The  RURAL  NEW-YORKER 
723 
Figures  That  Show  the  Variation  of 
Milk  Prices 
A  STUDY  of  the  four-year  average  milk  record  in 
Table  No.  1  below  should  be  profitable  use  of 
time  to  dairymen.  The  figures  are  all  averages  for 
each  year.  The  record  for  1916  selves  as  a  basis 
because  we  had  not  yet  begun  to  feel  the  effects  of 
the  European  war,  and  it  was  a  full  year  before  the 
League  activities,  or  from  October  1,  1915,  to  Oc¬ 
tober  1,  1916.  The  prices,  however,  are  the  same  as 
they  would  have  been  for  the  full  1916  calendar  year 
without  organization.  The  years  191S  to  1920,  in¬ 
clusive.  are  not  included,  because  these  were  years  of 
great  disturbance  and  of  governmental  interference, 
and  the  record  would  serve  no  useful  purpose  for 
peace  time  study.  It  might  cause  confusion.  The  but¬ 
ter  and  cheese  value  of  milk  in  the  table,  on  line  five 
of  the  table,  is  estimated  on  the  formula  used  by  the 
dealers  and  the  League  in  1919  to  fix  prices.  It 
serves  well  for  purposes  of  comparison  at  least. 
Table  No.  1 
Year 
Milk— 
Borden’s  . 
1916 
$1,384 
1917 
1921 
1922 
League  . . 
Co-op.  unit,  high.. 
Ind.  group,  high... 
1.744 
$2,428 
$2.08 
$1,709 
2.34 
2.30 
B.  and  C.  value. . . 
1 .542 
2.235 
2.054 
2.096 
Butter,  cents  per  lb.. 
.3409 
.4276 
.4325 
.4059 
Cheese,  cents  per  lb.  . 
.1854 
.2442 
.2154 
.22 
Middlings,  per  ton  .  .  . 
35.00 
48.00 
30.50 
30.50 
If  there  yet  be  any  dairyman  with  a  doubt  of  the 
possibilities  of  organization,  a  study  of  the  table 
should  be  convincing  to  him.  Borden’s  made  the 
price  for  1916.  That  company  had  full  say.  The 
average  price  for  the  12  months  was  $1.38  for  3  per 
cent  milk  beyond  the  100-mile  zone.  It  paid  16  cents 
per  cwt.  less  than  the  milk  was  worth  on  the  butter 
and  cheese  basis.  A  ton  of  milk  sold  to  Borden’s 
that  year  brought  about  $8  less  than  the  producers 
paid  for  a  ton  of  middlings  to  feed  the  cows. 
The  fight  of  October,  1916,  raised  the  price  45 
cents  per  100  lbs.  for  October,  November  and  De¬ 
cember  of  1916,  and  50  to  55  cents  for  the  remainder 
of  the  year.  The  increases  do  not  show  in  the  1916 
figures  in  the  table.  In  1917  the  average  price,  in¬ 
stead  of  being  16  cents  below  the  butter  and  cheese 
value,  was  18  cents  above,  or  a  gain  of  33  cents  per 
1  <40  lbs.  That  year  a  ton  of  milk  brought  just  about 
enough  to  pay  for  a  ton  of  middlings. 
During  1921,  when  organization  began  to  show 
signs  of  weakness,  the  price  paid  dairymen  again 
corresponded  closely  to  the  butter  and  cheese  value. 
During  1921  and  1922  a  ton  of  milk  was  worth  a  lit¬ 
tle  more  than  a  ton  of  middlings,  at  wholesale,  but 
the  producer  in  all  cases  paid  more. 
The  record  shows  that  the  co-operative  unit  or 
farm-owned  plant,  when  efficiently  handled,  always 
gives  a  good  account  of  itself. 
The  years  1921  and  1922  have  not  been  as  favor¬ 
able  as  we  could  wish,  but  the  two  years  average 
up  to  the  Borden  level  of  1916  on  the  butter  and 
cheese  formula,  and  the  high  return  of  $2.34  for  the 
co-operative  unit  is  well  ahead  of  the  best  previous 
record.  The  League  prices  in  the  table,  moreover, 
are  the  net  cash  price  returned  to  patrons,  after 
deducting  an  average  of  16  cents  per  100  lbs.  for 
capital  fund. 
