"THE FARMING PROJECT," HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE RURAL DEVELOPMENT ADMINISTRATION, ASSISTING EMERGING RUR BUSINESSES IN AGRICULTURE AND OTHER INDUSTRIES.

>> MOST OF MY CLIENTS DON'T FEEL THEY HAVE A MILK SURPLUS ON THEIR FARM.

MOST OF MY CLIENTS FEEL LIKE IF THEY HAD MORE MILK, THEY'D SELL IT.

>> EVEN THOUGH WE GET ALL THESE NEW AND IMPROV TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, WE'RE STILCHASING OUR TAIL.

WE'RE GOING FASTER AND FASTER OVER THE LAND, BUT WE STI WORK THE SAME HOURS A DAY.

>> WE CAN'T LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT OUR FARMERS PEOPLE IN AGRICULTURE, WHETHER THEY BE DAIRY FARMERS, OR HAVE A SUGARBUSH OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, ARE BUSINESS PEOPLE, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT ASUSINESS PEOPLE TO MANAGE THR N BUSINESS AS THEY SEE FIT.

>> FROM THE COACH BARN AT SHELBUR FARMS IN SHELBURNE, VERMONT, VERMONT E.T.V.

PRESENTS, "A TOWN MEETI ON SCIEE D TECHNOLOGY IN AGRICULTURE."

HERE'S MODERATOR RON POWERS.

>> WELL, TODAY WE CONTINUE OUR TOWN MEETINGS ON THE SUBJECT OF FARMING IN VERMONT, ITS HISTORY AND TRADITIONS, ITS PRESENT REALITIES, AND ITS PROSPECTS FOR THE FUTURE IN A TIME OF RAPID CULTURAL CHANGE.

WE'RE HERE IN THE COACH BARN AT SHELBURNE FARMS JUST SOUTH OF BURLINGTON TODAY, A PLACE WHERE MUCH OF THE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INTO VERMONT FARMING GOES ON.

MY NAME IS RON POWERS, AND TODAY OUR TOPIC WILL BE SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH, SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AS IT APPLIES TO FARMING IN VERMONT.

I CAN'T THINK OF A TOPIC THAT AROUSES MORE PASSION, MORE POLARIZED CONVERSATION.

I DON'T THINK THAT ANYONE HAS A NEUTRAL OPINION THESE DAYS ABOUT SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY.

THERE ARE MANY EDUCATED, ENLIGHTENED AND SERIOUS PEOPLE WHO FIRMLY BELIEVE THAT TECHNOLOGY AND ITS ORGANIZATION OF FARM RESOURCES WILLE THE SALVATION OF OUR PLANET, OUR WAY OF FORESTALLING GLOBAL FAMINE.

OTHERS DISAGREE VEHEMENTLY, AND I CAN'T THINK OF A MORE REPRESENTATIVE VOICE FOR THOSE WHO DISAGREE THAN THE LATE EDWARD ABBY, WHO IS SURELY ONE OF THE CASUIST AMERICAN WRITERS WE'VE EVER PRODUCED, NEVER HAD A BLAND OPINION ON ANYTHING.

TALKING ABOUT HIS VIEWS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY AS THEY ENTER AMERICAN LIFE AND AMERICAN AGRICULTURE, ABBY USED TO GROWL THAT, "SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY HAS BECOME THE INSTRUMENT OF POTENTIAL PLANETARY SLAVERY, THE MOST POWERFUL WEAPON EVER PLACED IN THE HAND OF DESPOTS."

AND IN CASE YOU DIDN'T QUITE PICK UP ON THE SUBTLETIES OF HIS POSITION THERE, HE'D LIKE TO ADD THAT, "THE ONLY QUESTION NOW IS WHETHER TECHNOLOGY WILL SUCCEED IN TOTALLY ENSLAVING MANKIND BEFORE IT SUCCEEDS IN ITS COROLLARY AIM OF DESTROYING LIFE."

WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN GET THIS SAME LEVEL OF TACT, AND CIVILITY AND POLITENESS OUT OF OUR PANEL TODAY, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY TRUE THAT TECHNOLOGY AROUSES STRONG FEELINGS AS APPLIED TO FARMING IN VERMONT, PARTICULARLY WITH REGARD TO SUCH ISSUES AS THE USE OF BOVINE GROWTH HMONE, COMMONLY KNOWN AS B.S.T., TO BOOST MILK PRODUCTION AMONG DAIRY COWS.

I'M GOING TO INTRODUCE THE PANEL IN A MOMENT, AND WE'RE GOING TO INCLUDE A LIVELY DISCUSSION OM THE MEMBERS OF OUR STUDIO AUDIENCE.

I ASK THAT YOU ASK YOUR QUESTIONS ONE AT A TIME AND GIVE THE PANEL A CHANCE TO RESPOND IF THEY SO DESIRE.

PANEL, I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE YOU TO TALK AND ASK QUESTIONS AMONG YOURSELVES.

NOW, LET'S MEET OUR PANEL FOR TODAY.

PHIL BENEDICT OF THE VERMONT DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SPECIALIZES IN DEVELOPING CONTROLS FOR NONPOINT POLLUTION, SUCH AS RUNOFF FROM FARMS.

MARK CATLIN OF MONTPELIER IS A LARGE ANIMAL VETERINARIAN WHO CONSIDERS B.S.T.

A SAFE SCIENTIFIC TOOL THAT FARMERS SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO USE.

JAMES GILMORE, ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF GENICS AND BREEDING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT, DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL AND FOOD SERVICES, IS ACIENTI WHO ALSO HAS ADVOCATED THE USE OF B.S.T.

IN CERIN INSTANCES.

SHERRY KAWECKI OF ALBURG IS A MEMBER OF RURAL VERMONT, AN ADVOCACY GROUP.

SHE HAS BEEN DAIRY FARMING FOR 14 YEARS, THE MOTHER OF 4 CHILDREN AND I UNDERSTANDOU MILK 45 COWS A DAY OUT OF A HERD OF 105.

LISA McCRORY OF WESTFIELD IS A PASTURE AND GRAZING CONSULTANT WITH THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT.

SHE WORKS WITH U.V.M.

'S E.P.I.C.P, WHICH IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM IN COMMUNITIES AND PRACTICES GRAZING MANAGEMENT OF GRASS FARMING.

AND THE HONORABLE ROBERT STARR OF NORTH TROY, WHO'S A MEMBER OF VERMONT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, HAS BEEN I THINK FOR 14 YEARS?

>> 16.

>> 16 YEARS, AND IS CHAIR OF THE HOUSE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE.

PANEL, WELCOME.

SHERRY KAWECKI, I SAID A MOMENT AGO YOU MILK SOME 45 COWS A DAY.

WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO USE B.S.T.

TO BOOST YOUR FARM'S MILK PRODUCTION AND COLLECT MORE MONEY FROM THE SAME NUMBER OF COWS?

>> WE RIGHT NOW HAVE A MILK SURPLUS AND IT'S BEEN DEPRESSING PRICES, AND THAT'S THE MAIN REASON THAT FARMERS HAVE BEEN DRIVEN OFF THE LAND FOR THE LAST DECADE OR SO.

AND ALSO I DON'T THINK THAT THE HUMAN ALTH CONCERNS HAVE BEEN ADEQUATELY ADDRESSED, AND I THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT THAT FARMERS PRODUCE A PRODUCT THAT THEY FEEL IS SAFE FOR THE CONSUMER, AND I THINK THAT THERE'S TOO MANY QUESTIONS AND LOOSE ENDS LEFT ON THOSE THINGS.

AND I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT TO ACHIEVE HIGHER PRODUCTION THAT WE SHOULD RESORT TO GIVING NEEDLES TO COWS.

THERE'S OTHER WAYS OF DOING THAT, IMPROVING THE FEED QUALITY AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AND MORE HUMANE WAYS TO ACHIEVE HIGHER MILK PRODUCTION.

>> DR.

CATLIN, IS THIS A VALID OBJECTION?

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT USES TAX DOLLARS TO BUY THAT SURPLUS MILK AND THE DAIRY PRODUCTS.

WHY DO FARMERS NEED A DRUG THAT BOOSTS MILK PRODUCTION WHEN WE'RE CREATING SURPLUSES?

WHY, IN OTHER WORDS, IS B.T.

NOT A TECHNOLOGY FOR TECHNOLOGY SAKE?

>> I GUESS MOST OF MY CLIENTS DON'T FEEL THEY HAVE A MILK SURPLUS ON THEIRARM.

MOST OF MY CLIENTS FEEL LIKE IF THEY HAD MORE MILK, THEY'D SELL IT AND THEY'D MAKE A PROFIT ON IT.

THE OVERPOWERING ECONOMIC TRENDS THAT WE'RE FACED WITH INSIST THAT IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE A LIVING DAIRY FARMING, YOU'VE GOT TO PRODUCE MILK AT A LOW ENOUGH COST TO PROVIDE YOUR FAMILY AND YOURSELF WITH AN ADEQUATE STANDARD OF LIVING.

THE TREND ISVERPOWERING.

THE GOVERNMENT IS GETTING OUT OF THE SUBSIDY BUSINESS, AND IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO THE DAIRY FARMERS TO MAKE A LIVING ON THEIR OWN AS IT WERE.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE IN FARMING.

