Page Ten 



THE I. A. A. RECORD 



Co-ops Reply to ; 



Attack of Federated j 



Agricultural Trades 



Minnesota Farmers Cite Aid Given Busi- 

 ness by Department of Commerce 



THE Land 'O Lakes Creameries, 

 Inc., the Central Cooperative 

 Association, and the Twin City Milk 

 Producers' Association, all in Minne- 

 sota, issued a 16-page pamphlet re- 

 cently, entitled, "An Answer," which is 

 a reply to the Chicago conference of 

 the org^anized middlemen known as the 

 Federated Agricultural Trades of 

 America. 



The Chicago conference, which was 

 held last year in the Palmer House, 

 was characterized by the extreme 

 antagonism expressed by many repre- 

 sentatives of dealers' organizations to 

 co-operative marketing of farm prod- 

 ucts. Many of the speakers implied 

 that the farmer had no business selling 

 farm commodities cooperatively. They 

 denounced bitterly the activities of the 

 United States Department of Agricul- 

 ture and the state universities in study- 

 ing and teaching marketing, and help- 

 ing farmers inaugurate cooperative 

 ventures. 



Attack Farm Bill 



The middlemen attacked the Mc- 

 Nary-Haugen bill presumably because 

 it will limit speculation when passed 

 and in operation. One speaker urged 

 the raising of a large defense fund to 

 keep a powerful lobby in Washington 

 to fight such legislation as the McNary- 

 Haugen bill and to work for the farm 

 bill which will interfere the least with 

 the established old line system of 

 distribution. 



Replying to the attack of the 

 middlemen on the activities of the 

 Division of Co-operative Marketing of 

 the U. S. D. A., the Minnesota co- 

 operatives said: 



"The chairman said, 'We are op- 

 posed to the co-operative issue if it 

 requires government subsidies, which 

 must be carried in part or as a whole 

 by the tax payers in other lines.' 



"The answer to this is that co- 

 operative marketing has never received 

 a single dollar from the government. 

 The Department of Agriculture has 

 tried to aid farmers just as the De- 

 partment of Commerce aids business. 



All Aid Business 



"Here are a few divisions of the De- 

 partment of Commerce each with a 

 chief in charge paid by the taxpayers 

 of this country to aid business: Re- 

 gional Information, Textile, Machinery, 

 Foodstuffs, Lumber, Hide, and Leather, 

 Automotive, Iron and Steel, Agricul- 

 tural Implement, Boot and Shoe, 

 Chemical, Electrical Equipment, Min- 

 erals, Commercial Law and Transpor- 

 tation. 



"This does not look as though busi- 

 ness has been neglected in spending 

 'the money of tax payers in other 

 lines,' 



"Furthermore, the Department of 



vjiLue. IP I SAW A Boy seA-nNQft 



A POMICEV, AND StOPPEP HIM, UMAX 

 ViRtue SMOUtD I BE SHCXJiMQ?/ 



Commerce maintains representatives in 

 most large cities of the entire world 

 to help these American business men 

 who are objecting to the work of the 

 Department of Agriculture. 



Subsidies to Private Enterprise 



"When it comes to subsidies it is 

 private business and not co-operatives 

 that have benefited. We quote from 

 a letter just received: 



" 'The Street Railway Statute vests 

 in the Railroad and Warehouse Com- 

 mis.sion of Minnesota authority to de- 

 termine the value of properties and 

 establish rates of fare which will yield 

 a reasonable return on such value.' 



"Have you ever heard of any branch 

 of farming that has ever been guaran- 

 teed a 'reasonable return' on the in- 

 vestment or is this done because trans- 

 portation is more important than 

 food? How about the Panama Canal 

 built to aid business although it greatly 

 injures the great Northwe.st agricul- 

 tural district? Is not this in fact a 

 subsidy to business? 



