their
area excessive diversions of milk
into a Compact area, or if in-
Compact region milk production
increases, the demand for bever
age milk can't increase, but overall
prices will drop because of the
decreased value on the surplus
drinking milk.
The dairy industry is unique in
that almost all milk is produced for
beverage purposes, but the majori
ty is marketed for non-beverage
uses.
The Compact pricing works by
setting beverage milk prices to be
paid by consumers, and setting the
pay to farmers for the milk used for
drinking.
At the Grange pro-Compact ral
ly, the two-dozen or so people who
stood at the front of the room in
support were representatives of the
u s r t fc -C V
Lancaster Farming, Saturday, April 24, 1999-A23
state’s major as well as smaller
farm and agricultural organiza
tions, regional representatives of
national cooperatives, representa
tives of regional dairy coopera
tives, state Sen. Roger Madigan,
s f ate Rep. Sandra Major, state Sen.
William Slocum, and national
Grange Master Kermit
Richardson.
Specifically, there was rep
resentation of the ML Joy Farmers
Co-op, Ed Galligher represented
Dairylea Co-op; Lobbyist John
Nikoloff was there for Capital
Associates in Harrisburg, Dennis
Schad represented Land O' Lakes
Dairy Co-op, several representa
tives were there from the Pa. Farm
Bureau, Joe Connelly represented
U.S. Sen. Arlen Specter, Bob Junk
for the Pennsylvania Farmers
Union, and Arden Tewksbury rep
resented his Pro-Ag organization.
In his luncheon talk, state Sec
retary of Education Hickok
described a new direction for the
state’s public educational system that includes
school choice, respect for local school board and
administration solutions for curricula, and a set
of standards for teachers.
He said much about what he was talking
would be made public in coming weeks.
While prior to teachers receiving large
increases in salaries several years ago, the major
ity were loath to discuss the concept of teachers
being subject to performance evaluations.
While Hickock kept from actually saying that
phrase, he said that teachers would be held more
accountable for their effectiveness and expertise.
Nationally, Hickock said, 40 percent of math
teachers didn’tmajororminor in math in college.
He used that information to illustrate the fact that
currently teachers don’t have to know the subject
they are teaching.
He said new state standards would require
teachers to take the college course work required
of students in the specific disciplines. For exam
ple, a college teaching student wishing to be a
biology teacher would actually have to take biol
ogy course work, just as a biology student.
Not only would teachers be required to take
the course work, but they would be expected to
achieve more than passing grades.
Hickok said that while the proposal is not
designed to make it more difficult for students of
teaching, than for regular discipline students, it
should be expected that teachers of a subject
should have enough knowledge to teach.
As it is now, he said that teachers can have
flunked a subject they are teaching.
Hickok was appointed education secretary in
1995, after teaching political science at Dickin
son College and serving as adjunct professor at
Dickinson Law School.
Hickok said he never sought the position, and
that prior to the request from Gov. Ridge to
serve, he had only been involved in educational
public policy issues through involvement as a
parent and as a school board member.
He said serving as secretary has been “... the
most rewarding (position) of my life. Every day I
get a chance to spend with the most important
people children, teachers and taxpayers.”
But he also said that working to improve the
public school system is challenging.
He said it will require that schools teach more
or what the job market and future job market
requires for workers, especially in the high-tech
business environment
For example, he said he discovered that in a
Midwestern high school, only 25 percent of the
graduated students were qualified to take a job on
an assembly line.
While that sounded fairly dismal for the
school system, what it really showed, he said,
was that the assembly line has changed to that it
requires a working knowledge of high tech
equipment, not merely a human body following
simple commands. Robotics has replaced that
need.
He said the students actually performed well,
but the education they received had not prepared
them for the actual job. There is a disparity
between educational goals and focus and
demands of the workplace and society.