REPRESENTATIVE STARR, ON THE STATE LEVEL OR ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL, FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE WHAT IS THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE, IF ANY, IN DETERMINING GOOD TECHNOLOGY FROM BAD TECHNOLOGY AND ARBITRATING OR MEDIATING ITS USE?

>> THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE VERY CAUTIOUS THESE DAYS ABOUT WHAT THEY EAT, AND WHETHER B.S.T.

IS GOOD, BAD OR WHATEVER, THE PERCEPTION AMONGST THE PUBLIC IS THAT IT'S BAD.

AND IF THEY HAVE THAT PERCEPTION, THEN THEY'RE GOING TO BUY DIFFERENTLY.

AND I THINK IT'S THE GOVERNMENT'S ROLE TO DO THINGS FOR PEOPLE THAT PEOPLE CANNOT DO FOR THEMSELVES, AND PEOPLE CANNOT REQUIRE LABELING, SAY, BUT THE GOVERNMENT CAN REQUIRE LABELING.

AND I THINK THE PEOPLE HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW, HAVE A RIGHT TO CHOOSE, AND I THINK GOVERNMENT'S ROLE, AS F AS THE STATE OF VERMONT'S ROLE, IS THAT WE SHOULD LABEL OUR PRODUCTS AND REQUIRE PRODUCTS COMING INTO THIS STATE TO BE LABELED SO THAT THE PUBLIC CAN KNOW AND THEY CAN CHOOSE.

>> DR.

GILMORE, AS A SCIENTIST, DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS PRESENTATION AND WITH THE RESPONBILITIES FOR LABELING THE PRODUCT OR WITH THE OVERALL PRESENTATION SO FAR OF B.T.?

>> I DISAGREE WITH MR.

STARR QUITE A BIT.

I GUESS MY FEELING, A COUPLE POINTS I'D LIKE TO MAKE, I THINK ITS INTERESTING TO ME THAT IN ABOUT 47 OR 48 STATES THE DAIRYMEN ARE USING B.S.T.

AND THE CONSUMERS DON'T SEEM TO MIND, AT LEAST A VERY LARGE MAJORITY, AND THEY'RE KIND OF MAKI FUN OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN VERMONT.

WHEN I GO TO NATIONAL MEETINGS THEY CAN'T FIGURE OUT WHY DAIRYMEN ARE RAISING THESE ISSUES AND WHY THEY'RE PUTTING VERMONT IRYMEN AT AN ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE NOT ALLOWING OR MAKING IT HARD FOR THEM TO USE IT.

I THINK IT'S ALSO INTERESTING THAT B.S.T., WHICH IS INJECTED IN COWS, IS NATURALLY OCCURRING IN THE COW ITSELF, SO IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO REALLY TELL FROM A TEST OF THE MILK WHETHER THERE'S ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE MILK FROM COWS THAT HAVE BEEN GIVEN B.S.T.

FROM THOSE NATURALLY OCCURRING.

>> LISA McCRORY, I'D LIKE TO CONTINUE THIS QUESTION OF ENLIGHTENED CHOICE AND WHO PROVIDES THE ENLIGHTENMENT.

WHO HELPS FARMERS MAKE THESE DECISIONS?

YOU ARE A CONSULTANT WITH A CONNECTION TO THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT.

IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT IS YOUR ROLE TO SOME EXTENT TO HELP FARMERS STEP BACK FROM TECHNOLOGY AND TO RELY ON MORE TRADITIONAL, SUSTAINABLE METHODS OF AGRICULTURE.

FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, COULD YOU COMMENT ON THE EFFICACY OF B.S.T.

AND THE DEGREE TO WHICH BOTH PEOPLE AND POLITICAL REPRESENTATIVES UNDERSTAND IT.

>> CAN I JUMP IN HERE?

I'M UNCOMFORTABLE WITH YOUR ASSUMPTION THAT STEPPING BACK IS GOING TO BE A MORE SUSTAINABLE FORM OFGRULTURE.

>> BUT I'D LIKE TO HEAR HER ANSWER IF I MAY.

>> I'D JUST LIKE TO GO ON RECORD, I DON'T THINK YOU'VE DEFINED YOUR TERMS OF WHAT YOU THINK SUSTAINABLE IS.

>> WOULD YOU DEFINE WHAT SUSTAINABLE IS THEN PLEASE, LISA?

>>MY PERSONAL DEFINITION OF SUSTAINABLE IS THE ABILITY TO LIVE AND PROSPER, TO HAVE A GOOD, HEALTHY GOAL THAT INCLUDES THE PERSON IN GENERAL AND THEIR IMMEDIATE AND EXTENDED ENVIRONMENT WITH THE GOAL OF BEING PRODUCTIVE FOR AN EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME, WHICH COULD BE 100, 200 YEARS, OR WHY DON'T WE JUST CALL IT ETERNITY.

FOR THAT TO BE SUSTAINABLE, THAT MEANS TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION NOT JUST THE IMMEDIATE GOALS THAT ARE GOING ON WITHIN THE PERSON'S SCOPE OF VISION, BUT HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT THEIR LIVELIHOOD, HOW IS THAT GOING TO AFFECT THEIR COMMUNITY.

BEING AWARE THAT ERYTHING THAT WE DO IS DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY RELATED TO EVERYTHING ELSE.

SO WHEN I VISIT FARMS, WE TALK ABOUT NOT ONLY WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE PASTURES, BUT WHAT'S GOING ON IN THEIR LIFE.

WHAT ARE THEIR NEEDS, WHAT ARE THEY ARE OWN PERSONAL GOALS?

AND I WORK WITH THOSE GOALS ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS, AND SO WHAT I WOULD ADVISE FOR ONE PERSON WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT I WOULD ADVISE FOR ANOTHER, BUT ALWAYS KEEPING IN MIND HOW IS THIS AFFECTING THE BIGGER PICTURE.

>> CAN YOU ADVANCE THE DISCUSSION WE'VE HAD SO FAR ON THE GENERAL PRESENCE OF B.S.T.

IN VERMONT AGRICULTURE?

>> MY EXPERIENCE WITH FARMERS, E FARMERS THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH, WHICH I CAN'T SAY IS REPRESENTATIVE OF ALL DAIRY FARMERS AT ALL, BUT B.S.T.

IS AN ISSUE AND IT'S A THREAT.

>> MR.

BENEDICT, IS IT NEEDED?

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT KIND OF ISSUE MYSELF.

I THINK THAT'S AN INDIVIDUAL CHOICE.

I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS TH ARE IMPORTANT TO PUT ON THE TABLE HERE.

FIRST OF ALL, PEOPLE FARM, PEOPLE NEED TO MAKE A LIVING, AND FARMERS ARE THE ONLY GROUP IN MANY WAYS THAT BUY RETAIL AND SELL WHOLESALE.

EVERYBODY ELSE THAT'S IN BUSINESS BUYS WHOLESALE AND SELLS RETAIL.

MILK WAS $13 A HUNDRED WEIGHT IN 1980.

LAST YEAR VERMONT FARMERS GOT $12.80 A HUNDRED WEIGHT FOR THEIR MILK.

I DON'T KNOW OF ANY OTHER BUSINESS THAT COULD GO ON OVER TIME AND GET A LOWER PRICE FOR ITS PRODUCT AS INFLATION GOES UP.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT THE INFLATION RATE, THE FARMER'S REALLY TAKING A BEATING, AND THE REASON HE'S BEEN AROUND IS HE'S FOUND WAYS TO IMPROVE HIS PRODUCTION.

IN 1960 A FARMER PRODUCED ABOUT 7,000 POUNDS OF MILK PER COW.

LAST YEAR IT WAS ABOUT 15,700.

SO FARMERS HAVE GOTTEN MORE EFFICIENT, HAVE PRODUCED MORE EFFICIENT ANIMALS.

WE HAVE LESS FARMS, LESS COWS AND PRODUCE MORE LK TODAY WITHOUT THAT PRODUCT.

>> IS THAT A GOOD THING OR A BAD THING?

I'D ALSO ENCOURAGE THE AUDIENCE TO THINK OF OTHER TOPICS THAT INVOLVE TECHNOLOGY AND ITS EFFECT ON FARMING BEYOND SIMPLY B.S.T., BUT NOW WE HAVE A QUESTIONER FROM THE AUDIENCE.

I'D LIKE FOR YOU TO IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND PRESENT YOUR QUESTION, PLEASE.

>> YES.

MY NAME IS PAUL STONE, I'M A FARMER.

MY WIFE AND I ARE FARMERS IN ORWELL, VERMONT, FORMER DAIRY FARMER, AND NOW TURNED TO FARMING RAISING 12,500 TURKEYS AND BOARDING DAIRY HEIFERS FOR OTHER FARMERS.

AND I'VE BEEN TRAINED SOMEWHAT IN SCIENCE AND PROBABLY LOOK AT THIS FROM THAT BIAS.

I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF MOST OF THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES THAT HAVE COME ALONG SO LONG AS THEY'RE SAFE.

AND I THINK THE MEASURE IS WHETHER THEY'RE SAFE.