"None of the middlemen answered 

 C. A. Ewing when he made the state- 

 ment that the unfair advantage given 

 manufacturing by our tariff laws costs 

 the farmers more each year th^ there 

 is invested in the business 6f the 

 middlemen organizing to fight/ co- 

 operative marketing! Who id sub- 

 sidized by these tariff laws?" 



Richland County Unit 



Sells 94,305 Lbs. Butterfat 



''pHE farmers' ci'eam station at Olney 

 A marketed co-operatively 94,305 

 pounds of butterfat during 1927. This 

 is a higher record than any other 

 single unit in the state, made last 

 year. During the first three months 

 of 1928 the Olney station increased 

 its intake by more than 21 per cent 

 over a similar period in 1927. The 

 Richland Farmer estimates that Rich- 

 land county will sell co-operatively at 

 least 150,000 pounds of butterfat be- 

 fore the end of this year. The three 

 units at Olney, Claremount, and 

 Stringtown are adding thousands of 

 dollars to the incomes of their farmer 

 patrons. 



Trucks Now Haul 



Bulk of City Milk '^ 

 Supply Says I. C. C. 



Glass Lined Tanks on Trucks Replace 

 Cans at Many Cities 



BETWEEN 1910 and 1924, the 

 motor truck had taken over the 

 bulk of the shipments of milk formerly 

 handled by electric railways and 

 wagons and also a part of the steam 

 railroad short-haul shipments, accord- 

 ing to a recent report of the Inter- 

 state Commerce Commission. This is 

 largely accounted for by the gradual 

 crowding back of dairy farms with 

 the growth of city suburban areas and 

 by the shifting from rail to motor 

 truck transportation for distances up 

 to 50 miles. Among these advantages 

 are: (1) Truck passes producer's 

 gate and the truck driver acts as pro- 

 ducer's personal agent in the city; (2) 

 shipment by truck reduces the number 

 of handlings from six or more to only 

 two; (3) trucks lose fewer cans; (4) 

 elimination of the haul from railroad 

 milk platform to the city milk dealer 

 results in an estimated saving of five 

 cents a hundredweight. 



Saves Time 



Shipping by motor truck saves time 

 where distances are not too great and 

 eliminates the city terminal handling 

 and transportation costs. 



Approximately 90 per cent of all 

 milk brought into the cities of Cin- 

 cinnati, Detroit, Milwaukee, St. Paul, 

 Minneapolis and Indianapolis is 

 brought in by motor truck. About 20 

 per cent is trucked into Philadelphia, 

 while Baltimore receives 45 per cent 

 of its supply by truck. 



Of the trucks hauling milk into these 

 cities 65.6 per cent operated within 

 a radius of 29 miles and only 6.8 per 

 cent operated over routes 50 miles and 

 over in length. The trucks are, for the 

 most part, of the smaller capacity 

 type; 57.1 per cent are one and two- 

 ton trucks while only 7.3 per cent are 

 over four-ton capacity. 



The trucks are usually operated by 

 individuals who live in the rural sec- 

 tions and operate one or two trucks. 

 Twenty cents per ton-mile is the usual 

 rate in the 30 to 39-mile zone. For 

 shorter distances the rates are higher. 

 Comparison of rail and motor truck 

 rates for hauling milk shows that truck 

 rates are the same as rail rates or 

 somewhat higher. 



In 1924, there were delivered daily 

 to Chicago, 44,000 eight-gallon cans of 

 milk of which 68 per cent were carried 

 by rail and 32 per cent by motor truck. 

 Since then trucks have come into much 

 wider use. 



Bulk transportation of milk has de- 

 veloped the tank truck. The glass- 

 lined tank truck is suited for the haul- 

 ing of milk from country stations to 

 city plants, especially when neither is 

 located directly on a railroad and when 

 the distance is not beyond the 

 economic range of truck haulage. The 

 capacities of the tanks range from 

 about 800 to 2,000 gallons. 



•:; i 





