Fred,
My point is that no matter what the parity level was ... it was never
ENOUGH! The constant mantra was that parity had to be increased. Farmers
constantly complained most bitterly about how bad the situation was.
There is ONLY one way to get distortions of this type in the market place
and that is through government fiat. The milk subsidy program could not
survive without government control. Take away government control and the
house of cards collapses.
There is no question that the typical non farmer did believe at the time
that farmers were shortchanged. It was a common point of discussion. Whether
we like it or not, there was a general view, even back then, that farmers
were not really considered the brightest folks (and I am being charitable
here). The derogatory comments from kids in school (town kids of course) was
likely a reflection of their parents views. Maybe you did not know this in
your area. I did.
But at the same time, people were sympathetic to the "plight of the farmer."
If you looked around to who was the poorest in the wider community, who did
not have running water, who did not have electricity, it was rural farmers
in most cases. True there were also some rural non farmers who were probably
worse but I think most people lumped them together. Maybe your area did not
have this situation, but ours certainly did.
My grandfather, who milked 7 cows on 40 acres, mostly through uncontrolled
grazing, never had electricity in the barn, never had running water, but did
eventually have electricity in the house and an electric pump jack. When
milking time came, he would trundle the milk can down to the barn by hand,
milk the cows by hand under a kerosene lamp, run the milk through the filter
into the milk can and trundle it back to a holding tank on the side of the
road with only well water as a cooling agent. Until the late 1950's, they
only cooked on a wood stove. You have to remember that electricity did not
come to many rural areas here until after WW2. And there were many people
that milked 15 to maybe a maximum of 30 cows in the 50's.
In terms of the NFO actions, you need to go back and study what happened.
Yes, it really happened as I described. It was nearly at our back door so we
were very close to the situation as this was a hotbed of protest.
And if you escalate protests far enough, you get violence. And yes, even
death. You can deny that they killed a trucker during a blockade ... but it
won't change history.
When that happened, as I have pointed out earlier, that changed the fortunes
of those who wanted to stop farmers from shipping milk when they had
withholdings by violent protest and blockades. When I say violent, I mean
someone physically stopping you from carrying on normal commerce such as
shipping milk.
Public sentiment shifted away from such actions and even some farmers who
may have been somewhat sympathetic with the NFO, disassociated themselves
from such an organization. And I believe it is reasonable to say, that this
hurt the NFO a great deal and they lost a lot of their momentum because they
never did succeed in taking over the market as they envisioned.
There is often a disconnect between supply and demand with farmers and we
have seen it repeated time and again on these internet lists, media
coverage, etc. For example, if you bring in new people to farming, the ones
that are still farming are going to have lower prices if the production
increases above what can be absorbed at a particular price point in the
society.
On the other hand, if you reduce the supply, the price will tend to go up.
At least you have to give credit to NFO for realizing that you could not
just raise the parity through additional government fiat. It will not work!
It just causes oversupply. And guess what ... it did cause extreme
oversupply in the dairy industry. But they still wanted more for their milk
even though they were not receiving what they wanted ... 100% of parity or
at least a lot closer to 100%. You can not deny this unless you never read
the paper or listened to the radio in those days!
Farmers are made up of a cross section of people, some good, some not so
good, and some really bad folks.
When violent protests erupt, it is generally not well received by the
public. When someone is killed it causes a sharp reaction. And it did.
Rick W.
--------
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
=======================
_______________________________________________
Graze-l mailing list
Graze-l@witt.ac.nz
http://graze-l.witt.ac.nz/mailman/listinfo/graze-l
This communication - including any attachments - may contain legally
privileged information, and is confidential to the addressee. If you are
not the intended recipient you should delete the communication and contact
the sender immediately. If you have received this e-mail in error, you must
not read, copy, disseminate, distribute or otherwise use or disclose any
part of this communication, or any information on matters or persons to
which it refers. WITT reserves the right to monitor all e-mail
communications sent through its network.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/2005
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.1 - Release Date: 5/2/2005
