Iht RURAL NEW-YORKER 
673 
Interviews With Four Dairy Groups 
(Continued from Page 658) 
service in prices to producers to justify their expense 
or their existence. At the same time they afford the 
means of steadying the marketing conditions and for 
a reorganization of the groups and unorganized 
farmers to stabilize the business when enough of the 
co-operative spirit develops between them to enable 
them work together. 
“The multiple price plan is .impractical and 
impossible of efficient execution without a control of 
substantially all the milk. Its inevitable result is to 
widen the area of shipments, and ultimately to in¬ 
crease the surplus. It encourages the shipment of 
milk that would not and could not be shipped in com¬ 
petition with flat prices or with the actual net prices 
farmers receive. The only time Class 1 price is sub¬ 
stantially above Classes 2 and 3 is when there is in¬ 
sufficient liquid milk to supply the Class 1 market. 
For a year and a half in effect our market milk has 
been sold on a flat price which was actually or 
nearly the value of that milk in the highest priced 
surplus market, which could absorb all the milk. We 
must recognize the different uses for milk and take 
into consideration the differences in cost of produc¬ 
tion. Let the farmer sell the low-er grade at the 
lower price; he will make just as much profit 
on it, but do not induce all to produce high 
grade milk and increase the surplus in it, and reduce 
the price of it. 
“Our plants are operated as local units; each as¬ 
sociation owns its own plant and operates it. In 
February, 15 plants returned from $2 to $2.25 per 
100 lbs. for 3 per cent milk, with an average above 
$2.10. We admit some of these plants are very eco¬ 
nomically operated. All are probably efficient be¬ 
yond the average, but not enough so to make up for 
any drastic cutting of prices and yet be able to re¬ 
turn the patrons 25 to 30 cents above the pool cash 
returns to producers. 
“The way out is an understanding between the 
groups to do away with the price war, and to reach a 
general understanding for grades and standards and 
stabilizing the market so that milk may be orderly 
marketed without the ruinous scramble for group 
preference that we are now experiencing. Failing in 
this, a council of level-headed dairymen without 
group prejudice or bias to sit in with representatives 
of the groups to find a way out of the present diffi¬ 
culty, is the best suggestion. The industry needs it 
and we are ready for it. We will help.” 
Sheffield Farms Producers 
Mr. C. Fred Boshart, president Sheffield Farms 
Company Producers, gave us the interview below: 
Q. “Who now fixes the price of milk?” 
A. “The person or group selling the cheapest 
makes the general price around that level. The 
representatives of producers are unable to make sat¬ 
isfactory prices under present conditions. A con¬ 
ference of three groups was held at the Hotel Utica 
in the city of Utica last Summer at which represen¬ 
tatives of three groups were present. We made a 
request for an agreement to raise the price one cent 
a quart but the League representatives would not 
consent to it. One of the League directors said he 
would from choice lower the price. The only sug¬ 
gestion made at that time was if we wanted the 
price raised, join the League. The price of milk 
could have been advanced at that time one cent a 
quart by mutual consent and it would have re¬ 
sulted in an increased or advanced price through¬ 
out the Fall and Winter months.” 
Q. "If the price of milk goes down to the butter 
and cheese level, what service do organizations 
render producers to justify their existence?” 
A. “None whatever. The expense of running 
them is simply an extra burden to the producer. 
From May 1899 to May 1921, a period when we had 
no pooling organization, the price of milk was never 
as low as the cheese level. The pool price since then 
has been less than the net return from the best 
cheese factories by large amounts. From justice to 
the dairy farmer who complies with the sanitary re¬ 
quirements exacted by the New York City Board of 
Health, fluid milk for city consumption should com¬ 
mand from 50 to 75 cents per 100 lbs. of milk above 
net cheese factory prices, instead of from 15 to 20 
cents below- net cheese dividends, with the possible 
exception of a short period during the flush season. 
Concentrated action by the different groups could 
accomplish this during the usual cheese factory sea¬ 
son of seven months.” 
Q. “Have you considered the multiple price plan?” 
A. “It has been discussed, but we do not want it. 
It gives buyers opportunity to manipulate figures. 
It serves no good purpose to the producer except to 
lead him to expect a better price then he gets. 
Under it producers do not know what their milk 
brings until more than six weeks after they begin 
to deliver the milk. The farmer is generally better 
satisfied to know the price in advance.” 
Q. "Did the November and December reductions 
serve any purpose to producers?” 
A. “None whatever. The consumer received a re¬ 
duction of a cent a quart and producer made this 
milk at loss. The reduction of course came out of 
the dairy farmer who was in need of as large a 
dividend as it was possible to obtain.” 
Q. “Does the Sheffield Farms Association have any 
surplus?” 
A. “Certainly; it amounts to as high as 30 per¬ 
cent of their receipts, and this is the sole reason 
why the Sheffield producers do not always sell their 
milk at the League Class 1 price. This surplus is 
not dumped on a glutted New York market, but 
handled economically in their country plants and 
paid for at our published fluid milk price.” 
Q. “What is your position in reference to the ex¬ 
clusive pool privileges with dealers?” 
A. “This is one of the features that are responsible 
for the present demoralized market conditions. It 
must be eliminated. No group or individual pro¬ 
ducer outside of the pool could consent to it any 
length of time, without disaster.” 
Q. “What plan have you to suggest for the im¬ 
provement of present conditions and promising a 
better price for milk?” 
A. “When all sales of fluid milk for city consump¬ 
tion can be made without pi-eferment to any dealer 
or group. I do not think the time is yet right for 
readjustment, but it is fast approaching. When the 
time does come a conference of independent pro¬ 
ducers should be called to consider the whole matter 
of co-operation for the best interest of the milk in¬ 
dustry, and there should be worked out a simple 
economic plan to which all dairymen could subscribe. 
