n6 THE MARKETING OF WHOLE MILK 



them .5 cent per quart on their entire sales to keep supply 

 and demand adjusted.^ In Boston, where the matter of 

 surplus has been a bone of contention for nearly forty 

 years, the dealers made a deduction from the farmers' 

 milk checks for the month of May, 1918, of i.i cents per' 

 quart because of an over-production of 34.37 per cent for 

 the month.^ For the whole of 191 8 the average price 

 awarded by the New England Milk Commission was 8.58 

 cents per quart; the actual price paid was 8.21 cents. The 

 difference of .37 cents was loss on surplus.' In one of the 

 Ohio cooperative plants in July of 191 9 the loss on surplus 

 milk amounted to approximately .75 cent per quart on 

 all bottled milk sales. In Rochester, New York, the 

 loss on surplus was estimated at .4337 cent per quart 

 in 1919.^ 



One big objection to such a plan as that proposed by the 

 New York Committee or the plan followed in Boston is 

 that some sort of public supervision is necessary. Even 

 with such supervision the Boston producers question the 

 accuracy of the reports made by the dealers.^ Another 

 objection is that neither plan seeks to shift the surplus 

 burden to the particular producers whose heavy summer 

 production caused it. This the Philadelphia plan seeks 

 to do. The latter plan also makes it possible for the 

 producers to know in advance what price they will 

 get. 



None of these systems, however, really solves the sur- 

 plus problem. Nor is it likely to be solved until both pro- 

 ducers and dealers approach the question in a more frank 



• Annual Report of International Milk Dealer:' Association, 1913, pp. 75-79. 

 » New England HomesUad, Aug. 3, 1918, p. 76. 



• New England Dairyman, Mar., 1919, p. 8. 



• MUk Survey of the City of Rochester (1920), p. 154. 

 ' New England Dairyman, Sept., 1919, p. 1. 



