THE UNIVERSITY
OF ILLINOIS
LIBRARY
cop.
ACRIGUITURE
CIRCU
CHECK
JDIRCULA
St. Louis
Milk Problems
With
Suggested Solutions
Boston
^Minneapolis
New York
R.W. Bartlett
Los Angeles
j! Milwaukee
® Cleveland
? Philadelphia
* ^Pittsburg
Chicago
Low store prices
in boston and New
York and low wagon -54
prices in Minneapolis have .5
caused high milk consumption.
In St. Louis low incomes and
high milk prices have caused low
sales. Bottles show daily per capita
consumption in 14 U.S. cities.
University of Illinois
Agricultural Experiment Station
Bulletin 412
Detroit
^n Francisco
Acknowledgment
For the willingness with which various organizations
and agencies in the St. Louis milk-producing and sales
area have supplied information essential to this study, the
author expresses his sincere appreciation. Producers' as-
sociations, distributors, consumers' organizations, conden-
series, and milk haulers have given the study their hearty
support.
A substantial part of the funds used in financing the
project was supplied by the St. Louis Milk Market Ad-
ministration thru the interest of the Administrator, Mr.
Fred L. Shipley, who realized the need for facts as a basis
for market decisions. In accepting these funds the Uni-
versity adhered to its established policy of reserving the
right to publish the findings in a thoroly impartial manner
thru such channels as it might choose.
It is hoped that this report of milk-producing and
marketing conditions in the St. Louis area will help to
give all those interested a clearer understanding of the
economic problems involved in placing so important a
commodity before the consumers of the area and will assist
them in working out just solutions.
CONTENTS
PAGE
PRESENT MILK CONSUMPTION IN ST. LOUIS 94
Daily Per-Capita Consumption 94
Benefits From Larger Consumption 97
CAUSES OF LOW MILK CONSUMPTION IN ST. LOUIS 99
Low Family Incomes 99
Other Foods Relatively Cheaper Than Whole Milk 101
Evaporated Milk an Effective Competitor 104
Hot Summers and Lack of Refrigeration Discourage Use of Fresh
Milk 107
Nationality Not a Major Cause 109
HOW ST. LOUIS MILK SALES MIGHT BE INCREASED 110
Greater Per-Capita Consumption 110
Adoption of Lower Prices for Store Milk Ill
Enlargement of Educational Program 113
Districts Most Favorable for Store Sales 114
WHY PRICES TO PRODUCERS DECLINED FROM 1929 to 1933 117
Downward Trend of General Price-Level 117
Lower Prices for Feeds 118
Decline in Consumers' Incomes 120
Increase in Number of Cattle 123
Whole-Milk Prices Affected by Condensery Prices 124
THE BASIC-SURPLUS PRICE PLAN 125
Advantages in Open-Market Policy Under Plan 125
Different Kinds of Milk Surpluses 126
Production More Even Under Basic-Surplus Plan 128
Basic-Surplus Plan Not Cause of Price Decline 130
DISTRIBUTORS GROSS HANDLING MARGINS 131
Proportions of Milk Utilized in Different Forms 131
Retail and Wholesale Sales of Class I Milk 133
Gross Handling Margins on Class I Milk 134
ST. LOUIS MILK MARKET ORGANIZATIONS: AIMS AND
ACCOMPLISHMENTS 135
Sanitary Milk Producers 136
Milk Distributor Groups 136
Consumers' Milk Commission 137
St. Louis Consumers' Council.. . 138
PAGE
St. Louis Division of Public Health 139
St. Louis District Dairy Council and Dairy Commission 140
Production Credit Associations 141
Dairy Herd Improvement Associations 142
PRESENT POLICIES UNDER THE FEDERAL MILK LICENSE 143
Purposes and Scope of License 144
Functions of Milk Market Administrator 144
Use-Classification Principle Recognized 145
Producer Prices in St. Louis Area 146
Producer Prices Converted to Weighted Average 147
Reasons for Price Differences Based on Milk Use 150
Equalization Fund Eliminates Destructive Price Cutting 152
Distributors Bonded to Insure Pay to Producers 155
All Producers Contribute to Service Fund 155
Price Conferences a Necessary Part of Any Plan 157
SUMMARY 158
RECOMMENDATIONS 159
APPENDIX 161
Detailed tables not essential to the
text are shown in the Appendix.
Urbana, Illinois April, 1935
Publications in the Bulletin series report the results of investigations
made by or sponsored by the Experiment Station
St. Louis Milk Problems, With
Suggested Solutions
By R. W. BARTLETT, Assistant Chief in Agricultural Economics1
HE ST. LOUIS milk sales area has experienced rapid increases
in population during the past thirty-five years. Confined to a
city of 605,000 in 1900, the area (Fig. 1) now includes approxi-
mately 1.3 million people, or almost twice the earlier number.
Coincident with the rapid growth in the size of this market has
occurred a concentration of the business of distributing milk in the
hands of relatively few dealers, an expansion of the milkshed (Fig. 2)
accompanied with increasing dissatisfaction among producers because
of prices paid them for their milk and dissatisfaction among consum-
ers because of the quality and cost of the milk delivered to their doors.
Producer dissatisfaction has resulted in numerous "strikes." Con-
sumer dissatisfaction has recently been evidenced by the development
of consumer organizations with various objectives, including that of
improving the quality of the milk sold in the area.
Concerted effort to improve milk-marketing conditions in this area
culminated in the adoption, on November 25, 1933, of a federal milk
marketing agreement approved by the Agricultural Adjustment Admin-
istration under the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture, and a
federal milk license, which became effective March 2, 1934.
The purposes and powers of the license are broad in nature. Each
of its provisions is capable of interpretations and applications vitally
affecting all groups — producers, distributors, and consumers — inter-
ested in the milk industry. It is therefore important that the policies
developed under this license shall be mutually beneficial and shall tend
to promote harmonious solutions of the problems that arise from time
to time. It was in order to have a factual basis on which desirable
policies might be determined that the Milk Market Administrator ar-
ranged for the study reported in this bulletin.
No attempt has been made by the author to formulate sure reme-
dies for all the problems that confront the dairy industry in this area.
The aim has been first to present the facts bearing on the situation and
then to offer suggestions that may help to solve some of the more
vexing problems in this market.
'The author acknowledges the assistance of T. R. Hedges, B. T. Inman,
W. H. Casky, and Edgar Burtis, who supervised the assembling and tabulation
of the data for different sections of this study.
93
94
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
FIG. 1. — THE ST. Louis MILK SALES AREA AS DEFINED BY
FEDERAL MILK LICENSE, NOVEMBER, 1934
The St. Louis milk sales area is shown within the heavy black lines. It in-
cludes approximately 832 square miles and 1.3 million people, of which about
400,000 are outside the 26 Census districts of the city.
PRESENT MILK CONSUMPTION IN ST. LOUIS
Daily Per-Capita Consumption
The daily per-capita consumption of milk at St. Louis in May, 1934,
was the lowest of the 14 largest cities in the United States, all these
cities having populations of more than 500,000 (see cover illustration
and Table 1 ) .
The people of Boston had the highest per-capita consumption, a
daily average of more than Y\ (.77) pint; whereas in St. Louis the
average daily consumption was .42 pint. St. Louis consumption was
only one-third the amount recommended by nutrition authorities and
only about half the amount generally considered as the minimum for
19351
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
95
••1-i.j i T~ ~i Ax&f~" \ ^T-T-;J . j i
^E*IS \ X luENARD'--1"' LOGAN ' ' CHAMPAIGN lytRMILW
I -\,,sf--^-----r-. "i, H"T
SHCL«» i ji!~--L / X ' LESS! a i?su_6iAJj-j
BACON «-1 ^\ 1 T \ J1" • llWIIJMf
I ^ X>V \SCOTT [in OB6Aliy_»N_6AMpNJ J *"•* Q j ED6AR
.™* juaiiij/ • •\r-f "• ! i-s!-'^ D 'l-vT"
*^ ^ — — — 4 X [•••••*••!
">-«--1 B I A 6REEMEJ- |g j.J--5^1!' [CUMBERLAND] CLARK
/ i(.:«El \ L-^ ' r— n 1 ">
' I . ;, , • '-r-1 I IB I
/yoo-Ei ; r.j -Y ' J^/^l 'i ! ^f"1"- ! "J"
; hyff^fe
!WeH^.J!!.jH&^^J8U • [---"-'^
r S V PP "r"""S ,cc .J&*MtJ rl-n JJEFFERSONI ^>
S^.LLER] -*iL£i.J J ^^S^- ^ • J ' J
* ! %> X£»NDOLPH J_1E^LY_J IHAMILTOMI WHITE^ POSE*
\ j ^ 4m«mYV/ Laasaaf3
V-1 i "pff-Jar^HiHiJ *" / X • >A^,
J.PULASK, ! l.^i- TmfS^WS/ *X OALL/
"J i b»SUS!sZ7 PERR» 1 JACKSON! WILLIAMSON' SALINE tATiNt UN,ON I
.-«.r~A~~Ji ^"" ""! v" ~\S>v'
DENT I | \ J^> \
n ' . U luinicnu ' A UNION UOHNSON! POPE f^\ \ .
i,BAuLM*?.lL0J'j CAPE J--t \.j •<. N <.*)l
^__A._..J1 — _k._._. , — -T-"----^!! V _ *'
^ y L^DV
DENT I | \ J^> \
n ' . U luinicnu ' A UNION UOHNSON! POPE f\ A .
, 1MMIKV2SLJ CAPE >-T — i-j--\ \ ,**>—
t — J SIRARDEAJL^ iPULASKr If* *^ \ \ «*V \
>EYNOLOSI '"\<" ) ^v-^Jj. •XLIVIN8-> «.*•' *-
\ / BOLLINGEi X W / A\X^£ jfesty/^ "
ilJj..;^.5..., r-X._L ua./ 1 W"/ P^
I \ WA»NE / \VOTT ^*~^1 I — 1 Nan -itnfft«r» Stmttry Mill. Pr»»icff 1
| J™1?U CART R ***-"—< \~~f 2 *• """"" «(S"1"r'llll"'Prc4»«"
^1? 1.-°- £L1-^ 0>to*OM *•-!•* S BUTLER \ STODDARD j"' '-^MlSS.y
FIG. 2. — VOLUMES OF MILK PRODUCED IN THE ST. Louis MILKSHED
FROM JUNE, 1933, TO MAY, 1934
The four counties producing the greatest volumes of milk for the St. Louis
market are Madison, St. Clair, Clinton, and Washington — all in Illinois. Ap-
proximately 417 million pounds of milk were produced during the above period,
of which 64 percent was produced by members of the Sanitary Milk Producers.
the maintenance of good health. Even the per-capita consumption in
Boston was considerably below the latter standard.
The consumption of milk in the different Census districts of St.
Louis (Fig. 3) varied even more widely than among the 14 largest
cities.1 In Districts 14 and 16 it averaged nearly ^ pint per person
per day; whereas in District 21 it was less than y$ pint. In eleven
districts it was higher than the average for the area; whereas in
thirteen districts it was lower than the average. Districts 1 and 8 had
'Unpublished data from a study made by C.W.A. workers under the di-
rection of Mrs. M. C. Harrington of the St. Louis District Dairy Council.
Parts of the study were published by the St. Louis Department of Public
Welfare, Division of Health, in "Food Habits Survey," 1934.
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
TABLE 1. — DAILY CONSUMPTION OF MILK IN THE 14 LARGEST MILK SALES AREAS IN
THE UNITED STATES, ALL HAVING POPULATIONS OF MORE THAN
500,000, MAY, 1934"
Area
Amount of
milk sold
daily
Population
of area
Daily con-
sumption of
milk per
person
Boston
thousands of
pints
1 574.5
2 052 000
pint
.767
Minneapolis (1933)
372.2
516 000
.721
New York
7 173.9
10 275 400
.698
Los Angeles (June, 1934)
1 163.9
2 485 000
.650
490.8
761 800
.644
Cleveland
880.2
1 385 400
.635
Philadelphia ...
1 594.4
2 674 100
.596
Pittsburgh
802.0
1 400 800
.573
Chicago
2 674.4
4 952 700
.540
Detroit
1 161.7
2 174 000
.534
San Francisco (1932)
339.4
645 700
.526
Buffalo .
282.6
586 300
.482
Baltimore (Jan.-June, 1934)
448.0
1 047 500
.428
St. Louis
551.7
1 303 100
.423
•For more detailed data, see Appendix, Tables 18 and 19, pages 161 and 162.
DISTRICT
NUMBER
MILK CONSUMED DAILY PER PERSON -PINT
0 .10 .20 .30 .40 .50 .60
14
16
19
5
2
3
1 5
6
12
17
4
1
8
10
7
9
13
16
24
22
20
26
23
11
25
21
.56
.56
.54
.53
.52
.52
.49
.46
.48
.48
.45
.42
.42
.41
.41
.41
.41
.40
.40
.39
.38
.38
.36
.26
.24
.19
^^|
FIG. 3. — DAILY CONSUMPTION OF MILK PER PERSON IN THE DIFFERENT
CENSUS DISTRICTS OF THE CITY OF ST. Louis, 1934
In Districts 14 and 16, where family incomes are relatively high (see Fig. 6),
the daily consumption of milk per person averaged nearly three times as much
as in District 21, where incomes are low. The average consumption in the en-
tire sales area was ^ (.42) pint per person daily.
1935] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 97
the same per-capita consumption as the average for the entire area,
.42 pint per day.
The information on per-capita consumption given above was ob-
tained from replies to a questionnaire answered by 8,136 housewives
in St. Louis. Every family on at least one street in each district and
other families scattered thru the district were interviewed (Fig. 4).
Benefits From Larger Consumption
The per-capita consumption of milk is coming to be recognized
by leaders in the whole-milk1 industry as one of the best standards for
measuring the efficiency of the industry. A high per-capita consump-
tion of high-quality milk would benefit consumers, producers, and dis-
tributors alike.
From a health standpoint a quart of milk a day for children and
a pint for adults is recommended by nutrition authorities2 as highly
desirable. On a weighted basis this is equivalent to about lJ/3 pints
daily per person; yet the average daily consumption of milk in the
United States is less than half this amount, and in many markets, in-
cluding St. Louis, it is not more than one-third. Hence from the view-
point of consumers, increased per-capita consumption of milk in the
St. Louis area is of material importance.
To farmers, increased per-capita consumption of milk means higher
gross incomes, for milk utilized in fluid form commands a higher price
than that utilized as cream or manufactured into other products. If
the per-capita consumption of milk in the St. Louis sales area were in-
creased to the Boston rate, producers in the St. Louis milkshed would
benefit to the extent of about $1,300,000 a year.3 This would mean an
average increase of about $125 a year to each producer. Since the
present whole-milk demand in this market is only about half the total
production in this dairy district, such an increase in whole-milk sales
could be supplied largely by dairymen now in the market.
Other increases that might be expected to occur in the income of
producers in the St. Louis milkshed as the result of certain increases
in per-capita consumption are shown in Fig. 5.
Milk dealers in the St. Louis area would benefit by a substantial
increase in milk consumption if the increased sales were to be handled
'In this bulletin the terms whole milk, fluid milk, fresh milk, and Class I
milk are used synonymously.
"Recommended by Drs. E. V. McCollum, H. C. Sherman, and M. S. Rose.
*This represents the net gain that would accrue to producers as a result
of their receiving the Class I price for the additional Class I sales, instead of
the Class III price for this volume, as at present.
BULLETIN No. 412
[.April,
1935]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
99
by the present number of distributors, for very little additional equip-
ment would be needed in order to handle the larger volume, and unit
operating costs would consequently be reduced.
ASSUMING SALES
EXCEEDED PRESEN T B\
ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR MARKET
20 PERCENT
40 PERCENT
60 PERCENT
80 PERCENT
100 PERCENT
THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
40O 6OO 1200
ADDITONAL INCOME PER FARM
ASSUMING SALfS
EXCEEDED PRESENT BY
20 PERCENT
40 PERCENT
60 PERCENT
80 PERCENT
100 PERCENT
DOLLARS ADDITIONAL INCOME
0 30 60 9O 120 150
FIG. 5. — How FARMERS IN THE ST. Louis MILKSHED WOULD BENEFIT BY
CERTAIN PROPORTIONAL INCREASES IN MILK CONSUMPTION
IN THE ST. Louis SALES AREA
If the per-capita consumption of milk in St. Louis were increased to that
of Boston, fluid-milk sales would be increased about 83 percent. Such an in-
crease would bring producers about $1,300,000 more income annually, or an
average of about $125 to each producer. Even smaller increases would have
marked effect on producer income.
CAUSES OF LOW MILK CONSUMPTION IN ST. LOUIS
Low Family Incomes
The low per-capita consumption of milk in St. Louis is undoubtedly
due basically to the large number of families having low incomes. On
the basis of rentals reported in the 1930 Census and corrected to a
1934 basis, about one-third of the families had incomes averaging about
$800 a year, another third about $1,600 a year, and the remainder about
$3,650 a year (Table 2). The average family income in each of the
St. Louis Census districts is shown in Fig. 6. The lowest was $999 in
District 25 and the highest $3,255 in District 5.
100
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
TABLE 2. — NUMBER OF FAMILIES PAYING RENTALS INDICATED, AND AVERAGE
INCOMES OF CERTAIN INCOME-GROUPS, ST. Louis, 1930 AND 1934
Monthly rentals*
Mid-point
of monthly
rental
Yearly average
Number of
families
1930*
Weighted average
income
Rental
Income*1
1930
1934"
Group 1
Under J10.0 . .
$ 7.50
12.50
17.50
25.00
340.00
$ 62.50
87.50
125.00
175.00
225.00
$ 90
150
210
300
f 480
$ 750
1 050
1 500
2 100
2 700
$ 360
600
840
1 200
$1 920
$ 3 000
4 200
6 000
8 400
10 800
4 144
12 375
18 897
36 597
72 013
64 537
38 813
15 777
11 642
3 600
2 582
72 414
$"954
$1 920
$4 290
$"»\4
$1 638
$3' 659
$10-14.9
315-19.9
J20-29.9 . . .
Total and average . .
Group 2
$30-49.9
Group 3
$50-74 9 .
$75-99 .9
£100-149.9
J150-199 9
$200 and over
Total and average . .
or footnotes giving sources of data, see page 181, Appendix.
DISTRICT
NUMBER
5
12
14
2
19
17
16
3
7
15
6
4
to
1
6
9
13
11
24
16
23
21
20
22
26
25
ANNUAL INCOME PER FAMILY IN DOLLARS
600 1200 1600 2400 3000
$3,255
3,000
2,918
2,815
2,779
2.582
2,568
2.452
2,384
2,338
2.320
2,302
2,184
2,075
,970
.883
.715
,696
.631
,492
,396
1,307
1.267
1.148
1.136
999
FIG. 6. — FAMILY INCOMES IN THE DIFFERENT CENSUS DISTRICTS
OF ST. Louis, 1934
The income in the district with the lowest average was less than one-third
as large as the income in the two districts with the highest averages.
19351
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
101
The effect of low incomes on milk consumption in St. Louis is
shown in summarized form in Table 3. In those districts in which
family incomes averaged less than $1,600 a year, daily milk consump-
tion averaged 1/3 (.33) pint per person; whereas in districts in which
incomes averaged $2,400 a year or more, milk consumption averaged
more than i/i (.52) pint per person daily.
TABLE 3. — PER-CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF MILK BY INCOME-GROUPS,
ST. Louis, 1934
Income per year*
Number of
districts
Weighted
average
annual
income
Daily per capita
consumption of milk*
Pint
Percent 01
average
Under $1600. . .
7
S
6
8
$\ 279
1 729
2 276
2 805
$2 022
.333
.359
.449
.520
.423
79
85
106
123
100
J1600-J1999
J2000-J2399
£2400 and over
Average for city
•See Table 20. page 163. Appendix.
The relationship between incomes and milk consumption, district by
district, is shown graphically in Fig. 7. In District 23, where the aver-
age annual income in 1934 was $1,396, the average daily milk consump-
tion was about one-third (.36) pint per person; whereas in Districts
14 and 16, where family incomes averaged $2,918 and $2,568 respec-
tively, the daily per-capita consumption was .56 pint per person.
Thus milk consumption is shown to be very directly influenced by
amount of family income.
Other Foods Relatively Cheaper Than Whole Milk
The retail price of a quart of whole milk delivered to consumers,
declined from 13 cents in November, 1930, to 10 cents in March, 1932,
and then advanced to 11 cents in December, 1933, at which figure it
has remained until the present time (January, 1935) (Table 4).
Measured by the relationship existing between retail prices of fluid
milk during the five years 1925-1929 and the prices of 42 commonly
used foods, the prices for milk during 1930-1934 were high, the index
price of "all foods"1 declining about 30 percent2 whereas if the retail
'In this bulletin the average retail price of "42 foods" is used synonymously
with the average retail price of "all foods."
JIt might be added that even during the base period, 1925-1929, prices of all
foods changed but little and milk prices remained unchanged.
