The RURAL NEW-YORKER 
831 
Further Discussion of Milk 
9 
T HE DAIRYMEN MUST DO IT.—Without re¬ 
gard to any particular plan, we believe the milk 
problem will be ultimately solved by dairymen. 
Their experience is yet limited, but they have the 
native ability and a steadfast purpose, and these 
qualities will ultimately win. The right plan, how¬ 
ever, will save expense and hasten success. Too 
mucl' expense, and success too long delayed cannot 
fail to weaken the spirit of members and endanger 
final success. 
ONE ORGANIZATION.—The plan outlined last 
week proposes one complete organization, and only 
one. Any plan that is fundamentally wasteful can¬ 
not ultimately succeed. Two organizations for one 
service is confusing and wasteful and extravagant. 
One is more efficient and economical. For that rea¬ 
son it has a better prospect of success. 
AUTHORITY IN MEMBERS’ HANDS.—The 
proposed plan puts all the authority in the hands of 
the members. This is co-operative. In a broad 
sense of the term it is democratic. When an organi¬ 
zation is built from the ground up so that every 
member has one vote on every important question it 
has the first principle of co-operation. It is also 
democratic. When the authority comes from the 
top downwards it is imperial and autocratic. The 
tendency of the whole world now is towards democ¬ 
racy in business, as well as in government. Where 
farm organizations have been controlled from the 
top they have failed. The successful business farm 
organizations have always been co-operative. It is 
human nature to love power and authority. Un¬ 
checked power is a temptation to the best of men. 
It is a real danger in the hands of weak and selfish 
men. We must encourage our leaders to assume 
initiative, and for this we must clothe them with au¬ 
thority, but it must be a delegated authority and not 
an assumed privilege that finally develops into an 
autocracy and works its own ruin. 
SAFETY IN MAJORITY RULE.—Public policies 
are always safe in the hands of a majority. It the 
people make a mistake once they are sure to correct 
it the next. time. The real danger comes from a sys¬ 
tem that makes possible a minority control. Just as 
a free and universal franchise of the citizen pro¬ 
motes and sustains democracy, so the one vote of 
every member harmonizes and strengthens co-opera¬ 
tion. 
LEARNING BY DOING.—One of the most press¬ 
ing present needs of co-operation is trained and ex¬ 
perienced managers for the work. Men trained in 
business conducted for a profit are not qualified for 
co-operative management. It requires a different 
perspective. We need to develop the latent talent of 
the local members for this work. They will learn by 
doing. If central officials do everything, the local 
members will have no opportunity to develop into 
the work, and must always depend on others. T he 
best part of the whole movement is the development 
of the members to do things for themselves. 
THE CITY END.—It will never do to leave the 
city market to the milk trust or to the city govern¬ 
ment. Whoever dominates the city market will make 
the price of milk. The city government is seeking 
authority by legislation to buy and sell milk. It 
would be a dangerous departure. If the price were 
made too low, consumers may profit at farmers’ ex¬ 
pense for a time, but when production falls off they 
will be worse off than before. We know what hap¬ 
pens when the dealers dominate the market. The 
producer gets little and the consumer pays much. 
Farmers may dominate the market without danger 
to either of the other two interests. They are will¬ 
ing to allow a fair price for distribution, and they 
are restrained by self-interest from making the price 
too high to the housewife, because their best interest 
will be served by a fair price and a larger consump¬ 
tion. 
REDUCING COST OF DISTRIBUTION—So long 
as the milk trust controls the market there is no 
incentive to improvement or economy in the system 
of distribution. Farmers have every incentive for 
reducing the cost of distribution. A competent busi¬ 
ness man employed by tiie central farm organization 
would soon find ways to reduce delivery costs and 
to increase consumption. He would bottle milk and 
see that the stores have a full and regular supply. He 
would probably use the non-breakable, not returnable 
paper container. The cost will be so low that this 
container will probably replace both the glass bot¬ 
tles and the loose milk. The business manager will 
sell rich milk and cream at a price based on the fat 
content, and he will pay the producer the actual 
value of the extra fat. The dairyman's opportunity 
is in the city: and whatever the other features of the 
plan, his organization must, be supreme in the city 
market. 
MILK IS CHEAPER now than most of the other 
available foods in the city. The housewives are 
using less than tlWr normal supply of milk because 
they feel that they are being used unfairly. Tbev 
protest against what they believe to be an abuse. 
