In last Friday's issue of the Dairy Herd Network Week-in-Review newsletter, we asked readers the following question:

What is your position on NMPF's "Foundation for the Future" proposal to reform federal dairy policy?

Below are the results, as well as some comments readers submitted with their survey answers:

 

What is your position on NMPF's "Foundation for the Future" proposal to reform federal dairy policy? (93 responses)
For (23.7%)
   
 
Against (44.1%)
   
 
Undecided (10.8%)
   
 
Need info (18.3%)
   
 
What is it? (3.2%)
   
 
 
   

 Readers' comments:

"Not impressed with having to buy insurance which is always a fool's game"

"My concern is what our senators and representatives do to the policy after they get it. Original looks like something we might live with."

"If there are production limits, I would be against it."

"Just another way for someone to make a buck off the farmers hard work, in a corrupt price system."

"I think the export part is great and needed. Very much opposed to the supply-management part."

"Free enterprise will work fine."

"Kozak needs to go away; there is more to the dairy industry than the 1,500 and up producer."

"Generally, I am against the majority who want intervention and to prevent the highs and lows. Let the free market system work. When high, get out of debt or save, so that when low, you can survive.".

"The answer to bad policy should not be more bad policy."

"The triggers on insurance programs are too low for California producers. By the time it kicks in, the dairies in the west are already $2 to $3 in negative cash flow."

"In this plan, the farmers are the only ones making any sacrifices. We are going to have to pay for insurance to cover the milk price and based on how much insurance we want is how much we will get paid in down times. This replaces the milk loss payment program."

"FFTF is a campaign of flowery language and insurance schemes born out of fear that the Holstein Stabilization plan was gaining traction. It will be the final nail in the coffin of the family-sized, land-based dairy farm."

"This progarm does not even come close to adressing dairy policy."

"MILC has got to go!"

"Why would any dairy farmer in their right mind want to purchase INSURANCE to get paid for his or he RAW MILK!"

"But I think it's too comprehensive. I think it would be easier to pass piece by piece"

"I don't agree with the supply-management efforts, but the other two components make sense."

"Any plan that is not solely based on laissez-faire economics will not be able react to market forces in a timely manner, and we will have 2009 all over again."

"If this proposal takes place, the result will be: 'Bye-Bye midwest guys, who grow their own feed and make a respectable living. Our dairy barns and silos will be a thing of what was, and we will be sending all all of our crops and hay produced to feed somone elses cows!'"

"I am not in favor of supply management but feel it is the best plan being circulated. More information on the Federal Order reform portion is still needed. We must come together as an industry instead of continuallly fighting one another. MILC as a safety net is a joke benefiting a small minority of milk production at a level that cannot keep a business profitable."

"Must see the legislative language first. Kozak is not to be trusted."

"It's time to get away from any government invlovement, including all crop payments."

"Transfer all the risk to dairy producers while processors get lower priced milk so they can make the profits. Why don't don't they change the name of NMPF to national milk processors federation. Kozlak lobbies for processors, not producers. Why do processors and co-ops make a profit when producers go out of business?"