Norwich bulletin. [volume] (Norwich, Conn.) 1895-2011, 1922-02-02
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Mr.. Editor: Of interest to the many
farmers who read The Bulletin is the
knowledge that the article appearing IN |
the New England Homestead recently by |
James Cough of Vermont meets with |
the approval of a large number of pro- |
ducers engaged in shipping milk is evil |
dent after an interview with several hum |
dred of the parties at interest The or
gan Of the New England Milk Producers
Association commenting on dhe state
ments of Mr.. Cough apparently wilfuI-
ly mlsquotes him when it reports him
as saying ITO make the change from the
bargaining to the marketing of their own
milk right or wrong" Nothing is ever
gained by INSTRUMENTATION and if the
marketing of milk by the producers
themselves is impossible of ACCOMPLISH
ment let it be clearly and practically
proven. The reasons assigned so far
why the shipper should not and cannot
successfully make and control the sales
end of his own product through a sys-
tematically organized plan have been
based more on ridicule and an attempt
to terrify by pre-supposing insurmount-
able obstacles. We are alphabetically
and strongly of the opinion that Mr.
Cough is right when, in effect. he says
that ''if $4,000 have been expended by
a
committee to bargain for the price of
milk for them the same amount could be
used in carrying out a marketing plan of
their own" 1t was also stated in a re-
cent issue of the New England Dairy
man that 'the time was not ready yet
for the farmers to market their own
milk. Just when the time would be
ripe no attempt is made to predict, and
so far as it has to do with the future OF
the farmer in this respect, he is as much
at sea as ever. Now (1sO the indef.
Biteness of this statement; (2nd) mas
much as the association is some five
years old, and (3rd) when it is temem-
bered, as it should be by every shipper
Of milk, that the self-marketing end was
the goal aimed at, the statement is void
OF argument because it lacks common
sense. If an attempt to make the sale
Of their milk would be fought by the
dealers at the present time would not
the same thing be met with five, ten or
even twenty years hence? Specific mar
ket conditions would be existent just as
surely tomorrow as today. It would
mean better prices for the producer and
cheaper milk for the consumer. That
competition would be fought would be
expected, and needs no "wise-acre'' to
forecast 1t.
| Viewing the situation from every an
| gle the ~~mer can arrive at but one
| conclusion and that is if he is going to
act through organized effort it must be
at once. He should be the arbiter of
his own destiny, at least so far as sell
| Ing his own products are concerned
| whereas, today he isAas much under or
ders as is his own hired help. and then
some. This brings to mind the rating
| and surplus plan now in vogue and which
! We were given to understand by the
| sales committee was to be taken un by
! them AMI the dealers on Jan. l. Well
| after waiting the allotted two months
because, as stated "a radical or sudder
change could not be made" what have
We gained? If the matter was ''taker
up" it must have been set down again
for the same plan is to continue. An,
| what else? Under the stereotyped heat
of Personal Word" We are given greet
| ings for "a prosperous new year" while
| jointly with chat. we are handed the colo
blooded information. in the face of
rising grain market, too, that to hell
US realize that prosperity %, no doubt
a proposition was made by the salei
committee and accepted by most deal
ers, that milk prices be cut to sever
cents a quart. Why did such a propo
sal not @Sne from the dealers? Head
of unions, etc. generally await such al
initiative to be taken by the other side
Cancelling of station charges is might
small way to palliate the farmer for tn
cut.
Great stress has been repeatedI
placed on the increased price for mil
gained by dairymen during the last dc
cade or So but allowance must be mad
for advances due to the war as the al
normal conditions affected other thing
. besides the cow product. Calves. a
roots, vegetables, etc. did not requii
any special laborious work to raise the
cost on the market. and 1t must folio
f that milk would also take an upwar
| trend without special aid. We say tn
8 to show this fact must be taken in
= account when making comparative mi
prices now from twenty-five years or
h ago. Incidentally, and little more,
should be obvious to us all II we are n
r the ''weoden-heads" We have been oft
0 spoken Of in regard to our own busine
: dealings that We are as essentially al
g truly manufacturers as he or tn,
}, whose output may be shoes, cloth.
x what not. Imagine. then, II you wi
0 some wholesaler. group. or even stat
telling one of our industries that aft
h So many million yards of cloth. pairs
d shoes, etc. the excess woald be "su
II plus" fer which they would be paid
t. must charge only ene-third pricei W
= one of those who are acting for the
e terests of the farmer please tell us VIII
IT the answer would be?
IT Now taking the rated number Of ca
at their maximum price allowed and
d price paid for the surplus. Let every sh
s. per average his price received for the
n tai number of cans and see how much
Is has gained over prices given thirty yes
m ago. when milk was sold for two cen
ct no freight, etc, and when all 9th
20 things were less than corresponding
ID cheap. Is there any wonder why the id
n of a surplus Is the natural question
s. are asked? Owing to a glutted mari
lie condition supply of milk larger tn
lie demand? If this were so, why, as /
I'd been alleged by shippers, that, VII
70 stating they would ship only rated uI
i Der of cans, word was received by tn
n to ship all milk made or not shin an
IN Also, as is alleged, new shippers g
or taken on during the surplus period
ne old ones, then rated and also surplu
is ed.
IL Again, It has been stated by some $,
IL posed to be acting for the farmers b
Interest, that at the present price
milk he is making money. implying. al