Ihe RURAL. NEW-YORKER 
839 
The Milk Marketing Problem 
T HE first problem of the unity dairy committee 
is to fix a basic standard for the pricing of 
milk. This problem reaches right into the vitals of 
the milk industry. The “all-milk” plan had a long 
trial. It failed utterly. The “multiple price” plan 
has failed under pi-esent conditions. They cannot 
exist together. They provoke price-cutting. With 
both in use at the same time, a standard price is 
impossible because there is no fixed base. We there¬ 
fore have a choice of two economic propositions: 
1. Adopt the 3 per cent base with differentials, 
and sell distributors their liquid requirements only, 
caring for the surplus ourselves. 
2. Adopt the 3 per cent base with differentials and 
sell on the “multiple price” plan, and require deal¬ 
ers to take all milk produced at class prices. 
The farmer does not seem to understand the ef¬ 
fect of these propositions on him, and he is there¬ 
fore more or less indifferent as to which is adopted. 
The dealer, however, has thought out the effect 
upon himself and he is working hard for the gen¬ 
eral adoption of the plan that will best serve his 
interests. We cannot blame him for trying to shape 
policies to his own comfort and profit; but before 
consenting to a new proposition we should at least 
consider all the effects on our dairymen. This is 
our reason for analyzing the problems. 
The “multiple price” plan will save the farmer 
the trouble of manufacturing surplus milk. It will 
also save him the necessity of an investment in 
plants and equipments. Are these savings worth 
the cost? 
This same “multiple price” plan will cost the 
farmer the following disadvantages: 
1. It separates him entirely from his own market. 
2. He will be unable to maintain city or country 
plants without a loss. 
3. Without these equipments he will be back where 
he was before 1916, when he had few plants and 
scarcely a milk can of his own. Without equipments 
he must accept the price offered to him or dump 
the milk in the gutter. He will have no power to 
keep Canadian and other outside milk out of his 
market. 
4. The dealer will store manufactured products in 
the flush season of low prices, and bring them out 
at a profit in seasons of scarce production to de¬ 
press fresh milk pi-ices when they should advance. 
The dealer profits doubly by the transaction. The 
producer loses both ways. 
5. The farmer would be making all milk under 
city regulation at an extra cost of from 50 cents 
to $1 per 100 lbs., and selling a large part of it as 
surplus at by-product prices, and without any means 
of his own to increase consumption and reduce sur¬ 
plus. 
G. The farmer would have to rely on the dealer 
to report accurately the volume of milk used in the 
different classes when the dealer had the incentive 
to manipulate the returns to his own profit, and to 
the disadvantage of dealers who made accurate re¬ 
ports. The farmer can make no check-up of re¬ 
turns to overcome this practice. 
7. The farmer assumes the loss on surplus that 
is incidental to the dealer’s business. Heretofore, if 
the day’s sales drop, the dealer has a surplus for 
the day, which may be a loss. He provides for such 
contingencies in his price to the consumer; but 
under the multiple plan the consumer will pay the 
same and the farmer will bear the loss on the left¬ 
over milk. 
S. The dealers will dominate the metropolitan 
milk market, and whoever dominates that market 
completely makes the price of milk in the New 
York territory. 
9. The farmer waits nearly two months for his 
money and never knows what the price is to be un¬ 
til he gets the returns. He has no means of know¬ 
ing whether or not he has been fairly treated in 
the classifications. 
Contrast the above situation with the picture of 
the farmer caring for his own surplus through his 
organization and selling the dealer the volume of 
liquid milk needed for city consumption and no 
more. Under this policy the farmer will control his 
own wholesale market as he should. 
He will know the price before he delivers the milk, 
and get prompt returns. 
He can influence a prudent volume of production. 
He can adopt means to increase consumption. 
He can save cost of regulated production on milk 
diverted to manufacturing plants. 
He can operate plants to capacity and economize 
in manufacture of sui’plus. 
lie controls the whole liquid milk supply for the 
metropolitan market, and largely in his own plants. 
