12 MASS. EXPERIMENT STATION BULLETIN 389 



that is, management in the person of the dairy farmer was also essential to the 

 public welfare. 



The problem was simple to state. 1 he objectives of control were likewise 

 simple to phrase and were about as follows: Returns to the dairy farmer should 

 be such as to (1) enable him to maintain the productive operations on his farm, 

 (2) enable him to have a living from his farm operations that would keep him on 

 the farm or keep the farm a desirable source of livelihood. 



The methods by which the objectives were to be fulfilled were not so easily 

 determined. There was general agreement that prices which handlers were to 

 pay dairymen should be artificially controlled. There was much disagreement 

 as to the necessity of controlling prices which handlers should charge consumers. 

 There was an appreciation of the importance of marketing arrangements between 

 dairyman and handler and some provisions were made for minimizing the un- 

 desirable practices. 



Much of the regulatory effort has been of the preventive variety. This sort 

 was expedient since the industry and presumably the public'- were very anxious 

 to stamp out certain pernicious practices. The negative approach to conditions 

 within the industry' has, however, continued, presumably for two reasons. In 

 the first place, control by regulatory agencies is of the "must-not" type. In the 

 second place, it is much easier to indicate the things or practices which are not 

 wanted and take steps to get rid of them than it is to visualize the things which are 

 desired and devise a plan to assure their attainment. The essential difference 

 between the two approaches is that under the negative, someone is constantly 

 being frustrated and the industry- kept in turmoil; whereas under the positive, 

 emphasis is placed on the goal and on the means indispensable to its attainment. 

 Frustration of a sort still exists but alternatives are at least indicated. Tinley'^ 

 says it this way — "Considerations of general welfare indicate the necessity for 

 positive public regulation designed to promote greater efhciency in the distri- 

 bution of fluid milk." One might also add "and in the productive organization 

 of the fluid milk industry." 



When the public, through the legislature, indicated that it wished to adopt a 

 program which upped its fluid milk prices 30 to 50 percent, it did so on the as- 

 sumpticn that it was assuring itself of an efficient milk supply — production and 

 distribution. The granting of a pri\'ilege, which in this instance is the freedom 

 to charge an arbitrarih' high'^ price — a fair price, one determined by judgment 

 rather than by competition — imposes upon the industry the responsibility of 

 providing the consumer with that supply in the most efificient manner possible. 

 Since the dairy farmers themselves are presumably the chief beneficiaries of this 

 public assistance, it behooves them to take the initiative in formulating a program 

 towards this end. 



To many persons efificienc\' in the dairy industr}- means efficiency in distribu- 

 tion. The somewhat obvious "make-work" characteristics of distribution which 

 have developed in the milk business have overshadowed the gaps elsewhere in 

 the industry; gaps which are becoming increasingly important. A program in 

 which the public welfare is the paramount consideration needs to be concerned 

 with greater efficiency throughout the entire industry. For example — 



1. In the operation of the production facilities as well as the distribution 

 facilities. 



i^It is difficult to understand how the public could be persuaded to adopt a policy that was going 

 to cost it a 30 to 50 percent increase in price for a commodity that is "bought every day. 



"Public Regulation of Milk Marketing in California, p. 46, J. M. Tinley, University of California. 

 '*In reference to the competitive market price under current conditions. 