Less milk is their only comeback. Formerly they 
blamed the dealer alone. Of late they begin to asso¬ 
ciate the producer with the dealer. The right or 
wrong of the housewife’s protest does not matter. 
The important thing is that she does not use her full 
quota of milk. It is our business to see that she 
does. The most effective way to win her friendship 
and to increase her orders for milk is to put milk 
within her reach at a right price, and thus convince 
her that we are not parties to her troubles, but a 
real friend. When we put bottled milk in the stores 
within her reach at reasonable delivery cost, agita¬ 
tion will cease and the way will be opened for an 
increased output of milk. 
PLAN FOR PROGRESS.—While any plan will 
need adjustment in details, the one adopted ought 
to make steady progress. If the plan, as Mr. Fuller 
said, is fundamentally wrong, it needs prompt and 
complete revision. A fundamental error needs posi¬ 
tive treatment; but co-operative organizations' propo¬ 
sitions involving large investments and fundamental 
policies usually are and always should be' submitted 
to the members as a referendum. 
State Milk Bills 
Is the Legislature of the State of New York willing 
to have milk distributed at a reasonable cost? Are 
the city officials sincerely anxious to reduce the 
breach between producer and consumer? Is there 
an earnest desire all around to pay the farmer the 
cost of production and increase his output by a sav¬ 
ing in the wasteful and extravagant system of dis¬ 
tribution? 
These questions will be answered by the lay and 
official attitude on the legislation introduced by 
Senator George F. Thompson last week. Senator 
Thompson expected that the milk bills which he pre¬ 
viously introduced by request from the city, would 
be revised and amended to meet the needs and 
approval of both producer and consumer. These 
bills were exceptionally objectionable. It is hard to 
believe that anyone seriously expected them to pass. 
No attempt however was made to revise them. 
In truth to revise them was to destroy them. They 
were virtually all bad. Senator Thompson's expecta¬ 
tion that they would be revised lias not been realized. 
The bills are dead, as we predicted at the beginning 
that they would be: but Senator Thompson has now- 
introduced a bill that would solve the milk problem. 
It directs the Commissioner of Markets to provide 
equipment to buy and distribute enough milk to 
demonstrate the cost of distribution under the most 
economic system that he can devise. He is especially 
directed to develop a system of city delivery through 
stores. He must keep an accurate and open account 
of all his expenses. He must publicly show by 
actually doing the work, and by his open accounts 
just what it costs to deliver milk. 
After demonstrations- have been conducted for one 
year under normal conditions, if the Commissioner 
is able to show by his open records, that he is able 
to distribute milk for less than the prices charged 
by private dealers, he may fix a minimum price for 
the service of distributing and pasteurizing milk, 
which shall conform to his net cost, plus a reasonable 
profit. 
If the usual flow of milk is interrupted for any 
reason, the Commissioner must after certain-formali¬ 
ties are completed with, seize the cans and pasteur¬ 
izers and general equipment, pay for the use of 
them and deliver milk until satisfactory assurances 
are given him that the usual and reasonable supply 
of milk w ill be delivered by the owners of the plants 
and equipment. 
Provision is made that the Commissioner of Mar¬ 
kets be elected by popular vote at a general election. 
Companion bills provide for election of the Commis¬ 
sioner of Agriculture in the same way. 
The milk provisions of this bill have been approved 
by the members of the Dairymen’s League in annual 
meeting, it has been approved publicly and privately 
by practically all the leading officials, and by numer¬ 
ous local branches. Many of the local Granges voted 
approval of it. The principles of it hare also been 
Selling Plans 
approved by numerous meetings of city consumers, 
and clubs. In the recent farm referendum more 
than 08 per cent, of the votes favored election of 
the commissioner by direct vote. 
Now, do we really want to do something to settle 
this milk problem or shall we keep it with us 
eternally to talk about and scrap over? 
We have good precedent for this kind of work. 
Economically transportation and delivery are part 
of the process of production. The State demonstrates 
methods of killing codling moths and potato bugs. 
It gives instruction in the art of making butter and 
cheese, and countless other processes of production. 
Why not continue the instruction and the demonstra¬ 
tions to the distribution of milk, which is one of 
the functions of production? It is purely a practical 
educational work. 