Instead of the dealer dominating the market and 
controlling the implements of distribution and bring¬ 
ing in outside milk, and dictating the price, the 
farmer occupies these points of advantage, and he 
is the strong factor in the negotiations for price. 
He will contract for the city requirements, and 
that means no outside milk can come into the mar¬ 
ket. 
He will make a fair price and reasonable terms 
with the dealers because he wants their services, 
and he has no choice in his own best interest, but to 
make a price that will increase consumption and re¬ 
duce surplus. 
He will have no monopoly. He will want none; 
but he can hold a paying market against all compe¬ 
tition. 
He will not be able to increase prices at will. He 
will not always get as high a price as he deserves 
for the work and cost of production, but he will 
have the opportunity to regulate conditions for him¬ 
self. He will add an element of satisfaction and 
pride to his business that will be an asset to him¬ 
self and to his children. 
The distributor sacrifices no right in contracting 
for his requirements of liquid milk. lie may oper¬ 
ate his country plants just as he does now. He 
may even contract with the farmers’ organization 
to manufacture surplus milk at his plant at a fixed 
price and deliver the by-product to the association 
He would have his profit from the pasteurization 
of raw milk purchases, and his spread between the 
price paid the producer and price charged the con¬ 
sumer. Any advantages that he would forego, are 
privileges that of right belong to the producer, and 
that have been taken from him and about to be 
taken from him by astute bargaining and clever 
manipulation. 
It all simmers down to the question as to whether 
dairymen are willing to take a little trouble to 
control their own business and make their own 
price for their own product, or whether they prefer 
to save a little trouble and leave the control and 
price-making to the distributors. The multiple 
price plan puts the dealers as fully in control as 
they were under the old system when they esti¬ 
mated prices on the same basis exactly. As a whole 
the dealers have assumed a better attitude to the 
producer than formerly. Many of them are friend¬ 
ly, and frankly admit that prices are too low, but 
naturally all favor a plan favorable to their own 
end of the industry. Their spokesmen are alert and 
eager to get for them the full advantage of position 
and power. We concede them the privilege of their 
efforts and admire them for it. In some respects 
the interests of producer and distributor are com¬ 
mon. In other respects they are conflicting. This 
is a case in point. It simmers right down to a mat¬ 
ter of control. The farmer has the natural strength 
of position. If he loses it, he will simply be out¬ 
generaled. If positions were reversed, the dealers 
would not even discuss an alternative. They would 
hold their advantage. It is our inheritance and it 
would be a crime against ourselves and future gen¬ 
erations to surrender it. 
While the pool members were the first to adopt 
the multiple price plan they would be the biggest 
sufferers under it when all the groups are on one 
price level. They will find it difficult to maintain 
their .manufacturing plants and pay interest on them 
in competition with the dealers for the by-product 
trade with the share of surplus that would fall to 
them. Under the multiple plan they would be 
obliged to do this or abandon the manufacturing 
business, which might involve some capital loss. 
With full control of the surplus their plants would 
be busy most of the time and a valuable asset all 
of the time. The members of the pool made a 
heroic sacrifice in building these plants and equip¬ 
ments, and this is the time to consider means to 
conserve the investments. Though a dual system 
to handle surplus is not economic, if the multiple 
system is finally adopted, it will be better to keep 
these plants in operation even at some loss. We 
may need them again, but the prudent thing is to 
adopt the plan that will keep them in service on a 
paying basis. 
The Rural School Meetings 
S CHOOL meeting day was well celebrated by 
rural patrons all over New York. Reports are 
not complete, and we cannot give full figures yet, 
but it is evident already that the interest in school 
matters was greater this year than ever before. 
Here is one sample report from Central New York: 
SCHOOI, MEETING A SOCIAI. EVENT 
“The school meeting of District No. 15, Ulysses, held 
Tuesday evening, proved an event of more interest than 
the ordinary annual election of officers. Inasmuch as 
refreshments were served, a large proportion of the resi¬ 
dents of the district, men, women and children, were 
present. 
“Plano were made for beautifying the school grounds, 
and for more social activities for the community, which 
includes social meetings at the schoolhouse and a big 
community flower show some time in the Fall.” 
