Evening star., 1936-10-25
TWO DIARIES FIGHT.
MOVE TO INCREASE.
PRICES FOR MILK
Attorney, Filing Opposition,
Argues Nearby Farmers
"Best Paid" in U. S.
DECLARES CONSUMER
WOULD BEAR BURDEN
Producers, Disputing Claim, As
sert Drought Brought Higher
Costs of Feed and Labor.

Arguing that dairy farmers serving
the Washington milk shed are the
"best paid in the country" Roger j.
Whiteford, attorney, representing two
diaries, yesterday filed two informal
statements with the Department OF
Agriculture opposing the proposed
Accent per gallon increase petitioned
by producers.
Such an increase, he said, must au-
tomatically be passed on to the con-
sumner, since the distributor now re-
ceives a profit of only one-flfth to
third cent per bottle.
Whiteford filed his two statements
In behalf of the Chestnut Farms
Chevy Chase Dairy and the Marcy
Bros Arlington Farms Dairy. Sep
arately they opposed the proposal,
which is now subject of referendum
before the Maryland-Virginia MIX
Producers Association. whose men,
bers furnish "a per cent Of the milk
sold in the Washington area.
Producers Dispute Claim.
THE producers, on the other hand,
dispute the claim Of the distributors
that the rate Of profit is as low as
one-fifth to one-third cent per quart.
and claim that at a retail price of Is
cents, the profit necessarily must be
greater, since the basic price paid to
producers is less than 31a cents per
quart, or $500 per hundredweight.
The petition for a Accent increase
per gallon is the outgrowth of a mar
keting agreement entered into last
September 81 in which a minimum
price to producers was fixed. 1t is
this minimum price, which ranges
from s2.S2 to So 02 per hundredweight,
that the producers hope to raise.
Their arguments for the increase
center around the fact that the Sum-
mer drought injured the farmers
forage crop, necessity to dairymen;
the same dry weather served to ad-
vance the price of cattle feed pur-
chased through retailers, and the
same price advance acted to raise the
cost of farm labor.
Referred to Producers.
The Agriculture Department, acting
under the remnants of the A. A. A.
law authorizing marketing agree
ments, referred the question to the
members of the Maryland-V Virginia
Milk Producers Association. Under
that provision two-thirds of the asso-
cations 1,100 members of two-thirds
of the volume producers can deter
mine whether the increase shall be
granted.
Organization of the association,
however, places its voting power in
the hands of its officials, and they
have not yet acted.
Whiteford's statements yesterday,
almost identical, and offering the same
arguments, said, in part:
ut must be conceded that pro-
ducers in this area are better paid
for their product, on the whole, than
any producers elsewhere in the United
States. Just why should a producer
in this area receive more than any
other producer in similar area, and
what virtue has a Maryland or Vir-
ginia farmer that he should be paid
better for the same product than a
New York or Pennsylvania farmer?"
Agriculture Department records
will show that producers shipping to
Washington are paid approximately 20
per cent more for their product than
the average producer throughout the
United States; yet he pays no more
for his hay or grain and no more for
his labor.
Feed prices have advanced. But
certainly the farmer on the local
milk shed pays no more for his feed
than do farmers in other localities"
Florida Price Is Higher.
Whiteford informally argued that
the only producers in the United
States to receive more for their milk
than local producers are those OF the
Palm Beach-Miami area in Florida,
where the season" lasts little more
than three months and where the
peaks in prices and demand are limit
ed to 80 days.
nut Farms-C Chevy Chase that any
present increase in price would auto
matically increase production, but
that a corresponding advance in re-
tail prices would reduce consumption
and. consequently, glut the market
of milk and dairy products.
The two statements disputed the
assertions of B. B. Derrick, secretary
of the producers association, that
a milk shortage IS threatened, and
demanded that the association pro-
duce evidence to support such claim.
It was also claimed that the associa-
tion itself encouraged a decrease in
production in 1881, 1882 and 1888,
with unsuccessful results.
"The meticulous and sometimes
lrksome differences between regula-
tions here and in other cities do not
justify the tremendous diferential
that exists In favor of the farmers
operating in this area" Whiteford's
arguments concluded.