The RURAL. NEW-YORKER 
695 
Butter and Cheese Prices in Milk Figuring 
The “Dairymen’s League News” gives us a practical 
joke, or, to say the least, an intricate problem in its 
method of figuring prices for April milk. Since 3 per 
cent is the basis, why not compute from that and save 
all the intricate and confusing figuring? They figure on 
the basis of 4 per cent, but deduct the arbitrary 15c 
from the 3.6 basis, reducing the price l%c per 100 by 
this alone. According to the formula for this month 
our 4 per cent milk would be $3.20, and according to 
their schedule it is worth $3.39 with the arbitrary 15c 
off. Looking at these subjects from all angles it seems 
to me about time that some man was found to protect 
the farmer from all these complicated ways of trim¬ 
ming him. ciias. f. tucker. 
Dutchess Co., N. Y. 
UNNECESSARY COMPLICATION.—The “League 
News” figures seem unnecessarily complicated and 
not altogether accurate. There are four pounds of 
butter-fat in 100 pounds of 4 per cent milk, and .84 
of a pound of butter-fat in one pound of butter. 
4 .84 = 4.7G pounds of butter to 100 pounds of 4 
per cent milk, and not 4.64 pounds, as the “League 
News” figures it. This alone makes a difference of 
seven cents per hundred for milk. Then the quota¬ 
tions are taken as the basis of butter prices, though 
it is well known that 60 per cent of the butter is 
shipped to the New York market on contract to pay 
from 1% to three cents above quotations, and it is 
sold in New York at from two to five cents above 
quotations. The quotations on cheese are also from 
one to three cents below actual sale prices. These 
manipulations of prices have always been a swindle on 
the butter and cheese dairymen, and now are utilized 
for the same purpose against the milk producer. 
Another injustice of this basis for milk prices is 
found in the fact that butter and cheese are specu¬ 
lative commodities. They are stored when cheap, 
and sold in seasons of higher cost of production. The 
December milk is competing with butter and cheese 
made in May and June. Why 15 cents per 100 pounds 
should be deducted for city sales of fluid milk when 
it is worth full price for butter and cheese is not 
apparent. This month there is rr. surplus, the de¬ 
mand for condensed milk cannot i j supplied, and the 
profits are correspondingly high. 
VALUE OF MILK.—The value of 100 pounds of 
3 per cent milk on the butter basis may be computed 
simply: Three pounds of fat in 100 pounds of milk 
-r- by .84 of fat in one pound of butter = 3.57 pounds 
in 100 pounds of milk x .5814 cents price of butter = 
$2,088 + .87 value of skim-milk = $2.96. On the 
cheese basis: 9.194 pounds cheese in 100 pounds 3 
per cent milk X 31 cents, base price on cheese = 
$2.84 + 21 cents, value of whey = 3.05. 
AVERAGE PRICES.—This is an average of $3 
per hundred for 100 pounds of 3 per cent milk. If 
we subtract the arbitrary 15 cents, it would be re¬ 
duced to $2.85, which leaves the dealers five ceuts 
ahead on figures. If butter and cheese were taken 
on actual selling prices instead of manipulated quo¬ 
tations, the difference would be greater, and the 
allowance for full limit of moisture would increase it 
still further. The dealer gets the benefit of them all, 
under a rather complicated display of figures. 
COMPARISON OF PRICES.—The real signifi¬ 
cance of the butter and cheese basis for computing 
milk prices will appear in a comparison of the April 
prices paid by the milk trust for the years 1914, 
1915 and 1916, before we had any organization and 
when prices were thought to be unbearable and ruin¬ 
ous. In April, 1914, the price of butter was 25% 
ceuts, and cheese 15.6 ceuts. Figuring this on the 
“League News” formula the price of 3 per cent milk 
would have been $1.09 per hundred. The trust vol¬ 
untarily paid $1.30, or a premium of 21 cents over 
present method of computing prices. In April, 1915, 
butter averaged 30% cents, and cheese 15% cents. 
Again following the “League News” formula, the 
price of 3 per cent milk would be $1.19. The trust 
paid $1.31, or a premium of 12 cents. In April, 1916, 
the average butter quotation was 36.3 cents, and 
cheese 18.15 cents. With the League formula we 
find the price of 3 per cent -Mlk $1.51 per 100 pounds. 