Tarle  No.  2 
-M  ilk- 
League 
Co-op.  unit, 
Ind.  group. 
B.  and  C. 
Rutter,  rents 
Cheese,  cents 
high. . 
High.  . . 
value. . . 
per  lh. 
per  11).. 
Milk— 
Borden's  . 
League  . 
Co-op.  unit.  high.. 
Ind.  group,  high.. 
B.  and  C.  value .  . 
Butter,  cents  per  lh. 
Cheese,  cents  per  lh. 
Milk— 
Borden's  . 
League  . 
Co-op.  unit.  high.. 
Ind.  group,  high.. 
B.  and  C.  value... 
Butter,  cents  per  lh. 
Cheese,  cents  per  lh. 
Toio 
.$1.60 
1917 
-.Tanuary- 
1021 
1922 
1923 
$2.10 
$3.18 
$1.91 
$2.11 
2.34 
.3.15 
3.15 
i.r>7 
2.12 
2.054 
1.848 
2.61 
. .  .3264 
.4009 
.5240 
.3736 
.5127 
. .  .17375 
.235 
.2475 
February 
1921 
.2125 
.2070 
1916 
$1.55 
1917 
1922 
1923 
$2.05 
$2.58 
$1.77 
$2.21 
2.89 
2.505 
.  .  1.61 
2.32 
2.34 
1.794 
2.59 
.  .3385 
.4357 
.4718 
.3707 
.4988 
. .  .17375 
.2525 
.245 
.2025 
.2705 
1916 
1917 
1921 
1922 
1923 
$2.00 
$2.10 
$1.40 
$2.03 
2.60 
2.505 
.  1.70 
2.30 
2.41 
1.851 
2.35 
. .  .3697 
.4163 
.4801 
.3829 
.4931 
. .  .17375 
.26 
.2500 
.2050 
.2494' 
In  Table  No.  2  we  have  attempted  to  lay  a  founda¬ 
tion  to  continue  these  price  and  condition  studies 
from  month  to  month.  To  make  the  year’s  record 
complete,  we  include  the  first  three  months  of  1923. 
The  League  prices  in  every  case  are  the  net  cash 
returned  to  producers.  During  these  three  months 
10  cents  per  100  lbs.  has  been  deducted  each  month 
for  capital  fund  for  which  “certificates  of  indebted¬ 
ness’’  are  to  be  issued. 
Some  of  the  January  prices  this  year  were  a  little 
abnormal,  but  at  that  none  above  what  might  be  nor¬ 
mally  expected  under  a  united  organization.  The 
highest  was  only  54  cents  above  butter  and  cheese 
values,  and  the  price  never  should  be  less,  to  cover 
the  extra  expense  of  production. 
During  February  only  one  co-operative  unit  re¬ 
ported  returns  of  more  than  the  butter  and  cheese 
value,  but  two  groups  paid  above  the .  by-product 
value. 
Five  co-operative  units  that  handle  and  sell  their 
own  milk  report  returns  above  the  butter  and  cheese 
price  for  March.  Their  average  increase  over  March 
last  year  was  86  cents  per  100  lbs.  The  net  cash 
increase  by  the  League  over  March  last  year  was  63 
cents,  and  Sheffield  Farms,  60  cents. 
Another  factor  to  consider  is  the  ratio  of  the  price 
at  the  farm  to  the  cost  to  the  consumer.  In  1916 
the  average  pi’ice  to  the  farm  was  2.96  cents  a  quart 
on  the  Borden’s  price.  The  cost  of  a  quart  bottle  of 
milk  in  the  city  was  9  cents,  or  a  spread  of  6  cents. 
