26 



BULLETIN 873, U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 



There is also another very serious and practical objection to 

 the recommendation that the producer protect himself against 

 loss of water by price fixing. Let us assume, for the moment, that 

 the producer is able to fix prices on hay so that he will receive the 

 same rate, based on the price of hay at harvest time, for a ton of dry 

 matter during the entire year. Here the impracticability of this 







JAN. 



FEB. 



MAR. 



APR. | MAY | J UN. | JUL. | AUG. 



SEP. 



OCT. 



NOV. 



DEC. 



z 

 o 



1- 



(E 

 U 

 D. 



U 

 



E 



IL 



820.00 

 16.00 

 12.00 

 20.00 

 16.00 

 1 2.00 

 20.00 

 16.00 

 12.00 

 20.00 

 16.00 

 12.00 

 20.00 

 16.00 









20 YEARS AVERAGE 

 CHICAOO 



















































































6T. LOUIS 





















































CINCINNATI 





















































NEW YORK 











.———. 











































AVERAGE OF 4 MARKETS 



























■!■■ 

























1 2.00 



^""»"» AVERftOe FOR VCAR 



Fig. 1.— Average "high" price per ton of timothy hay, by months, for 20 years, 1896-1915, for four 

 leading hay markets. (Data compiled from Yearbooks of the TJ. S. Department of Agriculture.) 



scheme becomes evident. How can the producer determine the water 

 content of his hay so that he can fix the price before it is sold? 

 He can not very well reach all parts of the mow or stack to get the 

 sufficient number of average samples to ascertain the actual water 

 content by a chemical analysis. Samples can easily be taken while 

 the hay is being baled, but the greater percentage of hay is sold or 