AND MY QUESTION IS, AND I'D LIKE TO ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT AFTER I ASK IT, IS AT WHAT POINT DO YOU LIMIT OR DO YOU REQUIRE LABELING OR DO YOU SOMEHOW REDUCE A FARMER'S ABILITY TO USE A NEW TECHNOLOGY?

THIS IS A BAG THAT WE PACKAGE OUR TURKEYS IN AND ON HERE WE HAVE A LITTLE LABEL THAT SAYS, NO ANTIBIOTICS FED, NO ANTIBIOTICS OR HORMONES FED OR ADMINISTERED TO BIRDS.

F.D.A.

REGULATIONS PROHIBIT THE USE OF HORMONES IN TURKEYS.

NOW, THAT'S HORMONES IN TURKEYS.

THAT'S NOT HORMONES IN DAIRY COWS.

MY POINT HERE IS THAT THERE ARE VOLUNTARY SYSTEMS IN WHICH WE CAN LABEL PRODUCTS.

AND I THINK THE QUESTION THAT THE LEGISLATURE TRIED TO ADDRESS LAST YEAR IS ONE OF THE FUTURE PROSPERITY OF FARMS IN VERMONT.

>> LET'S LET REPRESENTATIVE STARR ANSWER IT FROM THE LEGISLATOR'S POINT OF VIEW IF I MAY.

>> WELL, TO START WITH, I GUESS I WOULD ASK PAUL A QUESTION OF WHY IS HE PUTTING THIS MATERIAL ON HIS LABEL ON HIS TURKEYS?

AND I GUESS I'LL ANSWER THAT, IT'S SO HE CAN SELL HIS TURKS AT A PREMIUM PRICE.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S TRUE.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

>> IF IT ISN'T TRUE, I'D LIKE TO HAVE HIM STATE THAT.

>> THAT'S TRUE, BOB.

>> SO WHAT HE IS RECOMMENDING IS THAT MAYBE WE SHOULD DO A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.

FIRST ONE OUT OF THE GATE WAS AGRI-MARK COOPERATIVE, OPPOSED TO A VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.

FARM BUREAU, OPPOSED TO THIS VOLUNTARY CERTIFICATION PROGRAM.

THE NORTHEAST FEDERATION OF COOPERATIVES, OPPOSED TO A VOLUNTARY PROGRAM.

AND THE REASON IS MONSANTO, ANIMAL HEALTH INSTITUTE, AMERICAN CYANIMID HAVE PAID OFF THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE, AND I DON'T MEAN LITTLE PEOPLE, I MEAN THEY'VE HIRED GUYS LIKE DR.

CATLIN.

>> DR.

CATLIN, DO YOU HAVE A RESPONSE TO THAT?

>> THEY'VE HIRED AND GIVEN GRANTS.

>> HARD TO GET A WORD IN EDGEWISE.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO SIT HERE AND TELL LIES, KEEP GOING.

>> ANSWER THAT, DOCTOR.

>> I HAVE BEEN A PART OF MONSANTO'S NORTHEAST VETERINARY ADVISORY BOARD.

THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

I'VE BEEN ON RECORD SAYING THAT A NUMBER OF TIMES.

I DO CONSULT FOR MONSANTO, PERIOD.

>> SO TO GO ON WITH MY THOUGHT.

>> BUT, BOBBY, THE REASON THEY DON'T WT TO GO ALONG WITH YOUR PROGRAM IS YOU CAN'T TEST FOR IT.

I MEAN, YOU CAN ST FOR ANTIBIOTICS, RIGHT, PA?

>> WELL, IN THE TURKEY SITUATION, IF THE PROPER WITHHOLDING HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED, IN OTHER WORDS, IF YOU'RE FEEDING ANTIBIOTIC IN A FEED AND YOU WITHHOLD IT, YOU CANNOT TEST A TURKEY FOR THE ANTIBIOTICS.

THIS IS A PROGRAM ADMINISTERED BY THE U.S.D.A.

>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM DR.

GILMORE.

>> MY POINT IS THERE IS A TEST FOR WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO SAY YOU DON'T HAVE IN YOUR TURKEYS.

THERE IS A TEST.

>> THERE IS NOT A TEST, NO.

>> THERE IS A TEST FOR ANTIBIOTIC RESIDUE IN MEAT.

>> YES, BUT THERE IS NOT A TEST FOR WHETHER YOU FED IT OR NOT.

>> GENTLEMEN, I CANNOT ALLOW A SUSTAINED DEBATE BETWEEN THE FLOOR AND THE PANEL.

I'M SORRY, IT JUST WON'T WORK.

>> I HAVE NEVER FINISHED MY STATEMENT.

>> PLEASE DO THEN, REPRESENTATIVE STARR.

>> SO WE'VE REACHED A CONCLUSION THAT DR.

CATLIN IS BEING PAID BY ANIMAL HEALTH INSTITUTE AND HE PROMOTES THE PRODUCT.

>> WRONG.

>> WELL, AMERICAN CYANIMID OR MONSANTO THEN, ONE OF THE FOUR BIG ONES.

WE ALSO KNOW THAT THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT HAS ACCEPTED THOUSANDS, AND THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS FROM THE SAME COMPANIES TO DO RESEARCH AND IT FUNDS THEIR PROGRAMS.

>> THAT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T GIVE THEM ANY MONEY.

WHY NOT?

>> I HAVE THE FLOOR, DOCTOR.

>> EXCUSE ME.

>> AND TO GET BACK TO THE POINT OF TESTING, DOCTOR, I HAVE TWO VETERINARIANS IN MY FAMILY AND A MEDICAL DOCTOR IN MY FAMILY AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE PEOPLE HAVE TOLD ME THAT YOU CAN TEST BLOOD IN COWS VERY EASILY TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT COW HAS BEEN INJECTED WITH R.B.G.H., AND I THINK PROBABLY YOU KNOW THESE VETS.

>> I WOULD REALLY NOW LIKE TO HEAR FROM DR.

GILMORE TO SUBSTANTIATE OR REFUTE.

>> THE MILK FROM COWS TREATED WITH B.S.T.

IS NO DIFFERENT THAN MILK FROM COWS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN TREATED WITH B.S.T.

THEY BOTH CONTAIN B.S.T., ONE NATURALLY OCCURRING AND THE OTHER ONE SUBNATURALLY OCCURRING AS WELL AS SOME ADMINISTERED.

>> IT'S NOT THE SAME.

THE ADMINISTERED B.S.T.

DIFFERS BY ONE AMINO ACID, AND THERE ARE SEVERAL PEOPLE WORKING ON DIFFERENT TYPES OF TESTS.

AND THERE WILL BE A TEST AVAILABLE BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO KNOW.

AND MONSTO HAS BEEN RUMORED TO HAVE KNOWN ABOUT A TEST FOR 5 YEARS AND CLAIMS THAT THEY DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT.

THEY CAN TEST THE DIFFERENCE IN ATHELETES BETWEEN THE HUMAN GROWTH HORMONE AND THE ADMINISTERED, AND IF THEY CAN INVENT B.S.T., THEY CAN TEST FOR IT.

>> NOW, IF THE PANEL WILL PERMIT ME AND THE AUDIENCE, I WANT TO PUT THIS QUESTION OF B.S.T.

TESTING AND THE LEGITIMACY OF ITS PRESENCE IN VERMONT AGRICULTURE INTO KIND OF A CONTEXT OF VERMONT LIFE.

WE ARE NOT A STATE THAT HAS BEEN ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY AND RESEARCH.

SOME PEOPLE THINK THAT THAT IS BECAUSE WE ARE A BACKWARD, AN ISOLATED, A KIND OF PROVINCIAL STATE.

FRANK BRYAN OF THE UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT IS GOING TO BE ONE OF OUR VIDEOTAPED WITNESSES ON THE CONTEXT OF ALL OF THIS AND WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM HIM NOW, AND THEN I'D LIKE TO GET SOME REACTION FROM THE PANEL.

>> WHEN WE THINK ABOUT VERMONT AND ITS CONSERVATISM, PEOPLE ARE ALWAYS SEEKING AN EXPLANATION ABOUT WHY VERMONT WAS SO, "BACKWARD," AND ESPECIALLY IN AGRICULTURE, THE THESIS IS THAT VERMONTERS ARE JUST RELUCTANT TO CHANGE, THEY WANT TO DO THINGS LIKE THEIR GRANDPARENTS DID, THEY LIKE THE OLD WAYS.

IT'S ALMOST A ROMANTIC INTERPRETATION.

I THINK THAT'S FUNDAMENTALLY FALSE.

I THINK THE KEY IS THE CHANGE CAME SLOWLY BECAUSE OF ECONOMIC REASONS.

MOST FARMERS WERE POOR.

THEY LIVED ON THE EDGE.

THEY COULDN'T TRY SOMETHING OUT AND HAVE IT FAIL.

SO THEY WERE RELUCTANT TO TAKE A LOT OF GAMBLES MAINLY FOR ECONOMIC REASONS.

AT THE CORE OF IT, YOU CAN'T TAKE A CHANCE ON SOMETHING WHEN YOUR WHOLE LIVELIHOOD DEPENDS ON IT, AND YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH OF A BANK ACCOUNT TO INVEST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

>> VERMONT HAS NOT BEEN ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF TECHNOLOGY BECAUSE WE ARE A POOR STATE.

