THE WORCESTER MILK MARKET 27 



Table 8. — Average net prices for milk received by use-, rating-, and 

 flat-plan producers in the massachusetts area of the worcester 



MILKSHED by 5-MILE ZONES, 1935 



(Dollars per hundredweight of 3.7 milk) 



Price Plan Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Area 



Flat 3.01 



Rating 2.77 



Use 2.81 



Weighted Average 2.86 



Rating above use —.04 



Prices per quart which were paid to producers by zones as well as by price 

 plans are illustrated in Figure 14. It is apparent in this chart that the flat-plan 

 producers who received 6 J^ to 7 cents per quart lived in zone 2 ; also, that producers 

 receiving this top price lived almost exclusively within ten miles from the center 

 of Worcester. As these prices are net — i. e., the hauling charges have been 

 subtracted as well as other charges — ^ this variation in price is to be expected, 

 although very few farmers receiving the lowest price resided in zone 5. 



A multiple correlation coefficient of .5421 was the result of correlating distance 

 from market, hauling charges, and price plans with net 3.7 prices received by 

 producers. As the base price was set by the Milk Control Board, this seemed to 

 be a very small R, although, of course, the variations in Class I and Class II 

 were not taken into consideration. The correlation coefficient of distance and 

 hauling charges was the highest of the small r's, but it was only .4067. Apparently 

 there were some personal factors affecting the hauling charges, as was evident 

 from the previous discussion of hauling charges. 



Conclusions 



Further study of the channels by which Worcester obtains her milk supply 

 might be made, but it seems as though such study would only prove conclusively 

 that Worcester's supply channels are normal, and for that reason, unusual. 

 In 1935 the amount of surplus hardly warranted mention because it was so small. 

 An equilibrium of supply and demand, practically speaking, had been established. 

 If any part of the channels then existing should be changed, the amount of surplus 

 would doubtless increase. 



The transportation phase seems to be the only part which might be more 

 efficiently organized, but that involves personal relationships, and as previously 

 stated, any regulation other than that already in effect by the Massachusetts 

 Milk Control Board would involve curtailment of personal rights by the govern- 

 ment and certainly would not be approved by the producers or the dealers. In 

 that case, the consumer could hardly ask for that remedy. 



There may be small grumblings, but that is to be expected. There is really 

 nothing radically wrong in the market setup — at least in the supply side of it. 

 The producer sells his milk regularly throughout the year, the dealer has very 

 little surplus to dispose of, and the consumer is assured of a regular supply of good 

 milk throughout the year. It would seem, therefore, that the supply side of the 

 Worcester market was indeed normal. 