102
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
500 1000 1500 2000 2500
AVERAGE INCOME PER FAMILY IN DOLLARS
3000 3500
FIG. 7. — MILK CONSUMPTION PER PERSON AND AVERAGE FAMILY INCOME
IN THE VARIOUS CENSUS DISTRICTS OF ST. Louis, 1934
The numbers in the body of the chart indicate Census districts. In the
districts where family incomes are low, at the left of the graph, less milk is
consumed than in the districts where family incomes are high. As incomes
increase, milk consumption increases. Districts consisting of more than 35
percent Negro population are not included above because much less milk is
used by Negroes than whites even when on the same income-level.
TABLE 4. — CHANGES IN RETAIL DELIVERED PRICE OF MILK IN
ST. Louis, 1925-1934"
Time
Cents per
quart
Price index
(1925-27 = 100)
January, 1925, to November, 1930
13
100.0
December, 1930, to August, 1931
12
92.3
September, 1931, to February, 1932
11
84.6
March, 1932, to November, 1933
10
76.9
December, 1933, to January, 1935
11
84.6
•From U. S. Department of Agriculture Yearbooks and U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics
fluid-milk reports.
price of milk had declined similarly it would have been 2 cents a quart
lower in 1933 and 1934 than it actually was3 (Fig. 8).
*In the winter of 1932 and up to June, 1933, distributors offered for sale
a low-test milk at prices 2 cents a quart under the usual retail milk prices in
order to compete with the substandard milk offered by peddlers. About 20 per-
cent of Class I milk during this period was sold at these prices. Thus while
the sale of this substandard milk had some effect upon the total sales of milk,
it was of no great significance to the market as a whole because of the short
period during which it was sold and the relatively small volume that was sold.
J9J5]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
103
This discrepancy between the retail price of milk and of competing
foods at a time when consumers' incomes were very low was another
basic factor causing low consumption of milk in this city.
i-
z eo
70
RETAIL MILK PRICE
IF KEPT IN LINE WITH
PRICES OF ALL FOODS
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934
FIG. 8. — CHANGES IN RETAIL PRICES OF MILK AND OF "ALL FOODS"
IN ST. Louis, BY MONTHS, 1925-1934
Since 1930 the retail price of milk in St. Louis has been high in relation
to prices of other foods. If it had changed in the same proportion as the
average retail price of "all foods" (42 commonly used foods) it would have
been 2 cents a quart lower in 1933 and the early part of 1934 than it was.
The relative position of fresh-milk prices during the first eight
months of 1934 in relation to the prices of 15 other commonly used
foods is shown in Fig. 9. The retail price of fluid milk stood next
to the highest in this list of foods, compared with the prices of the
same foods in 1925-1927. Foods that stood at prices relatively higher
than the average of "all foods" were, in the order named, canned peas,
fresh milk, round steak, canned tomatoes, bread, cabbage, sugar, and
pork chops. Foods that stood at relatively lower prices were evapo-
rated milk, orariges, corn, eggs, potatoes, butter, coffee, and oleo-
margarine.
A general rise in prices of foods in the late summer of 1934, with-
out a corresponding increase occurring in the retail price of milk, has
104
BULLETIN No. 412
{.April,
somewhat narrowed the discrepancy between milk and other foods,
milk dropping to fifth place on the list.
Evaporated Milk an Effective Competitor
Evaporated milk, one of the principal direct competitors of whole
milk, has held a relative price advantage at St. Louis during recent
years. Compared with the average prices of these commodities in 1925-
FOODS
8-MONTH AVERAGE JAN.- AUG. 1934
FOODS
PCAS
FRESH MILK
OOUWSTEAK
TOMATOES
BREAD
CABBAGE
SUGAR
PORK CHOPS
AVERAGE
42 FOODS
EVAP MILK
ORANGES
CORN
EGGS
POTATOES
BUTTER
COFFEE
OLIO.
PEAS
PORK CHOPS
BREAD
ROUNDSTEAK
FRESH MILK
TOMATOES
ORANGES
SUGAR
CABBAGE
EGGS
AVERAGE
42 FOODS
CORN
EVAP MILK
POTATOES
BUTTER
COFFEE
OLEO
FIG. 9. — RETAIL PRICE INDEXES OF SIXTEEN COMMONLY USED FOODS, in St.
Louis, JANUARY TO AUGUST, 1934, AND AUGUST 28, 1934
Out of a series of 16 foods in common use, milk during the eight months
January to August, 1934, held closer to 1925-1927 price-levels than any of the
others, with the exception of one. When consumer incomes are greatly reduced,
consumers will naturally buy the foods whose prices have declined most.
1927, the retail price of evaporated milk at this center from 1931 to
1934 averaged only 80 percent as high as the retail price of whole milk
(Fig. 10).
Stated in another way, the retail price of a quart of whole milk
in 1927 was 3 cents higher than the retail price of a 14i/£-ounce can
of evaporated milk.1 By 1932 this difference had increased to 4 cents
and in 1934 to 4i/2 cents (Fig. 11 ).
While no data are available showing the consumption of evaporated
milk in St. Louis, if the same tendency has existed there as has existed
'Prices of evaporated milk were formerly quoted on the basis of a 16-
ounce can. January, 1925, to December, 1931, prices for a 16-ounce can were
converted to 14i/2-ounce units by multiplying by .90625.
1935}
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
105
1923 1920 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934
FIG. 10. — CHANGES IN AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES OF WHOLE AND EVAPORATED
MILK IN ST. Louis, BY MONTHS, 1925-1934
From 1931 to 1934 the retail price of whole milk in St. Louis was high com-
pared with the retail price of evaporated milk.
FIG. 11. — AMOUNTS BY WHICH THE RETAIL QUART PRICE OF WHOLE MILK
EXCEEDED THE AVERAGE RETAIL PRICE OF A 14i/$-OuNCE CAN OF
EVAPORATED MILK, IN ST. Louis, BY MONTHS, 1925-1934
In 1927 the retail price of a quart of whole milk averaged 3 cents higher
than the retail price of a 14y$-ounce can of evaporated milk. During the greater
part of 1934 the price of a quart of whole milk was 4Vi cents or more above the
price of evaporated milk. (The price of a 16-ounce can of evaporated milk,
commonly sold until December, 1931, was converted to the equivalent of a 14 y$-
ounce can by multiplying it by .90625.)
in 15 other cities, the wide price differential that has prevailed between
evaporated milk and retail quarts of whole milk has led to a marked
106
BULLETIN No. 412
{.April,
increase in the consumption of evaporated milk and has been one of
the causes of low whole-milk consumption in this city.
The relation between the per-capita consumption of evaporated
milk in 15 cities of the United States and the differential between
whole-milk prices and evaporated-milk prices is shown in Table 5 and
Fig. 12. It will be noted from the table that in Minneapolis, where
TABLE 5. — EVAPORATED MILK CONSUMPTION IN 15 CITIES IN MAY, 1934, AND
AMOUNT BY WHICH THE PRICE OF FLUID MILK EXCEEDED THE PRICE
OF EVAPORATED MILK FROM JUNE, 1932, TO MAY, 1934
(Data on consumption obtained by Consumers' Council of the Agricultural Adjust-
ment Administration")
City
Per-capita consumption
of evaporated milk
May, 1934
Amount by which retail
quart price of fluid milk
exceeded price per can of
evaporated milk,
June, 1932— May. 1934
Minneapolis
Ibs.
10.2
cents
.72
Providence
12.0
5.79
Washington, D. C
14.2
6.25
Cincinnati
14.8
3.65
Chicago ,
15.2
3.30
Philadelphia
16.1
3.30
Pittsburgh
16.1
3.70
17.5
4.25
Kansas City, Missouri
18.4
3.13
Atlanta
19.1
4.99
19.2
4.38
Los Angeles
20.1
4.67
Portland, Oregon
21.0
3.72
San Francisco
23.2
5.62
Seattle
24.0
3.58
•The per-capita consumption of evaporated milk for 59 cities in the United States was ascertained
by a survey made by the Consumers' Council of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration in May,
1934. In compiling the above table, 30 of the 59 cities for which the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
published no retail price data for evaporated milk were excluded. There were also excluded those cities
which from June to August had an average temperature of 77° F. or over for thirty years or more, as
well as those which in 1930 had populations of 250,000 or less.
there was a price differential of less than one (.72) cent, the annual
per-capita consumption of evaporated milk was only 10.2 pounds. At
San Francisco, where there was a price differential of 5.62 cents, the
annual per-capita consumption was 23.2 pounds. While the data given
here do not show an absolutely consistent relationship between price
differentials and the consumption of these two forms of milk — other
factors evidently being active — when the per-capita consumption of
evaporated milk in all these 15 cities is plotted on the same chart as the
price differentials (Fig. 12) it becomes evident that the per-capita con-
sumption of evaporated milk tends to increase when the retail price
of whole milk is high in relation to the price of evaporated milk.
1935]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
107
01234567
DIFFERENTIAL- CENTS PER QUART
FIG. 12. — EVAPORATED MILK CONSUMPTION TENDS TO INCREASE AS THE PRICE
DIFFERENTIAL BETWEEN FLUID MILK AND EVAPORATED MILK INCREASES
If the same tendency has existed in St. Louis as has existed in the above
cities, the difference that has prevailed between the retail price of a quart of
fluid milk and of an equivalent amount of evaporated milk has been one of the
causes of low fluid-milk consumption in this city.
Incidentally evaporated milk is a more forceful competitor of whole
milk in St. Louis than in Chicago because the retail price of evapo-
rated milk is usually relatively lower in St. Louis than in Chicago
(Fig. 13). The price differential in St. Louis in 1932 was .8 cent per
can less than at Chicago, and in 1933 it was .6 cent less.
Hot Summers and Lack of Refrigeration Discourage
Use of Fresh Milk
High average temperatures, combined with lack of refrigeration
by about 40 percent of the families in the St. Louis milk sales area,
constitute another basic factor in the low consumption of fluid milk
in this area.
Of the 14 largest cities in the United States, St. Louis has the
highest average summer temperature. For the sixty- four years from
1870 to 1933 the temperature at this point during June, July, and
August averaged 77.2 Fahrenheit (Fig. 14). This was about 7 degrees
higher than at Chicago and more than 18 degrees higher than at San
Francisco.
108
BULLETIN No. 412
[Afrit,
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934
FIG. 13. — AVERAGE RETAIL PRICE OF 14Vi-Ounce Can of Evaporated
MILK IN CHICAGO AND ST. Louis, by MONTHS, 1925-1934
The retail price of evaporated milk at St. Louis has usually been lower than
at Chicago. That is why evaporated milk is a more forceful competitor of
whole milk in St. Louis than it is in Chicago.
14 LARGER
CITIES
JUNE -AUGUST TEMPERATURE (*F) 60-YEAR AVERAGE
0 10 20 3O 40 50 60 70 80
ST. LOUIS
BALTIMORE
PHILADELPHIA
PITTSBURC(1)
NEW YORK
CHICAGO
DETROIT
MINNEAPOLIS
-ST. PAUL
CLEVELAND
BOSTON
•
LOSAHGELES
MILWAUKEE
BUFFALO
SAN FRANCISCO
•F
77.2
75.2
MJ
72.7
71.9
70.5
70.0
70.0
69.6
69/4
69.2
67.6
67.6
56.7
1
FIG. 14. — AVERAGE TEMPERATURES OF 14 CITIES IN THE UNITED
STATES IN JUNE, JULY, AND AUGUST, 1874-1933
The summer temperature at St. Louis has been the highest of the 14 largest
cities in the United States. For the sixty years from 1874 to 1933 it averaged
77.2° F. This was nearly 7 degrees higher than the temperature at Chicago and
more than 18 degrees higher than at San Francisco.
Because of these excessively high summer temperatures, refrigera-
tion is necessary if milk is to be kept sweet. The fact that so many
families in St. Louis and St. Louis county have no refrigeration (Table
1935}
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
109
6) is probably the most important reason why almost a third (31.3
percent) of the families included in this survey stated that they did
not buy fresh milk daily (Fig. 15).
TABLE 6.-
REFRIGERATING FACILITIES OF FAMILIES IN ST. Louis AND ST. Louis
COUNTY, 1934, AND IN THE UNITED STATES, 1933"
St. Louis and
St. Louis county,
1934
United States.
1933
Total number of families in area
266 960
29 904 663
Families using ice refrigeration
60 000
101 000
Total families using refrigeration
161 000
IS 000 000
Families having no refrigeration
105 960
14 904 663
Percentage of families having no refrigeration
39.7
49.8
•Sources of data are given on page 181, Appendix.
FAMILIES
HAVING NO 39.7
REFRIGERATION
FAMILIES
NOT GETTING ,, ,
FRESH MILK 31-3
REGULARLY
10 20 30
PERCENT OF TOTAL
4O
FIG. 15. — PROPORTIONS OF FAMILIES IN ST. Louis THAT HAD No
REFRIGERATION AND USED No MILK REGULARLY IN 1934
The fact that nearly 40 percent of the families in St. Louis have no re-
frigeration partially explains why about a third of them do not buy fresh milk
regularly. Extremely high summer temperatures make refrigeration a necessity
in keeping milk sweet.
Nationality Not a Major Cause of Low Milk
Consumption in St. Louis
Whether the low per-capita consumption of milk in St. Louis is
caused, to any important extent, by the origin of the St. Louis people
with respect to race or nationality, can be determined fairly accurately
on the basis of a study made in Boston in 1930. The amount of milk
which would have been used in St. Louis had the various racial and
national groups there used as much milk as the same groups did in
Boston is shown in Table 7. On the Boston basis, St. Louis consump-
no
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
tion would have been .74 pint daily per person in 1934 — nearly twice
the actual consumption and only 31/i percent less than the per-capita
consumption in Boston. Since three-fourths of the St. Louis people
are in the high-consumption nationality groups and only one- fourth
TABLE 7. — THEORETICAL CONSUMPTION OF MILK IN ST. Louis IN 1934 IF THE
VARIOUS NATIONALITIES IN ST. Louis HAD CONSUMED THE
SAME AMOUNTS OF MILK AS THOSE IN BOSTON
Nationality
Number of
individuals
in St. Louis*
Daily per-
capita con-
sumption in
Boston1"
Theoretical daily con-
sumption of milk in
St. Louis
Total
Per capita
Irish
31 873
131 873
438 592
14 663
4 466
82 096
23 817
93 580
821 960
pint
.848
.825
.800°
.771
.720
.716
.488
.387
.767
pints
27 028
108 795
350 874
11 305
3 216
58 731
11 623
36 215
607 837
pint
740
German
Native white
English, Scotch, and Welsh
Canadian
Miscellaneous
Negro
All
»U. S. Census, 1930.
bBased on a report prepared by F. V. Waugh and published by the Mass. Agr. Exp. Sta., Sept.,
1931, entitled "The Consumption of Milk and Dairy Products in Metropolitan Boston in December,
1930." Figures in Table 5, p. 6, of that report are here corrected to correspond with the daily per-capita
consumption of milk at Boston in May, 1934 (see Table 1 herewith).
"The majority of native whites in St. Louis are of German descent. Since in Boston the daily
per-capita consumption of milk by the German people was found to be higher than that of native whites,
the per-capita consumption figure shown here for native whites in St. Louis appears reasonable.
in the low-consumption groups, it is evident that the national or racial
origin of the St. Louis people is not a major factor in the low per-
capita consumption in that city.
HOW ST. LOUIS MILK SALES MIGHT BE INCREASED
Greater Per-Capita Consumption
Until recently a fairly rapid increase in the population of the United
States has made possible an expansion of markets for milk and other
dairy products without any increase in per-capita consumption. In late
years, however, the rate of population increase in the United States
has been declining, and it is not unlikely that within the next thirty
years population will become stationary.1
'From 1790 to 1880 population in the United States increased at the rate
of 3.1 percent annually. During the next thirty years the average annual in-
crease was 2.2 percent. From 1910 to 1930 the rate declined to 1.6 percent
annually. During the latter part of the decade 1920 to 1930 the U. S. Census
1935] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 111
vThe population in the St. Louis milk-sales area increased approxi-
mately 20 percent between 1920 and 1930, advancing from 1,061,000
to 1,276,000 people. This was an average annual increase of 2 percent.
The present rate of increase in the United States as a whole is less
than 1 (.9) percent annually. Assuming the same rate of increase in
St. Louis as in the United States as a whole, St. Louis would add to
its population yearly about ten thousand people.
As previously stated by the writer, "The fact that population is
increasing at a declining rate intensifies the problem of bringing about
any marked increase in total sales of market milk. Problems of local
milk distribution increase when the rate of increase in population de-
clines, since it is less easy for either old or new distributors to find
expanding outlets for their products."1
Considering the foregoing facts, the chief opportunities for pro-
ducers and dealers in the St. Louis dairy district to increase milk sales
would seem to lie, not in serving a new or increasing population, but
rather in stimulating a larger consumption of milk per capita among
those now living in this sales area. An increase of less than one-
hundredth pint per person daily would be equivalent, in its effect on
the milk industry, to a 2-percent annual increase in population.
Adoption of Lower Prices for Store Milk
It has been shown (pages 99 to 109) that the low per-capita con-
sumption of milk at St. Louis is attributable to two principal causes:
(1) low incomes of consumers, combined with relatively high prices
of milk compared with prices of competing foods; and (2) the ex-
treme heat at St. Louis during the summer, combined with lack of
refrigeration facilities in the homes of a large number of families in
this area.
How to remove these factors that depress milk consumption is sug-
gested by an analysis of store milk prices and sales in St. Louis and
their comparison with prices and sales in other large cities, especially
in Boston, where the per-capita consumption, as already shown, is the
highest of any of the 14 largest cities in the United States.
In New York and Boston, where store sales have constituted an
important part of the total sales of milk for a longer period than in
any of the other large cities, per-capita sales have been higher than
'111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 397, p. 427.
Bureau estimated the average increase at .71 percent annually. While authori-
ties do not agree on the exact time, they are in general agreement that a station-
ary population will be reached within twenty-five to forty years.
112
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
in any other large market in the country (except Minneapolis-St.Paul1)
for which sales data are available. The daily consumption of milk in
New York from 1929 to 1932 was .778 pint per person, while at Boston
from 1930 to 1932 it averaged .849 pint per person.2 In May, 1934,
these two cities still ranked among the leading cities in per-capita sales
of milk (Table 1).
The difference between store prices and prices of retail delivered
milk in Boston from 1922 to 1925 usually exceeded 2^2 cents a quart
(Fig. 16), altho at times the cutting of the retail delivered price nar-
rowed this to only one cent. In New York during the same period,
the difference between the store price and the price of delivered milk
was even wider than at Boston, because of the sale of bulk milk per-
mitted in New York during this period.3
1932
'30 '31
•32 1933
FIG. 16. — DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETAIL WAGON PRICES OF MILK AND
STORE PRICES IN BOSTON, BY MONTHS, 1922-1933
In 1922 stores in Boston sold milk at an average of 3yi cents a quart below
the wagon price. After ten years of competition between these two methods of
sale, store prices, for the greater part of 1933, were still 2 cents a quart below
wagon prices.
'The high per-capita sales at Minneapolis-St. Paul can be attributed princi-
pally to the low retail price of delivered milk prevailing there. From 1929 to
1934 the. average retail prices of delivered milk there were the lowest of the
14 largest cities.
•111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 397, p. 445.
'Same, pp. 445-448.
19351 ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 113
Thus carefully compiled evidence indicates that milk sold in stores
at prices below wagon prices tends to result in a greater per-capita
consumption.
The next question concerns the margin on which dealers can afford
to sell milk to stores. Again we may look to Boston for information.
In Boston in 1934 wholesale milk prices quoted to stores averaged
9.0 cents a quart. This price represented 6.6 cents paid to producers
and a gross margin for distributors of 2.4 cents to pay the costs of as-
sembling, pasteurizing, bottling, and delivering to the stores. In St.
Louis in 1934, altho the wholesale price of milk per quart quoted to
stores averaged 8.9 cents, producers received only 4.5 cents a quart.1
Thus the distributors' gross handling margin in St. Louis averaged 4.4
cents, or 2 cents more than in Boston during the same period.
The store price of milk to consumers in St. Louis during the past
year (1934) has been quoted each month at 10 or 11 cents a quart.
If St. Louis distributors had operated on the same margin as Boston
distributors, St. Louis consumers willing to buy milk at stores could
have bought it at 2 cents a quart less than they did. A 2-cent reduction
in the price of milk sold thru stores, if widely advertised, would doubt-
less have been reflected in a markedly increased volume of sales, for
it would have opened up a better market among families with low
incomes (who are in general the same families that lack refrigeration
and who would therefore be interested in utilizing store facilities by
buying milk closer to the time of its use), and it would have en-
couraged families with medium-sized incomes to increase their daily
purchases of milk.
Enlargement of Educational Program
The second recommendation for promoting sales of milk in the
St. Louis sales area — that of an enlarged educational program — may
be divided into two parts: an intensive current program, and a long-
time program.
The current program should include the placing of educational
material before St. Louis consumers in such a way as to popularize
the use of milk in locations where the greatest increases in consump-
tion can be obtained at the lowest cost. The types of displays or
presentations will vary with different localities, and in their initial
stages will necessarily be experimental. Consequently results from this
type of program should be measured frequently.
lAs calculated from the monthly fluid-milk reports of the Bureau of Agri-
cultural Economics, U. S. Department of Agriculture.
