B»« RURAL NEW-YORKER 
203 
A Boost in Retail Milk Prices 
AN ADVANCE IN PRICE.—Last week milk 
dealers in New York announced a new advance in 
the price of milk to consumers of le extra per 
quart and 8c extra per quart for cream. One year 
ago “B” milk was selling for 9c a quart and “A” 
milk for 10c, and cream for 56c. After the advance 
to farmei-s of about a cent a quai*t last October, the 
dealers advanced the price to 10c for “B” milk, 12c 
for “A” milk and 64c for cream. Under the new 
prices now established, “B” milk becomes 11c, “A” 
niilk remains at 12c and cream at T2c, buttermilk 
sells at 7c, so that for the one cent advance raised 
to the farmer, the dealers are now collecting 2c 
from the consumer. It is estimated that the ad¬ 
vance to the farmer is $S,0(X).000 a year, and to pay 
this the dealers are collecting .$16,000,000 extra from 
the consumer. 
EFFEC'T ON CONSUMERS.—This extra price to 
the consumer will undoubtedly les.sen consumption. 
We are having a better supply of milk now in the 
city, and if this extra price to the consumer reduces 
the demand, it is pos.sible that a sui-plus may be 
created, and it is not at all improbable that the 
creating of this surplus is one of the reasons for 
the advance in price. New contracts will be made 
with producers for milk for deliveries after April 
1st, and a surplus of milk at the time of contract¬ 
ing would not be at all against the interests of the 
large dealers. The assertion is made in the city 
papers that the dealers have been losing money 
since the advance to the farmers, and that whether 
this price remains permanent or is only temporary 
will depend upon the ]>rice that the farmer will de¬ 
mand for the next six months. 
THE PRODUCER'S PRICE.—For the month of 
February the faianer will get .$1.74 i)er can of 40 
quarts for B grade. It can be pa.steui’- 
iml and freight paid to Now York at a total 
cost in the city of .$2.2.‘> a can. The consumer 
is now paying .$4.40 per can. so that the dealer 
demands .$2.17 ])er can for delivering the milk 
after it reaches the city.* The producer owns 
the farm, owns the cow, buys the feed, hii’os the 
help, cares for the cow. does the milking, carries 
it to the railroad and takes .$1.74 for the whole 
service. The dealer takes it at the .railroad track 
in the city, bottles it and deliA’ers it to the families, 
and for this service charges $2.17. 
DEALERS AND DISTRIBUTDRS.—For the “A” 
milk the dealer pays at the city gate ,$2.27 per can 
and sells it for ,$4..s0. He gets $2.52 for distributing 
a CJin of “A” milk for which the farmer gets $1.82. 
It may be that the present dealers, with their ex¬ 
travagant and Avasteful system, cannot distribute 
milk for any less without lo.sing money, but if so, it 
is high time that some one else took up the prob¬ 
lem of distributing milk in the city. Grocery stores, 
delicatessen stores and butchers are willing and 
anxious to distribute milk to their customers at a 
cost of one cent a quart. This milk would cost 
them in the city: 
I’er can. $2.2.3 
Bottling .20. 
Carting .15 
Management .22 
Disti’ibution .40 
.$.' 1.20 
This is 8c a quart delivei'ed to the consumer’s 
door for the same service which he is getting now 
at 11c a quart. It is not distributed in this way 
at the present time because the local tradesmen are 
not able to get a sui>ply. The 22c a can, or more 
than one-half cent a quart. Is a large margin to 
allow for maiia.gement and incidental expenses. No- 
bod.v has yet disputed the possibility of distributing 
milk at this price in this system, and it mu.st be 
done. It is perfectly absurd for milk producers to 
allow an extravagant .system of distribution to cur¬ 
tail the consumption of milk in the city. The far¬ 
mer is not yet getting a price suflieient to justify 
a large production under present condition!?, and if 
the price to the consumer is going to be double the 
increase to tlie producei’, there would be no hope 
of developing the milk industry, or of increasing 
the production of milk to the full ijroducing capa¬ 
city of the dairy farms of the State. 
