14. Did de-pooling lead to the demise of the Oregon quota plan?
It was not de-pooling, but the pooling of a lot more milk on the order, that was not from producers
participating in the voluntary Oregon quota plan, that fueled its demise. Over time, this led to a decline in the total percentage of milk pooled as Class I, and a decline in the total dollars available to the producer settlement fund. Producers realized that they could enjoy higher returns from the Federal order blend base excess price compared to participating in the Oregon Quota/Base price program. By 1987, less than one third of Oregon’s dairy industry participated in the State’s voluntary program and it was abolished.
15. How does the Virginia quota program operate?
The State of Virginia operates a base plan. A dairy farmer does not have to be a resident of Virginia to own quota, and most of the quota is owned by cooperatives. Refer to the State of Virginia website
16. Are California farmers paying for USDA travel and outreach for an anticipated hearing?
No, California dairy farmers are not paying for the expenses associated with pre-hearing and hearing activities related to establishing an order for California. The only expenses incurred by the California dairy industry are those related to personal involvement in attending and having representation at the pre hearing and hearing activities. Usually, Federal milk order amendment hearings are paid for by the specific milk order to which the proposed change in order provisions applies. Since this is a promulgation (new order) hearing, the entire cost will be borne by the USDA. If a California Federal order is established after a producer referendum, the cost for maintaining the program will be funded through an assessment on pooled handlers.
For updates, click here.