The RURAL NEW-YORKER 
693 
The Milk Situation; Recent Developments 
STARTLED CONSUMER S.—The whole city of 
New York has been in a state of hysterics for nearly 
a month over Loton Horton’s posted advice to farm¬ 
ers to reduce milk production. 
TIIE FARMERS’ ATTITUDE.—No dairyman was 
disturbed or fooled by the poster. Farmers knew 
that the Horton bulletin was advance notice to them 
that the price of milk would again be reduced with¬ 
out regard to the cost of producing it. They knew 
Mr. Horton did not want to reduce the supply of 
milk. The milk dealer’s good fortune is to have a 
surplus of milk at all times. When there is no sur¬ 
plus. which is nearly all the time, the dealer tries 
to create an artificial surplus. When the surplus 
appears as a tiny rivulet, the dealer magnifies it 
into a raging torrent. The surplus bugaboo has al¬ 
ways been the excuse for low prices to the farmer. 
It is not intended that the consumer should hear 
anything about it, but a surplus for a week is an 
argument for low price to the farmer for the whole 
year. It is the wedge used by the dealer for a half 
century to widen the breach between producer and 
consumer for the comfort and profit of the dealer. 
HOW THE POLICY WORKS.—The officials who 
are looking up law to prosecute Mr. Horton for his 
advice to farmers ought to cultivate a little sense 
of humor. Mr. Horton has spent a good share of 
the energy of his life to convince farmers of a 
chronic state of milk surplus. The bugaboo has 
made millions for him, and now our learned officials 
seek to send him to prison for an alleged attempt 
to destroy his own source of profit and fortune. 
Farmers may not appreciate the fine humor of the 
advice; but they have long been schooled in its mean¬ 
ing, and they have not been in doubt for a moment 
of the significance of the poster. 
ADVERTISING THE DEALERS.—The Sheffield 
Farms’ liberal advertising in the city papers has 
served one purpose. It confirms our assertion here¬ 
tofore disputed, that the New York milk dealers 
made the biggest profits of their lives during the 
past two years. The fixing of the milk price was 
turned over to the Federal Food Administration in 
the Fall of 1917. There was some talk of a patriotic 
duty. We opposed it because we knew the adminis¬ 
tration was dominated by speculative food interests. 
It was argued, however, that full confidence could 
be placed in the Food Administration, and we were 
accused of everything short of treason for express¬ 
ing our want of confidence in the qualification of 
food speculators to make prices for farmers’ milk. 
It was later denied that the milk trust was making 
unusual profits. In fact, in the middle of November, 
1918, the dealers were allowed an extra advance to 
consumers without any increase to producers to save 
the dealers from alleged losses. But now it is of¬ 
ficially discovered that Sheffield Farms made a 
profit of 51 per cent in the year 1918; and this ad¬ 
mission is made in the advertisement signed by 
Loton Horton: 
“I do not believe the fact that Sheffield Farms 
made $774,000 in one year constitutes a crime. 
During the year 1918, when we were accused of 
profiteering because we earned that sum, our 
critics forgot that the price we paid was fixed by 
the Federal Food Administration, and also the 
price you paid.” 
ADDED PROFITS.—The “you” here means the 
consumer. In other words, with nearly three-quar¬ 
ters of a million .of profits in sight for the year, in 
the month of November an extra profit was granted 
by the Federal Food Administration. While Mr. 
Iloi'ton was accumulating these princely profits by 
virtue of the authority of the Federal Food Admin¬ 
istration, Mr. Hoover accused farmers in the public 
press of being profiteers when they asked a price 
barely to cover the cost of production. We at least 
thank Mr. Horton for the belated justification of 
our policy and the corroboration of our advance 
information. 
CONDENSED MILK.—During the year 1919 we 
had a most unusual demand for condensed milk at 
prices not before realized. The demand was prac¬ 
tically unlimited, but the price of milk to the pro¬ 
ducer bore no relation to the price of condensed 
milk. There was no propaganda to show the extra 
demand. The farmer was not supposed to be con- 
< ei tied when the demand for milk products exceeded 
tlie supply. The manufacturers and dealers reaped 
their rich harvest. The price was not based on 
the price of condensed milk, but ou the price of 
butter and cheese. It is generally admitted that 
for most of the year the producer’s price did not 
cover the cost of production. Now that the foreign 
demand has slacked off. we have a general propa¬ 
ganda of publicity to inform the farmer that the 
bonanza to the manufacturer and dealer no longer 
exists, and that he must be prepared to accept a 
lower price, no matter what it costs him to produce 
it. The profits of the dealers must be maintained 
in any event. 
