6 BULLETIN 639, U. 8S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. 
TABLE II.—Tvransportation costs in relation to farmers’ prices. 
Freight or Farm Freight or pend 
trucking riceciion Cost to trucking he Gop Cost to 
Shipping station | cost per F eatin dealer Shipping station | cost per ‘0. “tb dealer 
number. 10-ga mee ee to “ o: Des number. 10-gallon e eat AG 0. b. 
can to etroi can to etroit 
Detroit. Detroit. Detroit. Detroit. 
I pipe ea te cel eet $0.15 $1.53 $1.68 IES i NES, ee $0. 20 $1.53 $1.73 
Ane Ra ON ee sls 1.49 1.64 Sih ass Lee 22 1.42 1.64 
Pac Pa a pie Se bs 15 1o3 1.68 SI a ae ee ei 23 1.42 1.65 
Ae on is re ye oe es 175 1.53 TAOS si) SLO’. Bice eee aes 24 1.36 1.60 
Deiat tre acme 175 1.42 15950 [| Clo aoe eee eee 28 1.28 1.56 
6535s Beate. sass 175 1.53 TAU se) | hal Pees eos eee Bac ete 30 1:23 1.53 
This table shows that although there was a tendency to pay less for 
milk or cream as the distance and cost of transportation increased, 
“1915 
Fic. 3.—Comparisons of average prices paid by Detroit milk dealers with value of the 
milk if the cream had been delivered to local creameries and the skim milk fed to 
live stock on the farm. 
the prices actually paid to farmers depended upon other factors as 
well. In territory where farmers could sell to local creameries or 
cheese factories the prices for milk were influenced by the prevailing 
market prices of butter and cheese. 
Table III and figure 3 show the relation between average prices 
paid by the Detroit milk dealers in 1915 and the average monthly 
wholesale butter quotations in Chicago. The table and figure also 
present the estimated possible returns which farmers might have 
obtained if they had marketed their cream at local cooperative cream- 
eries, whose product is generally sold in accordance with Chicago 
quotations. The estimated returns are based upon the assumption 
7 
a 