The trust paid $1.31, or 20 cents less than butter 
and cheese prices. 
A COMPARISON.—From this it appears that rel¬ 
atively we get this month 2.8 ceuts per 100 pounds 
less than the ruinous voluntary prices paid by the 
trust for the three-year April average before we had 
an organization. The dealer got nine cents for de¬ 
livering R grade then. He gets 15 cents now. Ilis 
increase just equals the farmers’ price this month, 
and in cream and pint bottles it runs still higher. 
New York’s Agricultural Department 
Study of True Conditions 
TWO IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. — Governor 
Smith’s pre-election promises in relation to the State 
Departments of Agriculture and of Markets were a fea¬ 
ture of the March 29 Rural New-Yorker’s editorial 
page. The Council of Farms and Markets situation was 
further treated in the same issue, under the heading of 
“Governor - Smith and New York Agriculture.” The 
Perkins deal, the practical destruction of the Markets 
Department and the creation of the Council of Farms 
and Markets constitute a history so well known to the 
farmers of the State that it is useless to reconsider 
these remarkable activities of Whitman and his Legis¬ 
lature. Perhaps, there were a few involved in these 
matters who honestly thought the interests of the State 
would best be served by these changes. It is not to be 
supposed, however, that the controlling interests behind 
these movements were especially interested in the best 
interests of the State as a whole, nor did they have any 
consideration for the farmers. 
POLITICS IN AGRICULTURE —The injection of 
petty politics into the Agricultural Department had al¬ 
ways been a handicap, but those in the department had, 
by long experience, learned to discount the effect, so that 
the routine work was little affected thereby. Under the 
Whitman administration petty politics grew from a 
minor evil to the controlling influence. Prior to that 
time it was a general understanding that when politics 
began to interfere seriously with business the depart¬ 
mental business became supreme. But the Whitman 
regime did not proceed far -when it became the under- 
standing that business was secondary to the all-impor¬ 
tant business of up-buildiug the Whitman machine. 
CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION.—It is an ac¬ 
cepted principle of our body politic that a change in ad¬ 
ministration means a change in the personnel included 
in the exempt list—the various executive deputies and 
assistants. Of course, there are instances where men 
of especial knowledge continue in such positions in our 
various governmental departments regardless of politics. 
But where a man of greater or equal ability may be 
found for the position it is a recognized right of the 
new department head to make those replacements. Gov¬ 
ernor Whitman, by virtue of his appointment of and 
ability to remove the Commissioner of Agriculture, took 
political control of the department. Many remarkable 
changes were made in the name of “economy and effi¬ 
ciency.” For instance, a $60 per month “laborer” who 
was a former cheesemaker and had several years’ experi¬ 
ence in the department assisting the agents in quaran¬ 
tine. feed, fertilizer, food, milk and other work, acting 
as a witness when official samples were taken, was dis¬ 
pensed with “for the good of the service.” Two exempt, 
“confidential” positions were created. One appointee 
was a former clothier and his salary was $1,200 or 
$1,500. I do not remember which, and expenses. The 
other appointee was a farmer of especial political ability 
and he received $1,500 and expenses. Now this was all 
in the same division, and the regular civil service staff 
had to devote extra time to teaching these two men to 
do the work of the $60-per-month laborer. 
A CASE IN rOINT. —In this connection it may be 
noted that the farmer in the $1,500 and expenses “con¬ 
fidential” position was also a town supervisor. While 
being paid by this State for his services he acted as su¬ 
pervisor. Whether he received compensation from the 
town is immaterial, although he probably did. It should 
not be the province of the State to pay for weeks of ser¬ 
vices of a man acting in another official capacity, espe¬ 
cially when, in such an instance as this, there was direct 
interference. Yet, this must have been with the knowl¬ 
edge of the then and now C ommissioner. These two 
confidential men were put in with a regular staff of men 
who had passed stringent civil service examinations, 
who had had from four to nine years’ experience in the 
work and yet were paid from $300 to $600 less per year 
than they who had no qualifications fitting them for the 
service. 