IF WE HAD THE CAPITAL, THE RESOURCES, WE WOULD BE A MORE GAMBLING INCLINED GROUP OF FARMERS.

IS THAT A FAIR CHARACTERIZATION?

>> NO.

ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.

VERMONT HAS SOME OF THE FINEST, MOST PROGRESSIVE, MOST EDUCATED, MOST CUTTING EDGED DAIRYMEN IN THE UNITED STATES.

>> CAPITALIZED AS WELL?

>> VERY WELL CAPITALIZED, MAKING A DECENT PROFIT.

THERE ISHIS ILLUSION THAT EVERY DAIRY FARMER IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN VERMONT IS LOSING MONEY.

THAT JUST ISN'T TRUE.

THERE ARE MANY DAIRY FARMERS WHO ARE MAKING AN EXCELLENT PROFIT IN THE BUSINESS TODAY.

THEY ARE TAKING VACATIONS, SENDING THEIR CHILDREN TO COLLEGE, DOING ALL THE THINGS THAT THE REST OF AMERICA THINKS ARE NORMAL, AND I THINK THIS ILLUSION TT THEY'RE ALL GOING DOWN THE TUBES IS NOT CORRECT.

>> I PERSONALLY BELIEVE VERMONT FARMERS ARE PROGRESSIVE.

WE'VE LED THE NATION IN POLLUTION CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES.

I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT HISTORICALLY, MANY OF THE ROTATION PRACTICES THAT HAVE EXISTED, MANY OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED IN THE DAIRY BARN, WE'VE BEEN IN THE FOREFRONT OF THOSEHINGS.

I THINK IN ANY INDUSTRY YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT ARE PROGRESSIVE, YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT DON'T WANT TO CHANGE.

>> LET'S STAY ON THIS TOPIC OF POLLUTION NOW IF WE MAY.

REPRESENTATIVE STARR, I UNDERSTAND SOON WE WILL BE SEEING FROM THE VERMONT LEGISLATURE SOME MAJOR LEGISLATION INTRODUCED ON THE QUESTION OF RUNOFF, THE FARMERS' RESPONSIBILITIES FOR CONTROLLING RUNOFF OF ANIMAL WASTE, OF PESTICIDES.

WHAT WILL BE THE CONTENT, AND THE SHAPE AND THE EFFECTS OF THIS KIND OF LEGISLATION IF IT'S PASSED AND WHAT WILL BE THE OPPOSITION TO IT?

>> WE HAVE SPENT IN THE STATE OF VERMONT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS CLEANING UP MUNICIPALITIES, HELPING TOWNS AND CITIES CLEAN UP THEIR WASTE, AND PERSONALLY I FEEL THAT WE AS A STATE SHOULD HELP FARMS CLEAN UP THEIR PROBLEM, AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PUTS IN MONEY, AND I THINK THE STATE SHOULD PUT IN MONEY, AND THE INDIVIDUALS SHOULD PUT IN MONEY.

THERE WILL BE REQUIRED NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT PLANS FOR FARMERS TO FOLLOW AND TO HAVE, AND IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME TO SELL THIS TO OUR FARMERS.

>> HOW MUCH TIME WILL IT TAKE, MRS.

KAWECKI, TO SELL IT TO YOU?

>> I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK WE DO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH RUNOFF ON FARMS, BUT I THINK IT'S GOTTEN WORSE BECAUSE THE FARMS HAVE GOTTEN BIGGER AND THE ANIMAL'S MANURE IS A FERTILIZER.

IT SHOULDN'T BE WASTE.

AND IT BECOMES WASTE BECAUSE FARMERS INCREASINGLY DON'T HAVE THE AMOUNT OF ACREAGE THEY SHOULD HAVE FOR THE AMOUNT OF ANIMALS THEY HAVE AND IT CAN'T BE INCORPORATED INTO THE SOIL THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.

I THINK THE GOVERNMENT AND THE DIFFERENT POLICIES THAT HAVE ENCOURAGED LARGE FARMS HAVE ACTUALLY INCREASED THE POLLUTION, SO NOW THEY HAVE TO SOLVE THAT PROBLEM.

>> WELL, WE VE A QUESTION NOW FROM THE AUDIENCE.

IS YOUR TOPIC A TOPIC OF POLLUTION?

>> YES.

>> WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE?

>> MY NAME IS JIM MONAHAN AND I'M A STATE DIRECTOR OFHE AGRICULTURE STABLIZATION SERVICE.

>> YOUR QUESTION?

>> AND JUST AS A LITTLE BACKGROUND, I'VEADIKE 20 YEARS IN THE NONPOINT ARENA, AND WHAT I WANT TO MAKE PERFECTLY EAR, IF YOUILL, IS THAT VERMONT FARMERS HAVE BEEN IN THE FOREFRONT OF DOING WATER QUALITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL WORK FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS THEY'VE BEEN SO SUCCESSFUL.

>> THEREFORE... >> THEREFORE, WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE TAKEN THEM, REALIZING THEY HAVE A RESOURCE THERE, IF IT'S COLLECTED AND USED PROPERLY, BUT WHAT WE HAVEN'T DONE IS TAKEN THEM THE NEXT STEP, WHICH IS WHAT REPRESENTATIVE STARR IS SAYING.

NOW THAT WE'VE GOT THIS TOOL FOR YOU, HOW DO WE MAXIMIZE ITS USE.

HOW DO WE SUSTAIN THIS AND GET AWAY FROM SOME OF THE DEPENDENCIES AND THE CASH OUTLAYS THEY HAVE TO MAKE TO OTHER COMPANIES WHEN THEY DON'T HAVE TO AND THEY HAVE THE RESOURCE THERE.

AND THAT'S JUST NOT REALLY A QUESTION, MORE OF A... >> MR.

BENEDICT, WHAT WOULD BE YOUR IDEAS FOR PUTTING THIS INTO BALANCE?

>> BOB STARR REFERRED TO TREATMENT PLANTS THAT WE SPENT ALL OF THESE DOLLARS ON, AND WE ALL HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN TREATMENT PLANTS STARTED WE WERE ONLY DEALING WITH DISEASE SITUATIONS.

WE WEREN'T TAKING THE PHORPHEROUS OUT OF THE TREATMENT PLANT.

WE WERE EITHER POURING IT INTO THE SLUDGE THAT WENT ON AG LANDS OR WE WERE POURING IT DOWN OUR STREAMS WHICH HAS CONTRIBUTED.

SO YOU AND I HAVE BEEN LITTLE PHOSPHEROUS GENERATORS JUST LIKE THOSE COWS HAVE BEEN.

FARM PRACTICES ARE DIFFERENT THAN TREATMENT PLANTS.

WE CAN'T ENGINEER FARM SOLUTIONS FOR NONPOINT SOURCE RUNOFF AS WE HAVE ENGINEERED TREATMENT PLANTS.

WE CAN DESIGN A TREATMENT PLANT AND RUN IT THROUGH A PIPE.

SO WHAT WE DID THREE YEARS AGO WAS TO SAY FARMERS NEED TO BE MEASURED ON THE LAND.

THAT'S WHERE THE PRACTICES ARE.

WE HAVE TO COME WITH STANDARDS FOR FARMERS TO FOLLOW.

IF FARMERS FOLLOW THOSE STANDARDS, EY NEED TO BE PRESUMED TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH WATER QUALITY STANDARDS.

>> BUT THIS RAISES A QUESTION OF WHAT HAPPENS IF NOT?

DOES THIS RAISE, FOR INSTANCE, THE QUESTION OF ENFORCEMENT?

HOW WILL IT BE EFFECTED?

HOW MUCH WILL IT COST?

>> THERE WILL BE ENFORCEMENT TO GO ALONG WITH THIS.

WE REALLY HAVEN'T GOTTEN TO THE POINT OF DECIDING AND DISCUSSING WHAT TYPE OF ENFORCEMENTS, BUT IT'S VERY, VERY IMPORTANT, AND FARMERS REALIZE THIS, AS WE SHRINK IN NUMBERS AND NEIGHBORS GET CLOSER, IT'S VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO THINGS RIGHT IN THE AG COMMUNITY.

>> I HEAR THIS ALLUDED TO AS SIZE A LOT, AND SPEAKING WITH MR.

BENEDICT JUST BEFORE WE STARTED, WE BOTH AGREED THAT THE SIZE OF THE FARM IS NOT NECESSARILY AN INDICATOR WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE GOING TO BE A NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTER OR NOT.

MAYBE YOU'D SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GETTING THE PERCEPTION HERE THAT BIG IS BAD, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S NECESSARILY TRUE.

>> THAT ISN'T TRUE.

>> DESPITE THE 300-COW LIMIT ON THE BIG BARN.

>> MR.

BENEDICT?

>> I THINK THAT'S TRUE.

IT'S HAVING ADEQUATE LAND MASS TO TAKE CARE OF THE NUTRIENTS YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH.

I'D POINT ONE OTHER THING OUT, THOUGH, AS WE TALK ABOUT MANURE.

MANURE IS NOT A BALANCED FERTILIZER.

SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TAKING A BY-PRODUCT, IF WE'RE NOTAREFUL, AND MATCHING IT WITH A CROP.