NEED OF I’ASTEURIZING PLANTS.—More and 
more the necessity groAvs for codperative pasteuriz¬ 
ing plants owned and controlled by the farmers in 
the counto’. There is no other hope in the develop¬ 
ment of thhs business. It is no longer a choice that 
the producer has to operate his own plant or not 
to do so. In self-protection it is a necessity. We 
Avill then have our own selling agency in New York, 
Avith a plant to bottle the milk and care for the 
surplus, and the small tradesmen can be .supplied 
direct or by small dealers, and milk AA'ill be deliv¬ 
ered to the consumer at an average for the year 
around of 2c to 4c cheaper than is done by the 
present extravagant system of distribution. 
BENEFITS TO SMALL DEALERS.—It is en¬ 
couraging to knoAV that the small dealers are highly 
pleased Avith the better conditions for them in the 
trade since the contracts Avere made through the 
Dairymen’s League. Under these contracts they 
are protected in their regular supply of milk, and 
while none of them feels that the profit.s thus far 
haA'e been very high, they are satisfied with the pro¬ 
fits and they are exceedingly plea.sed Avith the neAV 
methods of doing business, and they are already be¬ 
ginning to make applications to the Department of 
Foods and Markets for a ivneAval of contracts Avhich 
Avill expire April 1st. There has been so*me little 
annoyance in the adjustment of barn scoring and 
of fat test and other details, but considering that 
these were the first contracts made in this Avay, 
and the business and the system entirelj’’ new to 
everybody, the complaints haA'e been comparatiA’ely 
few, and Avith this first experience it is confidently 
expected that the next contracts and arrangements 
Avill be so made as to eliminate practically any 
cause for complaint. It is important that contracts 
on both sides be lived up to Avith scrupulous care, 
and this obligation has been generally observed both 
by the dealers and by the producers. The situation 
is extremelj’’ encour:iging, and Avhen the .system is 
perfected to di.stribute the milk at a rea.sonable 
cost to the consumer, more milk Avill be needed for 
consumption, and the production of milk in the 
State of NeAV York will be advanced to a profitable 
basis. 
IMISCIIIEVOUS LEGISLATION.-Senator Wicks 
h.as introduced tAvo milk bills in the Senate. They 
ought to be promx)tly killed, at least, in their pres¬ 
ent form. One of these provides for the sale of 
skimmed milk in the city of Ncav York and Brook¬ 
lyn, without any regulati\’e mejisures AvhatcA'er. 
Before the laAV AA'as enacted to prevent the sale of 
skimmed milk in the.se cities, the skimmed milk Avas 
sold under the di.sguise of whole milk, a^nd the hnv 
AA'as enacted because no Avay Avas found to compel 
the dealers to .sell it for what it Ava.s. The Wicks 
bill puts us back Avhere Ave were more than 20 years 
ago, and Avhile opening the Avay to the sale of 
skimmed milk by anybody, ifiaces no regulation or 
restriction on the sale Avhatever. 
SKIMMED CONDENSED MILK.— His other bill 
proposes to permit the skimming of milk in the 
making of eA'aporated milk and conden.sed milk. It 
is expre.s.sed under the refined term of “standardiz¬ 
ing the milk before it is eA’aporated or condensed.” 
There are some grounds for del)ate as to AA’hether all 
milk should not be legally standardized, but there 
is no good reason for permitting the stamhualiza- 
tion of these products by the dealers or the manu¬ 
facturer, AAdiile refu.sing the privilege to the pro- 
ducei’. As a matter of fact, everybody knoAvs that 
milk is noAV standardized to a large extent by 
dealers. This is done to some extent by mixing 
the milk of a Ioav percentage of fat Avith milk of a 
higher grade, which is permissible. It is also done 
by separating the cream entirely from a part of 
the milk and mixing the skimmed milk Avith Avhole 
milk. The present hiAv provides a penalty for 
adulterating milk, and adulterated milk is defined 
as “milk into AA'hich any foreign substance has been 
introduced or milk from Avhich any part has been 
taken.” It is true that our milk laAvs are archaic. 
'Phey Avere made to suit different conditions than 
those that noAV exist, but patching them up here 
and there for the benefit of one class or another is 
not the Avay to change them. As a matter of fact, 
if all of the milk laws were Aviped off the statutes 
and an entirely neAV set of modern laAvs ndo])ted. Ave 
might expect better results. An attempt Avill be 
made to have this done in the present session and, 
in the meantime, the proposed Wicks bills ought to 
be killed. 
