Dairy Star Saturday, May 28, 2016 Page 33

By Sadie FrericksColumnist

Dairy Good Life

Call Gary for a quote....

320-248-2236 Gary Von WahldeOWNER Family owned and operated

THE EVOLUTION OF PULSATION

Sauk Centre, MN gary@dairydirectsales.com

Durability, reliability and

easy maintenanceNew Central MN Dealer!

Drel

easy

HiFloEvolution Pulsator

(LH) 10 MF GC2400, MFWD, 60 deck, 535 hrs .... $9,500 (LH) 81 Case 2290 2WD 9225 Hrs ....................... $11,665 (LH) 63 IH 460 2WD .............................................. $2,950 (P) 1953 Farmall M ................................................ $2,950 (P) 1970 John Deere 2520, 2WD, Loader ............. $11,500 (LH) 80 Massey Ferguson 2745, 2WD, 4563 Hrs . $11,500(P) UTB U550DT Tractor w/loader........................... $4,950 (LH) 58 John Deere 520 gas tractor ....................... $5,000 (LH) Allis Chalmers WD reverse station w/loader ... $2,225 (P) Ford 8N ............................................................. $2,650

SKID STEERS(LH) 95 Mustang 2060, dsl, B, 5770 hrs. ...... $11,665.00 (LH) 09 Mustang 2044, Dsl., 4400 Hrs. ......... $15,575.00 (P) 13 Gehl V400, Cab & heat, 2375 Hrs ........ $37,000.00 (P) 11 Gehl 5240E Cab& heat, 2 spd, B, ....... $26,300.00 (P) 12 New Holland 215, Cab & Heat, 1550 Hrs .. $23,900 (P) Schubert HD72 6 brush cutter ................... $4,000.00 (LH) Bobcat SB200 72 snowblower ................ $5,000.00 (LH) 66 Midsota Bucket, Mustang single pin ...... $390.00 (LH) Midsota double bale spear, Mustang single pin $225(LH) Sands double bale spear, Mustang single pin ..... $85

HAY TOOLS(LH) 95 JD 930 disc mower cnd., 116 impeller .. $8,350 (P) 01 Gehl 2415 disc mower cond., 15 ............... $8,500 (LH) 11 MF/Hesston 1363 Disc mower cond. 10 $19,500(P) 12 MF/Hesston 1372 disc mower cond. 12 .. $27,000(LH) 12 MF/Hesston 1375 disc mower cond. 153 $27,500(P) 95 New Holland 499 12 swing tongue ............. $4,950 (P) 14 MF DM1308 8 disc mower ........................ $7,650(LH) 15 MF/Hesston 2956 Round Baler, 6X5, .... $35,500 (LH) 04 New Holland BB940A baler, 3X3 bale ..... $39,000 (LH) 89 Hesston 560A Round Baler, (6X5) .......... $5,000 (LH) 08 Case IH LBX332RT baler, 3X3 bale, ....... $48,000 (LH) 99 Hesston 4910 baler 4X4 bale ................. $27,000 (LH) Case IH 3650 Round Baler (6x5) ................... $5,275 (LH) Case IH 8480 Round Baler (6X5) ................... $5,000 (LH) 99 Case IH 8575 baler 3X3 ......................... $30,000 (P) 90 New Idea 484 round baler (4X5) ................ $3,500TRACTORS(LH) 06 MF 8460,MFWD, CVT, 2025 Hrs ............ $97,900 (LH) 95 White 6144. MFWD, 4015 Hrs ............... $36,500 (LH) 94 White 6175 2WD, 5300 Hrs ................... $39,750 (LH) 12 Challenger MT545B, MFWD, CVT, Duals, 4350 Hrs ............................................................ $62,500

EQUIPMENT ON HAND (P) - Pierz (LH) Lake Henry

Hesston introduces the 2900 Series.Because just being good is never good enough.

W H A T ' S S O S P E C I A L about our Hesston 2900 Series round balers? The simple fact that they're all new, from the assembly line up. We've redesigned our production process to make sure your new baler is as dependable as it is productive,

with more capacity, more efciency and fully automatic operation. The new 2900 Series. See us soon or go to Hesston.com.