114 BULLETIN No. 412 {.April,
The long-time program should incorporate the plans at present
sponsored by the Dairy Commission of St. Louis (formerly Dairy
Council). This program has already been established on a working
basis and could well be expanded to cover the entire St. Louis sales
area.
Improved business conditions, in themselves, can hardly be de-
pended upon to increase milk consumption in the St. Louis area, for
even in the fairly prosperous year of 1930 more than two-thirds of the
families in this area had average incomes of only $117 a month. The
need obviously is to establish prices for milk that will bring this com-
modity within the reach of the mass of consumers, who have and
probably will continue to have low incomes.
Districts Most Favorable for Store Sales
Successful distribution of milk thru stores is dependent usually
upon the following factors:
1. A high concentration of people within a restricted area.
2. Average family incomes higher than the subsistence level but
lower than the luxury level.
3. A population of nationality or racial origin accustomed to a
fairly extensive use of milk.
Assuming that store sales are to be encouraged in St. Louis, the
next question is in what districts attempts to increase such sales would
probably prove most successful.
Other things being equal, promotion of store sales is likely to be
most successful in areas having a population of 20,000 or more people
per square mile. The first thirteen districts shown in Fig. 17 meet this
requirement: Nos. 6, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19-24, and 26.
Of the above districts, Nos. 20, 21, 22, 23, and 26 would be ex-
cluded from consideration because of the large number of families
with incomes below the subsistence level (Fig. 6, page 100). In these
districts the average income was less than $1,500 a year; which means
that the majority of the families had incomes much lower than $1,500.
District 11 would be excluded because of the high proportion of
Negroes, who have been shown by several studies to consume less milk
than whites even when on the same income-level. Districts 18, 21, 22,
and 25 would also be excluded for the same reason were they not
already excluded because of low incomes or low population density,
all these districts having less than 80 percent white population.
This leaves Districts 6, 10. 12, 16, 17, 19, and 24 as those in which
1935]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
115
store sales of milk could, theoretically at least, be most successfully
promoted. Among these districts the one having the largest number
of families in the middle-income group is No. 6, followed by 10, 16, 17,
24, 19, and 12 in the order named. This item is of interest since it is
THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE PER SQUARE MILE
0 5 10 15 20 25
FIG. 17. — DENSITY OF POPULATION IN THE VARIOUS ST. Louis
CENSUS DISTRICTS, 1930
A relatively dense population is needed for the successful promotion of
retail milk sales thru stores. The first 13 districts shown above have more than
20,000 people per square mile. Six of these districts would be excluded from
consideration, however, either because of low incomes or because of the high
proportion of Negroes, who are not so favorable to the use of milk as whites.
The seven districts that are starred are the ones most susceptible to increased
milk consumption thru store sales.
among the families in this income-range that the greatest interest
seems to be shown in increasing milk consumption and in effecting
savings by purchasing milk thru stores.
From another point of view also these districts appear to be favor-
able territories for the expansion of store sales of milk. There are few
relief cases here in comparison with the average for the city (Fig. 18).
In May, 1934, only 6 percent of the families in these districts were on
relief, whereas in St. Louis as a whole 16 percent were on relief. This
116
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
is another indication that the majority of the families in these dis-
tricts have incomes above the subsistence level.
In certain parts of the 19 districts not listed above, it is likely that
concentrated efforts to increase milk consumption thru store sales
would be as effective as in the selected districts. If special efforts are
made in selected acreas to promote sales of milk, the results should be
CITY Of ST. LOUIS
Pll»CENT OF '
FAMILIES ON RtUCf
I I LtSS THUH 4.»%OH
V/40J FROM ST. TO ».»%ON IILIIF
E&'gj FROM KJ%TO £4.9% ON KILIIF
YSS1 FROM Z5% TO 4-5 9 -A ON RtL.tr
FIG. 18. — MAP OF THE CITY OF ST. Louis SHOWING PROPORTION OF FAMILIES
ON RELIEF IN THE VARIOUS CENSUS DISTRICTS, MAY, 1934
In general the districts having the greatest density of population (Fig. 17)
and the lowest average annual income (Fig. 6) had the greatest proportion of
families on relief. In May, 1934, 75 percent of the families in District 21 were
receiving public help. The average number of families on relief in all districts
was 16.1 percent.
carefully measured, and if successful, similar measures used to increase
sales in other districts.
Companies having stores scattered thruout the city may find it
worth while to handle milk at all their stores, regardless of district,
when little or no extra equipment is necessary for so doing. This is
especially true when newspaper advertising is used for increasing milk
consumption. Tho only a small volume may be handled in some stores
in the less densely populated areas, the margin of profit should be
sufficient to bear its proportionate part of the advertising cost and
thereby reduce the company's unit cost for this purpose. The decision
as to which stores can handle milk profitably must of course be made
by the management of each store or company ; it was for the purpose
of presenting the possibilities more clearly and of facilitating such de-
cisions that this survey was made.
J955]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
117
WHY PRICES TO PRODUCERS DECLINED FROM
1929 TO 1933
Dairymen in the St. Louis dairy district experienced rapidly de-
clining milk prices from 1929 to the early part of 1933. Many of these
dairymen have asked why this decline occurred. Primarily it was a
part of the general decline in price-levels (including the price of farm
feeds) and in consumers' incomes. A secondary factor was the greater
volume of milk that resulted from an increase in the number of dairy
cows in this area and in the country at large.
Downward Trend of General Price-Level
The close correlation between changes in the general price-level, the
wholesale prices of farm foods, and the St. Louis fluid-milk prices
during recent years is shown graphically in Figs. 19 and 20.
60
1924 1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934
FIG. 19. — CHANGES IN WHOLESALE PRICES OF ALL COMMODITIES IN THE
UNITED STATES AND IN OTHER COUNTRIES, 1924 TO 1934
The decline in the general price-level in 1929-1933 was world wide. Since
early in 1933 the general price trend has been upward. It is reasonable to expect
a continuation of this general upward movement in the United States until the
forces of recovery now in operation have worked out their influence.
The rapid decline in the general price-level from 1929 to 1933
brought the price average of 784 commodities in the United States in
February, 1933, to less than two-thirds of the 1929 average. This
decline was world-wide, conditions in the United States correspond-
ing very closely to those in England, Canada, Germany, France, Italy,
Netherlands, Japan, and China — countries that take about 75 percent
of the agricultural exports from the United States.
118
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
Food prices, as is always true, tended to follow closely the changes
in the general price-level. And St. Louis fluid-milk prices to pro-
ducers followed closely the prices of farm foods in general, altho re-
maining most of the time at a little higher level. It is always true that
food prices tend to change as a group, tho prices of particular foods
frequently do not change at the same rate as the group.
FIG. 20. — INDEX OF PRICES OF FARM FOODS IN THE UNITED STATES, AND A
TWELVE-MONTHS' MOVING AVERAGE OF ST. Louis FLUID-
MILK WHOLESALE PRICES, 1910 TO 1934
When the general price-level declines or rises, food prices tend to follow
these changes closely. Also, prices of different foods tend to change at the
same time tho frequently they do not change at the same rate. A close cor-
respondence between prices of farm foods in the United States and St. Louis
fluid-milk prices is shown in this chart.
The outlook now seems to be for a general upward movement of
prices in the United States during the next few years. The general
level has risen considerably since the low point in July, 1932, having
(in December, 1934) advanced 29 percent since that time. St. Louis
milk prices were 89 percent higher in December, 1934, than in Decem-
ber, 1932, and they have advanced considerably faster than prices of
farm foods in general, tho in the late summer and fall months of 1934
milk prices were only slightly higher than those for farm foods in
general.
Lower Prices for Feeds
Cheap feeds encourage heavy milk production. When feed is cheap
in relation to milk, farmers feed their cows more liberally and they
feed more cows if they can buy them at reasonable prices. Both these
practices tend to produce an oversupply of milk, and consequently milk
prices decline. When milk prices become too low in relation to feed
1935}
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
119
prices, farmers feed less grain, production drops, and prices after a
time rise.
In the St. Louis dairy district during the ten years 1925 to 1934,
100 pounds of milk would purchase an average of 158 pounds of a
standard dairy ration (Fig. 21). In 1932, when feed was exceedingly
cheap, 100 pounds of milk would buy 198 pounds of the ration. As a
result of advancing feed prices, 100 pounds of milk in 1934 would
FIG. 21. — AMOUNT OF A ST. Louis DAIRY RATION THAT 100 POUNDS OF
MILK IN THE ST. Louis MILKSHED WOULD BUY YEARLY, 1925-1934
In 1932, when feed was cheap, 100 pounds of milk in the St. Louis milkshed
would buy 198 pounds of the dairy ration. In 1934 this amount of milk would
buy only 120 pounds of the ration, or about four-fifths as much as for the
above ten-year average. Low-priced feeds encourage heavy milk production,
whereas high-priced feeds discourage it.
buy only 120 pounds of this ration, or about four-fifths as much as
during the ten-year average. Monthly variations in the feed-purchasing
power of milk during 1925-1934 are shown in Fig. 22. It will be noted
that in September, 1934, 100 pounds of milk would buy only 111
pounds of the dairy ration or less than three- fourths of the ten-year
average amount. The high hay and feed prices during the present
winter (1934-35) are the result of the very low production of hay and
feeds during the summer of 1934. These higher feed prices can be
expected to result in a lower production of milk in the early part of
1935.
Changes in the farm prices of several products important in the
St. Louis dairy district are shown in Table 8.
120
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
90
1925 1926 1927 1928 1929 1930 1931 1932 1933 1934
FIG. 22. — AMOUNT OF A ST. Louis DAIRY RATION THAT 100 POUNDS OF
MILK WOULD BUY MONTHLY IN THE ST. Louis MILKSHED, 1925-1934
Milk prices have risen much more slowly during the past three years than
have feed prices, with the result that the feed-purchasing power of milk has
sharply declined. In the latter part of 1934, 100 pounds of milk would buy less
feed than at any time since 1928.
TABLE 8. — FARM PRICES FOR SELECTED FARM PRODUCTS IN THE ILLINOIS PART OF
THE ST. Louis MILKSHED AND FOR A STANDARD DAIRY RATION
Commodity
Average
1925-1929
Average in July, August, September
1932
1934
Percent change
Livestock and poultry products
Milk (cwt.)
$1.95
.395
.265
.216
77.04
8.56
11.34
11.87
1.30
.91
.42
2.15
1.44
16.64
$ .88
.157
.123
.103
33.68
5.22
4.27
5.31
.40
.22
.14
.39
.47
7.40
$1.41
.22
.15
.113
31.10
4.87
5.06
4.89
.89
.67
.44
1.14
1.20
15.80
+60.2
+40.1
+22.0
+ 9.7
- 7.7
- 6.7
+ 18.5
- 7.9
+122.5
+204.5
+214.3
+192.3
+155.3
+113.5
Butterfat (Ib.)
Eggs (doz.)
Chickens (Ib.)
Livestock
Milk cows (head)
Beef cattle (cwt.)
Hogs (cwt.)
Veal calves (cwt.)
Grains
Wheat (bu.)
Corn (bu.)
Oats (bu.)
Soybeans (bu.)
Dairy ration (cwt.)
Alfalfa hay (ton)
Decline in Consumers' Incomes
About 50 percent of the milk sold by producers in the St. Louis
milkshed is manufactured into butter or is utilized in products sold
on a butter-value basis; hence their market value is directly proper-
1935J
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
121
tional to the worth of the butter. Since the worth of this milk in turn
influences the price of fluid milk1 sold in whole form to retail con-
sumers, circumstances that influence the price of butter influence in-
directly the price of whole milk.
This relation between butter prices and whole-milk prices is of
interest at this point because data are available showing the course
of factory payrolls (a good index of consumer incomes) and butter
prices over the past few years (Fig. 23). The similar up-and-down
140
1920 1922 1924
1926
1926 1930
1932 1934
FIG. 23. — CHANGES IN PRICE OF 92- SCORE BUTTER IN CHICAGO, AND IN
CONSUMERS' INCOMES IN THE UNITED STATES AS MEASURED
BY FACTORY PAYROLLS, 1919 TO 1934
Changes in consumers' incomes have had a strong influence on butter prices,
as shown by the similar up-and-down swings of these items from 1919 to 1934.
It is reasonable to expect that both factory payrolls and butter prices will move
upward thru the next few years.
swings in factory payrolls and butter prices in the United States since
1919 indicate the strong influence that changes in the incomes of con-
sumers have had on butter prices. Both the moderate decrease in pay-
rolls in 1927, resulting from the business recession, and the severe
decline in payrolls during the depression of 1929-1933 were accom-
panied by declining butter prices. The substantial increase in consumer
incomes during the eigtheen months preceding September, 1934, as
measured by factory payrolls, has been accompanied by a correspond-
ing increase in butter prices.
'Class I milk ; see definitions on page 146.
122
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
It may be added that the general movement of both factory pay-
rolls and butter prices is likely to continue upward during the next
few years — a prospect that is of vital importance to milk producers in
the St. Louis milkshed. This long-time upward swing should not be
confused with temporary up-and-down fluctuations.
1873 I860
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930 1934
FIG. 24. — CHANGES IN CATTLE PRICES AS INFLUENCED BY CHANGES IN
NUMBER OF CATTLE IN THE UNITED STATES, 1873 TO 1934
Cattle prices are characterized by well-defined cycles in which peaks usually
occur every fourteen to sixteen years. The above chart shows these peaks oc-
curring in 1885, 1899, 1915, and 1930. When numbers of cattle are high, total
milk production is high and the purchasing power of cattle low. If history
repeats itself, an upward movement in cattle prices may be expected during the
next few years as the result of a decline in the number of cattle and in milk
production.
79J5]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
123
Increase in Number of Cattle
Cattle numbers and prices are characterized by well-defined cycles
whose peaks usually come fourteen to sixteen years apart (Fig. 24).
When numbers of cattle are high, prices of cattle are relatively low,
and these low prices induce dairymen to acquire more cows for milk
production. Thus a larger volume of milk becomes available for the
market, which in turn depresses the price of milk, and producers begin
to dispose of their less efficient cows.
An increase in the number of cattle, and consequently in the pro-
duction of milk, is one of the economic forces that would have caused
relatively lower butter and milk prices from 1931 to 1934 even had
there been no general price decline. In January, 1934, the price of
cattle compared with the price of other items reached its lowest point
in nearly half a century.
Faced with an acute feed shortage in 1934, producers began to
liquidate their milk cows in the summer and early fall. This movement
is likely to continue; and if history repeats itself, an upward move-
ment in cattle prices, accompanied by a decreasing volume of milk and
increasing milk prices, may be expected during the next few years.
While the above remarks apply to the situation in the United States
as a whole, the situation in the St. Louis milkshed is somewhat differ-
ent. The number of heifers that will come into milking in the St.
Louis milkshed during the next two years is materially larger pro-
portionately than in the country as a whole, or for Illinois as a whole
(Table 9) ; and for this reason an abundance of milk is in prospect
TABLE 9. — DAIRY CATTLE POPULATION AND PRODUCTION OF MILK IN THE ST. Louis
MILKSHED, IN ILLINOIS, AND IN THE UNITED STATES, 1934
St. Louis
milkshed*
Illinois1'
United Statesb
Milk sold daily per cow milked, pounds
15. 3«
Milk sold annually per cow, pounds
4 H.I ;
Number of animals per 10 farms
Milk cows
73
Dry cows
17
Total cows
90
Two-year old heifers ....
10
Yearling heifers
13
Heifer calves to be raised
12
Total heifers
35
Proportion of yearling and two-year old heifers to
total number of cows
25.8%
17.9%
18. 2%
•Information furnished by 5,409 producers in the St. Louis milkshed in June, 1934. Table 32,
Appendix, gives data by counties. The questionnaire used for obtaining these statistics is shown on
page 182, Appendix. bBased on data mcluded in Table 33. Appendix. 'May, 1934. ''From June, 1933,
to May, 1934, all cows.
124
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
in this area during this period. Relatively high milk production, com-
bined with higher butterfat prices, which will be reflected in higher
prices for whole milk, should cause substantial increases in the incomes
of dairymen in the St. Louis milkshed during the next few years.
Whole-Milk Prices Affected by Condensery Prices
During the past twenty-five years changes in the average net prices
received by producers in the 41- to 50-mile zone from St. Louis and
selling to the whole-milk market have corresponded closely to changes
in condensery prices at Greenville during the same period (Fig. 25).
$4.00
1909'10 '11 '12 '13 '14 '15 '16 '17 '18 '19 '20 '21 '22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 31 32 33 1934
FIG. 25. — PRICES FOR WHOLE MILK AT ST. Louis COUNTRY PLANTS AND
CONDENSERY PRICES AT GREENVILLE, ILLINOIS, 1909 TO 1934
Changes in whole-milk prices paid to producers in the St. Louis milkshed
have corresponded closely to changes in condensery prices in this area. From
1930 to 1934 whole-milk prices were somewhat higher than condensery prices.
Because of a probable upward movement in consumers' incomes and a lowered
milk production, as the result of fewer cows, milk prices to St. Louis producers
may be expected to move upward during the next few years.
Furthermore these changes in condensery and whole-milk prices
have corresponded closely to changes in the general price-level during
the past fifteen years (Fig. 19, page 117).
Judging from relationships existing in the past, producers in the
country-plant areas of the St. Louis milkshed may expect to receive
for whole milk an average price higher than the condensery price by
about the amount that the unit cost of producing milk of the higher
quality demanded for fluid sales in even quantities thruout the year,
exceeds the costs of producing milk for condensery uses. With the
enactment of more stringent quality requirements for whole milk, and
the resulting increase in the cost of producing it, it is probable that
whole-milk prices in the St. Louis milkshed will continue to exceed
materially the condensery prices.
1935] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 125
THE BASIC-SURPLUS PRICE PLAN
During the past few years what is known as the "basic-surplus"
price plan for paying producers for milk has spread rapidly within the
United States. This plan was adopted by the organized producers in
the St. Louis milkshed in October, 1930, and was continued until
November 15, 1934, with the exception of five months in 1933, when
a flat-price plan was in effect. During the last year in which the
basic-surplus plan was in effect — November 25, 1933, to November 15,
1934 — it was applied to all producers in the milkshed. The plan was
abandoned because organized producers, by a two-to-one vote indicated
their preference for a weighted average price for milk (see page 147).
Under the basic-surplus plan differences between the average mar-
ket value of milk marketed as whole milk (or "basic" milk) and of
milk marketed as cream or manufactured products ("surplus" milk)
are recognized in determining payments to producers for their milk.
In other words, this plan distributes to producers the proceeds from
the sale of milk at two or more prices, according to the potential mar-
ket value of the milk contributed by each producer.
Advantages in Open-Market Policy Under Plan
The basic-surplus plan may operate under either an open-market
policy or a closed-market policy. Under an open-market policy there
is no artificial restriction to the quantity of whole milk that each pro-
ducer shall be permitted to market during any given year, nor as to
how many producers may sell whole milk to a given market.
In contrast to the open-market policy, the closed-market policy re-
stricts the volume of milk for which any producer may receive the
base, or Class I, price to the volume which he produced in some pre-
vious period, or to some practical increase resulting from an increase
in sales of milk.
From an economic standpoint the use of a closed base is both
unsound and unwise, because, in the first place, it tends to penalize the
more efficient to the benefit of the less efficient dairyman, particularly
if it be extended over a period of years; and, second, because it is in
essence a producer monopoly which is almost certain to be broken
down eventually by outside milk coming into the market and disrupt-
ing the outlets of those trying to secure a privileged position.
The open-market policy was used in the operation of the basic-
surplus plan in the St. Louis milkshed. Under it the volume of basic
milk that each producer was entitled to market was subject to change
126
BULLETIN No. 412
\_April,
each year, and new producers, after a short probationary period,
were able to sell milk to the market on a parity with the older
producers.
Different Kinds of Milk Surpluses
In discussing "surplus" milk — the amount of milk produced for
market over and above that consumed as whole milk — it is well to re-
member that such milk may be divided into three distinct categories:
seasonal surplus, marginal surplus, and constant surplus (Fig. 26).
150
140
20
JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN: FEB. MAR. APR. MAY
1933 1934
FIG. 26. — VOLUME OF WHOLE-MILK SALES MONTHLY IN THE ST. Louis DAIRY
DISTRICT, 1933-1934, AND VOLUME OF DIFFERENT SURPLUSES
Milk surpluses may be thought of as three distinct kinds: (1) seasonal,
that is, the amount by which, during given seasons, production exceeds that
of the lowest season ; (2) marginal, that is, the amount necessary to insure
against daily variations in production and consumption ; and (3) constant, that
is, the difference between the seasonal surplus and the marginal surplus, a
rather constant amount that would be available for fluid sales were there a
demand for it.
The seasonal surplus is the volume of milk produced in some
months in excess of that produced in the lowest month of the year.