REDUCED FOREIGN DEMAND.—This propa¬ 
ganda of reduced foreign demand is on a par with 
the surplus argument. It is inevitable that there 
should be a decrease of the abnormal foreign de¬ 
mand for condensed milk. Neither can the supply 
from the farms be flexible enough always to furnish 
the volume of milk needed and no more. If the 
farmer is expected to bear the brunt of low foreign 
demand and home surplus without any share in the 
benefits when demand is unusual, he is subject to 
an injustice all the time. It is always “heads you 
lose, tails I win.” Neither the decrease in foreign 
trade nor the alleged surplus is sufficient excuse 
for a starvation price to the producer while the 
average high price is maintained to consumer, both 
domestic and foreign. 
WAR PROFITS.—The truth of the matter is the 
dairy dealers have reaped enormous profits in the 
foreign trade since the war. This led them to heavy 
speculations, and now that they are caught with a 
remnant of their speculative holdings, they want 
the dairyman to make them safe against small and 
temporary losses, which should come out of their 
late big profits. This is the truth of the matter 
and it may as well be plainly stated. 
FUTILE EFFORTS.—All the columns in the city 
papers about new laws and prosecutions of Mr. 
Horton under existing laws are pure and unadulter¬ 
ated nonsense. If the officials could convict and 
fine, or even imprison Mr. Horton for his mock ad¬ 
vice to milk producers, it would not change the milk 
problem one iota. The milk dealers have violated 
the anti-trust laws every day since the laws were 
enacted, and no one bothers them where the facts 
are known to everyone. The attorneys need not go 
hunting for doubtful cases for prosecution. They 
have perfectly clear cases daily. We have laws 
enough now to regulate the milk traffic and settle 
the problem once for all. No new law is essential. 
We have no right to assume that new laws would 
be enforced any better than the old ones; but, as 
a matter of fact, new laws that would put the re- 
spohsibility up to anyone ai*e not wanted. The milk 
trust controls the legislation from both sides. The 
officials are permitted to make bills that appeal to 
their partisan friends: but they always contain pro¬ 
visions that are sure to defeat them. What is 
needed is a little work to show consumers that their 
interests are common with the farmers, and that 
producers actually deliver milk at a reasonable cost 
for production and distribution. When the con¬ 
sumer is satisfied that this is being done, the con¬ 
sumption of milk will increase, there will be no 
surplus, and we will no longer have a milk problem. 
A Milk Price Question 
Under date of April I. 1919, the'Supplee-Wills Jones 
Milk Co. of Philadelphia, owners of a receiving station 
at New Egypt, N. J., entered contract with milk pro¬ 
ducers to take all of their milk at market price as set 
by the Interstate Milk Producers’ Association, or by 
'the United States Food Administration for one year 
from date. January 1. 1920, they gave notice to milk 
producers that they would only pay maximum price 
for the average number of quarts produced the three 
months of October, November and December. 1919. All 
milk produced above this average to be paid for on 
a butterfat basis, determined by the New York solid 
pack butter for the month in which the milk was pro¬ 
duced. Why should the man with 3.50, 3.60, 3.90 and 
4.10 milk all ‘receive a fiat rate for milk surplus in 
January, 1920, instead of rates according to his milk 
test, as per their agreement? c. R. F. 
New Jersey. 
The dealers’ agreement with the Interstate Milk 
Producers’ Association provides that the milk pro¬ 
duced in the other nine months in excess of the 
average for October. November and December must 
be paid for on the basis of quotations in New York 
City for 92. score butter, allowing 20 per cent for 
overrun, and computing on the fat points in the 
milk. Under these terms it seems clear that the 
producers are entitled to the butter price of 120 per 
cent for the actual amount of fat in their milk. 
We suggest in all such cases that complaint be 
made to the secretary of the Producers’ Association. 
If for any reason redress is not secured in that way, 
we will gladly take up the complaint on behalf of 
producers. 
Wool Settlements in New York State 
The New York counties which consigned their wool 
last Spring are beginning to get the final returns. 
These returns have been very slow, owing to the fact 
that the market has been unbalanced, there being a very 
strong demand for fine wools, and practically no sale 
for the coarser grades. This delay has been used by 
wool dealers to discourage. farmers from future pools. 
Yet now that the final settlements are being made, we 
doubt very much if the argument of the dealers will 
prevail against the sound business sense of the farmer. 