HESSTON and MASSEY FERGUSON are registered trademarks of AGCO. 2013 AGCO Corporation, 4205 River Green Parkway, Duluth, GA 30096 (877) 525-4384 HS13C011TCG

Two Wisconsin dairy processors announced last week that they would soon begin purchasing only rBST-free milk. At rst glance, this looks bad for the farmers who sell their milk to those com-panies. Whether or not a farm chooses to use rBST, its important for dairy farm-ers to have a choice. Only dairy farmers and their management teams can decide whether supplementation is right for their farms. Ill state here that we do not use rBST on our farm, but not because we op-pose the technology. It was a business decision. We were offered a premium from our milk processor for not using rBST and that premium provided more income than we would have earned from selling ad-ditional milk. At second glance, the decision made by those Wisconsin dairy processors is bad for all of us. Since one of those plants serves as a balancing plant, it takes milk in from a large number of other milk processors. That means those companies will need to nd a different company to buy their extra milk and cream from supplemented cows. The other option is to require their dairy farms to stop supple-menting cows. Right now, there is very little wiggle room for milk in the Upper Midwest. Most processing plants are operating at full capacity. It will be extremely dif cult for any milk processor purchasing milk from supplemented cows to nd new balancing partners. Furthermore, since balancing milk has become such an intricate process, segregating supplemented milk and non-supplemented milk is increasingly dif cult. So those processors will switch to purchasing rBST-free milk only. Dairy farmers who choose to supplement their cows then have to decide be-tween staying with their current processor and discontinuing supplementation or nding a new processor who will purchase their milk. There arent many processors in the Upper Midwest who are taking on new patrons. So most dairy farmers will, in effect, be forced to discontinue using rBST if they want to keep selling milk. Long story short, it looks to me like the decision made last week by these pro-cessors could lead to the entire Upper Midwest becoming rBST-free. Its a classic example of a domino effect. I started this column by stating that its important for dairy farmers to have choices regarding technology. We are losing a choice: a choice to use a technology that has been proven safe for humans and for dairy cows. A technology that, when used, cannot even be detected in cows bodies or the food supply. A technology that helps dairy farmers use natural resources responsibly and protect the environ-ment. Its also important for consumers to have a choice. Milk processors are defending their decision to purchase only rBST-free milk by claiming that customers are demanding rBST-free milk. I believe its inaccurate to say that consumers are demanding rBST-free milk when not all consumers have freedom of choice. In my town, the only name-brand milk a shopper can purchase is rBST-free. So any consumer who is brand-loyal is denied a choice. Theres a good chance that the consumers with freedom of choice choose rBST-free milk over milk without rBST-free label. But only because theyve been misled. When rBST became available for dairy farmers to use, there was some contro-versy surrounding its use. I remember the conversations well because rBST hit the market just before I was rst crowned a junior dairy princess, so explaining rBST became my rst advocacy job. In reality, though, the vast majority of consumers didnt know what rBST was, nor did they care. They just wanted fresh, cold milk in the dairy cooler when they stopped to get groceries. But some processing company, thinking they could squeeze a few extra cents out of consumers, decided to capitalize on the controversy. And so labels appeared touting milk as rBST-free or arti cial growth hormone free. (Or one of the legal variations of the claim.) We all know what happens when absence labels appear on food: Fat free = Oh, man, fat must really be bad. Preservative free = Oh, man, preservatives must really be bad. GMO-free = Oh, man, GMOs must really be bad. Hormone-free = Oh, man, hormones must really be bad. Absence labels create confusion and fear. Once one company decides to slap an absence label on the front of a package, every other company in the market follows suit. Most consumers dont look beyond the label to decide for themselves whether the claims make sense. They are only choosing rBST-free milk because they think foods with absence labels are better for their families. Marketing professionals know which words in uence consumer behavior. And, in this case, that marketing was irresponsible. Consumers were led to fear a safe technology. I havent written about rBST before this. Which means that, in some ways, the decision by those two Wisconsin dairy processors is as much my fault as anyone elses, because I didnt speak up for choice in technology sooner. But, really, how can 43,000 or so dairy farmers help over 300 million consumers know the truth when marketing claims are bombarding them with mistruths? Sadly, it seems like this column will serve no purpose other than a chance for me to vent. But, maybe, this can be lesson to us all to speak up for the technologies we can still choose to use. Sadie and her husband, Glen, milk 75 cows near Melrose, Minn. They have three children Dan, 8, Monika, 6, and Daphne, 2. Sadie also writes a blog at www.dairygoodlife.com. She can be reached at gsfrericks@meltel.net.

On rBST: We are losing a choice