This surplus must necessarily be utilized as cream for buttermaking
or converted into other milk products. The marginal surplus is that
volume in excess of the average daily consumption of whole milk that
19351
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
127
must be on hand to protect distributors against the wide variation that
occurs in day-to-day consumption and production. Distributors carry
about 20 percent in excess of their average daily sales of whole milk in
order to meet this contingency. The third type of surplus, the constant
surplus, is the amount of milk in excess of both the daily demand and
the marginal surplus that is available every month of the year. The
fact that there is such a surplus would make it possible to increase im-
mediately the consumption of whole milk in the St. Louis sales area
without drawing upon producers outside the present producing area.
A still larger increase would be possible, without recourse to milk
from outside the present area, if producers would so alter their pro-
duction practices as gradually to redistribute some of the large sur-
pluses now occurring in April, May, and June, to July, August, Septem-
ber, and October, the months of low production. For seasonal varia-
tions among two groups of producers, see Fig. 27.
200
160
2120
80
40
130
120
PRODUCERS WHOSE BASE VOLUME WAS LESS
THAN 10 PERCENT OF THEIR MAY VOLUME
JUNE JULY AU6. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY
PRODUCERS WHOSE BASE VOLUME WAS 50-59
PERCENT OF THEIR MAY VOLUME
JUNE JULY AUe. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FES. MAR. APR MAY
1933 1934
FIG. 27. — MONTHLY VARIATION IN PRODUCTION OF FARMERS WHOSE BASE
VOLUMES WERE DIFFERENT PROPORTIONS OF THEIR MAY VOLUMES:
JUNE, 1933, TO MAY, 1934
The seasonal surplus of certain groups of producers is very small compared
with other groups of producers.
128
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
Production More Even Under Basic-Surplus Plan
The influence of the basic-surplus plan in encouraging dairymen to
produce more even volumes of milk thruout the different months of
the year has been demonstrated in the St. Louis milkshed.
As already stated, part of the producers in this area were paid on
the basic-surplus plan from October, 1930, to June, 1933. The seasonal
variation of these producers in 1932, when the basic-surplus plan had
been in operation more than a year, is shown by the heavy solid line
in Fig. 28. Contrasting with this heavy line is a broken line showing
PRODUCERS
123 \ (AVERA6C I913-I9ZS)
JAN FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC
FIG. 28. — MONTHLY PRODUCTION IN 1932 OF PRODUCERS PAID ON THE BASIC-
SURPLUS PLAN, COMPARED WITH THAT OF ALL PRODUCERS
IN THE ST. Louis MILKSHED FROM 1922 TO 1925
The range in seasonal production of those dairymen in the St. Louis milk-
shed who in 1932 had been paid on the basic-surplus plan for over a year was
less than half that of all producers in this milkshed from 1922 to 1925. In other
words, the basic-surplus plan tended to encourage more even production.
the seasonal variation in the production of all dairymen in the St. Louis
milkshed during an earlier period (1922-1925) when the flat-price
system was in operation. A very marked change toward a more even
production of milk during the different months of the year is evident
under the basic-surplus plan.
One reason for striving toward a more even production of milk for
the fluid market is that the demand for fluid milk is relatively even
thruout the year. Thus during the twelve months from June, 1933,
thru May, 1934, sales of fluid milk in the St. Louis area were about
the same every month (Fig. 29). In September, the high sales month,
they were only 7 percent higher than in January, the low month.
1935}
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
129
Production of milk, on the other hand was 73 percent higher in May,
the high production month, than in September, the low month. Thus
production varied about ten times as greatly from month to month as
did the consumption of milk. Such wide differences between con-
sumption and production are costly for all concerned in the fluid-milk
business.
PRODUCTION
IN MAY
TOTAL PRODUCTION
1
THE HIGH MONTH,
WAS 73% HIGHER
(LOW MONTH- lOO]
•iQ-
THAN IN SEPTEMBER,"
3^
THE LOW MONTH
"«T1
7^
PS
S*V
fy
^35
^
•WJ
100
t-
1
*<«
PERCEN
9
o
—
1
* -...',
"''.'
i -,-.-;
••.v;
,v -^
1
1
L>_,.,
PS
1
1
";.'';:!
||
§
••V'1
•£vi
.v
$,]
•'. ';
'' 7
20
l«
—
- .<
vV/
r-'x:
•.'••;1
••••^
^—
*''*''}
—
ifll
;^jfl
,-.'V-
'.' ^
—
0
V'.;
:,;;f
ft';
' ';•
' .
;:'•:
\.v:'
''.-•':
'-:••'::'
? '
117 lot toe too 100 no ne 124 us izo 137 173
JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY
100
H
Z
LJ
1
i
s
AL
1
ES OFCLA
CiOJf MONTH
asa—
ss
• /fl
I
I
o;
MILK SALES IN SEPTEMBER ,
^ THE HIGH MONTH,
(WERE 7% HIGHER THAN IN
YJAN- THUS^MONTHwn
1
I
g
1
f
I
1
060
cc.
l|
!-' --1
: .v.
'/••''*
;5:
Bjj
^
•
#i
f§
£•>'
UJ
a
•
|
^
- •? •
-
''v!
'• -'
: .-. v
sM
^
'-'•'••"
!^i
20
0
1
:;;•;
"•'-"
J; - ;".
|
t ; •
•
* ''.'"
:" c
1
fei
p
1
104 103 102 107 104 103 100 100 102 103 102 106
JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY
IOT.*\ -" io*^ji
FIG. 29. — MONTHLY VARIATIONS IN TOTAL MILK PRODUCTION AND IN
TOTAL SALES OF CLASS I MILK IN THE ST. Louis
DAIRY DISTRICT, 1933-34
The total production of milk in May, the high month, was 73 percent greater
than in September, the low month. On the other hand, the sales of Class I milk
in September, the high month, were only 7 percent greater than in January,
the low month. Thus the seasonal fluctuation in production was more than ten
times as great as the seasonal fluctuation in the volume of Class I milk sales.
It is interesting to note that the wide seasonal variation in pro-
duction just mentioned was caused, in large part, by dairymen who
were on the market nine months or less during this period (Fig. 30).
The majority of these "in-and-outers," having received a flat price
for their milk previous to November 25, 1934, had no particular in-
130
BULLETIN No. 412
{.April,
centive for making any adjustments in the volume of milk they pro-
duced in the different months.
More rigid enforcement of quality requirements in the St. Louis
milkshed should reduce greatly the number of the so-called "in-and-
outers," since it becomes unprofitable for a farmer who buys the
necessary equipment to enable him to remain on the whole-milk market
to ship milk to a condensery or other alternative market, where he
gets a lower price for his milk.
300
240
o
K
"120
60
180
PRODUCERS SHIPPING MILK 9 MONTHS OR LESS
(LOW MONTH • 100}
£120
PRODUCERS SHIPPING MILK 10 MONTHS OR MORE
•(LOW MONTH* 100) •
I Ml Ml II II I
JUNE JULY AUG. SEF
FIG. 30. — MONTHLY VARIATION IN THE PRODUCTION OF Two GROUPS OF
DAIRYMEN IN THE ST. Louis MILKSHED, JUNE, 1933, TO MAY, 1934
Dairymen who shipped milk nine months or less had a seasonal variation
in production that was nearly four times as large as that of producers who
shipped milk ten months or more.
The restoration of the basic-surplus plan, which tends to discourage
wide seasonal variation in production, coupled with strictly enforced
quality requirements, which will keep the sporadic producers out of
the whole-milk market, should, the author believes, reduce greatly
seasonal fluctuations in production in this market and thereby permit
it to operate on a more efficient basis.
Basic-Surplus Plan Not Cause of Price Decline
The rapid decline in producer milk prices which took place from
1929 to 1933 caused much dissatisfaction among dairymen in the St.
1935] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 131
Louis milkshed. Many individuals in the area attributed the decline
to the basic-surplus plan of paying for milk which, as stated above,
was adopted in October, 1930.
Actually, however, the basic-surplus plan had nothing to do with
this price decline. Producers in the Minneapolis-St.Paul, New York,
and other milksheds, who received a weighted average price during
this period, were likewise dissatisfied with milk prices. The real cause
for declining prices in the various milksheds of the country from 1929
to 1933 is not to be found in any particular type of plan for paying
producers but may be traced to deep-seated economic disturbances, as
already pointed out on pages 117 to 124.
Since the use of this plan tends to effect economies in transporta-
tion and plant operation in addition to giving a higher average price
to dairymen whose production of milk is more nearly in line with con-
sumers' demands, it is not unlikely that sooner or later it will again
be adopted in the St. Louis milkshed. In the meantime it would seem a
wise policy for producers in this milkshed to continue to so adjust
their feeding and breeding practices as to bring about a more even
production of milk thruout the year.
DISTRIBUTORS' GROSS HANDLING MARGINS
A distributor's gross handling margin for a given unit of milk is
the difference between the price that he pays producers for it and the
price he receives for it.
Producers and consumers frequently assume that the gross hand-
ling margin realized by distributors is the difference between the retail
quart price of delivered milk and the wholesale price paid to producers
for milk. The fact is that sales in quarts at retail constitute only a
small proportion of the milk purchased from producers. For instance,
in July, 1934, only 23.7 percent, or about one quart of every four
purchased by distributors in the St. Louis sales area, was sold in quart
bottles to retail consumers. The sale prices of the other three- fourths
of the milk which distributors handle must of course be taken into
account when one is considering their gross handling margins.
Proportions of Milk Utilized in Different Forms
For the twelve months from June, 1933, to May, 1934, approxi-
mately half the milk purchased by distributors in the St. Louis dairy
district was utilized as whole milk (Class I). These proportions held
also for July, 1934 (Table 10).
132
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
TABLE 10. — UTILIZATION OF MILK PURCHASED BY DISTRIBUTORS IN THE ST. Louis
DAIRY DISTRICT, JULY, 1934
Class
Amount
Percentage
Class I . .
Ibs.
18 285 155
50.7
Class II
3 603 342
10.0
Class III
14 168 155
39.3
Total
36 056 652
100.0
The half used otherwise than as whole milk was used as Class II
milk, which constituted 10 percent of distributors' total purchases,
and Class III milk, which made up 40 percent of distributors' pur-
chases. Milk known as Class II and Class III is that used as table
cream, condensed milk, or butter, or converted into other milk prod-
ucts (see pages 146 and 147 for further definition of classes).
FIG. 31. — PROPORTIONS OF CLASS I MILK SOLD THRU RETAIL AND WHOLESALE
OUTLETS IN THE ST. Louis SALES AREA, JULY, 1934
More than half the total volume of Class I milk sold in the St. Louis area
in July, 1934, was sold direct to retail consumers ; the other half was sold at
wholesale prices to restaurants, stores, hotels, and other institutions.
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
133
Retail and Wholesale Sales of Class I Milk
Of the total volume of Class I sales of milk in the St. Louis area
in July, 1934, retail and wholesale sales comprized practically equiva-
lent proportions — 50.5 percent and 49.5 percent respectively (Fig 31).
The total amount of Grade A milk, sold at retail and wholesale, con-
stituted 9.6 percent of the total volume of Class I sales.
By far the larger part of the volume of Class I sales consisted of
retail and wholesale quarts (retail quarts, 47.4 percent and wholesale
quarts, 28.0 percent (Fig. 32 and Table 11). The volume of Class I
FIG. 32. — PROPORTIONS OF CLASS I MILK SOLD IN THE PRINCIPAL SALES
UNITS, ST. Louis SALES AREA, JULY, 1934
Retail quarts of milk (including Grade A) constituted slightly less than
half the total sales of Class I milk in the St. Louis sales area in July, 1934;
wholesale quarts, about three-tenths ; and wholesale gallons, about one-seventh.
Together, these items equaled about nine-tenths of the total sales of Class I
milk.
milk sold in these units, together with that sold in bulk gallons whole-
sale, comprized 90 percent of the total Class I sales. The remaining
10 percent was divided among fifteen other sales units.
134
BULLETIN No. 412
[.April,
Gross Handling Margins on Class I Milk
Since distributors in the St. Louis sales area sell Class I milk in
twenty different sales units (Table 11), they have twenty different
gross handling margins. The margin for retail quarts in July, 1934,
was 6.47 cents; for wholesale quarts, 3.47 cents; and for wholesale
bulk gallons, 2.47 cents a quart (and less when wholesale bulk milk
TABLE 11. — PROPORTIONS OF CLASS I MILK SOLD IN THE DIFFERENT SALES UNITS,
AND DISTRIBUTORS' GROSS HANDLING MARGINS ON EACH UNIT,
ST. Louis MILK SALES AREA, JULY, 1934
Sales units
Percent of
total Class I
milk sales
Distributors'
gross margin
on quart basis
Retail quarts
39.90
cents
6 47
Wholesale quarts '
27.99
3.47
15 09
2 47
7.52
8 61
Wholesale pints
2.93
7.47
Retail pints
2.22
9.47
1 83
9 47
Wholesale Grade A quarts
.80
6 61
Retail Grade A, Vitamin D, quarts
.53
9.18
.47
8 97
.26
12.61
Wholesale Grade A \^ pints
.22
14.61
.11
12 61
Retail Grade A }^ pints
.03
18 61
Wholesale Grade A pints
.03
10.61
.02
15 47
Wholesale Grade A Vitamin D quarts
.02
7.18
Retail Grade A Vitamin D pints
.01
14.18
.01
12 18
Wholesale Grade A Vitamin D J4 pints
.01
18.18
Total
100.00
5 41
TABLE 12. — DISTRIBUTORS' AVERAGE GROSS MARGIN FOR HANDLING WHOLESALE
QUARTS OF MILK, BOSTON AND ST. Louis, 1934a
City
Distributors'
average sale price
for wholesale quarts
Average
price paid
producers'5
Distributors'
gross handling
margin
St. Louis
8.9
4.5
4.4
Boston
9.0
6.6
2.4
Difference
2.0
•Based on monthly fluid-milk reports of the Bureau of Agricultural Economics, U. S. Department
of Agriculture.
bMilk prices to producers are quoted on the basis of 3.5-percent butterfat content. Since milk
sold by distributors to stores or consumers contained more than 3.5 percent butterfat, the average
prices paid to producers were herein coi reeled to include the value of the additional butterfat con-
tained in the milk when sold.
79J5] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 135
was contracted at figures lower than quoted prices). The weighted
average gross handling margins for the 20 retail units were 5.41 cents
a quart, which is 1.06 cents a quart less than the margin on retail
quarts.
The average gross handling margin of distributors in the St. Louis
area on wholesale quarts for the year 1934 is shown in Table 12 in
comparison with the margin on which distributors in the Boston area
operated. The St. Louis margin was 4.4 cents, the Boston average 2.4
cents a wholesale quart.
ST. LOUIS MILK MARKET ORGANIZATIONS: AIMS
AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS
The forces that determine how and in what volume milk shall be
produced and what the marketing service shall be are not self-
operative; they are influenced by the activities of all the groups con-
cerned— producers, distributors, and consumers.
For the twenty years preceding 1929 the major policies followed
in the production and marketing of milk in the St. Louis dairy district
were determined by milk distributors. Consumers had no organized
representation. Producers made several attempts to unify their inter-
ests but in each instance the organization was short-lived.
Finally in 1929 an organization known as the Sanitary Milk Pro-
ducers was effected among producers in the St. Louis milkshed in
order to bargain collectively with distributors. In 1930 a consumer
organization, the Consumers' Milk Commission, was established to
represent consumer interests. The activities of this commission were
taken over in 1934 by the St. Louis Consumers' Council. With the
advent of these producer and consumer organizations, the control of
the major policies in the St. Louis dairy district has become more
nearly representative of all interests concerned.
At the present time milk policies in St. Louis are, in a measure,
specified in the provisions of the federal milk license, which became
effective on March 2, 1934, superseding a marketing plan approved and
incorporated into a federal marketing agreement on November 25, 1933,
after the passage of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
The objectives and accomplishments of the principal organizations
which influence the production and marketing of milk in this area are
described in the following pages.
136 BULLETIN No. 412 {.April,
Sanitary Milk Producers
The Sanitary Milk Producers is a collective milk-bargaining as-
sociation of producers located in the St. Louis milkshed. It was organ-
ized in 1929 for the following purposes:1
1. "Standardization and improvement of milk and dairy products.
2. "Collective bargaining in selling.
3. "Control of surplus and supplying milk as the market demands.2
4. "Checking weights and tests.
5. "Watching credit rating of buyers.
6. "Issuing truthful market information.
7. "Advertising milk and dairy products to broaden the outlet."
In 1934 the association had a membership of about ten thousand
producers organized into 112 local units. These producers supplied
regularly 64 percent of the total volume of milk shipped to the St.
Louis market (Fig. 2). The organization is an active member of the
National Cooperative Milk Producers' Federation. Operating expenses
of the association are financed by a membership fee and a "check-off"
taken from the amounts due members for milk shipments. The amount
of this check-off has varied from 3 to 5 cents a hundred pounds of
milk ; in December, 1934, it was 3 cents a hundred pounds of milk.
The management of this association has made steady progress in
carrying out the program outlined above, and much of the improvement
in the market organization in the St. Louis dairy district since 1929
can be credited to its activities.
Milk Distributor Groups
Milk distributors in the St. Louis sales area are not organized into
a formal trade association. Since, however, three distributors buy two-
thirds of the milk in the market and ten purchase nine-tenths of it, it is
possible to effect working agreements without a formal association.
Milk dealers in the St. Louis market were represented in the joint
conferences of distributors, producers, and consumers in the summer
of 1930 (see page 137) by the representatives of the St. Louis Dairy
Company, the Highland Dairy Company, and the Beatrice Creamery
Company. Likewise, in the price conferences held in this market from
1930 to 1933 distributors were usually represented by individuals from
the principal companies. These price conferences were discontinued
upon the adoption of the federal marketing agreement.
"As stated in the Illinois Agricultural Association Record, April, 1929, p. 1.
*The author suggests that this objective be changed to read: "adjustment
of milk production to meet market demands." •
79J5] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 137
In the early part of 1934 a group of small dealers in the St. Louis
market organized into the Small Dealers' Association, which includes
.(December, 1934) twenty-five distributors. The association discusses
and takes action on problems which are of mutual interest to these
small dairies in the St. Louis market.
Another dealer organization in the city is the St. Louis Milk
Exchange, which was organized in 1932. This organization provides
for the systematic return of milk bottles and other milk packages to
the original owners. For each package received from or returned to
the exchange, milk dealers pay or receive a stipulated price. This is an
economic way of lowering the very heavy losses that otherwise occur
on milk bottles and other milk packages.
Consumers' Milk Commission
Much of the improvement in producer-distributor relations in the
St. Louis market from 1930 to 1933 can be credited to the activities
of the Consumers' Milk Commission.
This commission, sponsored by the St. Louis League of Women
Voters, was organized March 3, 1930, at a meeting called by the
Sanitary Milk Producers, at which it was explained that the serious
financial condition of the dairymen who produced the supply of milk
for St. Louis seemed likely to be reflected in a poorer quality of milk
delivered into the city.
On June 4, 1930, in the headquarters of the League, the first of a
series of three conferences was held by eighteen persons representing
dealers, producers, and the Consumers' Milk Commission. The purpose
of this meeting was to consider the objectives of the Sanitary Milk
Producers and dealers' reactions to the development of a marketing
plan for the purchase and sale of milk in this area. On July 7, 1930,
this large group was reduced to a joint conference committee of nine —
three members representing dealers, three representing producers, and
three representing consumers.1
Four conferences by this committee were held to discuss milk
marketing agreements and price plans. In August, 1930, the committee
agreed upon provisions for a marketing plan, and the consumer repre-
'Dealer representatives were: B. M. Lide, Jr., president of the St. Louis
Dairy Company; Bruno Tschannen of the Highland Dairy Company; and H. W.
Barr, president of the Beatrice Creamery Company. E. W. Tiedeman, A. D.
Lynch, and George Grueningcr represented the Sanitary Milk Producers. Con-
sumers were represented by Mrs. George Gellhorn, Mrs. W. W. Burke, and
Mrs. Virgil Loeb. Mrs. Loeb was made chairman of the committee at the joint
conference.
138 BULLETIN No. 412 [April,
sentatives of the committee presented a report of their activities. From
1930 to 1933 the Consumers' Milk Commission was represented at
each of the price conferences which took place in the St. Louis market.
As stated above, these conferences ceased with the adoption of the
federal milk marketing agreement.
The writer is convinced that the type of conference sponsored and
developed by this commission is a definite help in solving producer-
distributor-consumer problems and differences in this market, and
might well be reestablished.
St. Louis Consumers' Council
The Consumers' Council of St. Louis and St. Louis county, one of
200 such councils set up thru the nation by the National Emergency
Council, was organized in May, 1934.
Members of local councils are appointed by the local chairman,
who is in turn appointed by the National Emergency Council. Mem-
bers of the St. Louis Consumers' Council serve without pay and are
chosen because of their reputations as public-spirited and informed
members of the community. Specialists in social sciences, those who
have had practical experience in marketing organization work, and
specialists in research are included in the membership.1
The main purpose of the St. Louis Consumers' Council is to focus
consumers' endeavors and to give consumers adequate representation
in solving local problems, as well as to obtain and disseminate infor-
mation relating to retail prices and standards of quality. It has taken
definite action toward improving the quality of milk in St. Louis. Two
major provisions of its present program are (1) to improve present
standards for obtaining milk of high quality; and (2) to insure ade-
quate financing and a nonpolitical personnel for the enforcement of a
quality improvement program.