The  average  for  1922  was  3.6  cents  per  quart  to  the 
farm.  The  city  price  was  15  to  16  cents,  or  a  spread 
of  11  to  12  cents.  In  1916  our  complaint  was  that 
this  spread  was  too  wide.  In  the  confusion  of  the 
war  we  forgot  it.  Some  went  so  far  as  to  approve 
it  and  to  ridicule  purposes  to  correct  it.  With  it  all 
the  new  ratios  have  become  fixed.  These  ratios  fix 
the  volume  of  surplus,  and  automatically  reduce  the 
price  to  the  producer.  The  cost  of  distribution  is  a 
factor  in  the  milk  pi'oblem  that  must  be  considered 
in  the  producers’  plans  and  policies. 
Organization  has  not  brought  the  benefits  expected 
and  that  we  all  promised  ourselves.  It  has  not 
brought  down  the  cost  of  distribution,  but  as  we  study 
•  the  records  we  find  encouragement  in  the  analysis. 
The  year,  1917  shows  the  possibilities  of  a  united 
organization.  We  might  just  as  well  admit  to  our¬ 
selves  that  dairymen  split  into  five  or  six  groups  are 
r.ot  as  efficient  as  one  strong  undivided  unit.  The 
record  of  1922  tends  to  repeat  the  pre-war  condition. 
We  have  now  many  units  and  several  groups  compet¬ 
ing  with  each  other  to  sell  milk  to  one  buyer.  Some 
of  the  units  and  groups  return  less  than  others ;  and 
the  buyer  always  strives  to  reduce  the  price  to  the 
level  of  the  lower  sales.  The  record  of  a  high  re¬ 
turn  by  a  co-operative  unit  tends  to  increase  the 
general  price  in  that  environment.  But  the  logic  of 
the  situation  is  inevitable.  The  dairy  interests  of 
this  section  demand  one  organization  for  the  sale 
of  milk  and  foi  ^e  development  of  an  increased  out¬ 
let  for  it.  The  record  in  these  tables  is  eloquent  in 
argument  for  one  united  organization.  It  shows  no 
advantage  held  by  independent  units  or  by  groups 
that  cannot  be  improved  for  all. 
The  May  Price  for  Milk 
THE  price  for  May  milk  was  discussed  as  usual 
last  week  between  Committee  No.  1  of  the  New 
York  Milk  Conference  Board  and  a  committee  repre¬ 
senting  the  Dairymen’s  League  Co-operative  Asso¬ 
ciation.  The  subject  was  also  discussed  by  Commit¬ 
tee  No.  2  of  the  Conference  Boai'd  and  a  committee 
representing  the  Non-poolers’  Association.  Still  an¬ 
other  conference  was  held  between  the  members  of 
the  Confei’ence  Board  and  representatives  of  the 
Eastern  States  Milk  Producers,  Inc.  The  negotiating 
committee  of  the  Sheffield  Farms  Association  also 
met  to  negotiate  milk  prices  for  may  with  the  Shef¬ 
field  company  officials. 
The  League  pool  price  was  announced  as  $2.33  per 
100  lbs.  for  Class  I  milk  and  $2.05  for  Class  2.  The 
other  classes  depend,  as  usual,  on  butter  and  cheese 
quotations. 
Sheffield  Farms  Association  agreed  with  the  com¬ 
pany  on  a  flat  price  of  $2.13  per  100  lbs. 
The  non-pool  report  announced  substantially  all 
it*s  milk  sold  on  the  flat  basis,  and  the  May  price 
will  be  $2.11.  It.  however,  announces  a  Class  1  price 
of  $2.30,  and  Class  2,  $2.05. 
The  Eastern  States  Association  is  composed  of  16 
farm-owned  independent  plants,  each  of  which  sells 
its  own  milk  and  makes  its  own  price.  Some  of 
these  plants  report  the  highest  returns  to  producers 
for  recent  months. 
There  are  also  several  isolated  units  selling  inde¬ 
pendently  to  dealers.  They  are  necessarily  obliged 
to  be  governed  by  the  prices  fixed  as  above,  and  the 
tendency  is  to  go  a  little,  if  anything,  under  the 
general  price  level.  The  dealer  who  buys  below  the 
regular  price  is  in  a  position  to  cut  prices  in  the 
city,  and  sometimes  does  so.  As  a  result,  there  is  no 
stability  to  the  market,  and  dealers  are  contending 
for  the  lower  prices,  each  one  trying  to  gain  an  ad¬ 
vantage  by  buying  cheaper  than  the  others. 
