So what else is new? Of course the grocery chains exploit the price
inelasticity of milk. If they price it cheap, you won't buy a gallon more,
and it can go pretty high before you buy a gallon less. They defend
themselves by saying that price changes confuse consumers and they would
rather not raise it when farm prices go up. Farmers have always been at the
mercy of processors and supermarket chains, but, co-operative ventures into
milk bottleing have usually ended up with the co-op not being able to
compete for one reason or another, and the farmer -owners taking another
bath. So maybe processing and marketing actually costs money. Ya think?
Milk marketing is a screwed up mess (in my humble opinion) with all sorts of
complex twists and turns. The gov't support price has been very low and
no-one could produce milk for any length of time for those prices. The 2000
farm bill essentially tacked on a deficiency payment capped at $37,500 so
that dairies under 150 cows have an effective floor of $12/cwt. Larger
western dairies have been getting an effective price around $10/cwt because
for 1000+ cows the deficiency payment is inconsequential. The recent surplus
was caused because the normal (past 50 years) process of little dairies
getting sold to bigger ones got interupted. The little ones are hanging on
with the gov't payment, and the bigger ones are getting killed. We've had a
lot of heat in the west and that has helped dry up the surplus, and prices
have moved nearly $3, but it may go down again by winter. I have never seen
the ag banks so afraid of dairy credits.
You must not confuse the federal marketing order system with the support
system. The federal marketing order system is not a price support mechanism.
Marketing order prices begin with market prices established on the floor of
the Chicago Board of Trade cheese auctions, and also from a survey of prices
paid or received by wholesalers. The federal order system mainly aims at
giving all farmers an equal price and all handlers equal raw product costs.
It seeks to eliminate the phenomenon of my neighbor gets one price and I get
another. It discourages processors from beating farmers over the head to
reduce raw product costs. And that system has gotten ridiculously complex
(partly because they have to use prices to move milk to its highest and most
efficient use) and I can assure you, neither of us has the time to
understand it completely. Suffice it to say there has always been a lot of
regional grousing about who is getting screwed by whom. Not many westerners
feel sorry for Wisconsin dairymen.
I do agree with you that milk ought to be labeled for bst. Why not? Damn
monsanto and the venal Republicans (and Democrats)!
wrote in message
...
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/tex...27_milk12.html
"There has never been a greater gap between what a Seattle-Tacoma
consumer pays
for milk and what Washington farmers receive for that milk," the
Washington State
Public Interest Research Group (WashPIRG) says in a report released today.
Quoting from data on the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Web
site, the
group says the average price for a gallon of whole milk in this area in
July was
$3.52, while the government-set farm price was $1, second-lowest in the
nation after
the upper Midwest region, which was 99 cents."
this article includes some reasons milk prices are so high.
1. I live in Wisconsin, the dairy state. There is (was?) a gradient with
Wisconsin
farmers getting the least in price support and price support getting
higher as the
distance from Wisconsin increases ... i.e. California gets the most. Most
dairy
farms in Wisconsin (my grandparents) were family farms, most dairy farms
in Cal are
agribusiness.
2. I live in Wisconsin, the dairy state. I turn on the local NPR and
hear about how
farmers are getting screwed with such low prices for their milk that many
family
farms are going out of business or getting out of the dairy business. At
the same
time people in Wisconsin are paying extremely high prices for milk.
Wisconsin is a
big "got milk" state (not that I can drink it). Thus ensues a big debate
on what the
HELL is going on. Senator Russ Feingold (WI) was been trying to get that
"Wisconsin
farmers get the lowest price supports" repealed. The idea at the time was
to make
sure all states were producing enough LOCAL milk for all the children and
keep the
prices low.
no one knows how many farmers are using rBGH cause they are not required
to report
same to anybody and Monsanto isnt saying either. But when the stuff came
out around
1992 farmers were telling me (I was running for Congress at the time) that
they were
being pressured by Monsanto to use the stuff. I was part of a bipartisan
group that
worked to get Wisconsin to pass laws allowing labeling of milk as rBGH
free (tommy
thompson did sign it) to protect farmers from the wrath of Monsanto who
was suing
anybody labeling their products rBGH free. I did see rBGH free labeled
milk for a
few years, but dont see it anymore... well except Ben and Jerry's ice
cream.
Ingrid
"Darwin Vander Stelt" wrote:
... snip
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.