This organization had an important part in effecting the passage
of an ordinance which became effective December, 1934, governing
'The present members (December, 1934) of the Council are: Mrs. Roscoe
Anderson, chairman ; Reverend Father W. F. Mullally, vice-chairman ; Mrs.
Herman Maas, secretary; Mrs. George A. Bass, Mrs. F. B. Bowles, Miss Esther
Lee Bride, Mrs. W. W. Burke, Mrs. Walston Chubb, Mr. Ralph Fletcher, Mrs.
George Gellhorn, Dr. George M. Gibson, Mr. Raymond Howes, Dr. F. M.
Isserman, Mrs. Edmund J. Kerber, Mr. Joseph M. Klamon, Mrs. Virgil Loeb,
Bishop William J. Scarlett, Dr. David C. Todd, Mrs. W. Victor Weir, Mr.
Tyrell Williams. It will be observed that Mrs. Gellhorn, Mrs. Loeb, and
Mrs. Burke, formerly members of the Consumers' Milk Commission, are now
members of the Consumers' Council. Mr. J. C. Waldron, the survey secretary
of the Council, is engaged in assembling and disseminating facts pertaining to
Council activities.
1935}
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
139
quality requirements for milk and providing methods for financing
their enforcement.
St. Louis Division of Public Health
The St. Louis Division of Public Health is responsible for main-
taining inspection and control of the quality of milk and milk products
sold in the city of St. Louis. Specific provisions for controlling the
quality of milk and milk products prior to November, 1934, were in-
cluded in an ordinance approved March 21, 1928. A new ordinance,
as mentioned above, containing requirements more stringent than those
previously in force, became effective on November 22, 1934.
In practice the Division of Public Health in St. Louis was very
lax in enforcing quality requirements included in the ordinance of
1928. As a result dairymen producing high-quality milk were penal-
ized ; and those producing low-quality milk benefited, since producers
were paid the same price for milk regardless of quality. Furthermore
milk of lower quality than specified as minimum quality by the ordi-
nance was permitted to be offered for sale to consumers. Part of the
laxity in enforcing quality requirements can be attributed to lack of
funds for carrying out an effective program.
Certain requirements under the 1928 ordinance were much lower
TABLE 13. — MAXIMUM NUMBER OF BACTERIA PERMITTED IN MILK BEFORE AND
AFTER PASTEURIZATION, IN 14 CITIES OF THE UNITED STATES WITH MORE
THAN 500,000 POPULATION, JULY, 1934»
City
Maximum bacteria count
before pasteurization
Maximum bacteria count
after pasteurization
Baltimore
200 000
30 000
Boston
750 000
50 000
Buffalo
100 000
30 000
Chicago1"
750 000 Oct. to April
50 000 Oct.-Apr.
Cleveland
1 000 000 May to Sept.
1 000 000
100 000 May-Sept.
100 000
Detroit
Not fixed
Not fixed
Los Angeles
150 000
15 000
Milwaukee
Not fixed
250 000
1 000 000
25 000
New York
750 000 if to be pasteurized
50 000
Philadelphia
in city
300 000 if to be pasteurized
outside city
Not fixed
50 000
Pittsburgh
Not fixed
Not fixed
St. Louis'
4 000 000
100 000
San Francisco
150 000
15 000
•Sources of data are given on page 181, Appendix.
bThe Chicago ordinance was revised in December, 1934, to include a maximum bacteria count of
200,000 before pasteurization and 30,000 after pasteurization, no seasonal variation being permitted.
•The St. Louis ordinance was revised in December, 1934, to include a maximum bacteria count of
1,500,000 before pasteurization.
140 BULLETIN No. 412 [.April,
than those of other large markets in the country. The requirements
for raw milk to be pasteurized were the most lenient of the ten largest
markets of the country that include definite bacteria counts in their
ordinances (Table 13). In St. Louis the maximum bacteria count of
raw milk before pasteurization was 4 million per cubic centimeter, four
times the count permitted at Cleveland, Chicago, and Minneapolis,
which permit a maximum of one million per cubic centimeter, and
twenty-seven times that of Los Angeles and San Francisco, which per-
mit a maximum of only 150,000 per cubic centimeter. The maximum
bacteria count after pasteurization was the same as that for Chicago
and Cleveland and lower than that for Milwaukee.
In the new ordinance the bacteria counts permitted in the raw
milk to be pasteurized for sale have been materially reduced, and
consumers will be assured of clean, safe milk if the specified quality
requirements are enforced.
St. Louis District Dairy Council and Dairy Commission
The St. Louis District Dairy Council was organized on February
1, 1931, for the purpose of bringing about a greater consumption of
milk thru a general educational program stressing the importance of
milk and milk products in a well-ordered diet. The subject of food
and nutrition as a necessary part of a general health program is pre-
sented by staff members thru cooperation with educational and health
agencies, by personal contact and letter, by distribution of leaflets and
posters, and by the showing of plays and motion pictures.
Funds to support the Dairy Council's activities have been contri-
buted by milk distributors and producers in the St. Louis district.
Under an agreement between these two groups, which became effective
in December, 1934, the educational program of the Dairy Council be-
came part of the program of the Dairy Commission of St. Louis. This
commission also is financed jointly by producers and distributors.
The Dairy Council and the Dairy Commission work with public,
private, and parochial school teachers, boys' and girls' clubs, parent-
teacher associations, community clubs, church and fraternal organiza-
tions, the health department, and various individual groups. The type
of information included in the educational programs assembled for
these organizations furnishes a constructive basis for increasing the
consumption of milk and dairy products. Perhaps the only word of
caution for this organization is that the expenditure of funds for the
purpose of increasing consumption of dairy products be carefully
planned in order to insure results commensurate with their cost.
1935] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 141
Production Credit Associations
More stringent requirements concerning the quality of milk to be
offered for sale in St. Louis are likely soon to force many farmers in
the St. Louis milkshed to purchase new equipment. The cooperative
production credit system, recently established thruout the United
States, affords an economical way for producers with adequate security
to obtain loans for these purposes.
One of the twelve Production Credit Corporations is located at St.
Louis. Production credit associations that are branches of the Pro-
duction Credit Corporation, serving the producers in the St. Louis
milkshed, are located at Carrollton, Carlinville, Belleville, Shelbyville,
and Mt. Vernon in Illinois, and Bloomfield, Farmington, Hannibal,
Rolla, O'Fallon, St. Joseph, Steelville, and West Plains in Missouri.
The current rate of interest to borrowers in production credit as-
sociations is 5 percent for the actual time that the money is in use.
Loans to dairymen can be made for one year but will be considered for
a period not to exceed three years. Renewals are contingent upon new
application, inspection, and approval of the collateral offered as
security.
The estimated cost of the inspection fee for obtaining a loan of
$150 to $200 is $2.00, and other costs incident to a loan usually do not
exceed $1.50. On an annual basis the interest and charges on a $200
loan are about 6.5 percent.
To be eligible for a loan, each borrower must become a member of
the association and must purchase five dollars' worth of Class B stock
for each $100 borrowed. After a loan has been repaid, this stock can
be listed with the production credit association to be sold, according to
the present policy of the Farm Credit Administration, to new borrowers
that qualify for loans before new stock is issued. In this manner it is
possible for old borrowers to retire their investment in the stock.
All loans to producers of fluid milk are customarily retired on a
monthly repayment plan with a minimum monthly repayment of
3 percent of the money borrowed. It is also customary to ascertain
that the borrower has a definite milk base, and then to have the pur-
chaser of the milk accept an assignment to make deductions from the
monthly milk check and remit these to the local association making
the loan. It is believed that many producers in this milkshed will find
it profitable to make use of these new credit facilities.1
'Complete detailed instructions for obtaining a loan can be secured by ap-
plying to the nearest production credit association or to the Production Credit
Corporation, St. Louis, Missouri.
142
BULLETIN No. 412
Dairy Herd Improvement Associations
[April,
Dairy herd improvement associations have been in existence in the
Middle West for more than twenty years. The principal objective of
the associations is to increase efficiency in the production of milk, so
that farmers may realize higher net returns from their dairy herds,
this objective to be realized by:
1. Improving feeding practices
2. Rigid culling of unprofitable cows
3. Improving dairy herds thru the location of families of cows of out-
standing merit
4. Improving herd sires
5. Increasing the owner's interest in his dairy herd
Records kept by these associations show clearly that one of the best
ways for a producer to realize better returns above feed costs is to in-
crease his production per cow. Thus in 1933, 383 cows producing more
than 500 pounds of butterfat per cow returned an average of $133.84
per cow above feed costs; whereas cows producing less than 150
pounds of butterfat returned an average of only $7.76 above feed costs
(Fig. 33 and Table 14).
The need for broader adoption by producers in the St. Louis milk-
shed of practices that will improve their productive efficiency is em-
phasized by comparing the average annual production per cow in this
area with that for all Illinois cows and for all cows in dairy herd im-
POUNDS OF
BUTTERFAT
PER COW
ANNUAL RETURNS PER COW ABOVE FEED COST
O 25 50 75 100 125 150
OVER 500
450- 500
400-450
350-400
300-350
250-300
200-250
150-200
UNDER 150
FIG. 33. — RETURNS PER Cow AS RELATED TO VOLUME OF BUTTERFAT
As production per cow increases, returns above feed costs increase. Thus
for cows producing over 500 pounds of butterfat, the returns above feed costs
averaged $133.84 per cow; while for cows producing less than 150 pounds of
butterfat the returns averaged only $7.75 above feed costs. This graph is based
on the records of 53 dairy herd improvement associations in Illinois in 1933.
1935}
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
143
TABLE 14. — AVERAGE RETURNS PER Cow ABOVE FEED COSTS, AS RELATED TO
PRODUCTION PER Cow, FROM RECORDS OF 53 ILLINOIS DAIRY HERD
IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATIONS, 1933»
Pounds of butterfat
Number of
cows
Fat per cow
Returns per
cow above
feed cost
500 and over
383
Ibs.
553.6
£133.84
450-499
544
472.1
107.05
400-449
1 088
421.8
93.35
350-399
2 095
373.0
77.92
300-349
2 799
324.0
65.67
250-299
2 562
276.3
51.99
200-249
1 499
229.2
40.33
150-199
531
180.2
26.78
Under 150
189
118.4
7.76
•Rhode, C. S., and Cash, J. G., "A Year's Progress in Dairy Herd Improvement." Univ. of
111., Dept. of Dairy Husbandry, April, 1934. Mimeo.
provement associations in Illinois. The average milk production in the
St. Louis milkshed in 1934 was 4,161 pounds per cow, whereas the
Illinois average was 4,690 pounds per cow, and the average in 1933 for
all dairy herd improvement associations in Illinois was 8,331 pounds
per cow.
The following associations are now operating in Illinois in the St.
Louis milkshed: Jersey-Greene-Morgan Association; St. Clair-Mon-
roe-Randolph Association ; Effingham County Association ; Montgom-
ery-Macoupin Association ; and Macoupin-Madison Association. On
the Missouri side of the St. Louis milkshed the following associations
are operating: Rails-Marion Association; Pike-Lincoln Association;
St. Charles-St. Louis Association ; and Jefferson Association.
Since dairy herd improvement associations afford a practical way
for farmers to obtain help in increasing the efficiency of their produc-
tion, and since the benefits of these associations extend much farther
than to participating members, these associations should be given en-
couragement by all persons and agencies concerned in improving pro-
duction practices in this area.
PRESENT POLICIES UNDER FEDERAL MILK LICENSE
Under Section 8 of the Agricultural Adjustment Act approved May
12, 1933, the Secretary of Agriculture was given power to issue licenses
which would assist in bringing about improvements in the marketing
of milk. The powers specified in the act are:
"To issue licenses permitting processors, associations of producers and
others to engage in the handling, in the current of interstate or foreign
commerce, of any agricultural commodity or product thereof, or any com-
144 BULLETIN No. 412 {.April,
peting commodity or product thereof. Such licenses shall be subject to
such terms and conditions, not in conflict with existing Acts of Congress or
regulations pursuant thereto, as may be necessary to eliminate unfair
practices or charges that prevent or tend to prevent the effectuation of the
declared policy and the restoration of normal economic conditions in the
marketing of such commodities or products and the financing thereof.
"To require any licensee under this section to furnish such reports as
to quantities of agricultural commodities or products thereof bought and
sold and the prices thereof, and as to trade practices and charges, and to
keep such systems of accounts, as may be necessary for the purpose of
part 2 of this title."
Purposes and Scope of License
Under the authority of the above act, the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration, upon the request of the Sanitary Milk Producers,
issued a milk license applicable to all milk producers and distributors
in the St. Louis sales area. The license, which became effective on
March 2, 1934, embodies the following statement of purposes and
powers :
1. To increase the income of the dairy farmer.
2. To increase the farmer's share in the management and operation of
his own market.
3. To maintain proper relationships between producers on the same
market and between groups of producers in different markets.
4. To provide reasonable protection to the consumer.
5. To define use-classifications which shall be employed as the basis for
sale of milk to distributors, and to require each distributor to
submit monthly reports of the sale of milk in each of these classi-
fications.
6. To fix minimum prices for each classification to be paid by each dis-
tributor in the St. Louis sales area for whole milk received from
producers.
7. To change classification prices from time to time as necessitated by
changes in market conditions.
8. To define zones and fix transportation differentials for milk received
outside of the St. Louis sales area.
Functions of Milk Market Administrator
In order to carry out the provisions of the federal milk license, the
office of Milk Market Administrator was created by the Secretary of
Agriculture, under the authority of the Agricultural Adjustment Act.
In the St. Louis dairy district the responsibilities of this office are
principally the following:
1. To operate a market pool and an equalization fund, in order (a) to
assure competing distributors that each will pay the same price
for milk in the same classification, and to prevent by this as-
1935} ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 145
surance destructive distributor competition and price-cutting in
the purchase of milk from producers; (b) to distribute, on a fair
basis, proceeds to producers in the milkshed.
2. To audit books of each distributor in order to assure producers and
competing distributors that the sales reported to the market ad-
ministrator represent actual sales.
3. To request each distributor to furnish bond or other satisfactory
surety that will guarantee to producers payment for milk pur-
chased.
4. To check distributors' samples, weights, and butterfat tests of milk
for producers who are not members of the Sanitary Milk Pro-
ducers.
5. To furnish market information to producers, distributors, and con-
sumers in the St. Louis dairy district.
In essence, these regulations are designed to eliminate some of the
destructive market practices which have operated against the best
interests of producers, distributors, and consumers in the St. Louis
sales area.
Use-Classification Principle Recognized
A fundamental principle of milk marketing which is recognized in
the St. Louis federal milk license is that distributors should pay for
the milk they purchase, according to the way in which the milk is used.
The practice of classifying milk according to its use is based upon
differences in market values recognized by distributors and manufac-
turers who use the milk.
In the classified, or use, system of paying for milk there may be
one price for milk used in fluid form, another price for milk separated
to be used as cream, and still another price for milk manufactured
into other products. When distributors and manufacturers pay for
milk on a use basis, a market pool, together with an equalization fund,
becomes necessary if payments for milk are to be fairly distributed to
producers (see pages 152 to 155).
The classification, or use, price plan was in operation as far back
as 1898. "In 1898, for a period of five or six years, the Boston milk
contractors accounted for their surplus for what it was worth made
into butter, and credited the market value of this surplus back to the
producer."1 The Dairymen's League Cooperative Association in New
York State commenced to use this type of plan in May, 1921. Besides
being used in Boston and New York, the plan is also in operation in
Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and
Minneapolis-St. Paul, as well as in about seventy-five other cities in the
'Personal communication from W. H. Bronson, Research Department, New
England Milk Producers' Association, Boston.
146 BULLETIN No. 412 [April,
United States ; and it is generally recognized by students of milk
marketing as being a distinct advance over previous methods used in
the purchase and sale of milk.
The classes outlined in the St. Louis federal milk license1 are three
and are defined as follows:
"Class I milk means all milk sold or distributed by distributors as whole
milk for consumption or use in the St. Louis Sales Area.
"Class II milk means all milk used by distributors to produce cream for
consumption as cream, evaporated milk, condensed milk, flavored drinks,
creamed buttermilk, and creamed cottage cheese, for sale or distribution
by distributors in the St. Louis Sales Area, Provided, that the milk from
which only the skimmed milk is used in the production of the above
products shall not be included as Class II milk.
"Class III milk means the quantity of milk purchased, sold, used or
distributed by distributors in excess of Class I and Class II milk."
Producer Prices in St. Louis Area
According to the federal milk license, prices for milk in the St.
Louis sales area are based upon milk of 3.5-percent butterfat content
delivered f .o.b. distributor's plant in the area. The prices which became
effective on August 14, 1934, were as follows (per 100 pounds):
Class I milk, $2.35; Class II milk, $1.33; Class III milk, $1.02.
These prices were determined as follows:
Class I milk. The price for Class I milk, in any market, is the
highest price that is obtainable when the principal economic factors in
the particular area in which it is sold and the conditions and welfare
of the dairy industry as a whole are taken into account. The above
price remained in effect until November 16, 1934, when it was lowered
to $2.00 as a result of excessive quantities of milk coming to the
market.
Class II milk. The price for Class II milk is determined by the
formula: "For each 100 pounds of milk, 3.5 times the average price
per pound of 92 score butter at wholesale in the Chicago market, as
reported by the United States Department of Agriculture for the de-
livery period during which such milk is purchased, plus 30 percent
thereof plus 20 cents." Applying this formula to the market conditions
of September, 1934, we have:
3.5 times $.2482 (price per pound of 92-score butter at wholesale in
Chicago markets) equals $.8687
1.30 times $.8687 equals $1.13
$1.13 plus $.20 equals $1.33
'Amended license for milk, St. Louis sales area, effective August 14, 1934.
79J5] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 147
Class III milk. For Class III milk the following formula is used:
"For each 100 pounds of milk, 3.5 times the average price per pound
of 92 score butter at wholesale in the Chicago market, as reported by
the United States Department of Agriculture for the delivery period
during which such milk is purchased plus 15 cents." Applying this
formula we have:
3.5 times $.2482 equals $.87
$.87 plus $.15 equals $1.02
Producer Prices Converted to Weighted Average
As a means of distributing payments for milk to producers, dairy-
men in the St. Louis milkshed, beginning in the latter half of Novem-
ber, 1934,1 were paid one price for their milk — a weighted average
price based on the prices and volumes of milk of the different classes
sold in the area, and subject of course to variation for butterfat con-
tent, transportation charges, and other differentials. This plan replaced
the market-blend and excess prices2 in effect from March to Novem-
ber, 1934.
The weighted average price, when milk is sold on a classified or
"use" basis, is the quotient obtained by dividing the total market value
of Class I, Class II, and Class III milk by the total volume of milk
produced. For example, if we assume that of a total 200,000 pounds of
milk, Class I sales consisted of 100,000 pounds at $2.00 a hundred-
weight; Class II sales, 80,000 pounds at $1.30 a hundredweight; and
Class III sales, 20,000 pounds at $1.00 a hundredweight, the total
market value of the 200,000 pounds of milk was $3,240. The weighted
average price would then be $1.62 a hundredweight ($3,240 divided by
200,000).
While the use of a weighted average price is designed to distribute
payments for milk more equitably among producers than the flat-price
system formerly in use, the plan has rather serious disadvantages.
Unless, for instance, some arrangement is included whereby prices are
reduced during periods of low production costs and increased during
periods of high production costs, the use of such a system encourages,
rather than discourages, production during the months of low costs,
when surpluses are already burdensome.
The effect of using a weighted average price for whole milk thru-
'Under the license as amended November 14 to become effective Novem-
ber 16, 1934.
"The market-blend price was about equal to the weighted average of Class I
and Class II milk prices, and the excess price equaled the price paid by distribu-
tors for Class III milk.
148
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
out the year is shown by production records in the New York milkshed
since May, 1921, when this system of payment was adopted. The
average daily increase in the milk production of about 15,000 dairymen
in this area for the five Junes from 1926 to 1930, compared with the
five Junes from 1921 to 1925, was 14.7 pounds higher per producer
than the average increase for all sixty months of the later period com-
pared with all sixty months of the earlier period. (Table 15 and
Fig. 34).
40
§10
rr
JAM FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNf JULY AU6.UPT OCT. NQV OfC
FIG. 34. — AVERAGE DAILY INCREASE IN MILK PRODUCTION PER FARM BY
15,000 DAIRYMEN IN NEW YORK STATE, 1926-1930 OVER 1922-1925,
UNDER WEIGHTED AVERAGE PRICE PLAN OF PAYING FOR MILK
A weighted average price has been used since May, 1921, in paying pro-
ducers in the New York«milkshed. This has caused a greater increase in milk
production in the spring and summer than in the shortage months, and con-
sequently a widening of the area necessary to supply the whole-milk needs of
the New York sales area.
The greater concentration of production in the months of low costs
has caused a widening of the milkshed to meet the needs of the fluid-
milk market during the months of higher costs and lower production;
and the widening of the milkshed has in turn increased hauling costs
and the operating costs of country and city plants in taking care of
peak loads of production.