This clipping is from our local paper, the Trumans- 
burg Free Press and Sentinel. This school might well 
serve as an example to all of us who have the welfare 
of the rural school at heart. The whole district co¬ 
operates in maintaining an extremely attractive and 
well-equipped schoolhouse. and is solidly behind every 
plan for improvement. Having these inducements to 
offer, they are able to obtain good teachers, and a good 
teacher is the one and only factor really necessary to 
have a good school. e. f. t. 
Tompkins Co., N. Y. 
We hope to have the story of this school district a 
little later, showing how this community spirit and 
desire for improvement was developed. And here 
is another typical report: 
It is with great pleasure that I report for District 
No. 9, Pavilion, the most interested, interesting and 
dignified school meeting held in this district for some 
years. Whereas, for a number of years past, a handful 
of the people have come together because they felt they 
must, this year the attendance was generally represen¬ 
tative of the district, and the people seemed to come 
because they wanted to. We had no refreshments, but it 
really didn’t seem to detract at all from the spirit of 
the occasion, for everybody “warmed up” and were all 
genial and happy. 
Not a voice was raised in protest to the formation ff 
a branch of the Rural School Improvement Society, 
and at the close of the regular business we organized, 
with a membership of 22. Already a new spirit of in¬ 
terest and co-operation in the district and neighborhood 
is manifested. We are literally for the “little red school- 
house,” for ours has just had it new coat of this typical 
color, and is a very attractive appearing little building. 
We now wait anxiously to hear through The R. N.-Y. 
how large a proportion of districts have organized. 
Genesee Co., N. Y. MBS. M. c. E. 
Or, take the following brief statement: 
Our school meeting was successfully held, and a good 
number turned out. The oldest person present was 83 
years old, and cast her vote with the rest. We planned 
to give a dinner soon and organize a branch of the 
Rural School Improvement Society. d. s. 
Tompkins Co., N. Y. 
All over the State the same spirit is being mani¬ 
fested. We are confident that never before in the 
history of New York were the rural school meetings 
so largely attended and so earnestly conducted. It 
is safe to say that more thoroughly equipped men 
and women were elected school officers this year 
than ever before. We do believe that this intensified 
local interest in the school is the most hopeful move¬ 
ment for improved rural schools that we have ever 
had in the State. It is of the people and by them. 
It will spread until a great majority of the rural 
school districts are interested. This new army must 
be reckoned with. It cannot be laughed or sneered 
away. We believe it will decide the fate of any 
rural school bill, and that it will be sensible and 
fair. 
The New Co-operative Law 
A S was anticipated, Governor Smith has signed 
the Sapiro co-operative law, and farm associa¬ 
tions may now be organized under it. As already 
stated, one of the principal objections to the bill is 
that in adopting it the opportunity was lost to per¬ 
fect the co-operative law which should have provis¬ 
ions safeguarding the rights and interests of the 
membership. The law was clearly written from the 
standpoint of the association as a corporate entity, 
and its management. It contains every provision 
that experience has revealed for their convenience 
and benefit. Some of these provisions may be help¬ 
ful, but the law as a whole certainly has possibil¬ 
ities of danger to farmers. That hazard could be 
avoided by provisions to furnish members full in¬ 
formation, and to give them power, through a ma¬ 
jority vote, to change the management and policies 
at will. A measure promoted without these safe¬ 
guards is not co-operation. 
The fact that most of the objectionable provisions 
of the law are permissive and not mandatory serves 
only to increase the mistrust of it. This feature of 
the law is an alibi for the purpose of those who 
made it. A co-operative system may be developed 
under it with all powers and authority reserved to 
the membership, but farmers themselves seldom 
apply the law to their own needs. The fault of it is 
that an organized system may be built up under this 
law of the most absolute despotic type in the hands 
of a small group, with power and legal sanction to 
exploit the membership, and once into it farmers 
will have no escape for five years. If there were no 
purpose to use the law to this end, what reasonable 
excuse can be found for creating it? As it stands 
it is a law for astute lawyers, ambitious promoters 
and job hunters. If it was not designed for these 
professions, someone must have worked a practical 
joke on the proponents of the law. 