BY THE WAY, THE NUTRIENT FOR MOST CROPS THAT IS IMPORTANT, AT LEAST CORN, IS NITROGEN, AND IF WE APPLY OUR MANURE OR OUR HUMAN SLUDGES TO FURNISH THE AMOUNT OF NITROGEN WE NEED, AT LEAST FOR CORN, WE'RE PROBABLY OVERAPPLYING OUR PHOSPERHOUS AND OUR POTASSIUM.

>> WHEN YOU HEAR THE WORDS LEGISLATION, WHEN YOU HEAR TALK ABOUT STANDARDS, WHEN YOU HEAR TALK ABOUT ENFORCEMENT, DOES THIS RAISE IDEAS IN YOUR MIND OF A LESS IMPOSED, A LESS REGULATED WAY TO ACHIEVE THESE SAME BALANCES THAT WE ALL WANT AS REGARDS POLLUTION, AND CHEMICALS AND THE EXCESS WASTES?

>> INSTEAD OF HAVING TO FORCE PEOPLE INTO DOING IT, THERE IS A SOFTER WAY OF ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO TAKE CARE OF THEIR LOCAL ENVIRONMENT, AND I REALLY AGREE WITH WHAT SHERRY WAS TALKING ABOUT.

I DON'T CONSIDER MANURE TO BE A WASTE PRODUCT.

FOR MANY FARMERS IT'S A POT OF GOLD, AND THE ATTITUDE THAT A FARMER MIGHT HAVE TOWARDS THE PRODUCTS THAT ARE AVAILABLE ON THEIR FARM DETERMINES OFTENTIMES HOW THEY'RE GOING TO TREAT IT.

>> WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTIONER FROM THE AUDIENCE.

COULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE?

>> MY NAME IS FRANCES STONE.

IT'S NOT SO MUCH A QUESTION, BUT IT'S WHAT ENTERED MY MIND WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE POLLUTION, ESPECIALLY THINKING OF MANURE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RUNOFF AND WHAT FARMS YOU SEE IT ON.

AND THIS HAS PARTLY BEEN ADDRESSED HERE.

I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REALLY HURTS OUR FARMING COMMUNITY IS THE SPLIT AT WE GET BETWEEN OUR SMALL FARMS AND OUR LARGE FARMS.

AS WE GET LEGISLATION THAT SAYS WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS, WHETHER IT BE LEGISLATION OR WHATEVER COMES DOWN, THAT IS GOING TO START GETTING US INTO DOLLARS AND CENTS.

AND THEN THE QUESTION WILL COME, WHAT FARMER CAN DEAL WITH THE DOLLARS AND CENTS THAT IT MAY TAKE TO MANAGE HIS MANURE AND THE POLLUTION THAT IT MAY BE CAUSING, AND WHAT FARM WILL HANDLE IT?

WILL IT BE THE LARGE FARMS OR THE SMALL FARMS?

IT'S GOING TO BE BOTH OF THEM.

SOME OF THE SMALL FARMS MAY NOT BE ABLE TO HANDLE.

MAYBE THAT TECHNOLOGY IS WHAT WILL PUT THEM OUT OF BUSINESS.

THE LARGE FARM, THERE MAY BE SOME OF THEM THAT MAY NOT BE ABLE TO HANDLE IT.

AND MAYBE THAT MIGHT EVEN BE THE STRAW TO START THAT LARGE FARM.

>> PLEASE, FINISH.

I'M SORRY.

>> I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THIS AS MORE OF A GROUP.

IT'S NOT THE LARGE, IT'S NOT THE SMALL PROBLEM, IT'S THE PROBLEM THAT BELONGS TO EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US THAT ARE FARMING, AND WE ALL INDIVIDLLY ARE GOING TO BE FACED WITH ANY TECHNOLOGY HAVING TO DO WITH THE ECONOMICS ON OUR FARM.

THANK YOU.

>> DO YOU AGREE, DR.

CATLIN, THAT THERE IS THIS UNNECESSARY AND UNFORTUNATE, MAYBE ARBITRARY SPLIT IN OUR CONCEPT OF THE BIG FARM AND THE SMALL FARM?

CAN WE PUT IT BACK INTO BALANCE IN A WAY THAT SATISFIES BOTH INTERESTS?

>> WELL, I THINK THIS WOMAN'S POINT WAS WONDERFULLY TAKEN AND ELOQUENTLY SPOKEO.

WE ARE TENDING TO GET INTO A DICHOTOMY OF BIG VERSUS SMALL, AND I THINK THAT'S A VERY, VERY POOR ROAD TO GO DOWN.

>> WASN'T THAT THE QUESTIONER'S POINT TO SOME EXTENT?

>> SHE THINKS THAT THERE'S A RCTION THAT BIG IS BAD AND SMALL IS GOOD, AND I THINK THAT IS A COMMON PERCEPTION.

I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE REALLY HAVE TO GET AWAY WITH.

THESE PROBLEMS ARE ALL OF OURS.

ANY OF US WHO HAVE WORKED ON DAIRY FARMS KNOW THAT EACH ONE HAS A LOT OF UNIQUE CHARACTERISTICS.

I HAVE SOME EXCELLENT SMALL DAIRY FARMS IN THE 30 TO 40-COW RANGE THAT HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR QUITE A WHILE, SO THEY DON'T HAVE A HUGE AMOUNT OF REAL ESTATE DEBT, BUT THEY MAKE A VERY NICE LIVING.

I HAVE SOME EXCELLENT VERY LARGE FARMS WHO HAVE BEEN AROUND FOR A LONG TIME, AND THEY MAKE A VERY NICE LIVING, TOO.

THERE'S A UNIQNESS AND AN ADAPTATION OF EVERY FARM TO ITS ENVIRONMENT, AND WHETHER IT BE HOW WE HANDLE THE TECHNOLOGY OF MANURE APPLICATION, HOW WE HANDLE THE TECHNOLOGY OF B.S.T.

APPLICATION, HOW WE HANDLE THE TECHNOLOGIES OF FEEDING APPLICATIONS, THEY APPLY EQUALLY ACROSS ALL FARMS.

>> BUT ISN'T IT THE SMALL FARMER THAT WORRIES THE MOST AND TH THE BEST REASON ABOUT THE COSTS INHERENT IN THIS KIND OF LEGISLATION?

>> NO.

THE COSTS FOR A LARGE FARM TO DO A MANURE MANAGEMENT ARE JUST ENORMS.

I MEAN, YOU CAN'T EVEN BELIEVE THE PRICE TAG ON THAT.

I THINK IF THE SLLARM HAS ADEQUATE LAND AND A MANURE SPREADER, HE'S IN GREAT SHAPE.

>> WHERE YOU GET THE SPLIT IS FROM THE GENERAL PUBLIC, AND WHY YOU GET THE SPLIT FROM THE PUBLIC IS THEY'RE USED TO SEEING 30, AND 40, AND 50 AND 60-COW FARMS, BUT THEY AREN'T REALLY USED TO SEEING 400, 500 AND 600-COW FARMS.

I DON'T KNOW IF DR.

CATLIN WAS REFERRING AT ALL IN HIS EARLIER COMMENTS TO THE BILL THAT WE WERE WORKING ON, BUT THE BILL THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IN THE LEGISLATURE DID HAVE A COW NUMBER IN THE LEGISLATION WHICH I WAS PERSONALLY OPPOSED TO FROM DAY ONE BECAUSE I KNOW THAT IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER YOU HAVE 25 COWS OR 500 COWS, YOU CAN POLLUTE JUST AS BAD, AND IT SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY BEARING.

>> MRS.

KAWECKI?

>> I DON'T THINK THE SPLIT BETWEEN THE IDEA OF LARGE AND SMALL FARMS IS ONLY FROM THE PUBLIC.

I THINK THAT DAIRY FARMERS FEEL THERE IS A SPLIT THERE, TOO.

THE COOPERATIVE SYSTEM ENCOURAGES LARGE VOLUMES OF MILK TO BE PRODUCED ON THE FARM.

THERE'S A VOLUME PREMIUM PAID, AND I'VE HEARD AS HIGH AS 80 CENTS A HUNDRED WEIGHT, SO THAT REALLY ENCOURAGES PEOPLE TO EXPAND TO ACHIEVE WHATEVER THE CUTOFF IS, 10,000 POUNDS A PICKUP OR WHATEVER.

AND THAT COMES OUT OF THE SMALLER FARMER'S POCKET.

THE PROCESSORS DON'T PAY THAT EXTRA PREMIUM, SO THAT MEANS THE SMALLER FARMS ARE HELPING TO FUND EXPANSION OF THE LARGER FARMS.

ALSO, THE CO-OPS LIKE TO PICK UP THE BIGGER FARMS AND WILL SHUT OFF THE SMALLER FARMS FOR REASONS THAT DON'T EXIST.

WE GET SEVERAL DIFFERENT TESTS THAT ARE DIFFICULT TO VERIFY, AND THEY CAN SHUT YOU OFF FOR BACTERIA COUNTS, AND I'VE HEARD THIS HAS BEEN HAPPENING A LOT IN THE PAST YEAR.

A LOT OF SMALL FARMS, IF YOU'RE ON THE END OF THE ROAD, OR THEY DON'T WANT TO PICK YOU UP, YOU'RE INCONVENIENT, THEY'LL ELIMINATE YOU, AND THAT'S HOW COME THE BIG FARM CAN EXPAND AND THAT MILK IS ACCOMMODATED BY ELIMINATING SOME OF THE SMALL FARMS.

