Minutes 07/12/1949 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7th- The N~anager presented the followin~ l~tter and telegram: "During the war yea~s the City o f Portsmouth was dependent on outside sources for more than 80% of it~ milk'supply. This was not a good conditiona s often the milk was inferior in quality to that oroduced locally and the time it took t o get it to the local market forced the distributor to s ell milk a day or more older, than wou.l%have been the case had he hada sufficient local supply. Also, it was bad f~om the standpomn -of the local nealtk Department, as they could not check on-the productionof the milk. However, theywere able to Check the processing aud final results. After going through_-this emergency, we decided to make every effort to see that this condition did not arise again. ~e took steps to encourage local producers to oroduce more and new prcducers to start producing milk. As a result we took on twenty new producers during 19~ and 19~8. 'These producers are making good G~ade ~A" and Golden Gurnsey milk a s can be shown by your Health Department. We now hav~ ba~s~e~d at our plant twenty-five local producers. Twenty-three of these market through the ~ormo~ Co-operative I~ilk producers Association. We know that bhe City of Portsmouth now has a local milk supply equal to any City in the State. Under State law, the Department of Agriculture has to grant a permit before any distributor can br~lng milk for fluid sales into the ~tate of Virginia from another State. This probably means that milk from other states will nc~ be all6wed to come into Vir- ginia as long as there is sufficient graded milk produced in the State. Tour Health Department has been most helpful and co-operative in the development of sufficient ~roduction o f ~ilk for the Portsmouth ~arket. They have worked co,~ operatively with the p~oducer as welI as the distributor to g et p~oduced, processed and de - livered to consUmer a high grade pure product. They check this milk from t he cow to the ulti- mate C ons~lmer. F~om an economic standpoint, we believe that the City of Portsmouth would lose if a per, it was granted to a dairy in V~ashington to process mil~ there and distri- bute it in Portsmouth~ Abodt half the payroll for a processor and distributor of milk goes fcr overhead and processing. This would mean~ that on the volume of local milk displaced, pay rolls would be about 80% of what they are now. Also the local producer would lose his market to a like extent and the money he now receives and spends locally would be sent out of the area. In addition, the nUmber of distributors on a market very materially affects the cost of processing and distributing milk through duplicating and overlapping service. There are at present twenty-seven processor-distributors~in this area th~n i n the Ci.ty of Ric~nnond wh&re'four distributors fu~ish the ~n%ire City, We believe any city is in a much healthier position-i f it has its own milk production area which it can supervise all the way. With this in mind, we believe it would be- bo the advantage of Portsmouth to a~end its ordinance to permit only those dairies located in close proximity to the City to process and sell milk here. Richmond, Virginia has this type of ordinance. - For your information, the City of '~ashington willh ct permit milk sol( in ~ashington tha~ is processed in Ports~outn so why should Portsmouth p ermit the sale o,_ milk in Portsmouth processed in V~ashington. Yours very truly, J. F. ~ialker, Pine G~ove Dairy." Telegram - "~ccording to information available to us at th~ time, Virginia pro- d~cers located approximately west and no~th o~ P~tersb?rg and Richmond supplied Tidewater Vir- g~'nia includ~g No~folk, Portsmouth a nd ~ewport mews with approximately ~98~1000 ponds of milk duri~ the calendar ~ar of 19~8, which was r~ceived processed ~ud ~sold by distri~tors located within Tidewater Vzrginia producers from the s~e area shipped during the first five months of 1~9 approx~ately the following ~o~ts J~uuary B~B1000 po~uds Feb~ua~ BBCl000 pounds Di~.rch B889000 pounds' April ~99000 ponds ~y es~im~tsd ~000000 po'~nds these p~oducers are still shipp~g into your ~ea but this is the late~t i~ormationwe State ~i~ C~issio~,F~J. Sa~ude~S. Jr. In ~ector. ~ :otion of ~r. Hour_ton to take uD the Chest F~ms Dairy letter at this time, was ~dopted. 0n mormon, the p~mv~lege of th~ floor w~s ~t~m anyo~e_~n~rested~ · ~ N ~ Co - 0 era~mve ~zlk Froduoe~s Assocma~on presen~ J. W. ~lst~ad, ~es~dent cz the ~o~fo~ '~ '~?~ .p ~ ' '~' ' - ed: "~is is to certif~ that we f~i~ Pin~ Grove Dai~ all the milk required by them ~th tbs exception of ~at produced by J.F. ~alker and ~ar Waller. This ~il~-is all grade A, and ~is locally ~roduc~. It amours to appro~ately B~000 gallons ~y. During the last three months, we ~ve had a su~lus of locally produced milk to the extent that there is much frozen cre~ in storage. ~ p~it cranked ~o a Washington dai~ would displace a part of our production. ~is wo-o~d work a hardship on milk producers who soend their money locally~ as the ~lk used by this outside dai~ would be produced in other-areas,~d the money for this milk wou~d go to these other areas. T~s Associati6n has not p~chased any milk outside of the local pro- last three months.~ duction area for was adopted. J. W. Cooper, W. W. Oliver, producer, Wilson Parson, producer ~nd George C. the question. ~otion of ~.T. De~orm, producer, B.P. Coleman, spoke in regard to Houghton to lay on table until next regular meeting