A Review of Co-operative Work 
Pabt II. 
MARKETS AND CO-OPERATION.—The Depart¬ 
ment of Foods and Markets under Commissioner Dil¬ 
lon has been very much handicapped on account of its 
very meagi'e appropriations. Although it has rendered 
splendid service to the dairy farmers of the State in 
adjusting milk prices, it has not been able to do any 
of the things which the hnv so generously permits it 
to do. The Bureau of Supervi.sion of Cooperative As¬ 
sociations Avas established in 1913. According to the 
Statutes of the State of New York, this Bureau is 
still in existence, but no appropriation was made for 
it during the last two years. While a number of peo¬ 
ple in the State suspected that this was due to some 
concerted effort of some middlemen, the truth did not 
come out until the Wicks Investigation Committee held 
its hearings in Utica and found that the New York 
Feed Dealers’ Association, according to the sworn tes¬ 
timony of their officers, “was able to put the coopera¬ 
tive bureau at Albsiny out of business.” and in answer 
to a question by .Judge Ward, “Hoav did you get rid 
of the Bureau,” the ansAver Avas “Politically. We had 
the appropriation smothered.” Efforts were also made 
by the same a.ssociation to withhold appropriations 
from the State Department of Foods and Markets. 
Our neighboring State of Massachusetts with smaller 
resources and smaller area of agricultural land has an 
extension man for cooperation and marketing; Ncav 
York State has nom*. Ma.ssachusetts devoted several 
days to the subject of cooperation at its farmers’ Aveek 
and gatherings; in NeAv I'ork Ave .have no funds for 
this woi’k. At the la.st anmml meeting of the Ncav 
York State Agricultural Society Avhich is frequently 
referred to as the “senate” of the agricultural move¬ 
ment in this State, the folloAviug resolutions Avhich 
Avere printed in ^full on page 1818 and 1819 of the pro¬ 
ceedings of the 76th annual meeting were pa.s.sed : ‘‘Re¬ 
spectfully reque.st the lA>gislature and the Governor to 
giA’e the Ncav Y'ork State Ilepartmcnt of Foods and 
Markets adequate appropriation for the coming year, so 
that it may continue the great Avork so splendidly be¬ 
gun,” and also “that adequate appropriation be a.sked 
from the Legi.slature to enable the Department of Agri¬ 
culture to carry on the work initiated under the Co- 
operatiA’e Bureau.” Evidently the Feed DesUers’ A.sso¬ 
ciation is moi-e poAverful than the State Agricultural 
Society and all farmers put together. I AAmuted to get 
statistics as to the incorpoi'ated cooperative organiza- 
tons in this State. I wrote a letter to the Secretary of 
State, and he informed me that there is no sepaVato 
record kept of them, and if I wanted to look for all 
the cooperatiA’e societies incorporated I Avould have to 
come to the Capitol and spend several months looking 
for them through the index of certificates. 
STATE ORGANIZATION.—While I could not 
gather statistics from all the cooperative organiza¬ 
tions in the State, the facts and figures presented by 
.some of them are interesting. Mr. S. .1. Cook, mana¬ 
ger of the South Shore Grower.?’ and Shippers’ Or¬ 
ganization, AA’hich is probably the most successful or¬ 
ganization in the State, reports that they have done 
in^liH6 $2()1,210..8S of b>isiness, out of which $17.3,- 
16.5.85 Avas for produce shipments, and balance for 
purcha.se of farm supplies. 
Mr. E. E. I’addock, manager of the Benton Cooper¬ 
ative Compjuiy of_Penn Yan, N. Y., says the folloAv- 
ing: “We have 97 members and the amount of busi¬ 
ness transacted in farm produce and farm supplies 
since August 1st, 1916 amounts to $72,710.65. The 
business Avas organized about ten months prior to Au¬ 
gust 1st. It did considerable business in farm supplies 
but there was no permanent manager and no record 
kept of the amount.” Mr. W. U. Rixford, secretaig^ 
and treasurer of the Allegany County Grangers’ Co¬ 
operative Association of Wellsville. N. Y.. Avrites that 
they haA’e 101 member.?, did .$20.00<) AA’orth of business. 