BUSINESS SYSTEM.—The tendency of all good 
business organization today is away from all such in¬ 
direct. complicated executive control as that lodged in 
the Council of Farms and Markets. Good business and 
good government are secured by putting able, competent 
men in control and making them individually and di¬ 
rectly responsible for those things tinder their super¬ 
vision. Possibly someone, somewhere, may know some¬ 
thing about who, what and where the Council of Farms 
and Markets is and what it has done or may do. The 
public certainly does not know. The State, the High¬ 
way and various other departments come in for quite a 
bit of general publicity. The only general knowledge of 
the Council and its departments, for some time, has ap¬ 
peared to consist of weighty articles giving official pro¬ 
duction advice, and probably emanating from the paid 
publicity agents. 
DEFINITE STANDARDS.—There have been times 
when the Agricultural Department stood for something 
definite along the line of regulation and agricultural ad¬ 
vancement. and it received a measure of consideration 
and respect from the farmer's and the general public. 
Under the oommissionership of John Dillon the Depart¬ 
ment of Markets became a definite, tangible government 
agency. It accomplished things by giving actual service 
to both farmer an.; consumer. Therefore, it brought 
forth a galaxy of enemies who, with the assistance of 
the then Governor and the Legislature, “pulled its 
teeth.” Now, we ? r» informed that it may become a 
minor bureau, tuck's away, perhaps, in the rear, right 
corner of the musty document room of the top-heavy, 
unwieldy Department of Agriculture. 
ROUTINE WGDK.—There is a lot of regulative, 
routine work involved in the enforcement of the en¬ 
forceable provisions of the Agricultural Law. This 
work is of importance to the consumer, and. in a meas¬ 
ure, to the farmer. There is a corps of competent, hon¬ 
est. civil service employes in the Department of Agricul¬ 
ture. They can i_ake the investigations and establish 
the evidence for violations of the law. They know what 
ought to be done and how to do it properly and eco¬ 
nomically. But first, they cannot do any more than 
the executive officers in the Albany office will allow them 
to do, and secondly, the work which they do do is lost 
when cases which they have established are “pigeon¬ 
holed” in the Albany office because the defendant hap¬ 
pens to have some political influence. In this connec¬ 
tion allow me to quote what Senator Sage said in Syra¬ 
cuse a few days ago before the Manufacturers’ Associa¬ 
tion. according to tl e Post-Standard: “I believe that 
the stand'id of honesty in the State service is higher on 
the average than iu any private business. . . . You 
will find that in the activities of the State there is more 
of human interest than you ever guessed, and you will 
have a new feeling of respect for the army of employes, 
amounting to more than 22,000, who are making these 
things possible and who are often underpaid and un¬ 
thanked for the work which they are doing." The ma¬ 
chine is there to make the Department of Agriculture 
an agency of public service worth many times its legiti¬ 
mate cost to the State. The fact that it is not that to¬ 
day is not the fault of the agents, the chemists and the 
agents in charge of divisions. 
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.—I personally know 
something of the Department of Agriculture and its pos¬ 
sibilities, together with its shortcomings. In June. 1912. 
I was appointed as a “laborer” or assistant, and in June, 
1913, was appointed as an agent, having taken and 
passed the competitive civil service examination in Jan¬ 
uary. I worked in various branches of departmental 
activities through the central part of the State until 
January 1, 1918. Thus I spent five and a half years in 
the service. I voluntarily resigned in December. 1917, 
to be effective January 1, without any suggestion or re¬ 
quest that I do so, and to accept a better position. I 
have not desired nor requested any position with the 
Council of Farms and Markets. I have no personal ill- 
feeling toward any man or men connected with the 
council or department. What I have said or may say is 
purely impersonal, and comes from a sincere belief that 
the possibilities of the department are of sufficient im¬ 
portance, so that it should be put above the fanciful 
whims of each passing Legislature, and beyond the in¬ 
fluence of every town politician. 
THE EDUCATIONAL SIDE.—The agricultural col¬ 
leges, with the extension departments, and the Farm 
Bureaus, together with the experiment stations and the 
Federal Department, thoroughly cover the educational 
branch of the farming proposition. While these have 
connection with the State Department, it does and 
should play a minor part. The enforcement of the ag¬ 
ricultural law involves protection and regulation to the 
farmer, regulation in the sale of all foods, oil and tur¬ 
pentine. Paris green and various other things, and pro¬ 
tection to the consumer—everyone who lives in or may 
visit iu the State. There is no other division of State 
government which is so important and useful to every¬ 
one as can this one be when it is a real department, 
properly functioning. It was the original avowed in¬ 
tention of the Markets Department to bring the producer 
and consumer closer together for mutual benefit. It be¬ 
came regulative in the sense of packing, transportation 
and sale of commodities. 