While  the  present  conditions  favor  the  dealers 
and  the  manufacturers  in  the  matter  of  a  low  price 
to  producers,  the  uncertain  and  chaotic  conditions 
in  both  city  and  country  are  unsatisfactory  to  many 
dealers,  and  some  of  them  at  least  would  feel  more 
comfortable  with  a  stable  condition  even  at  higher 
price,  which  general  business  conditions  and  cost  of 
production  in  a  backward  season  abundantly  jus¬ 
tify. 
Which  Are  the  Corn  Countries? 
WE  are  often  asked  what  proportion  of  the 
world’s  crop  of  Indian  corn  is  grown  in 
America?  The  following  table,  issued  by  the  De¬ 
partment  of  Agriculture,  gives  the  best  statement 
we  have  seen  : 
-Production- 
Countries 
United  States  . ' . 
Argentina  . 
1921  and 
1920-21 
1 ,000  bn. 
3,068,569 
230,420 
1922  and 
1921  -22 
1,000  bu. 
2.890,712 
176.171 
Rumania  . 
106,333 
92,325 
94,207 
70,863 
57.400 
Jugoslavia  . 
73,788 
Hungary  . 
Spain  . 
31.703 
24.897 
32,493 
26.832 
Bulgaria  . 
24,172 
19,802 
Other  countries  reporting  for 
both  periods  . 
69.253 
67,537 
Total . 
3.721,460 
3.436,017 
What  Happened  in  Sugar? 
Why  did  sugar  go  up?  Not  so  long  ago  it  was  sell¬ 
ing  from  five  to  six  cents  per  pound  at  retail,  and  now 
it  is  10  to  12  cents ;  just  about  double.  The  rise  hits 
the  public  purse  in  a  tender  spot. 
Nation  of  Sugar  Users. — This  country  uses  five 
to  six  million  tons  a  year  in  one  way  or  another;  about 
400  lbs.  per  family  of  four,  or  about  2  lbs.  per  week 
for  every  person.  It  is  not  all  bought  by  the  bagful ; 
some  is  consumed  in  fancy  drinks,  candy  and  preserves. 
The  rise  in  the  price  of  sugar  booms  the  cost  of  every¬ 
thing  in  which  sugar  is  used.  It  slows  down  the  sale 
of  fruit  and  other  products  used  with  sugar,  and  thus 
catches  the  farmers’  purse  both  going  and  coming.  The 
United  States  uses  more  sugar  than  any  other  nation  ; 
three  times  as  much  as  England  and  four  times  as 
much  as  Germany.  Probably  we  have  been  using  more 
than  is  good  for  us.  Anyhow,  it  looks  as  if  the  big 
gain  in  the  demand  for  sugar  in  this  country  is  at 
the  bottom  of  the  jump  in  price.  Some  people  are  in¬ 
clined  to  blame  the  tariff.  Government  exxierts  say  no, 
and  it  seems  not  likely  that  the  rate  of  duty  (D/ic  on 
raw  sugar)  is  high  enough  to  account  for  much  of  the 
rise  in  price,  especially  in  view  of  the  fact  that  Cuba, 
which  supplies  most  of  our  sugar,  gets  a  particularly 
low  rate  of  tariff.  The  advance  in  sugar  prices  shows 
in  all  the  principal  markets  of  the  sugar-eating  world. 
