THE ECONOMIC ASPECT OF MILK PRODUCTION 



The cost of cleanly milk production is necessarily greater 

 than that of indifferent production. A larger investment is re- 

 quired to build sanitary stables than to build ordinary barns; 

 good utensils are more or less expensive and intelligent help re- 

 quire good wages. It takes time to clean stables, to curry the 

 cows daily, to remove manure frequently, to promptly cool and 

 bottle milk, and the time required for these activities calls for 

 additional labor and recompense for the same. The milk producer 

 is a hard-working man who milks the cows twice daily, including 

 Sundays and holidays, and he expects a fair profit for his work. 

 The extra expense involved in clean milk production can be offset, 

 in part at least, if consimier, producer, and middleman will do 

 their share. There are at least four ways in which to meet this 

 problem: 1, By increasing the price paid for milk; 2, by increasing 

 the productivity of herds; 3, by the sale of by-products; 4, by econ- 

 omy in distribution of milk in cities. 



1. The pubhc should be willing to pay a higher price for a 

 better product. It is a strange anomaly that increase in the price 

 of other food articles meets with little antagonism, while agitation 

 against a higher price for milk is usually intense. And this is 

 in spite of the fact that milk is by far the cheapest kind of food. 

 This attitude of the public and of the newspapers is to be deplored, 

 since it discourages improvement in milk-supplies and encour- 

 ages the sale of poor milk. When health departments demand a 

 cleaner milk the producer must either become a philanthropist 

 or go out of business. This condition is one of the greatest ob- 

 stacles to rapid improvement in the quality of milk. The con- 

 sumer places the blame on the producer, and the producer blames 

 the consumer. Success is assured only with their combined efforts. 



It is not sufficient for health departments and legislators to 

 enact legislation, but education of the pubhc must be undertaken. 

 It is relatively easy for the layman to distinguish between spoiled 

 and good meat, between old and fresh vegetables; in short, to 

 judge the quality of most foods. But it is impossible for the un- 

 trained observer to distinguish good milk from milk of inferior 

 quality. If the consumer demands a clean and safe product and 

 is willing to pay a fair price for it, he can have it. The apathy 

 of the public is well ilhistrated by the relatively small number 

 of requests made upon pubhc health laboratories for examination 



569 