AND THERE IS A RIFT THERE, AND IT IS FROM THE FARMER PERSPECTIVE, TOO.

>> I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON NOW, IF I CAN, TO THE TOPIC THAT IS PROBABLY THE ULTIMATE PARADIGM OF SCIENTIFIC TECHNOLOGY IN AMERICAN LIFE AND CERTAINLY ON THE AMERICAN FARM AND THAT IS THE TOPIC OF GENETICS.

GENETIC ENGINEERING.

THE LYLE HAVEN FARM IN EAST MONTPELIER IS ONE OF SEVERAL FARMS THAT HAVE BEEN SELLING HOLSTEIN EMBRYOS TO FARMERS IN EUROPE.

AND WE'RE GOING TO SEE A CLIP NOW OF THE TESTIMONY OF A GERMAN FARMER WHO HAS VISITED THE LYLE HAVEN FARM WHO HAS A REACTION TO WHAT WE ARE SELLING, AND THEN WE WILL OPEN IT UP TO THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THIS IS A GOOD THING, WHETHER WE ARE EXPORTING OUR TECHNOLOGY OR WHETHER IS IT A ECONOMIC WINDFALL TO FARMING IN AMERICAN FARMING IN VERMONT.

>> I WOULD SAY THE HOLSTEIN BREED HAS DEVELOPED HERE IN THE UNITED STATES DURING THE LAST DECADE TREMENDOUSLY WITH GOOD RESULTS.

AND AFTER THE WAR IN GERMANY, WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT HIGH-PRODUCING COWS, SO WE LIKE TO GET THOSE GENES TOUR COUNTRY, AND WE WERE PRETTY SUCCESSFUL.

AND STILL I THINK THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD GENETICS HERE IN THE UNITED STATES WHICH WE CAN USE AND WORK TOGETHER.

BUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE'S MO COOPERATION IN THE WORLD NOW.

THERE'S ME EXCHANGING OF GENETICS ALSO GOING BACK AND FORTH.

SO THE HOLSTEIN BREED HERE, AND ALSO IN CANADA AND ALSO NOW IN EUROPE, IS A MOST FAMOUS BREED FOR MILK PRODUCTION.

AND I THINK IN VERMONT TRE ARE SOME TREMENDOUS GOOD HERDS.

WE SAW THIS MORNING ONE RD AND NOW WE HAVE THE SECOND PLACE HERE, AND WE HAVE BEEN BUYING CATTLE AND EMBRYOS FROM THIS FARM AT LYLE HAVEN HERE SINCE YEARS, AND UNG BOYS FROM OUR FARME HAVE BEEN AINED HERE AT IS FARM.

>> DR.

GILMORE, I WONDER IF YOU COULD TAKE US QUICKLY THROUGH THE HISTORY OF GENETIC RESEARCH IN VERMONT AND BRING US UP TO THE PRESENT AND CHARACTERIZE WHAT'S GOING ON NOW.

>> THE CHANGE IN THE GENETICS OF MILK PRODUCTION HAS BEEN MOST DRAMATIC SINCE THE MIDDLE 60s, AND A LOT OF THE PROGRESS HAS BEEN MADE AS A RESULT OF COMPUTERIZED DAIRY RECORDS FOR PRODUCTION THAT ARE SUMMARIZED FROM ACROSS THE COUNTRY BY U.S.D.A.

ANOTHER KEY FACTOR HAS BEEN ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION THAT DAIRYMEN HAVE BEEN ABLE TO CHOOSE THE TOP 1% OF THE BULLS THROUGH A.I.

BASED ON THESE SUMMARIZED RECORDS FROM ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.

I THINK 70% OF THE DAIRY CATTLE IN THE U.S.

ARE BRED THROUGH THAT METHOD.

BUT FROM THE GENETIC PROGRESS STANDPOINT, IT'S ENABLED US TO SELECT THE BEST BULLS BASICALLY, AND THE RECORD SUMMARIES HAS ENABLED US TO USE PROGENY TESTS FOR ACCURATE INFORMATION ON THE BULLS.

BUT WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO IS THAT THE U.S., THROUGH THEIR MODELS, AND STATISTICS AND DAIRY RECORD SYSTEMS, HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAKE MORE PROGRESS SELECTING FOR LEVELS OF MILK PRODUCTION.

THE EUROPEANS WERE MORE A DUAL-PURPOSE BREED AND PAID MORE ATTENTION TO SOME OTHER TRAITS AND, THEREFORE, HAVE NOT HAD AS HIGH LEVELS OF PRODUCTION.

>> THIS RAISES A LOT OF QUESTIONS, DOESN'T IT?

IT RAISES A QUESTION OF OUR EXPORTING SCIENTIFIC EXPERTISE TO THE REST OF THE WORLD THAT MAY COME BACK TO HAUNT US ECONOMICALLY.

ARE WE GIVING AWAY A KIND OF SCIENTIFIC SUPERIORITY THAT MAY IN THE LONG RUN WORK TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF AMERICAN AND VERMONT FARMERS?

>> I GUESS I DON'T LOOK AT IT THAT WAY.

AS A SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY WE'VE BEEN SHARING THE KNOWLEDGE ON THESE STATISTICAL MODELS ANYWAY.

OTHER COUNTRIES ARE DEVELOPING SIMILAR MODELS.

THE NEWEST EFFORT IS THE SAME BULLS BEING USED IN ALL THESE COUNTRIES, THERE'S GOING TO BE AN INTERNATIONAL SUMMARY OF THE BULLS, SO I THINK OUR ADVANTAGE WILL REMAIN.

BY EXPORTING EMBRYOS WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL INCOME TO REGISTERED BREEDERS.

WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO EXPAND THE MARKET AND GET ADDITIONAL INCOME TO MILK.

SO I GUESS I DON'T SEE IT AS A HARMFUL SITUATION.

>> ONE OF THE MOST FREQUENT QUESTIONS YOU HEAR ASKED IN ANY KIND OF GENETIC ENGINEERING EXPERIMENT, NOT ONLY FARM ANIMALS BUT OTHER KINDS OF LIVING THINGS IS ARE WE PLAYING GOD?

WHAT DO YOU THINK, LISA McCRORY, WHEN YOU HEAR THE TERM GENETICALLY SUPERIOR ANIMALS?

IS THIS AN UNETHICAL INTRUSION INTO THE NATURAL WORLD?

>> MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION, WHEN I HEAR GENETICALLY ENGINEERED, I WANT TO SAY BASED ON WHAT?

A LOT OF THE DAIRY ANIMALS THAT ARE GENETICALLY ENGINEERED ARE ENGINEERED FOR HIGH PRODUCTION, HIGH EFFICIENCY AND FEED CONSUMPTION.

THERE ARE CERTAIN QUALITIES THAT GET FOCUSED ON, AND I'M PERSONALLY AFRAID THE IDEA, WELL, THERE'S A LOT OTHER TRAITS THAT THAT ANIMAL IS CARRYING WITH HER OR HIM AND YOU'RE FOCUSING ON JUST A FEW OF THE STRONG ONES, WELL, THEY'RE CARRYING THOSE OTHER ONES ALONG TOO AND PRETTY SOON YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ANIMAL THAT PRODUCES A LOT OF MILK BUT HER LEGS ARE BAD.

SHE'S NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO STAND UP FOR MORE THAN A COUPLE LACTATIONS.

>>R.

CATLIN,OES GENETIC ENGINEERING RAISE MORAL QUESTIONS WITH YOU?

IS THERE A QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CROSSBREEDING AND THE APPLICATION OF GENETIC ENGINEERING TECHNIQUES TO CREATE A DIFFERENT KIND OF ANIMAL?

>> THERE'S A PERCEPTION THAT WE'VE TRIED TO BREED 20-POUND ANIMALS WITH 500-POUND UDDERS ON THEM, AND I THINK DR.

GILMORE WOULD CERTAINLY BACK ME UP IN SAYING THAT THE BREEDING PROGRAMS LOOK AT A VERY, VERY BROAD ARRAY OF CONFIRMATIONAL TRAITS TO TRY TO CREATE A DURABLE ANIMAL IN AMERICA'S DAIRY INDUSTRY THAT ALSO HAS EXCELLENT PRODUCTION TRAITS.

>> DR.

GILMORE, ARE WE IN DANGER OF CROSSING THE THRESHOLD THAT MAKES US INTERFERERS IN THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIES WHEN WE APPLY THESE TENIQUES TO ANIMALS?

>> I THINK IN ANY GENETIC RESEARCH OR GENETIC EXERCISE, AS YOU SELECT THE ANIMAL, YOU HAVE TO BE CONCERNED WITH THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THAT ANIMAL'S GOING TO LIVE, AND I THINK WE'RE EVALUATING THE ANIMALS YEAR AFTER YEAR, GENERATION AFTER GENERATION IN THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THEY LIVE, AND AS MARK SAID, WE ARE LOOKING AT OTHER TRAITS OTHER THAN MILK PRODUCTION.

WE'RE EVALUATING THESE ANIMALS IN MORE AND MORE IMPROVED NUTRITIONAL SCHEMES.