Production  Larger. — The  trouble  is  not  especially 
in  lack  of’  production.  The  world’s  crop  for  1923  is 
greater  by  223.000  tons  than  last  year,  and  about 
2,000,000  tons  greater  than  the  average  of  the  five  years 
before  the  war,  when  sugar  usually  was  selling  at  half 
the  present  price.  But  the  United  States  alone  is  using 
enough  more  sugar  to  take  up  nearly  all  the  larger  pro¬ 
duction  of  recent  j'ears.  Before  the  war  we  used 
3,800,000  tons  per  year ;  now  we  consume  over  5,500,500 
tons,  llow  about  the  rest  of  the  world?  The  other 
consuming  countries  have  changed  somewhat,  but  as 
a  group  they  use  about  the  same  quantity  as  they  did 
10  years  ago.  Europe  did  not  cut  down  her  ration  of 
sugar  anywhere  nearly  as  much  as  with  most  other 
foods.  Canada,  South  America,  China  and  Japan  are 
using  much  more.  The  whole  world  indulged  its  sweet 
tooth  when  it  could  until  demand  gained  on  production, 
then  the  jump  in  price. 
Why  the  Jump?— Why  was  the  rise  so  sharp  and 
sudden?  Because  the  reserve  supply  was  used  up. 
Last  year  there  was  a  carry-over  of  over  1,000,000  tons 
from  the  old  crop,  but  hardly  more  than  one-third  as 
much  was  left  over  this  year.  Meanwhile  the  world’s 
consumption  has  increased  further  because  of  more 
prosperous  times.  Hence'  the  rise.  It  was  sharp,  be¬ 
cause  the  situation  was  not  realized  until  the  figures 
came  out  this  Spring.  Did  speculation  help?  The 
Government  is  trying  to  find  out.  No  doubt  people  who 
saw  the  demand  was  about  to  exceed  the  supply  thought 
that  sugar  would  go  up,  and  the  refiners,  candy-makers 
and  other  large  handlers  began  to  buy  ahead  of  then- 
needs.  Some  of  the  consuming  public  did  the  same, 
and  the  price  naturally  went  up.  Speculators  bought 
some,  too,  but  whatever  they  buy  they  must  sell  again 
before  the  next  crop.  It  is  quite  possible  some  of  them 
will  be  nipped  in  the  selling  should  the  price  go  down. 
What  will  make  it  go  down?  Probably  not  the  fussy 
investigation  committees  nor  even  the  Government. 
If  sugar  should  be  placed  under  price  control  and  the 
limit  set  at,  say,  5c,  the  result  would  be  a  demand 
greater  than  ever,  and  there  would  be  a  real  shortage 
soon.  If  the  quantity  sold  were  limited,  as  during  the 
war,  we  should  have  again  those  troublesome  days  of 
sugar  substitutes  or  buying  all  sorts  of  stuffs  we  didn’t 
want  for  the  sake  of  getting  a  little  sugar.  If  the  quan¬ 
tity  were  limited,  the  price  would  come  down  anyhow. 
This  brings  us  to  the  only  sure  remedy. 
What  to  Do. — Consumers  have  the  situation  in  their 
own  hands.  Simply  use  less  sugar.  If  all  the  people 
of  this  country  would  cut  down  to  1%  lbs.  per  week, 
instead  of  2  lbs.,  perhaps  by  going  light  on  soft  drinks, 
candy  and  desserts,  the  demand  would  be  cut  fully 
1,000.000  tons,  and  there  would  be  too  much  sugar  for 
sale  instead  of  too  little.  With  a  “Use  Less  Sugar 
Campaign”  under  way,  manufacturers  would  lose  their 
nervousness  and  stop  buying  for  the  future.  Speculators 
would  be  glad  to  let  go  for  whatever  price  they  could 
get.  There  would  be  more  sugar  offered  and  less  wanted. 
The  price  would  be  forced  down,  or  at  least  held  where 
it  is  until  the  next  crop  is  ready,  and  nobody's  health 
would  suffer  by  using  less  sweet  stuff  for  a  while. 
Increased  production  will  take  care  of  the  supply  in 
the  long  run.  Sugar  is  a  paying  crop  most  seasons. 
Europe  is  coming  back  fast  in  production  of  beet  sugar, 
and  this  country  will  doubtless  produce  more  of  it. 
Cane  sugar  can  be  produced  in  unlimited  quantities  in 
warm  climates,  although  it  takes  a  year  or  two  getting 
under  headway.  Meanwhile  the  only  quick  way  out  is 
to  use  less  sugar.  g.  b.  f: 