It would seem that the making of seasonal adjustments in the
weighted average* price for whole milk might be an effective way of
inducing dairymen to adjust production more nearly to seasonal de-
mands ; but the fact is that such adjustments in the weighted average
price have not proved practical, for there is a tendency to keep Class I
prices at too high a level in months when production costs are low and
at too low a level in months when production costs are high.
While the St. Louis market doubtless will benefit by the use of this
system of paying milk producers, compared with a flat-price system,
1935]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
149
Is
Ov
•52
• • •
•53 »;
f*5 I/) fS
£«
tN tN
0 <^ ro
y
Q
1* O •»»
O fS CN
2
<^ O i»
n
SS 55
<! j
1
00 O tN
— —
O U
•
». O ro
5
00 00 O
- 3
- tN
§|
j
«S O* t~
5 W ^-x
tX
O — -<
S< -3
O Q 3
« g 0
eu H a
8. X _
M
f*5 00 IO
— N —
<o
V
3
< o .S
M
«> 1
t^ •*• **
2
X M rt
0£ M CO
3
10 oo M
a
tN tN
tu hr ^"
55
— — c
2
w
tN 00 ^
o« -. o.
a
**»
ggo
3
S 1 ^
m
P^-l CN
"3
UNO *;
»D CN
00 00 O
CQ
QO CO
rt
rn
g^ a
S
S S "
a
CL, 9 '5
M
•*" Z o
w
M< £
dJQ e
^ o o
a
" ! 2
<
fiSl
fN
"^
CS tN
t
5®\ .2
S-fi
J3
-" fO fS
o
U
U u
S
-* S CM
c
CN tN
o
< H
>
3*
E
> M
00 0 CN
"T "
£
CN ••»• tN
_B
Ji
i
sl
c
00 O tN
j
<
5
g JN <N
5
•3
E
e
]
2
1
3
10 O
a & i
^
^ 3 §
2 2 J5
150 BULLETIN No. 412 {.April,
there seems to be no evidence that it will help in the solution of the
problem of seasonal surpluses, which is one of the troublesome prob-
lems in the industry.
Reasons for Price Differences Based on Milk Use
People not familiar with the fluid-milk business frequently ask why
there should be differences in the prices paid by distributors for milk
of different classes when "Class I milk is of no better quality than
milk used as cream or in manufactured products."
The fact is that while a considerable volume of milk sold for manu-
facturing purposes is actually of the same quality as Class I milk, it
need not be of as high quality to be acceptable for those purposes, it
need not be produced to such a large extent in the high-cost months
nor in high-cost seasons, and it need be transported in bulk form only
to a country market, not to a city market. It therefore cannot com-
mand a price that is any higher than that for milk of acceptable quality
produced under less costly conditions and delivered in bulk form nearer
to the point of production.
The reasons for milk of Class I quality being more expensive to
produce than milk for other purposes may be summarized as follows:
1. Requirements with respect to the conditions under which Class I
milk is produced and marketed, and with respect to its final quality,
are usually much more stringent than those for milk utilized in a
condensery, creamery, or manufactured into other products. It costs
producers money to meet these requirements. Since the surplus milk
of Class I quality produced incidentally in the effort to meet the de-
mand for Class I milk cannot be sold at a price commensurate with its
unit production cost, the milk that is sold for fluid purposes must bear
more than its unit cost. Thus the spread between the price of Class I
milk and milk sold for other purposes becomes still wider than a pro-
portionate difference in basic unit costs. If, in the future, it is required
that milk utilized in manufacture be of the same quality and produced
under the same conditions as Class I milk, the reasons for the differ-
ence between the prices of milk sold in these different classes would be
removed except to the extent that differences in transportation costs
continued to be operative.
2. The demand for Class I milk is just as great during months
of high costs as during months of low costs (Fig. 29). Producers who
adjust their year-round production in an attempt to meet this rather
uniform demand must incur higher costs in certain months in order
to do so. The necessity for meeting a constant demand regardless of
79J5]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
151
unusual conditions such as floods, drouths, or other events beyond the
control of man, also increase the costs of producing Class I milk
during such abnormal periods.
As to transportation, the purchasing points to which producers
deliver milk for manufacturing purposes are in the country; hence
transportation costs are less. Because of this fact, the price that a
FIG. 35. — COUNTRY SHIPPING STATIONS AND TRANSPORTATION ZONES
IN THE ST. LOUIS MlLKSHED, 1934
Transportation deductions in the St. Louis milkshed are made on the basis
of 10-mile zones. See Table 16.
producer gets for milk in any class is not the quoted f.o.b. city market
price but the quoted price less a differential for transportation. It is
therefore necessary, when comparing Class I milk prices with conden-
sery prices or prices for milk to be used in other manufactured
products, to make certain deductions from f.o.b. city milk prices before
arriving at a just basis of comparing these prices at country points.
152
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
Transportation deductions which apply in the St. Louis milkshed
under the St. Louis federal milk license are shown in Table 16; the
zones are mapped in Fig. 35.
TABLE 16. — TRANSPORTATION DEDUCTIONS FROM PRICES OF MILK PURCHASED F.O.B.
ST. Louis BY DISTRIBUTORS IN THE ST. Louis DAIRY
DISTRICT, 1934B
Zone
Distance from
St. Louis
Deductions per 100 pounds
Class I and
Class II milk
Class III milk
1...
miles
...20
21-30
31-40
41-50
51-60
61-70
71-80
81-90
91-100
101-110
111-120
121-130
131-140
141-150
151-160
cents
16
18
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
cents
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14...
15
•These differentials became effective August 14. 1934.
Equalization Fund Eliminates Destructive Price Cutting
When producers are paid a market-blend or a weighted average
price, unjust conditions may arise on the one hand among distributors
competing for markets and using varying quantities of the different
classes of milk and, on the other, among producers selling to different
distributors. To overcome this possibility, the Dairy Division of the
Agricultural Adjustment Administration, in cooperation with organized
producers and distributors in the St. Louis market, introduced a price
plan that includes the use of an equalization fund. By the use of this
fund competition among distributors is changed from a struggle to
obtain milk at the cheapest possible price to an attempt to lower their
costs of distribution by more efficient handling. Producers, relieved
from sharp price-cutting competition, may turn their attention to im-
proving quality and to lowering their costs of production by more
efficient practices.
How Plan Works for Distributors. — For distributors the essential
feature of the equalization plan is that each distributor is enabled to
pay .the weighted average price for all the milk he buys, without loss
1935}
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
153
to himself or undue advantage over others because his purchases of
milk are made up of relatively different proportions of the various
classes than the purchases made by other dealers. The way in which
the equalization fund works from the distribution angle is shown in
Table 17.
Suppose two dealers, Distributors A and B, are operating on the
same market. If Distributor A purchases 70,000 pounds of Class I
milk at $2.00 a hundredweight, 30,000 pounds of Class II milk at $1.30,
and no Class III milk, the total market value of this milk is $1,790.
If Distributor B purchases the same total amount of milk but the
milk is differently classified — as, for example, 30,000 pounds of
Class II milk and 20,000 pounds of Class III milk, the total market
TABLE 17. — EXAMPLE OF METHOD USED FOR DETERMINING THE WEIGHTED AVERAGE
PRICE OF MILK TO PRODUCERS AND THE OPERATION OF THE
EQUALIZATION FUND"
Classes of milk bought
Pounds
Price per
100 pound
Market
value
Payments to
producers
Clearances
in equaliza-
tion fund
Total producers' sales to given market
Class I
100 000
£2.00
$2 000
Class II
80 000
1.30
1 040
Class III
20 000
1.00
200
Total
200 000
3 240
Weighted average price ....
1.62
Payments by Distributor A, buying Class I and Class II milk
Class I
70 000
S2.00
$1 400
Class II
30 000
1.30
390
Total purchases
100 000
1 790
Average market value
1.79
Payments to producers at
100 000
1.62
Jl 620
Difference paid to equalization
fund
$170
Payments by Distributor B, buying Class I, Class II, and Class III milk
Class I
30 000
$2 00
$ 600
Class II
50 000
1.30
650
Class III
20 000
1.00
200
Total purchases
100 000
1 450
1 45
Payments to producers at
weighted average price . . .
100 000
1.62
$1 620
Difference paid from equaliza-
tion fund
-J170
Net difference
0
•In this example it is assumed that the base and excess volumes of Distributors A and B were
exactly the same.
154 BULLETIN No. 412 [.April,
value of Distributor B's milk is $1,450. But each distributor is required
actually to pay the weighted average price (explained on page 147),
which in this case is $1.62 a hundredweight (Table 17). Distributor A
would therefore pay $1,620 for his 100,000 pounds of milk worth
$1,790, and Distributor B would pay $1,620 for his 100,000 pounds
worth $1,450.
It is at this point that the equalization fund comes into use. A is
required to turn over to the fund $170, the amount by which the
market value of his milk exceeded the amount he was required to pay.
for it. Distributor B receives from the fund $170, which is the amount
by which his payment to producers exceeded the market value of the
milk he bought. In this way these two distributors, altho using differ-
ent quantities of the various classes of milk, pay to producers the same
weighted average price for all the milk they buy.
How Plan Works for Producers. — To ascertain how the equaliza-
tion plan works for producers, we may assume that Farmer Jones ships
milk to Distributor A, and Farmer Brown, his neighbor across the
road, ships to Distributor B. If Farmer Jones were paid by Distribu-
tor A a weighted average price for all the milk which A bought of him,
he would be paid $1.79 a hundredweight for it. Under the same scheme
Farmer Brown selling to Distributor B would receive only $1.45 a
hundredweight for milk of presumably the same quality. Obviously
Farmer Brown would be dissatisfied. He and other farmers so situated
would undoubtedly quit selling to Distributor B and would try to sell
to A, with resulting instability and destructive competition. But when,
thru the operation of the equalization fund, distributors are enabled
to pay one weighted average price for all the milk they buy, this source
of competition and dissatisfaction among producers is removed.
The weakness of this plan, from the production angle, is that it in-
cludes the use of one average price for milk thruout the year, and thus
intensifies the surplus problem, as pointed out on pages 128 to 130.
Accurate Audits of Distributors' Records Essential to Plan. — It is
evident from the foregoing discussion that the payment of a weighted
average price and the operation of an equalization fund is possible only
when bookkeeping operations are both accurate and open. In order
to provide this service, the federal license gives the Market Adminis-
trator certain definite auditing powers, as follows:
"The Market Administrator shall have the right .... to examine the
books and records of the distributors and the books and records of affiliates
and subsidiaries of each distributor for the purpose of (1) verifying the
reports and information furnished to the Market Administrator by each
1935] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 155
distributor pursuant to this License and/or (2) obtaining the information
from any distributor in the event such distributor fails to furnish reports
or information as required by this License."1
In pursuance to this provision, the distributors in the St. Louis sales
area are required to submit monthly reports to the Market Administra-
tor showing the volumes of each of the three classes of milk they have
handled. The license, as may be noted from the above quotations,
specifically empowers the Market Administrator to verify these reports.
This provision is essential to the success of the plan, for failure to re-
port sales accurately would result in unfair competition between dealers
and in losses to farmers who were not paid the full market value for
their milk.
Since the initiation of the federal milk license in March, 1934, a
force of auditors has been at work in the St. Louis market verifying
the reports submitted by dealers.
Distributors Bonded to Insure Pay to Producers
For the adequate protection of producers it is essential that all dis-
tributors be able to meet their financial obligations to producers when
due; and for that reason, under the federal license, distributors re-
porting sales may be required to furnish bond to the Market Admin-
istrator in an amount not in excess of the purchase value of two
months' supply of milk.
If the Market Administrator is satisfied that a distributor can ful-
fil his obligations to pay for milk purchased, he may waive the require-
ment for bond from such distributor ; but the authority to place dis-
tributors under bond for this purpose is essential to securing for pro-
ducers adequate protection against distributors' insolvency.
All Producers Contribute to Service Fund
The effective operation of the federal milk license, or any other
comprehensive plan for administering a city milk supply, calls for
funds with which to pay for certain services that must be available
to producers if they are to conduct their business operations intelli-
gently and be assured of fair treatment in certain technical aspects of
their transactions.
A large number of producers in the St. Louis milkshed have pro-
cured some of the necessary services by organizing into the associa-
tion known as the Sanitary Milk Producers. Others have worked
'Amended license for milk, St. Louis sales area, effective August 14, 1934.
156 BULLETIN No. 412 {.April,
blindly or ineffectively without such service; while others have bene-
fited from the information that is made available thru the efforts of
the organized farmers.
In order to provide producers generally with authentic market in-
formation and assure them proper weights and tests, the federal milk
license gives the Market Administrator authority to deduct 3 cents a
hundred pounds from the amount due producers for milk sold to dis-
tributors. The following paragraph on this point is quoted from the
license:1
"Each distributor shall deduct for marketing services three (3) cents
per hundredweight of milk from the payments to be made pursuant to
article IX for all milk delivered to such distributor by producers, and on
or before the 15th day after the end of each delivery period, pay such
amount to the Market Administrator. Such monies shall be expended by
the Market Administrator, in a manner hereinafter prescribed, for the
purposes of securing to producers the following services: (a) market in-
formation, (b) supervision of weights and tests, (c) to the extent that
funds permit, the establishment and maintenance of a reserve fund for
protection -against the failure of distributors to make payments for milk
purchased, and (d) other similar benefits. The Market Administrator shall
pay to the Sanitary Milk Producers, Inc., hereinafter called 'the Asso-
ciation,' such amounts as are deducted pursuant to this section, from pay-
ments to producers who are members of the Association, for purposes of
securing the aforementioned benefits for such members."
Thus the interests of the organized farmers are left in the hands
of their organization; whereas the interests of nonmember producers
are the responsibility of the Market Administrator, whose representa-
tives make careful investigations to ascertain that they are being served
in the most efficient manner. Carrying out the provisions of the license,
the Market Administrator collects market information and dissemi-
nates it thru a "Market Review" issued monthly and sent to non-
member producers. A force of check-testers is employed to supervise
weights and tests and so assure to nonmembers accurate weights and
butterfat tests by dealers.
While the services of the Milk Market Administrator and those
of the Sanitary Milk Producers are similar in some respects, there is
no real conflict in their activities. Both agencies issue reliable market
information, and both check weights and tests for producers, but they
reach entirely different groups of producers, the federal agency sup-
plementing rather than supplanting the services of the Sanitary Milk
Producers.2 In certain functions, however, — the broadening of market
'As amended November 14, 1934, Sec. 2, p. 13.
*See page 136 for objectives of Sanitary Milk Producers.
19351 ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 157
outlets, furnishing the initiative in obtaining advances in price when
warranted by market conditions, or in preventing unwarranted de-
creases in prices to producers — the association of producers is not
supplemented by government activities.
Price Conferences a Necessary Part of Any Plan
The problem of price is the most controversial problem in a milk
market. Under the present federal license, the Dairy Division of the
Agricultural Adjustment Administration is given the power to fix
minimum prices for each classification of milk to be paid by each
distributor in the St. Louis sales area for whole milk received from
producers.
It is the writer's belief, however, that an amendment to the federal
license providing that conferences between producers, distributors, and
consumers should precede any contemplated changes in prices or classi-
fications, would be highly desirable. To be effective such conferences
would need to include representatives of the above groups, each group
having the privilege of assembling and presenting facts to the confer-
ence as a whole and participating openly in the discussion. Recom-
mendations on which the group as a whole might agree could be sent
to the officials of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration as one
report. Groups, or even individuals, who failed to agree on any im-
portant point would have the privilege of submitting separate reports
to the Administration. The federal representatives would thereupon
act as arbiters and return their decisions on the suggested changes.
Existing organizations might well be recognized in the selection of
representatives to such conferences. The Sanitary Milk Producers are
capable of representing producers, the St. Louis Consumers' Council,
consumers, and individuals from the principal companies and repre-
sentatives of the Small Dealers' Association might represent the
dealers.
The good will developed and fostered by such conferences would
make for mutual understanding and friendliness, replacing the con-
troversies and animosities that have so often characterized the relations
existing between the different groups concerned in the whole-milk
industry.
158 BULLETIN No. 412 [April,
SUMMARY
1. The present consumption of milk in the St. Louis area (.42 pint
daily per person) is the lowest of that in the 14 largest cities in the
United States. It is only one-third that recommended as desirable by
nutrition authorities and approximately half the amount generally
considered the minimum for the maintenance of good health.
2. Increased consumption of milk in the St. Louis area would
benefit producers as well as consumers. Were the present per-capita
consumption raised to the present per-capita consumption at Boston
(.77 pint daily) and the increased sales furnished by dairymen now
supplying the market, producers in the St. Louis milkshed would benefit
to the extent of about $1,300,000 a year. This would mean an average
increase of more than $125 a year gross income to each producer.
3. A major increase in milk consumption would also be of benefit
to distributors. If handled by distributors now in the area, such an
increase would reduce materially their unit operating costs, enabling
them to maintain profitable businesses while narrowing the margin
between the prices they pay for milk and those at which they sell it.
4. One of the major causes of the low per-capita consumption of
milk in the St. Louis sales area is the low level of consumer incomes
coupled with relatively high prices for milk. About one-third of the
families in this area average only $800 income annually and another
third approximately $1,600 annually. Low incomes have been an es-
pecially important deterrent to milk consumption during the past few
years, when the price of milk has been relatively high compared with
prices of competing foods. Retail prices of milk have averaged 2 cents
a quart higher during the past two years than they would have aver-
aged had they declined as much proportionately from the 1925-1929
level as the average retail price of all foods at St. Louis has declined.
5. Extremely high summer temperatures, combined with lack of
refrigeration, are another basic cause for the low consumption of milk
in St. Louis. The average summer temperature at this point is the
highest of that in any of the 14 largest cities in the United States, yet
nearly two-fifths of the families in the milk sales area have no refriger-
ation. The difficulty in keeping milk sweet is probably the most impor-
tant reason for nearly one-third of the families in St. Louis not buy-
ing milk regularly.
6. The policy in St. Louis of maintaining store prices of milk at a
level equal to retail delivery prices, or not more than one cent a quart
below them, has tended to discourage store sales in this area. The
effect of this policy on per-capita consumption is suggested by com-
79J5] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 159
parison with sales in Boston and New York. These cities, which have
the highest percentage of store sales in the country, also are among
the highest in per-capita consumption of milk. Furthermore the
largest increases in the consumption of milk in these cities have oc-
curred when store prices have ranged from 2 to 5 cents a quart lower
than retail delivered prices.
7. The basic-surplus price plan adopted in the St. Louis milkshed
in 1930 does not appear to have been the cause for the declining prices
received by milk producers in this area during 1929-1933. A lowered
general price-level, reduced consumers' incomes, and increased milk
production as a result of an increase in the number of cattle and
lowered feed prices all combined to depress prices to producers.
8. An upward movement in milk prices to St. Louis producers may
be expected during the next few years. Such expectation is based, first,
on probable increases in the general price-level and in consumers' in-
comes, and second, on a prospective decline in milk production in the
country as a whole as a result of advancing feed prices and fewer
cows.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. In order to increase the per-capita consumption of milk in St.
Louis, it is recommended (1) that the sale of milk thru stores which
can furnish adequate refrigeration be encouraged in this city by es-
tablishing prices enough lower than retail prices of delivered milk to
give consumers the full benefit of the lower cost of distribution; and
(2) that the educational program of the Dairy Commission of St.
Louis (formerly Dairy Council) be expanded to become a more effec-
tive instrument for increasing the consumption of milk and other
dairy products.
2. Hauling routes from farms to milk plants in the St. Louis milk-
shed should be gradually rearranged in order to reduce excessive costs
resulting from the duplication and overlapping of routes. It is esti-
mated that farmers in this area could save from $150,000 to $200,000
yearly if routes were rearranged on an economic basis. Because of the
importance of such changes to producers, distributors, and haulers,
arrangements have been made for a careful analysis of the problem.
If consumption of milk were increased at the same time, such an
improvement could be effected without throwing any of the present
haulers out of employment.
3. Since the basic-surplus plan for paying producers for milk con-
tains certain features that tend to effect economies in the marketing
160 BULLETIN No. 412 [April,
of milk and since it is not unlikely that this plan will again be introduc-
ed in the St. Louis milkshed within a few years, it is recommended that
producers continue to so adjust their feeding and breeding practices as
to bring about a more even production of milk thruout the year.
4. Specific regulations should be made as to the conditions under
which milk may be produced for manufacturing purposes and under
which it may be produced for the fluid market. Producers who have
only a few cows, who have high hauling charges, or who cannot afford
to meet the quality requirements of this milkshed, should be en-
couraged to find more profitable outlets thru condenseries, creameries,
or cheese factories.
5. Milk producers should be encouraged to increase their dairy in-
come by adopting more efficient production practices. The greater use
of dairy herd improvement associations and the keeping of more ade-
quate farm accounts are worth wider consideration. The production
and sale of milk cows, poultry, eggs, and meat as sidelines is also
recommended as a practical means for dairy farmers in this milkshed
to increase their incomes.1
6. The programs of the St. Louis Consumers' Council, or St. Louis
Dairy Commission, and the Sanitary Milk Producers are basically
sound and should be continued. In addition to their present programs,
it is recommended that the Dairy Commission and the Sanitary Milk
Producers have careful studies made of their activities, in order to
ascertain whether their funds are so spent as to be productive of the
greatest possible service.