THE LEVEL OF PRODUCTION IS GOING UP.

IN VERNT THE AVERAGE COW PRODUCES 1,000 POUNDS MORE PER YEAR.

I INK THAT'S BEEN THE TREND IN THE LAST FIVE OR SIX YEARS.

AND PART OF THAT'S MANAGEMENT AND THE CHANGE IN ENVIRONMENT, PART OF IT'S CHANGE IN GENETICS.

>> DOES THIS MAKE SENSE TO YOU, MRS.

KAWECKI?

WOULD YOU ACCEPT A GENETICALLY BREAD ANIMAL ON YOUR FARM?

>> WELL, WE'VE USED ARTIFICIAL INSEMINATION FOR 14 YEARS, BUT GENETIC ENGINEERING, THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT, WAS THAT YOU TAKE GENETICS FROM ANOTHER ANIMAL AND INJECT IT INTO SOMETHING ELSE AND SO YOU'RE ACTUALLY CREATING A NEW ANIMAL IN ONE GENERATION.

THAT'S A LOT DIFFERENT THAN NATURALLY CROSSING TWO DIFFERENT BREEDS THAT HAVE EVOLVED OVER THOUSANDS OF YEARS.

>> YOU MEAN LIKE GENE SPLICING AND THINGS LIKE THAT?

>> YEAH.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, AND TO ME THAT DOES RAISE A LOT OF ETHICAL QUESTIONS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT LOOKING AT ENOUGH DIFFERENT THINGS.

YOU KNOW, LIKE PIGS, THEY DID IT WITH PIGS AND THE PIG COULDN'T WALK OR ANYTHING.

THE MEAT WAS LEANER, BUT IT HAD A MISERABLE EXISTENCE AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S ETHICAL AT ALL.

>> SO FAR WE HAVE DEFINED FARMING IN VERMONT SOMEWHAT NARROWLY AS CLUSTERED AROUND THE PRODUCTION OF DAIRY-PRODUCING ANIMALS, BUT VERMONT IS MUCH LARGER THAN THAT IN ITS PRODUCTION OF FARM PRODUCTS.

WOULD YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF, PLEASE?

>> MY NAME IS CLARK HINSDALE.

I'M PRESIDENT OF VERMONT FARM BUREAU, AND UNLIKE MOST FARMERS IN VERMONT, I DON'T MILK COWS.

BUT I THINK FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY THAT THERE'S PROBABLY NO INDUSTRY IN THE STATE OF VERMONT THAT TECHNOLOGY HAS MORE REVOLUTIONIZED THAN THE MAPLE SUGAR INDUSTRY, GOING FROM WOODEN BUCKETS AND OXEN JUST A FEW YEARS AGO TO HUGE OPERATIONS WITH PIPELINE, REVERSE OSMOSIS TO TAKE THE WATER OUT OF THE SAP, WITH GENETIC SELECTION OF SUPERIOR TREES, AND FORESTRY MANAGEMENT FOR THINNING AND SO FORTH, AND THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE AND WORLDWIDE MARKETING.

SO I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE PANEL TO APPLY THE ISSUES OF TECHNOLOGY IN THE FUTURE OF AGRICULTURE TO THE REBIRTH AND RESURGENCE OF THE MAPLE SUGARING INDUSTRY THAT WE'VE SEEN OVER THE LAST TWO DECADES IN VERMONT.

>> REPRESENTATIVE STARR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO START?

>> WE WERE USING FORMALDEHYDE PILLS IN MAPLE TREES SO THE TREES WOULD PRODUCE MORE SAP, AND WE BANNED THE USE OF THOSE BECAUSE WE WANTED TO SELL 100% PURE MAPLE SYRUP.

AND THE MAPLE INDUSTRY SUPPORTED THIS, AND SO WE GOT AWAY FROM SOME OF THE TECHNOLOGY THAT OTHER STATES LAGGED BEHIND US IN REGARDS TO THIS.

CANADA, A BIG MAPLE-PRODUCING COUNTRY, LAGGED BEHIND US, AND WE PICKED UP A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF THE MAPLE MARKET.

>> A FEW YEARS AGO, LATE 1980s, I BEGAN TO HEAR, AS A LAYMAN, MORS OF A VASTATING ST THAT WAS GOING TO ATTACK VERMONT MAPLE TREES D DESTROY THE SUGARING INDUSTRY, THE PEAR THRIP, I BELIEVE.

IT NERUITE TOOK HOLD.

DID IT GO AWAY NATURALLY OR WAS THIS AN APPLICATION OF TECHNOLOGY?

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE PEAR THRIP?

>> NEITHER.

>> OH?

>> A PEAR THRIP IS LIVE AND WELL.

IT'S ONE OF MANY PESTS THAT WE HAVE IN THIS STATE AND, IN FACT, I'M CONVINCED THAT 20 YEARS AGO WHEN WE USED TO HAVE HILLSIDES AND WE'D SEEN THEM KIND OF BROWN UP, WE USED TO CALL THAT FROST INJURY, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN SOMEBODY DISCOVERED THAT WAS PEAR THRIP.

WE HAD A BAD YEAR, WE HAD 500,000 ACRES ONE YEAR, AND IT WAS A DISASTER FOR THAT YEAR.

WE SPENT PROBABLY $300,000, $400,000 RESEARCHING THE PEAR THRIP IN THIS STATE.

WE PROBABLY HAVE DONE MORE RESEARCH ON PEAR THRIP IN THIS STE THAN ANY OTHER STATE.

REALLY WHAT WE FOUND WAS THERE WASN'T A CONTROL.

IN MANY WAYS PEAR THRIP IS WEATHER DRIVEN OR WEATHER CONTROLLED.

I THINK ON MOST YEARS WE HAVE THAT MAPLE BEGINS TOLUSH, THE PEAR THRIP ATTACKS THE MAPLES AND THE TREE OUTGROWS THAT ATTACK AND WE DON'T SEE THE DAMAGE.

SO, WE STILL HAVE PEAR THRIP.

TECHNOLOGY IN THAT CASE.

MOTHER NATURE PROBABLY DOES MORE TO CONTROL PEAR THRIP THAN WE CAN.

>> IS SCIENCE STILL TRYING?

>> YES.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, RIGHT NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP A BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF PEAR THRIP.

THERE IS A VERTICILLIUM FUNGI.

PEAR THRIP OVERWINTERS THE SOIL, AND THERE ARE SOME VERTICILLIUM, WHICH ARE FUNGAL PATHOGENS, THAT KILL PEAR THRIPS.

AND ACTUALLY THEY'RE STILL TRYING TO DEVELOP A CONTROL THAT WAY.

>> WE HAVE ANOTHER QUESTIONER FROM THE FLOOR.

PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF.

>> YES.

DR.

BRIAN PERKINS.

I'M A DAIRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTANT HERE IN THIS STATE, AND I THINK ONE ISSUE THAT I'D KIND OF LIKE TO FOCUS ON HERE FOR A MINUTE AND IT ALSO ADDRESSES TO THE COMMENT THE CONSUMERS' ROLE IN THIS WHOLE PICTURE, WE N'T LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT OUR FARMERS OR PEOPLE IN AGRICULTURE, WHETHER THEY BE DAIRY FARMERS, OR HAVE A SUGARBUSH OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, ARE BUSINESS PEOPLE, AND THEY SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT AS BUSINESS PEOPLE TO MANAGE THEIR OWN BUSINESS AS THEY SEE FIT.

SOME OF MY CLIENTS HAVE ADOPTED B.S.T.

SOME OF THEM ARE INTENSIVE PASTURE MANAGERS.

SOME OF THEM ARE USING BOTH.

THEY WANT TO HAVE THE FREEDOM TO MAKE THAT DECISION TO MAKE THEIR PROFIT HOWEVER THEY SEE FIT.

CARRYING THIS TO THE B.T.

ISSUE, I GUESS TO OPEN IT TO THE PANEL, THE ISSUE OF LABELING MILK VERSUS NOT LABELING MILK.

THE CONSUMER, I FEEL, SHOULD HAVE THE CHOICE WHICH THEY BUY.

HOWEVER, THAT MILK SHOULD BE CHARGED FOR ACCORDINGLY BECAUSE IT COSTS A FARMER MORE TO MAKE MILK NOT USING B.S.T.

THAN IT DOES WITH B.S.T.

>> QUICK RESPONSE FROM THE PANEL.

>> I THINK YOU COULD CHARGE MUCH MORE FOR MILK LABELED B.S.T.

FREE AND YOU COULD GET THE PRICE FOR THAT.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU TALK ABOUT MUCH MORE, BUT I BET YOU COULD GET 20 CENTS OR 30 CENTS A GALLON MORE IN STORES IF IT WAS LABELED PROPERLY.

>> THAT MAY BE.

THE CONSUMER, THE MARKETPLACE SHOULD DICTATE THAT PRICE, NOT THE STATE, AND THE CONSUMER SHOULD DICTATE THE CHOICE.

>> IN THE BRIEF TI WE HAVE LEFT NOW, AND IT IS VERY BRIEF, I WONDER IF WE COULD CONSIDER BRIEFLY OR IMAGINE BRIEFLY THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY IN VERMONT FARMING, WHAT IT MIGHT BRING US.

IT'S HARD TO IMAGINE, I THINK.