MARKET QUESTIONS.—The markets proposition, 
put back oil the basis which Mr. Dillon was building it, 
would require the services of the best administrative 
ability available. In order to be of value it would have 
to “buck up against” and overcome the thousands of ex¬ 
perienced farm produce speculators who personally profit 
through their own indirect systems of distribution. 
Such a man could not be found willing to put himself 
under a network of superiors as a bureau head in the 
Agricultural Department. There may come a time when .. 
one man could handle both these propositions as they 
should be handled. But that time is not now. The 
period of development of a real Markets Department 
would be too expensive. So be assured that if the “pow¬ 
ers that be” are about to move “markets” once again as- 
reported, it will be quietly laid to rest three feet under 
the sod in a lot donated by the speculative oligarchy. 
And iu this connection I do not see wherein the farmers 
of this State are entitled to any special sympathy. Our 
representatives at Albany are responsive to the point of 
being real sensitive to the wishes of the “active” ele¬ 
ment of our voters. They know that the consumers 
have no idea of the possibilities of an effective market 
division of government iu establishing an economical, 
efficient system of distribution which would lower the 
price of foodstuffs to them. They know that the farm¬ 
ers are not showing any great interest, and will, iu the 
majority, go right on votiug as before, without regard 
as to what action they may take in the matter. They 
well know that the packer, the milk, the food and the 
produce interests are all sources of campaign contribu¬ 
tions : that these interests are neither Democrat nor Re¬ 
publican. but will help their friends and will, all to¬ 
gether, fight those who dare faVor anything which might 
interfere with their prospective profits. 
PUBLICITY NEEDED.—It has. for years, been a 
fault c£ the Agricultural Department that too little pub¬ 
licity lVa§ been given its real important activities as 
they affected the whole people of the State. Publicity 
would have shown the_ people the value of its work and 
the proper administering of its affairs would have in¬ 
creased its scope and usefulness to the point where it 
would have had respect and appreciation from the peo¬ 
ple. Then, it could not have become the medium of 
political barter which it is today. Compared with what 
it might be it is a mere “joke”—disgustingly expensive to 
the taxpayers. Every man in the field force knows this 
to be so. Why wasn’t it done? Because the same white 
light of publicity that would have protected would have 
just as surely searched out the flaws. It might have 
shown Commissioners appointing inexperienced, incom¬ 
petent puppets at $1,500 to $5,000 a year at the request 
of politicians, while experienced, competent men did the 
work at $720, $900, $1,050 or $1,200. It might have 
shown pigeon-holed cases against the influential. Pos¬ 
sibly it would have shown why tuberculin test charts 
approved by the Department are not always taken at 
their face value by well-informed cattlemen. Or it might 
make people wonder why a Commissioner appoints a 
man iu the eastern end of the State to a position iu the 
Buffalo office, and then transfers him right back, or why 
a man four years in the service is transferred to another 
division under another agent-in-charge, on the official 
records, and actually never hears of it himself until a 
year later. Publicity would tend to show a multiplicity 
of peculiar internal conditions. So the game has been 
played iu the dark, while the whole works have been 
pounded and kicked about until it bears some relation 
to almost everything except the agricultural interests of 
the State. 
THE REMEDY.—The editorial suggestion that 
“there seems now no remedy but to make the responsible 
head of New York agriculture an elective office within 
the reach of the people” certainly appears to be about 
the only solution. Our various Governors seem to have 
been ioforested in a purely political sense. Some day 
we might have a Governor who would appoint a com¬ 
petent Commissioner and then stand squarely behind 
him in the discharge of his duties. But that seems to 
be a doubtful possibility. They are generally “agricul¬ 
turists” until the polls close. Every man who has been 
iu the service knows that the first requirement for the 
economical, efficient administration of the Department 
is to eliminate the exempt-confidential positions with 
their fat political-plum salaries. And. it is my opinion, 
that there are men with the knowledge of affairs, the 
administrative ability and the courage^ if given the re¬ 
sponsibility and the authority, to “clean house.” open 
up the windows, let iu the light and make of the De¬ 
partment of Agriculture a distinct agency of service 
worthy of the respect of the people of the State. 
W. FRANKLIN MOORE. 