7. The principal functions of the Agricultural Adjustment Admin-
istration and the Milk Market Administration in the fluid milk industry
are economically sound and should be continued by some agency, fed-
eral or other. The services of the federal government in the St. Louis
market would be materially strengthened if provision were made in the
license for reestablishing price conferences between producers, distri-
butors, and consumers.
8. Research studies of important problems confronting producers,
distributors, and consumers of milk should be continued in order to
furnish a factual basis for determining policies that will be mutually
beneficial. Only by the joint efforts of different groups in the in-
dustry, thru conclusions reached in such studies, are harmonious so-
lutions of problems possible.
'See 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Buls. 374 and 403.
79J5]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
APPENDIX
161
TABLE 18. — POPULATION OF THE MILK SALES AREAS AND CONSUMPTION OF WHOLE
MILK IN 14 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES HAVING POPULATIONS OF
MORE THAN 500,000 PEOPLE, MAY, 1934"
Area -
Clan I salea
Whole-milk
sales of
producer-
distributors
Total
whole-milk
sales
Population of
sales area
Average daily
consumption
Reported
Not reported
Total
Per
capita
Baltimore
Ibt.
74 716 800
46 698 900
Ibi.
6 226 000
5 771 775
Ibt.
6 226 000
lb,.
87 168 800
52 470 675
42 820 088
9 417 745
89 123 831
29 332 954
38 712 583
52 088 102
16 355 924
146 059 890
239 070 970
53 134 842
26 727 068
18 385 895
1 047 500
2 052 000
1 687 600
586 300
4 952 700
1 385 400
2 174 000
2 485 000
761 800
516 000
10 275 400
2 674 100
1 400 800
1 303 100
645 700
thousands
of pint*
448.0
1 574.5
1 284.9
282.6
2 674.4
880.2
1 161.7
1 615.1
490.8
372.2
7 173.9
1 594.4
802.0
551.7
339.4
pintt
.428
.767
.761
.482
.540
.635
.534
.650
.644
.721
.698
.596
.573
.423
.526
Boston
Market Administra-
tion
U. S. Bureau of Agri-
' cultural Eco-
nomics
Buffalo
7 707 173
84 375 331
21 345 592
37 852 583
39 051 102
14 603 924
136 504 890
239 070 970
53 134 842
15 830 068
18 091 395
1 710 572
3 375 000
6 631 344
244 000
13 037 000
1 460 000
6 825 000
Chicago
1 373 500
1 356 018
616 000
292 000
2 730 000
Cleveland
Detroit
Milwaukee
New York
Philadelphia
Pittsburgh . . .
9 910 000
987 000
294 500
St. Louis
San Francisco
•For sources of population figures see Table 19, page 162. For sources of sales data for each area, see notes on
next page.
(Sources of Sales Data in Table 18)
Baltimore. Figures are for Jan.-June, 1934. Class I sales reported: as reported to I. W. Heap, Secretary-
Treasurer, Maryland State Dairymen's Association. Clats I sales not reported: estimate of I. W. Heaps. Sales of producer-
distributors: estimated same volume as Class I sales which were not reported.
Boston. Market Administration. Class I tales reported: as reported to Einar Jensen, Milk Market Administrator
of greater Boston milk sales area, and including sales of producer distributors. Class I sales not reported: estimate of
Einar Jensen.
Boston. U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics. From monthly milk and cream reports. See 111. Agr. Exp.
Sta. Bui. 397, p. 447, Table 26.
Buffalo. Clats I tales reported: as reported to Department of Health. Class I sales not reported: estimate of H. W.
Mumford, Jr., Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
Chicago. Class I sales reported: as reported to Market Administrator of Chicago milk sales area. Clatt I stiles
not reported: estimate of Frank C. Baker, Market Administrator. >S'a/c» of producer-distributors: estimated to bear the
same relation to reported Class I sales as in the St. Louis milk sales MM.
Cleveland. Clatt I talet reported: as reported to the Dairymen's Cooperative Sales Association, Cleveland, Ohio.
Clatt I talet not reported: estimated. Salet of producer-distributors: estimated to bear same relation to Class I sales as
in Pittsburgh milk sales area.
Detroit. Clatt I tales reported: as reported to Milk Market Administrator, Detroit milk sales area. Clan I sales
not reported: estimate of E. M . Bailey, Milk Market Administrator, Detroit milk sales area. Salet of producer-distributors:
estimated to bear same relation to total reported sales as in the St. Louis sales area.
Los Angeles. Class I talet reported (June 19S4): as reported to Milk Market Administrator, Los Angeles
milk sales area. Clatt I tales not reported (June 1934): estimate of H. C. Darger, Market Administrator.
Milwaukee. Class I salet reported: as reported to the Department of Health. Class I talet not reported and
vKole milk talet of producer-distributors: estimates of C. F. Dineen, Milwaukee Cooperative Milk Producers.
Minneapolis. Clots I tales reported (1933): as reported to Department of Public Health, Minneapolis, and obtained
thru courtesy of W. C. Waite, University of Minnesota. Clatt I talet not reported (1933): estimated. Salet of producer-
distributors (1933): estimated to bear the same relation to reported Class I sales as in the Milwaukee milk sales area.
New York. From monthly milk and cream reports, U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
Philadelphia. From monthly milk and cream reports, U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economics.
Pittsburgh. Clan I talet reported: determined from Dairymen's Cooperative Sales Association's reports, Pitts-
burgh, Penn., and from Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Paper 641, p. 5. Three percent of the reported Class I sales for
May, 1934, was subtracted from the totals reported in order to allow for sales of Allegheny county dealers outside the
county. Class I talet not reported: based on Dairymen's Cooperative Sales Association's percentage of total fluid-milk
sales in Allegheny county. Percentage derived from Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Paper 641, p. 11. Salet of producer-
distributors: determined from data on number of cows in Penn. Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Paper 641, p. 2, and average
production per cow in Pennsylvania in 1933 as stated in the U. S. D. A. Yearbook, 1934, p. 629.
St. Louis. Clatt I Halts reporttd: as reported to St. Louis Milk Market Administrator under U. S. License No.
35. Sales of producer-distributors: based on sales of 95 producer-distributors with average sales of 100 pounds of milk
daily.
San Francisco. Figures are for 1932. See 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 397, Table 17, p. 450.
162
BULLETIN No. 412
\_April,
TABLE 19. — POPULATION OF MILK SALES AREAS OF 14 CITIES IN THE UNITED STATES
HAVING MORE THAN 500,000 PEOPLE, 1934
Population*
Areat
1920
1930
Percent
increase in
total popu-
lation
1920-1930
Nonfarm
1934
Total
Farm
Nonfarm
Baltimore
. 928 636
1 065 892
1 998 867
45 065
2 029
1 020 827
1 996 838
14.8
15.6
1 047 500
2 052 000
1 687 600
586 300
4 952 700
1 385 400
2 174 000
2 485 000
761 800
516 000
10 275 400
2 674 100
1 400 800
1 303 100
645 700
Boston
Market Administration
. 1 729 772
U. 8. Bureau of Agricultural
Economics
Buffalo
506 775
573 076
4 682 034
1 320 974
2 114 113
2 416 390
718 149
499 509
13.1
32.7
27.6
67.2
114.7
34.4
25.0
Chicago
. 3 575 518
4 743 707
1 334 439
2 129 904
2 474 073
725 263
499 509
61 673
13 465
15 791
57 683
7 114
None
. 1 046 049
Detroit
. 1 274 185
Los Angeles
539 449
Minneapolis
399 698
New York
Pittsburgh
. 1 185 808
1 374 310
1 276 309
11 740
18 218
1 362 570
1 258 091
15.9
20.2
St. Louis
. 1 061 610
San Francisco . . . .
•Data are from 1930 U. S. Census (Vol. 1, Agriculture; and Vol. 6, Population). According to estimates of the
U. S. Bureau of the Census, the population of the United States increased only 44.2 percent as rapidly during the latter
part of the decade 1920-1930 as it did for the decade as a whole. Hence population data since 1930 have been inter-
polated on a basis of 44.2 percent of the average annual increase in the respective sales areas from 1920 to 1930.
bThe sales areas of the various cities listed here are as follows:
Baltimore. Includes Harford, Baltimore, Howard, Anne, Arundel (less villages of Churchton and Fair Haven),
Carroll (less villages of Union Mills, Taneytown, Keymar, Union Bridge, Uniontown, Newton, Marlboro, and Forestville) .
Boston. Market Administration. Includes the towns of Marblehead, Swampscott, Saugus, and Nahant in Essex
county; Wakefield, Reading, Winchester, Stoneham, Lexington, Arlington, Belmont, and Watertown in Middlesex
county; Brookline, Wellesley, Needham, Dedham, Milton, Braintree, and Weymouth in Norfolk county; Winthrop in
Suffolk county; and the cities of Beverly, Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea, Everett, Lynn, Maiden, Medford, Melrose,
Newton, Peabody, Quincy, Revere, Salem, Somerville, Waltham, and Woburn. U. S. Bureau of Agricultural Economic!
(nonfann 1934 population) is explained in 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 397, Table 26, p. 447. Population as interpolated for
1934 is explained in footnote a above.
Buffalo. Based on milk sales area as determined by Herbert W. Mumford, Jr., Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
unpublished data.
Chicago. The Chicago milk sales area includes the counties of Lake, Cook, DuPage, Will (less the villages of Torino,
Ouster Park, and Braidwood), Kane (less the village of Burlington), and Kendall (less the cities or villages of Piano,
Millington, Newark, and Lisbon) — all in Illinois; Lake and Porter counties in Indiana; and the cities and villages of
McHenry, Ridgefield, Crystal Lake, Algonquin, Huntley, Minooka, Manteno, Grant Park, Solitt, Delmar, and Momence
in Illinois, as well as the cities and villages of Michigan City, Otis, and Westville in Indiana.
Cleveland. The Cleveland milk sales area includes Cuyahoga county; the townships of Willoughby, Kirtland,
Mentor, Painesville and Concord in Lake county; Chester, Russell, and Bainbridge in Geauga county; Twinsburg and
Northfield in Summit county; Columbia, Eaton, Carlisle, Ridgeville, Elyria, Amherst, Avon, Sheffield, and Black
River in Lorain county — all in the state of Ohio.
Detroit. The Detroit milk sales area includes Wayne county (less Sumpter and Huron townships) ; the townships
of Highland, White Lake, Water Ford, Pontiac, Troy, Bloomfield, West Bloomfield, Commerce, Novi, Farmington,
Southfield, and Royal Oak in Oakland county; Warren, Erin, Clinton, Macomb, Harrison, and Chesterfield in Macomb
county; Ira, Clay, and Cottrelville in St. Clair county; the cities of Pontiac, Royal Oak, Farmington, Ferndale, Pleasant
Ridge City, East Detroit City, Mt. Clemens, and Marine City — all in Michigan. Population for Detroit was inter-
polated at 44.2 percent of the average annual increase in the United States during 1920-1930.
Los Angeles. The Los Angeles milk sales area includes the counties of Los Angeles and Orange; the cities and
villages of Ontano, Chino, Cajon, Rialto, San Bernardino, Colton, Highland, Redlands, Pine Knot, Summit, Victorville,
Oro Grande, Lucerne Valley, Barstpw, Daggett, and Ludlow in San Bernardino county; and the cities and villages of
Corona, Arlington, Riverside, Pervis, Elsinore, Temscula, Lakeview, San Jacinto, Hermit, Beaumont, Banning, Indo,
Coachella, and Thermal in Riverside county. Population for Los Angeles was interpolated at 44.2 percent of the average
annual increase in the United States during 1920-1930.
Milwaukee. The Milwaukee milk sales area consists of Milwaukee county, Wisconsin.
Minneapolis. The Minneapolis milk sales area consists of the cities and villages of Brooklyn Center, Columbia
Heights, Crystal, Deep Haven, Edina, Excelsior, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Island Park, Long Lake, Minneapolis, Minne-
topka Beach, Morning Side, Mound, Osseo, Richfield, Robbins Dale, St. Louis Park, Tonka Bay, and Wayzctta, in the
state of Minnesota.
New York. See 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 397, Table 25, p. 447.
Philadelphia. See 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bui. 397, Table 25, p. 447.
Pittsburgh. The Pittsburgh milk sales area consists of Allegheny county, Pennsylvania.
St. Louis The St. Louis milk sales area is composed of the following governmental units in the state of Missouri:
the city of St. Louis; the townships of Carondelet, St. Ferdinand, and Central of St. Louis county and St. Charles in
St. Charles county. In the state of Illinois the area is composed of the cities of Alton, Belleville, East St. Louis; the town-
ships of Godfrey, Wood River, Chouteau, Venice, Nameoki, and Collinsville in Madison county, and Canteen, Caseyville,
Centerville, St. Clair, Sugar Loaf, Stookey, Millstadt, and O'Fallon in St. Clair county.
1935]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
163
TABLE 20.-
-AVERAGE FAMILY INCOMES AND PER-CAPITA CONSUMPTION OF MILK BY
CENSUS DISTRICTS, ST. Louis, 1934"
District
Total
families
Number of families with
incomes of —
Percentages of families
with incomes of —
Weighted
average
income6
Daily per-
capita
consump-
tion of
milk'-
Under
$1230
$1230
to
$2049
$2050
and
over
Under
$1230
$1230
to
$2049
$2050
and
over
1...
7 176
2 642
353
777
902
577
1 898
1 351
863
2 548
2 226
5 210
769
1 184
220
2 109
1 062
978
4 246
1 112
4 682
7 165
6 059
10 821
5 108
4 894
8 144
77 900
906
266
124
114
113
7 297
3 386
586
2 142
4 509
5 202
1 591
911
973
4 865
4 484
4 025
2 665
1 379
1 562
2 240
1 126
3 662
3 577
322
1 391
64 418
2 628
2 602
1 811
1 535
7 941
5 851
3 644
706
1 829
3 738
2 493
5 838
585
2 307
5 013
5 528
5 136
1 148
4 269
702
1 188
586
2 389
2 045
264
761
72 537
36.8
8.4
20.9
25.4
6.0
12.6
16.1
40.0
39.1
21.2
40.4
9.4
44.2
6.3
17.6
9.6
9.6
52.7
16.4
67.4
67.6
78.0
64.1
47.6
89.3
79.1
36.3
26.6
30.0
30.3
31.4
11.6
48.5
40.4
27.2
32.8
43.1
40.3
19.4
34.0
27.8
40.6
40.5
39.7
33.1
20.4
22.5
21.4
14.5
21.7
33.3
5.9
13.5
30.0
36.6
61.6
48.8
43.2
82.4
38.9
43.5
32.8
28.1
35.7
19.3
71.2
21.8
65.9
41.8
49.9
50.7
14.2
63.2
10.1
11.0
7.5
14.2
19.1
4.8
7.4
33.7
$2 075
2 815
2 452
2 302
3 255
2 320
2 384
1 970
1 883
2 184
1 696
3 000
1 715
2 918
2 338
2 568
2 582
1 492
2 779
1 287
1 307
1 148
1 396
1 631
999
1 136
$2 022
pint
.42
.52
.52
.45
.53
.48
.41
.42
.41
.41
.28
.48
.41
.56
.49
.56
.48
.40
.54
.38
.19
.39
.36
.40
.24
.38
.423
2
. . 4 221
3
3 712
4
.. 3 551
5
.. 9 631
6
.. 15 046
7
. . 8 381
8
.. 2 155
9
6 519
10
. . 10 473
11
.. 12 905
12
.. 8 198
13
.. 2 680
14
.. 3 500
15
.. 11 987
16....
.. 11 074
17
.. 10 139
18
8 059
19
.. 6 760
20
6 946
21
. . 10 593
22
. . 7 771
23
. . 16 872
24
. . 10 730
25
.. 5 480
20
. . 10 296
Total
.. 214 855
•Determined from a pamphlet published by the research department of the St. Louis Globe-Democrat entitled
"Metropolitan St. Louis Population and Families Divided by Income Groups for Census Tracts," based on the 1930
U.S. Census.
bTo obtain the weighted average income for each district the average income for each income-group was multiplied
by the number of families in each income-group.
°From unpublished data of a study made under the direction of Mrs. M. C. Harrington, of the St. Louis District
Dairy Council, in cooperation with the St. Louis Department of Public Health. The average per-capita consumption of
milk for the 8,136 families included in this study was .48 pint daily, compared with .423 pint daily for the market
(Table 1). Consumers' statements were corrected for exaggeration by multiplying the reported consumption for each
423
district by — , or 88.1 percent.
164
BULLETIN No. 412
{.April,
TABLE 21. — RACIAL POPULATION ANALYSIS BY CENSUS DISTRICTS, ST. Louis, 1930
Census
district
Total
population*
Area in
square
milesb
Population
per square
mile
White*
Negro*
Total
white and
Negro0
Percent
white is
of total
(thoutandt)
1 26814 3.3 8.1 26117 680 26797 97.5
2 15139 1.6 10.1 15137 2 15139 100.0
3 14479 3.0 4.8 14469 10 14479 99.9
4 13376 1.6 8.4 13281 83 13364 99.4
5 35712 1.8 19.8 35247 424 35671 98.8
6 58588 2.8 20.9 58306 271 58577 99.5
7 31923 3.0 10.6 31908 13 31921 100.0
8 8387 2.7 3.1 8209 162 8371 98.1
9 23576 2.1 11.2 23193 317 23510 98.7
10 38583 1.6 24.1 37025 1540 38565 96.0
11 51806 1.9 27.3 29413 22352 51765 56.8
12 33425 1.6 20.9 32899 458 33357 98.6
13 16014 1.0 16.0 15419 593 16012 96.3
14 11670 2.2 5.3 11661 8 11669 99.9
15 43543 3.7 11.8 43251 291 43542 99.3
16 38766 1.9 20.4 38707 44 38751 99.9
17 37473 1.6 23.4 37365 82 37447 99.8
18 30546 1.9 16.1 22936 7587 30523 75.1
19 27648 1.1 25.1 25898 1597 27495 94.2
20 26081 .9 29.0 24648 1406 26054 94.6
21 44678 1.4 31.9 11916 32655 44571 26.7
22 31126 1.3 23.9 19101 11853 30954 61.7
23 62137 2.1 29.6 60729 1150 61879 98.1
24 37400 1.5 24.9 37373 .22 37395 99.9
25 24275 1.4 17.3 15027 8972 23999 62.6
26 38795 1.8 21.6 37644 1008 38652 97.4
Total 821960 50.7 16.3 726879 93580 820459 88.6
•From U. S. Census, 1930.
''Approximately 10.3 square miles of nonpopulated areas were subtracted from the total area of St. Louis.
cThe population of other races numbering 1,501 individuals was not included in the totals by Census districts.
TABLE 22. — INDEXES OF AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES OF ALL FOODS IN ST. Louis
BY MONTHS, 1925-1934"
(Same month, 1925-1927 = 100)
Year
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. NOT. Dec. Average
1925.
1926.
1927.
1928.
1929.
1930.
1931.
1932.
1933.
1934.
96
103
100
97
96
104
102
97
99
100
82
68
57
70
103
99
97
97
104
100
80
104
102
98
100
97
78
64
60
68
97
102
101
102
100
98
97
103
90
77
63
68
70
102
104
93
78
64
71
73
101
101
103
93
75
63
69
76
101
101
98
97
100
90
74
61
66
73
103
101
96
102
101
97
97
98
84
70
60
64
72
102
99
97
100
94
77
64
63
71
•Tabulated from current reports of the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
1935] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 165
TABLE 23. — AVERAGE RETAIL PRICES OF EVAPORATED MILK IN ST. Louis,
BY MONTHS, 1925-19348
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
April
May
June July Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average
1925-1927...
1925...
. 9.37
. 9.1
9.37
9.2
9.5
9.4
9.6
9.8
8.8
9.0
9.30
9.2
9.4
9.3
9.6
9.8
8.7
8.2
9.40
9.2
9.5
9.5
9.0
9.2
8.7
8.1
(Cento per 14]>$-ounce can)
9.50 9.50 9.63 9.63
9.2 9.3 9.5 9.6
9.4 9.4 9.4 9.4
9.9 9.8 10.0 9.9
9.0 9.0 9.0 9.3
9.0 9.0 9.0 8.8
8.7 8.7 8.7 8.7
81 81 8 3 7 :>
9.57
9.5
9.3
9.9
9.6
8.8
9.2
7 5
9.60
9.6
9.3
9.9
9.8
8.7
9.2
7 6
9.67
9.7
9.4
9.9
9.8
9.1
8.7
7 5
9.63
9.7
9.3
9.9
9.8
9.1
8.6
7 2
9.51
9.40
9.41
9.73
9.44
9.18
8.79
8 02
1926
9 6
1927
. 9 4
1928 ,
. 9.8
1929
9 9
1930 . . .