IF SOMEONE HAD TOLD US 60 OR 90 YEARS AGO THAT THERE'S A WONDERFUL REVOLUTIONARY MACHINE THAT WOULD COMPLETELY TRANSFORM FARMING BUT THOUSANDS OF FARMERS WOULD DIE IN ACCIDENTS, REPRESENTATIVE STARR, WOULD YOU HAVE ACCEPTED THAT TECHNOLOGY AS AN IDEA?

OF COURSE THE TECHNOLOGY IS THE TRACTOR.

>> I THINK THERE'S A PLACE IN OUR SOCIETY FOR TECHNOLOGY.

CERTAINLY NO ONE WANTS TO STOP OR SLOW RESEARCH DOWN.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE'S SOME AREAS WHERE WE SHOULD BE SPENDING MORE MONEY ON RESEARCH.

AS FAR AS EXPORTING OUR IDEAS, WE TALKED ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING, I THINK THAT'S GREAT.

PEOPLE IN GENERAL LIKE TO BUY PRODUCTS PRODUCED CLOSE TO HOME.

YOU KNOW, I REALLY DISLIKE BUYING CHEESE FROM NEW ZEALAND.

I'D RATHER BUY LOCALLY PRODUCED CHEESE.

PEOPLE IN NEW ZEALAND WOULD RATHER BY NEW ZEALAND CHEESE THAN CABOT CHEESE.

>> MS.

KAWECKI, THE FUTURE OF VERMONT FARMING, WILL THERE BE A GENERATION OF SHERRY KAWECKIS MILKING COWS, RAISING CHILDREN ON THE FAMILY FARM IN 2025?

>> I CERTAINLY HOPE SO.

>> WILL THERE BE?

>> I THINK SO.

I THINK PEOPLE ARE BECOMING MORE AWARE THAT EVEN THOUGH WE GET THESE NEW AND IMPROVED TECHNOLOGY ADVANCES, WE'RE STILL CHASING OUR TAIL.

WE'RE GOING FASTER AND FASTER OVER THE LAND, BUT WE STILL WORK THE SAME HOURS A DAY, AND ARE WE REALLY GETTING ANYWHERE?

OUR INCOME ISN'T INCREASING.

WE'RE SWALLOWING MORE DEBT AND IT'S NOT GETTING US ANYWHERE.

>> LISA McCRORY?

>> I THINK THAT ONE THING THAT'S BEEN OVLOOKED WHENEVER WE INTRODUCE NEW TECHNOLOGIES IS WHAT IS THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY GOING TO DO TO OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES.

I THINK THAT'S ONE THING THAT HAS NEVER BEEN MEASURED ADEQUATELY AND PUT INTO THE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS.

I RECENTLY WENT TO VISIT SOME AMISH COMMUNITIES, AND WHEN NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE INTRODUCED THERE, IT'S DISCUSSED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY ITSELF AND DETERMINED ON A CONSENSUS BASIS WHERE THAT'S GOING TO TAKE THEM, AND INTRODUCING A LOT OF MECHANIZATION, THEY WOULD TURN THAT DOWNECAUSE ALL OF A SUDDEN WHAT ARE THE FAMILY MEMBERS GOING TO DO OUT IN THE FIELD?

THAT MEANS THE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO LEAVE THE FAMILY TO GO AND GET AN INCOME ELSEWHERE TO PAY FOR THE BIG MACHINERY THATHEY'VE PURCHASED.

AND THAT WILL BREAK DOWN THE COMMUNITY, AND THE STRENGTH OF THEIR COMMUNITY AND THEIR STRONG ECONOMIC COMMUNITY THAT THEY'VE CREATED, THAT WILL BREAK IT RIGHT DOWN, AND THOSE THINGS DON'T GET CONSIDERED, I DON'T THINK, WHEN NEW TECHNOLOGIES ARE INTRODUC.

>> DR.

GILMORE, WHAT ARE YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES DOING TO SHAPE THE FUTURE OF TECHNOLOGY ON VERMONT FARMING?

>> WELL, IN TALKING ABOUT GENETIC ENGINEERING, I THINK ONE OF THE INTERESTING FUTURE POTENTIALS OF DAIRY COWS THAT SCIENCE IS TALKING ABOUT HAS TO DO WITH WHAT THEY CALL PHARMING, P-H-A-R-M-I-N-G, THAT THE DAIRY COW OF THE FUTURE, AT LEAST SOME PEOPLE'S DAIRY COWS, MAY PRUCE A DIFFERENT PRODUCT.

IT MAY PRODUCE PROTEINS IN MILK THAT ARE VALUABLE AS HUM MEDICINES, AND SO IT'S A CHEAPER WAY TO PRODUCE THOSE MEDICINES, MAKE THOSE MEDICINES AVAILABLE TO A WIDER RANGE OF PEOPLE, AND ALSOROVIDE THE DAIRYMEN WITH INCREASED INCOME FROM THE SALE OF THOSE NEW PRODUCTS.

>> DR.

CATLIN, VERY BRIEFLY, YOUR VISION FOR A HAPPY FUTURE?

>> I THINK WE'RE ATTACKING THIS FROM THE WRONG END.

I THINK YOU ALL HAVE TO REMEMBER THAT PEOPLE PAY FOR FOOD WHAT THEY HAVE TO, AND THERE'S NOT A PERSON IN THIS ROOM WHO GOES OUT SEARCHING FOR A WAY TO SPEND MORE FOR THEIR MILK.

YOU DON'T GO INTO THE GRAND UNION AND SAY, GEEZ, LET ME PAY $2.50 FOR THAT GALLON OF MILK BECAUSE I FEEL SO BADLY FOR THE DAIRY FARMER.

>> LET'S TALK ABOUT THE FUTURE VERY QUICKLY.

>> THIS IS THE FUTURE.

THE FUTURE IS THE BUSINESS THAT WE'RE ALL IN IS THE DAIRY BUSINESS, AND IT'S DRIVEN BY THE PEOPLE WHO BUY THE PRODUCTS.

>> WILL IT SURVIVE?

>> IT WILL SURVIVE BECAUSE WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT PRODUCT, A VERY, VERY HIGH NUTRITIONAL VALUE THAT WE CONTINUE TO MAKE FOR A VERY LOW COST, AND THE CONSUMER APPRECIATES IT.

IT'S VERY CLEAR HOW MUCH THEY APPRECIATE IT.

LOOK AT JUST THE DISAPPEARANCE OF FLUID MILK IN THE FIRST THIRD OF THIS YEAR.

WHEN B.S.T.

HAS BEEN IN... >> 100% DEINE.

>> NO.

A 1% COMMERCIAL DISAPPEARANCE NATIONALLY.

>> LET'S NOT.

WE CAN'T.

I'M SORRY, DR.

CATLIN.

MR.

BENEDICT, I'D LIKE TO GET THE PANEL ON RECORD, WILL THE FAMILY FARM, WILL THE LARGE FARM IN VERMONT SURVIVE OVER THE NEXT QUARTER CENTURY IN RECOGNIZABLE FORM?

>> I THINK FARMING'S GOING TO SURVIVE.

WE HAVE 2,200 DAIRY FARMS IN THIS STATE.

WE'VE GOT 5,700 FARMS.

I THINK FARMING WILL BE DIFFERENT.

I THINK THAT WE'LL PROBABLY HAVE LESS CATTLE AND LESS FARMS.

I THINK WE'LL CONTINUE TO MAKE A LOT OF MILK.

IN THE LAST FEW YEARS WE'VE DIVERSIFIED.

I THINK WE WILL CONTINUE TO DIVERSIFY.

WE'VE GOT ONE ADVANTAGE THAT THE MIDWEST AND THE WEST DOESN'T HAVE.

WE'RE CLOSE TO MARKETS.

AND I THINK IN A LOT OF THE OTHER KINDS OF FARMING WE CAN DO AND NOT DEVELOPING A COMMODITY, WE'RE DEVELOPING A SPECIALTY PRODUCT, AND THE FUTURE FOR VERMONT FARMING IS IN SPECIALTY PRODUCTS WHERE THEY CAN CMAND A PREMIUM PRICE.

IT'S HARD TO COMMAND A PREMIUM PRICE WHEN SOMEBODY ELSE IS MARKETING YOUR PRODUCT.

>> ON THAT PROVISIONALLY OPTIMISTIC NOTE, I WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE BEGUN AN IMPORTANT CONVERSATION ABOUT TECHNOLOGY AS IT AFFECTS THE FARM IN VERMONT.

I HOPE IT'S BEEN SOMEWHAT COMPREHENSIVE, THAT WE'VE HEARD ALL OF THE REPRESENTATIVE VOICES.

IT IS AN OPEN-ENDED QUESTION.

I AM DELIGHTED THAT WE HAVE HAD SUCH A RANGE OF OPINION FROM THE PANEL TODAY AND FROM THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE.

THE RANGE OF COMMENTARY I THINK HAS BEEN WONDERFUL.

THIS HAS BEEN ONE IN T SERIES OF TOWN MEETINGS RELATED TO FARM LIFE IN VERMONT.

WE WILL CONTINUE THESE.

I HOPE YOU WILL CONTINUE TO WATCH.

I'M RON POWERS.

THANK YOU FOR JOINING US.