As an example of the prices secured through consign¬ 
ing wool, we quote the settlement recently made by 
the J. E. McMurtry Co. of New York City with the 
Schuyler County Sheep Breeders’ Association. This 
company reports having sold half-blood for 77c, delaine 
for 80c, three-eighths for 70c, and fine clothing for 62c. 
Writing under date of March 11, the county agent, 
Harry G. Chapin, says: “I have deducted y 2 c per lb. 
for local expense, and after doing so we are able to pay 
the farmers, in addition to the 50c advance they have 
already had. 19c on half-blood, 25.8c on delaine, 16c 
on fine clothing, 19c on bucks, and 11.Sc on three- 
eighths blood.” When it is realized that dealers in this 
county tried to buy the wool for first 45c and then 55c 
*per pound, the value of the wool pool to the Schuyler 
County Sheep Breeder can be easily estimated. 
H. E. B. 
N. Y. Canning Crop Growers Organizing 
Two or three years ago a movement was started in 
Ontario, Orleans and Niagara Counties, N. Y., towards 
lining up the growers of canning crops into an asso¬ 
ciation to secure better prices. While it resulted in 
some betterment, we speedily ran up against the law, 
and did not accomplish as much as we desired. Since 
the packing-houses of Niagara have been operating so 
successfully, the fever started, and Niagara organized 
a Canning Growers’ Association under Article ISA of 
the membership corporation law. One county after 
another followed, until we now have 10 counties, Os¬ 
wego being the last, and others are contemplating the 
step. We have since formed a State association, taking 
in the counties as organized. We have a membership 
that must, be close to 4.000. All this has happened 
since the middle of December, and under about as un¬ 
favorable conditions as could be imagined. It bas not 
been possible to arrange all the details as carefully as 
we desired, and doubtless some things have got by us 
that may develop some unfair conditions towards some 
canners. 
The aggregation known as the New York Canners, 
Inc., which was a consolidation of a number of canners 
in New Y'ork State, including the Olney group, Mt. 
Morris, Genesee, Canandaigua, etc., have not yet come 
across, and the growers have pretty generally stood 
firm, but by going out into new territory not yet or¬ 
ganized they have been able to get some acreage. Ni¬ 
agara County growers have sold their acreage ; Steuben 
County men have sold theirs. The eastern end of 
Ontario has sold, all at the association rates. The 
fanners pretty generally have felt that they might as 
well grow other crops if they cannot secure the prices 
we decided we should have. Not all prices in each case 
have been uniform, for the factories buy or have been 
accustomed to buy on a different basis, and various 
little adjustments have been made that will in the end 
work out to the same basis. The association demanded 
$82 per ton for peas and $30 per ton for Evergreen 
corn on a husked basis, or $22.50 if sold on a bulk 
basis. This is au increase of 33 per cent over the 
prices we received for peas last year, and an increase 
of 15 per cent on corn. On tomatoes we made the 
price of $22.50 per ton, and received it. Last year’s 
prices ranged all the way from $15 to $18, and we 
think in one instance to $20. We feel than we are 
accomplishing something this year, even though we are 
imperfectly organized, and it has had to be done in a 
hurry. 
One of the most serious handicaps has been the per¬ 
sistent reports of the tomato growers in Indiana, who 
are contracting at $15, and our canners have placed 
contracts with canners of that section. On peas the 
same situation is reported, as growers in Michigan and 
Wisconsin are reported to be accepting $60 per ton 
for peas, and falling over themselves to get contracts 
at that rate. 
One great handicap has been the lack of positive 
information as to the exact cost of growing an acre of 
peas. A few cost accounts were kept, last year on peas 
in Ontario and Seneca counties, and it indicates that 
a normal crop of peas will cost $60 per acre to grow. 
The average yield at one factory in Ontario County 
for the past seven years, where 1,000 acres has l>een 
grown, has been 1.850 lbs. per acre. The report to us 
is that in Wisconsin the average yield is over two tons. 
Whether this is a fact or not, we are not advised. In 
the past seven years we have had one practically total 
failure and two other light yields. We are anxious to 
secure a number of cost accounts this year, and a 
proposition was made to our association that if we 
would furnish $1,000, and if the canners would furnish 
$1,000. the college would furnish the balance and under¬ 
take to put some men in the field and keep track of the 
costs on a large acreage that would give us the right 
figures. Our association accepted ii, but as yet I have 
not been informed whether the canners will furnish 
their portion. If the other States that are actively 
engaged in growing canning crops would co-operate with 
us, or if the laws iu their States would allow them to 
organize as we have done, the future would look fairly 
bright for the growers of canning crops. 
FRANK E. RUPERT. 