If the right men are secured to keep down extrava- 
gent management and they are available, dollars 
could be added to the dairymen’s dividend checks 
and the problem be solved. It must come.” 
Sheffield Farms Profits 
HE financial report of Sheffield Farms Company 
which came out last week gives the following 
figures: 
Net sales .$41,140,560 
Operating expenses, taxes, etc. . 39,386,321 
Depreciation . 1,019,564 
Net income .$ 734,675 
Other income . 266,179 
Total income .:.$ 1,000,854 
Dividend . 373,300 
Surplus ...;$ 627,554 
The rate of divident paid was 7 per cent on $1,- 
500,000 preferred stock and 6y 2 per cent on $4,060,- 
000 common stock for the year with $627,554 car¬ 
ried to surplus. 
Unity for Dairymen 
EPORTS from the dairymen’s meeting at Mor- 
risville, Madison County, on March 29, called 
for the purpose of free discussion between poolers 
and non-poolers, indicate that the meeting did not 
result in any definite progress towards unity. The 
results of such purposes are not always apparent, 
and the meeting may have results not apparent on 
the surface. All discussions must tend to influence 
individual judgment and public sentiment. What 
the rank and file of people need is accurate and full 
information. Given this, they will find means of ex¬ 
pression and solve their own problems. Open dis¬ 
cussion and debate must precede deliberation on 
public questions. 
There is no profit now, however, that we can see 
in debating over the faults or merits of plans that 
have not brought expected results. It were far 
better to devote time and energy to the development 
of a system that will include all, and serve all. 
There are able men enough in the dairy industry of 
New York to do it. Why not put them on the job 
and keep them there until they work out a scheme 
to unify our dairy industry? 
Rural School Improvement in Mont¬ 
gomery County 
ONTGOMERY County farmers have taken i 
very active part in the campaign for the dis¬ 
trict school. They met recently at Fonda, and or¬ 
ganized a county branch of the New- York State 
Rural School Improvement Society. Nearly 100 
farmers were present, with every township in the 
county represented. The following permanent of¬ 
ficers were elected: President, C. S. Van Horne; first 
vice president, John I. McClumpha; second vice 
president, A. Jay Devendorf; secretary, Dewey Die- 
fendorf; treasurer, George Walrath. 
Delegates from each township assembled in their 
respective groups and elected the following execu¬ 
tive committee: Philip Fahey, Amsterdam; Edward 
Rothmyer, Florida; ,T. E. Hinkel, Mohawk; J. Mc¬ 
Intyre, Palatine; G. M. Woodman, Glen; Edward C. 
Schrell, Minden; Clark Darrow, Root; C. Van Al- 
stine, Canajoharie; Daniel Argersinger, Charleston, 
and Frank D. Smith, St. Jolinsville. 
The object of the society was cleai-ly stated. The 
basis of it is the improvement of local schools and 
the discussion of local problems on the principle of 
home rule. It was the sense of the meeting that 
needed improvement could best be brought about 
by local organized effort to deal with local problems 
and co-ordinated county and State effort of country 
people to influence the enactment of amendments to 
our rural education laws which are not antagonistic 
to country people. An approximate equalization of 
the tax rate for school purposes, a square deal in 
the apportionment of State aid 'to country districts 
and adequate facilities for the preparation of teach¬ 
ers for country schools are principles on which farm¬ 
ers are agreed. But country people will not accept 
these benefits when they are applied merely as a 
sugar coating to a mighty bitter pill which would 
compel consolidation of all country school districts 
into larger units, arbitrarily formed, known as com¬ 
munity districts and which would abolish our com¬ 
mon school districts as units of administration by 
establishing a centralized or consolidated system of 
administration. 
The organization will be carried down and into 
every school district in the county. Strong and 
earnest men are back of this movement, and it will 
result in great good. Now there must be a similar 
organization in every New York county. It is dif¬ 
ferent from anything ever before attempted in this 
State. It will be kept out of the hands of politicians 
and job hunters, and every man and woman in the 
rural districts may feel assured that in joining it 
they are serving their district. Write the State sec¬ 
retary, D. Boyd Devendorf, Amsterdam, N. Y., for 
full particulars. 
Some School Taxation Figures 
HAT New York City pays a State school tax 
assessment of about $5,000,000, and receives 
through the State treasury substantially $18,000,0<*> 
annually as its share of the State school fund .is 
was stated at the recent Albany hearing is said by 
the friends of the rural school bill to be riduculous. 
The most astonishing thing about it to us is that 
these critics are not familiar with the facts, or that 
thej did not take the pains to inform themselves 
before rushing into local print. For their informa¬ 
tion we refer them to the New York City budget 
for 1923, pages 105 and 304, and to the report of 
the 'State Tax Commission, 1922, page 401. 
The State report will also show that the State 
school fund for 1921, in round numbers, was over 
$33,406,900. The cities and villages got $30,000,000 
of this, and the country schools, small villages and 
hamlets got only $3,205,000. While definite farm 
statistics are not available, the figures clearly in¬ 
dicate that cities and villages get back from the 
State a larger percentage of their valuation for 
school funds than the country districts. 
It is undisputed that the farmer pays 50 per cent 
higher tax on his income than other industries, and 
that the farm pays a higher State tax than any other 
general class of property. The farmer pays his full 
share and more of any tax, whether Federal, or 
State, school or local. 
It is the constitutional duty of the State to pro¬ 
vide free schools for the education of children. It 
has not been fair to country schools. It contributes 
to the support of city and village schools by direct 
quotas to the cities. It should increase its quotas 
to the rural schools and continue to pay it direct to 
the individual school in equitable proportions. 