Everybody knows and admits that the farmer 
cannot continue to produce milk under present 
conditions at present prices. He cannot and will not 
continue to do so. If present conditions continue, 
w r e predict that before the end of the year, the con¬ 
sumer will he paying the highest prices of their 
lives for milk and nor enough in sight at that. If 
the State again takes hold of the work and backs 
it up as a fixed policy confidence will be restored, 
farmers will see hope ahead, and consumers will 
know that no one is gouging them, agitation will 
cease, and we will see an increased milk consump- 
iion. 
Lackawanna County, Pa., Dairymen’s Im¬ 
provement Association 
The first Lackawanna County Dairymen’s Improve¬ 
ment Association completed a year’s work on January 
fil. 1020. This association is simply an organization of 
farmers who unite for the purpose of employing a 
trained man to weigh and test the milk of every cow in 
the herds of the association at monthly intervals. Thus 
a record of every cow in the herd is obtained at the end 
of the year without any trouble on the part of the indi¬ 
vidual dairyman. 
We had 25 members with a total of 345 cows as the 
average number of cows in the association for the year. 
The average production of all the herds for the year was 
0.657 lbs. of milk and 207 lbs. of butterfat. The returns 
for each dairy were figured according to the price re¬ 
ceived for the product. The majority of the members 
sold milk on the test basis at the prices figured from 
mouth to month by the Dairymen’s League. Grain 
feeds were computed at the prices paid by the members. 
Roughage and pasture were figured at the same price for 
all members: hay. $20 per ton; silage, 88 per ton, and 
pasture. $1.50 per month per cow. 
To Miller Bros, of Clark's Summit goes the distinc¬ 
tion of having the highest herd average in milk produc¬ 
tion. and the highest producing cow in the association. 
Their herd average was 8.744 lbs. of milk and 004 lbs. of 
butterfat. The record of the highest producing cow was 
12.443 lbs. of milk and 048.7 lbs. of butterfat. The 
profit returned after deducting the cost of roughage and 
the cost of grain was 8217.80. She is a purebred Hol¬ 
stein cow named Princess Johanna Cornucopia. They 
own a herd of purebred ITolsteins among which are 
some high producing individuals. Compare this record 
with the poorest record cow in the association: she 
produced 3.022 lbs. of milk and 118.6 lbs. of butterfat. 
After figuring the cost of roughage and cost of grain, 
we find she was a loss to her owner to the amount of 
$26.02. 
'The four herds in the association averaging the 
highest in milk production are: 
Lbs. Milk Lbs. Butterfat 
Miller Bros. 8.744 304 
G. A. Spencer . 8.504 201.0 
J. W. Ivlipple. S.493 307.4 
I. C. 8. Demonstration Farm S.104 300 
The herd averaging the highest in butterfat produc¬ 
tion is owned by the Lake View Poor Farm. B. V. Bo- 
gerf. superintendent. The herd average per cow was 
7.952 lbs. milk and 309.7 lbs. of butterfat. Comparing 
these high-producing herds with the poorest producing 
herd, we have a very appreciable difference in favor of 
the better herds. The average production of the poor¬ 
est herd was 3.504 lbs. of milk and 114.2 lbs. of butter¬ 
fat. 
Four herds averaged over S.(XX> lbs. of milk, five herds 
over 7.000 lbs., eight herds over 0,000 lbs., five herds 
over 5.000 lbs., two herds over 4,000 lbs., and one herd 
over 3,000 lbs. The representative breed in all of the 
herds was the Holstein. 
Continued testing is necessary for progress. The 
dairyman who tests for one year only is not looking to* 
the future. Cow testing work gives a valuable breeding 
guide for the dairyman who wishes to build up his herd. 
Unfortunately, the dairymen who need cow testing the 
most use it the least. However, the records of the high- 
producing herds show that the greater the production 
the more careful the culling of the "hoarder" cow. At 
the present high prices for feed and labor, a dairy herd 
must produce more than 0.000 lbs. of milk and 200 lbs. 
of butterfat per cow annually in order to yield a profit 
to the owner. 
Greatness of production as provided by weighing and 
testing the milk is not the complete record of the great¬ 
ness of the cow, for the question still remains as to the 
cost of production. And. after all this is the vital 
same amounts of milk and butterfat in a given time, one 
of them does so at a much less cost of fe» d At the 
present time the difference in the profits of the herds 
in this association is not so largely governed by the cost 
of feed its in the yield, but as conditions change, laud 
becomes higher in price, feeds and labor scarcer and 
more expensive, this difference will widen. 
LEROY hoffeb. Supervisor. 