I’he Fruit GroAvers’ Supply Company of California, 
organized about seven years ago, handled , during the 
year ending August .31sC 1916, a business of $4,092,- 
865.90 at the cost of 8.5.6 cents per hundriHl dollars 
of business transacted, and accumulated a balance of 
$159,064.64 available for refunding to members. This 
cooperative company saved the growers thousands of 
dollars in shipping boxes and supplies for citrus fruit. 
This supply company OAvns a 26,0(X) tract of timber; 
it operate.? its oAvn SiiAVinill, box factory and is plan¬ 
ning to build its oAvn printing plant for the printing of 
labels and other printing for its membtu-s. There is 
absolutely no rciison Avhy the farmers in this State 
should not have an organization of this kind. There 
are many i)e<iple in the 8tate Avho say while this is 
all true, that the farmer should provide all these thing.? 
himself; that it is not right for the St.ate government, 
or Federal government, or the agricultural college to 
provide these things; otherAvise, our system of govern¬ 
ment becomes too “paternalistic.” It is absolutely use¬ 
less, however, to have a laAV on cooperation, and credit 
unions, and dozens of other Isaa's and not to offer an 
opportunity to the ■ farmers to get acquainted Avith 
these l.aAA’s. As Mr. Camp of North Carolina puts it, 
“What is the use of having laws authorizing farmers to 
organize credit unions without providing for organizei\s. 
It would be the same like having a bill authorizing 
the faa-mers to organize schools without providing 
teachers and other equipment for maintaining them.” 
CO-OPERATIVE POSSIBILITIES.—I do not see 
AA-hy New York State Avith its Avonderful agricultural 
resources and large prosperous agricultural poi)ulation 
should not have the same opportunity as our Southern 
neighbor. It is just as important that our agricultural 
colleges and departments of agriculture Avho have been 
rendering splendid services in the dis.semination of the 
latest agricultural scientific information about the pro¬ 
duction of staple products, dairy products, fruit, etc., 
.should bend their energy to teach the farnnu- the prin¬ 
ciples of cooperative buying, selling, crecRt and every 
other principle of co<5peration. Cooperative organiza¬ 
tions have been the .salvation of Europe. I have re¬ 
cently read a statement of a Avell-knoAvn German .scien¬ 
tist that Avere it not for the cooperative agricultural 
societies of Germany, Germany would have starved 
long ago. Rinssia. Avhich is con.sidered a backward 
country, is developing rapidly cooperative moA’ements 
among the farmers. Thousands of cooperative organ¬ 
izations for selling, buying and credit have been organ¬ 
ized. 
.lust to give you an illustration what cooperation 
is doing in Ru.s.sia, I desire to bring a fCAV facts of 
the State Agricultural Society of CharkoAv, Avith the 
workings of Avhich I happen to be more intimately ac¬ 
quainted, This association has for a. number of years 
past operated an American Bureau in the United 
States. During the last tAvo years they bought mil¬ 
lions of pounds of binder tAvine. They bought this 
tAvine in the Summer Avhen the prices are Ioav. I know 
that this year tAvine Avill cost them 2(}</o less than to 
the American farmers, and this society supplied prac¬ 
tically speaking all Russia Avith binder twine. Up till 
the beginning of the Avar most of the sugar beet seed 
imported in this country Avas from Germany, a great 
deal of Avhich Avas. hoAvever, grown in Russia. This 
society imported last year seven million pounds of 
seed, and thus prevented a famine in sugiir in this 
country. They cleared about one half million dollars 
profit on this transaction. This money has not been 
put into the pocket of a few middlemen, but has been 
put into the treasury of the society, and the society 
has purchased a large tract of land Avhere they are go¬ 
ing to develop seed growing on a scientific and large 
scale, and at the close of the Avar they Avill be ready 
to supply seed dii-ectly to the American groAvers. 
Cooperative societies cannot groAv in a day. It takes 
time to educate people in cooperation. It is up to 
the New York State Agricultural Society, the Grange 
and all other agricultural interests in the State to in¬ 
sist that the I>egislature provides liberal appropriation 
for carrying on AA’ork of the State Department of Foods 
and ilarkets. Bureau of Cooperation, State College of 
.Vgriculture and the State Agricultural Experiment 
Stations, and placing all this work on a permanent 
basis, .so they cannot be reached and “smothered” by 
selfish “interests.” 
