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 
eee 
20 YEARS AVERAGE 
CHICAGO 
eae 4 
is |: pak [or fe [ocala ne aa 
ST. LOUIS 
a ha lel 
we i a a i aa a al 
12.00 
CINCINNATI! 
a Coup | ht li aa 
“ Sack 
12.00 ste) <filter a 
NEW YORK 
Zz 
ce) 
E 
c 
uJ 
ve 
uJ 
e 
c 
o 
20.00 
- a a Be 
12.00 pies 
AVERAGE OF 4 MARKETS 
20.00 
ih anne: 
12.00 
@eesm AVERAGE FOR! YEAR 
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 U. 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 
