DISTRIBUTION OF MILK 107 



and a great surplus produced in the summer months, even 

 though summer milk has invariably had to face a lower 

 price, — this in spite of the fact that it is possible to pro- 

 duce a fairly uniform supply. Farmers have long been 

 urged to do away with the surplus by producing an even 

 supply throughout the year. Some few farmers do try 

 to act on this advice, but most of them find that they can 

 better afford to produce an uneven supply and take the 

 lower price in summer. To urge such a change is futile 

 if costs are such as to make it more profitable to prod- 

 uce in the summer months. Figure 9 taken from the 

 Illinois Experiment Station Bulletin 224, page 17, shows 

 the average monthly variation in price of milk and in cost 

 of production for a series of years. If this chart is correct, 

 no amount of advice will induce farmers to do away with 

 the summer surplus problem. Another remedy that is 

 very frequently proposed is that advertising be used so 

 to stimulate demand as to absorb surplus. Thus far the 

 experience has been that the demand for fluid milk is not 

 suiEciently elastic to respond to advertising in any measure 

 corresponding to the surplus. 



Among the numerous plans for meeting this problem 

 which have recently been suggested, probably none has 

 received more attention during the past two years than 

 that of the cooportative manufacture of the surplus into 

 the various by-products by the farmers themselves. The 

 Dairymen's League of New York and surrounding states, 

 the Milk Producers' Cooperative Marketing Company 

 of Chicago, the Twin City Milk Producers' Association, 

 several of the Pacific Coast associations, and numerous 

 others have already taken steps along this line. The Twin 

 City Milk Producers' Association was in September, 191 9, 

 operating ten cheese factories for the purpose of utilizing 



