3 12 AGRICULTURAL DISCONTENT 



times the amount needed in the cities. Within an eighty-mile radius there 

 was about twenty times the amount that was needed for fluid-milk con- 



V* 



sumption. 



Late in 1919 and on beyond the mid-twenties, a series of changes were 

 made in the form of the organization. In 1919 a single share of stock 

 which originally had a par value of one dollar then had a book value of 

 $6.50. At the same time an increase was ordered in the capitalization from 

 $50,000 to $500,000 and in the par value of the stock from $i to $50 in 

 order to make it possible for the association to purchase factories that 

 were owned by the local groups. In 1922 the capitalization was raised to 

 $1,000,000 and again in 1926 to $3,000,000. 



Beginning in 1919 the association enjoyed a period of good prices. They 

 were as follows: 



1919 $3.05 1925 $2.37 



1920 2.82 1926 2.29 



1921 1.97 1927 2.47 



1922 2.16 1928 2.53 



1923 2.50 1929 2.45 



1924 2.12 1930 2.O2 



But from 1931 on there followed a period of low prices. That year the 

 average price was $1.52, and the next year it was $1.12. Other creameries 

 crowded into the Twin Cities area and promised to sell at lower prices 

 than did the association. One creamery made a contract on the basis of 

 thirty cents per hundred less than the association price. This led to a 

 milk war in 1933. In January the price to the distributors was ninety-five 

 cents a hundred, in February eighty-four cents, and in March sixty cents. 

 At this time milk in Minneapolis sold at a retail price of five cents a quart 

 at home. Fortunately, the members remained loyal to the association and 

 within a short time all milk-market customers had returned to the associa- 

 tion for their supply and had made long-term contracts. This was a turn- 

 ing point in the history of the organization. 



Other milk markets had encountered similar difficulties, but with the 

 coming of the New Deal, marketing agreements were entered into. The 

 Twin City Milk Producers' got one for its market. The first marketing 



52. Metzger, Cooperative Marketing of Fluid Mil\, pp. 81-82. 



