Hopefully, members of the Senate Agriculture Committe were not expecting to get any clear consensus on U.S. dairy programs from the four witnesses who testified on behalf of the industry during a committee hearing in Washington on Thursday.

There was some agreement between Jim Green, representing the International Dairy Foods Association, and Ken Hall of Idaho, who spoke on behalf of the Idaho Dairymens Association. Both clearly stated that current dairy price support programs need to be changed.

“Most of our dairy policies were enacted in the 30s and 40s, although Congress has layered on new programs in recent years,” said Green. “The current set of programs is failing our industry and the consumer as well.”

Hall said nearly the same thing. “If the intent of the government support programs is to provide an adequate return on time and investment, then the outcome shows that the programs have failed.” He noted that in 1981, the Class 3 price averaged 12.57, in 2000 it averaged 9.74, and dipped as low as 8.57 in November 2000. “This extreme volatility and pricing lower than prices received over 30 years ago is a direct result of failed government programs that do not allow the market system to work.”

Both Green and Hall stated that the dairy price support program and the MILC program are in conflict with each other and should be re-evaluated in the next farm bill.

Leon Berthiaume with St. Albans Cooperative Creamery, Inc. in Vermont disagreed. “(MILC) has provided much needed economic assistance to our farms in Vermont when prices have become so depressed,” he stated. “I believe we need to understand that MILC is not a cost, but an investment in dairy farms, agribusinesses, processors and our rural communities.”

Charles Beckendorf, speaking for the National Milk Producers Federation, testified that the price support program is “an effective, efficient, and equitable safety net program that continues to benefit all dairy producers.” However, he noted that Congress did not include a “supplemental payment program” in the 2002 Farm Bill, as supported by NMPF, to provide a broader safety net for producers. “Instead they created a new direct payment program, which came to be known as MILC. NMPF at this time still remains neutral on the MILC program.”

So, if you are keeping score – that was two votes against MILC, one in favor and one abstaining.

Written testimony, as well as an audio file of the full hearing, can be found on the Senate Ag Committee website.