> 2) At the same time that we had the "golden years" of the 1950's to perhaps
> 1970's in our region, the very same farmer's were bitterly complaining that
> they were not making "parity" and that this had to be corrected with
> further legislative mandates. Many in the public actually believed that
> dairy farmers were doing very poorly when in fact, like at any other time,
> many were doing quite well and some were doing exceedingly well. But the
> image was one of extreme hardship and low incomes.
>
> It got so contentious that some of the more extreme farmer's tried to
> organize into a group that would then become violent and lead to the death
> of others, such as truckers. This destroyed any hope of that group to
> succeed as public sentiment turned against farmers at that point.
Hi,
Most of this is above is inaccurate. Why are you writing this stuff? This is
pretty half-baked stuff.
To partly correct your misconceptions, "parity" was established by
Agricultural Act of 1949, which required that the price of milk to producers
be supported at a level between 75 and 90 percent parity. The reasons stated
in the bill:
1)assure an adequate supply of milk,
2)reflect changes in the cost of production, and
3)assure a level of farm income to maintain productive capacity sufficient to
meet future needs.
When it was proposed that parity be eliminated, and milk prices be determined
in some "other" arbitrary way, the dairy cooperatives did all they could to
lobby that parity be retained.
Who could blame them for being concerned as it was very unclear what the new
method would be. Most of us figured it would be something arbitrary that
would mean cheap milk. That's exactly what happened.
There was NOT any movement (or agitation by dairy farmers) to establish parity
by legislative mandates. It was already the law of the land from 1949 until
1981.
There was considerable discussion and a lot written at the time, but that
discussion would certainly not qualify as "bitter complaining" by well to do
dairy farmers.
Also it's simply not true that "... the public actually believed that
dairy farmers were doing very poorly" nor is it true that the public image of
dairy farmers was "...one of extreme hardship and low incomes.
What's the reason for claiming that the public held the opinion that dairy
farmers were financially strapped in those years?
In my opinion, the public, at that time, actually thought that dairy farmers
were well off financially and assets to their communities, much more so than
now.
The allegation that the NFO was involved in murders is incorrect. What you
have written is quite exagarated. You'll have to prove to me that there were
deaths in the NFO protest period which began in 1955 and ran for several
years.
Granted, there were some reports of holes shot in milk trucks, but there was
considerable doubt that it was done by dairy farmers or that it even actually
occured.
There was concern that the NFO protests might lead to violence, but no deaths
were reported in Hoard's or any other farm newspapers we took at the time.
Just the report that there were protests and that there might be violence.
What's the point being made by these allegations of violence in those years?
Protest and violence are two quite different things.
Dairy farmers, then and now, are as decent a bunch of people as ever lived.
What's the reason for making these half baked statements after all these years
have past.
--
Kindest regards,
=======================
F. W. Owen
Owenlea Holsteins
9430 Spencer Road
Homerville, Ohio 44235
e-mail fwo@bright.net
home page http://www.bright.net/~fwo
voice & fax 330.625.2369
=======================