8 8
1931
. 9.1
1932
7.2
7.1
6.2
6.5
98
101
100
102
105
94
96
76
66
69
6.8
5.1
65
99
101
100
103
105
94
88
73
55
70
6.8 6.6 6.2 5.5 5.3
5.1 6.3 6.4 6.7 6.8
6.5 6.5 6.4 6.4 6.4
(Indexes: tame month 19t5-19t7 = 100)
98 97 98 99 100
101 99 99 98 98
101 104 103 104 103
96 95 95 94 97
98 95 95 94 91
93 92 92 90 90
86 85 85 86 78
72 70 65 57 55
54 66 67 70 71
69 68 67 67 67
5.3
6.5
6.4
99
97
103
100
92
96
78
55
68
67
5.2
6.4
6.3
100
97
103
102
91
96
79
54
67
66
5.3
6.5
6.3
100
97
102
101
94
90
78
55
67
65
6.2
6.5
6.4
101
97
103
102
94
89
75
64
68
66
6.13
6.23
6.42
99
99
102
99
97
92
84
64
65
68
1933 ,
. 6 2
1934
. 6.5
1925 .
97
1926
102
1927
. 100
1928 ... .
105
1929
. 106
1930
94
1931
97
1932
. 77
1933 .
66
1934
69
•From current reports of U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Prices from January, 1925 ,to December, 1931, were
converted from a 1 frounce can to a 14>£-ounce can by multiplying by .90625.
TABLE 24. — DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE RETAIL PRICES PER QUART OF WHOLE MILK
AND PER 14J^-OUNCE CAN OF EVAPORATED MlLK, ST. LOUIS,
BY MONTHS, 1925-1934
(Cents per unit)
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average
1925 .
3 9
3 8
3 8
3 8
3 8
3 7
3 5
3 4
3 5
3 4
3 3
3 3
3 6
1926
3 4
3 5
3 6
3 5
3 6
3 6
3 6
3 7
3 7
3 6
3 7
3 6
1927
3 6
3 6
3 7
3 5
3 1
3 2
3 0
3 1
3 1
3 1
3 1
3 1
3 3
1928
. 3 2
3 4
3 4
4 0
4 0
4 0
4 0
3 7
3 4
3 2
3 2
3 2
3 g
1929....
. 3.1
3 2
3 2
3 8
4 0
4 0
4 0
4 2
4 2
4 3
3 9
3 9
3 8
1930. . . .
4 2
4 2
4 3
4 3
4 3
4 3
4 3
4 3
3 8
3 8
4 3
• 3 4
4 i
1931...
,. 29
3 0
3 8
3 9
3 9
3 9
3 7
4 5
3 5
3 4
3 5
3 8
3 6
1932. ..
3 8
3 9
3 2
3 2
3 4
3 8
4 5
4 7
4 7
4 8
4 7
3 8
4 0
1933
3 8
3 8
4 9
4 9
3 7
3 6
3 3
3 2
3 5
3 6
3 5
4 5
3 9
1934...
. 45
45
45
4.5
45
46
4 6
46
46
47
47
46
46
166
BULLETIN No. 412
{.April,
TABLE 25. — AVERAGE FARM PRICES OF TWELVE FARM COMMODITIES IN THE ILLINOIS
PART OF THE ST. Louis MILKSHED, BY MONTHS, 1925-1934*
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr. May June July Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec. Average
BEEF CATTLE
(Dottart per 100 pounds)
1925-1929....
. 7.73
7.87
8.04
8.07
8.38 8.28 8.47
8.84
8.37
8.48
8.42
8.45
8.28
1925....
. 6.02
6.76
7 65
7.22
7.32 7.74 7.62
9.18
7.44
6.91
7.29
7.12
7.36
1926
. 7.20
7.36
6 92
6.68
7.47 7.34 7.18
7.25
6.88
7.08
6.94
7.02
7.11
1927
. 6.83
7.10
7 09
7.65
7.34 7.30 7.23
7.88
7.51
8.27
8.66
9.42
7.69
1928
. 8.85
8.84
8 96
8.84
9.40 9.14 9.75
9.70
10.52
10.14
9.86
9.48
9.46
1929
. 9.76
9.29
9 58
9.94 10.38 9.89 10.58
10.22
9.52
10.00
9.36
9.20
9.81
1930
. 9.26
9.42
« 47
9.30
9.06 8.90 8.08
6.70
7.72
8.00
7.57
7.40
8.41
1931
. 7.04
6.26
6 74
6.42
6.03 5.95 5.58
5.45
5.80
5.66
5.45
5.20
5.96
1932
. 4.74
4.42
4 58
4.62
4.46 4.42 5.53
5.10
5.04
4.76
4.38
4.18
4.69
1933
. 3.96
3.79
3 70
3.86
4.51 4.17 4.62
4.18
4.24
4.16
3.90
3.47
4.05
1934
. 3.58
4.08
4.28
4.18
4.56 4.90 4.74
4.68
5.18
4.83
5.05
4.86
4.58
(Indexes:
tame month 19i5-l9S9
= 100)
1925....
78
86
95
89
87 93 90
104
89
81
87
84
89
1926
. 93
94
86
83
89 89 85
82
82
83
82
83
86
1927
. 88
90
88
95
88 88 85
89
90
98
103
111
93
1928
. 114
112
111
110
112 110 115
110
126
120
117
112
114
1929
. 126
118
119
123
124 119 125
116
114
118
111
109
118
1930
. 120
120
118
115
108 107 95
76
92
94
90
88
102
1931
. 91
80
84
80
72 72 66
62
69
67
65
62
72
1932
. 61
56
57
57
53 53 65
58
60
56
52
49
57
1933
. 51
48
46
48
54 50 55
47
51
49
46
41
49
1934
. 46
52
53
52
54 59 56
53
62
57
60
58
55
BUTTERFAT
1925-1929. . . ,
. 43
41.2
43
41.2
39.8 38.7 38 4
39.4
40.6
42.4
42.8
43.6
41.2
(Centt per pound)
1925....
38
34
40
38
36 36 37
38
39
44
43
44
39
1926
. 43
40
41
38
37 38 36
36
39
39
42
44
40
1927
. 43
44
44
44
42 37 37
36
39
41
44
44
41
1928
. 46
44
43
42
42 40 40
41
44
44
44
46
43
1929
. 45
44
47
44
42 42 42
46
42
44
41
40
43
1930
. 35
33
32
34
33 30 30
34
37
34
33
28
33
1931
. 25
23
27
26
19 20 20
23
24
29
27
25
24
1932
. 21
19
19
16
15 13 14
17
16
17
17
20
17
1933
. 18
16
14
15
19 18 22
16
17
18
18
16
17
1934
.. 14
22
22
20
20 22 20
24
22
21
25
25
21
(Indexes:
same month 1913-19*9
= 100)
1925....
88
82
93
92
90 93 96
96
96
104
100
101
80
1926
. 100
97
95
92
93 98 94
91
96
92
98
101
97
1927
. 100
107
102
107
106 96 96
91
96
97
103
101
99
1928
. 107
107
100
102
106 103 104
104
108
104
103
106
104
1929
. 105
107
109
107
106 108 109
117
103
104
96
92
104
1930
.. 81
80
74
82
83 78 78
86
91
80
77
64
80
1931
. 58
56
63
63
48 52 52
58
59
68
63
57
58
1932
. 49
46
44
39
38 34 36
43
39
40
40
46
41
1933
.. 42
39
33
36
48 47 57
41
42
42
42
37
41
1934
.. 33
53
61
48
50 57 52
61
54
50
58
57
51
•For Illinois districts South-Southwest and Southwest, as obtained from Illinois State Department of Agriculture.
1935}
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
167
TABLE 25. — FARM PRICES — Continued
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May June July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec. i
Lverage
CHICKENS
1925-1929....
1925...
. 20.2
18
21.4
20
21.
2 23
22
(Cents per pound)
23 21.2 22.4
21 20 21
21.2
20
21.2
21
20
19
19.4
19
19.4
20
21.13
20
1926
21
22
22
24
24 24 24
22
21
20
19
19
22
1927
. 20
22
22
22
25 18 22
18
19
19
19
19
20
1928 .
19
20
19
22
21 20 21
22
23
21
21
21
21
1929
23
23
25
24 24 24
24
22
21
19
18
22
1930
19
20
?0
21
18 18 16
16
18
16
15
14
18
1931
15
14
1ft
16
14 16 14
16
16
13
13
13
15
1932
13
12
1?
12
11 10 10
11
10
09
09
08
11
1933
. 08
09
08
09
09 08 09
09
08
08
07
06
08
1934
08
09
10
10
10 10 11
11
12
10
10
10
10
1925...
89
93
94
(Indexet:
95
tame month 19tS-19t9
91 94 94
= 100)
94
99
95
98
103
95
1926 .
104
103
104
104
104 113 107
104
99
100
98
98
104
1927
99
103
104
95
108 84 98
84
90
95
98
98
95
1928
94
93
90
95
91 94 94
104
108
105
105
105
100
1929.
114
107
108
108
104 113 107
113
104
105
98
92
104
1930
94
93
94
91
78 84 71
75
84
80
77
72
85
1931
. 74
65
75
70
60 75 62
75
75
65
67
67
71
1932 . .. .
64
56
Ifi
52
48 47 44
52
47
45
46
41
52
1933
40
42
38
39
39 38 40
42
38
40
36
31
38
1934
. 40
42
47
43
43 47 49
52
57
50
52
52
47
EGGS*
1925-1929....
1925..
. 38.2
49
30
34
23
22.8
24
(Cents per dozen)
23.6 23.2 24
25 26 26
25.6
27
29.8
30
35.4
35
38
27
44.8
46
29.8
31
1926
36
26
n
25
25 25 24
25
29
39
43
46
30
W27 ...
37
30
?0
20
19 16 20
22
28
35
40
44
28
1928
. 38
28
23
25 24 24
26
30
32
37
42
29
1929
. 31
32
?7
22
24 25 26
28
32
36
43
46
31
1930
40
34
22
19 18 16
18
23
24
30
26
24
1931
. 22
12
17
15
12 13 13
14
16
20
25
24
17
1932....
14
11
8
8
10 8 9
13
15
21
26
30
14
1933
19
9
8
8
10 8 10
10
13
18
22
20
13
1934
16
14
13
12
12 12 11
14
20
20
26
26
16
1925
128
113
100
(Indexet:
105
tame month 1915-1919
106 112 108
= 100)
105
101
99
71
103
104
1926. . . .
94
87
100
110
106 108 100
98
97
110
113
103
101
1927
1928...
. 97
99
100
93
87
9ft
88
101
81 69 83
106 103 100
86
102
94
101
99
90
105
97
98
94
94
97
1929
, . 81
107
117
96
102 108 108
109
107
102
113
103
104
1930 ..
105
113
87
96
81 78 67
70
77
68
79
58
81
1931
. 58
40
74
66
51 56 54
55
54
56
66
54
57
1932
1933
. 37
50
37
30
35
35
35
42 34 38
42 34 42
61
39
50
44
59
51
68
58
67
45
47
44
1934
42
47
56
53
51 52 46
55
67
56
68
58
54
•For Illinois districts South-Southwest and Southwest, as obtained from the Illinois State Department of Agri-
culture.
168
BULLETIN No. 412
[April,
TABLE 25. — FARM PRICES — Continued
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May June July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
NOT.
Dec.
Average
CORN-
1925-1929. . .
1925....
.. 75.4
. . 108
78.0
107.5
79.2
107.5
79.9
97.5
(Cents per bushel)
84.8 89.6 89.9
107.5 108.5 99.5
92.4
100 5
90.4
92
81.9
72.5
69.1
63.5
66.8
62
81.5
93.9
1926
.. 63 5
63
59 5
60
61 5 62 64
73 5
71
71
59 5
56
63 7
1927
. . 56
58
57.5
58
65 86.5 90 5
95
96 5
87 5
76
73
75 0
1928 ..
.. 72
75 5
84
94
104 5 103 5 103 5
98
96 5
86 5
69 5
72 5
88 3
1929
. . 77.5
86
87 5
90
85 5 87 5 92
95
96
92
77
70 5
86 4
1930
. . 70
68.5
67
72
71.5 73 71.5
86
89
77.5
64.5
63 5
72 8
1931
. 60
60
57
55 5
55 53 53
49 5
38
28 5
30
27
47 2
1932
. . 26.5
25
24.5
23
22.5 22 5 22
23
22
17 5
15 5
15
21 6
1933
. . 15.5
16
16
24.5
36 38.5 52.5
48.5
45.5
37
39
40.5
34.1
1934
. . 42
45
44 5
45 5
45 5 51 5 55
70
77
76
75 5
91 5
59 9
1925....
. 143
138
136
(Indexes:
122
same month 1985-1929
127 121 111
= 100)
109
102
88
92
93
125
1926
.. 84
81
76
75
73 69 71
80
78
87
86
84
78
1927
. . 74
74
73
73
77 96 101
103
107
107
110
109
93
1928
.. 95
97
106
118
123 116 115
106
107
106
101
108
108
1929 ..
103
110
110
113
101 98 102
103
106
112
111
106
106
1930
. . 93
88
85
90
84 81 80
93
98
95
93
95
89
1931
.. 80
77
72
69
65 59 59
54
42
35
43
40
58
1932 ...
35
32
31
29
26 25 24
25
24
21
22
22
26
1933
.. 21
20
20
31
42 43 58
52
50
45
56
61
42
1934
.. 56
58
56
57
54 57 61
76
85
93
109
137
73
HOGS
1925-1929. . .
.. 9.65
10.14
10.77
(
10.58
Dollars per 100 pounds)
10 54 10 41 11.13
11.37
11.54
10.95
9.87
9.43
10 53
1925 ...
. 9 56
9 88
12.50
11 96
10 96 11 02 12 58
12.94
12.28
11.62
10 85
10 68
11 40
1926
. . 11.28
12.39
12.12
11.98
12.54 13.38 13.34
12.40
13.00
12.69
11.74
11.42
12.36
1927
. . 11 12
11 53
11 22
10 67
9 67 8 34 8 93
9 89
10 37
10 73
9 39
8 19
10 00
1928
.. 8.04
7.69
7.56
7.89
9 21 9 15 10 02
10.57
11.92
10.17
8.59
8.17
9.08
1929
. . 8.26
9.20
10.44
10.39
10.34 10.18 10.76
11.05
10.12
9.54
8.76
8.70
9.81
1930
9 07
9 81
10 10
9 70
9 39 9 52 8 88
8 90
9 97
9 37
8 65
7 67
9 25
1931
. . 7.57
7.29
7.27
7.18
6.69 5.94 6.66
6.83
5.58
4.92
4.52
3.96
6.20
1932
. 3.92
3.56
4.10
3.66
3.02 2.90 4.60
4.26
3.95
3.38
3.19
2.83
3.61
1933
. . 2 81
3 08
3 34
3 25
4 27 4 06 4 20
3 91
3 87
4 38
3.72
2.88
3 65
1934
.. 3.09
4.11
4.04
3.57
3.16 3.58 4.06
4.94
6.20
5.30
5.30
5.45
4 40
1925.
99
97
116
(Indexes:
113
tame month 19t5-19t9
104 106 113
= 100)
114
106
106
110
113
108
1926
. . 117
122
113
113
119 129 120
109
113
116
119
121
117
1927...
. 115
114
104
101
92 80 80
87
90
98
95
87
95
1928
. 83
76
70
75
87 88 90
93
103
93
87
87
86
1929
.. 86
91
97
98
98 98 97
97
88
87
89
92
93
1930
94
97
94
92
89 91 80
78
86
86
88
81
88
1931
.. 78
72
68
68
63 57 60
60
48
45
46
42
59
1932....
41
35
38
34
29 28 41
37
34
31
32
30
34
1933
. 29
30
31
31
41 39 38
34
34
40
38
31
35
1934
32
41
38
34
30 34 36
43
54
48
54
58
42
•For Illinois districts South-Southwest and Southwest, as obtained from Illinois State Department of Agriculture.
1935]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
169
TABLE 25. — FARM PRICES — Continued
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May June July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Deo.
Average
LOOSE ALFALFA HAY«
(DoUan per ton)
1925-1929
18.18
18.58
18.04
17.98
17.92 17.22 16.57
16.51
16.83
16.52
17.69
17.88
17.49
1925...
15.80
16.44
14.00
15.00
15.50 15.00 13.25
15.12
16.60
16.00
18.38
19.20
15.86
1926
18.48
18.29
19.64
20.38
20.65 20.30 18.80
19.50
19.26
19.18
19.50
20.62
19.55
1927
21.86
21.88
21.00
20.00
19.99 1850 17.40
16.74
16.66
16.47
16.04
15.50
18.50
1928
17.22
16.52
16.66
16.25
16.46 16.66 16.98
16.20
16.46
16.41
19.04
18.06
16.91
1929
17.52
19.79
18.92
18.28
17.01 15.62 16.44
14.98
15.16
14.54
15.50
16.00
16.65
1930
15 88
16.00
15.44
1603
15.36 15.00 15.50
18.72
19.60
19.41
20.00
20.50
17.29
1931
18.88
18.93
18.09
18.44
17.72 12.97 10.58
11.12
10 96
11.16
11.28
11.61
14.31
1932
11.78
10.04
10.36
10.37
9.80 8.24 7.04
8.61
6.55
5.90
7.65
6.55
8.57
1933
7.55
7.05
6.80
6.55
7.20 6.78 8.65
9.30
10.55
10.95
11.55
11.25
8.68
1934
11.50
12.60
12.40
14.00
13.30 13.30 14.40
15.90
17.10
17.25
17.60
19.20
14.88
(Indextt:
tame month 19tS-19t9
= 100)
1925...
87
88
78
83
86 87 80
92
99
97
104
107
91
1926
102
98
109
113
115 118 113
118
114
116
110
115
112
1927
120
118
116
111
112 107 105
101
99
100
91
87
106
1928
95
89
92
90
92 97 102
98
98
99
108
101
97
1929
96
106
105
102
95 91 99
91
90
88
88
89
95
1930
87
86
86
89
86 87 94
113
116
117
113
115
99
1931
104
102
100
103
99 75 64
67
65
68
64
65
82
1932
65
54
57
58
55 48 42
52
39
36
43
37
49
1933
42
38
38
36
40 39 52
56
63
66
65
63
50
1934
63
68
69
78
74 77 87
96
102
104
99
107
85
MILK COWS
(Dollar » per head)
1925-1929
72.86
74.33
76.58
74.77
75.58 76.79 75.63
76.76
78.72
81.41
81.87
79 90
77.10
1925....
58.89
59.25
67.08
59.56
55.00 62.25 58.00
63.76
60.27
63.58
65.25
61.22
61.48
1926
62.41
67.48
65.34
67.77
67.88 64.72 70.16
63.64
66.82
66.98
66.11
65.76
66.26
1927
65.99
68.44
68.50
69.00
70.00 68.50 68.00
70.50
74.00
79.00
82.50
82.50
72.24
1928
81.50
81.50
82 50
83.00
86.00 93.00 86.50
90.50
91.00
94.50
93.00
92.50
87.96
1929
95.50
95.00
99.50
94.50
99.00 95.50 95.50
95.50
101.50
103.00
102.50
97.50
97.88
1930
88.50
91.50
78.50
82.00
74.50 70.50 71.50
56.00
65.50
69.50
65.00
64.50
73.12
1931
54.50
50.50
51.50
44.50
50.00 48.50 46.00
44.94
43 53
42.78
45.00
44.24
47.16
1932
42.28
35.44
40.03
37.60
36.64 35.38 33.64
36.09
31.30
36.50
33.25
30.50
35.72
1933
32.75
31.15
31.75
32.05
35.10 35.60 36.25
34.05
33.60
31.20
29.70
29.60
32.73
1934
29.50
32.15
31.60
31.95
31.90 29.50 28.80
31.10
33.40
34.85
33.15
32.05
31.66
(Indent:
tame month 19tS-19t9
= 100)
1925...
81
80
87
80
73 81 77
83
77
78
80
77
79
1926
86
91
85
91
90 84 93
83
85
82
81
82
86
1927
90
92
89
92
•93 89 90
92
94
97
101
103
94
1928
112
110
108
111
114 121 114
118
116
116
114
116
114
1929
131
128
130
126
131 124 126
124
129
127
125
122
127
1930
122
123
102
110
99 92 95
73
83
85
79
81
95
1931
74
68
67
60
66 63 61
59
55
53
55
55
61
1932
58
48
52
50
48 46 44
47
40
44
41
38
46
1933
44
42
41
43
46 46 48
44
43
38
36
37
42
1934
40
43
40
43
42 38 38
41
42
43
40
40
41
•For Illinois districts South-Southwest and Southwest, as obtained from the Illinois State Department of Agri-
culture.
170
BULLETIN No. 412
{April,
TABLE 25. — FARM PRICES — Continued
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May June July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average
OATS'
(Cent* per bushel)
1925-1929...
. 48.2
50.0
50.7
49.9
48.0 49.0 45.8
40.3
40.8
43.1
42.4
44.7
46.1
1926....
. 59
58.5
58.5
51
45.5 49 45
41
39
40
38
41.5
47.1
1926
. 42.5
44
42.5
43.5
41.5 41.5 39
37.5
38
40
40.5
42
41.0
1927
. 43
43.5
45 5
45
45 46.5 47.5
45
46
48
48
49.5
46.0
1928
. 51
56
60
62
62 65 53
35
36
40.5
41
44.5
50.5
1929
. 45.5
48
47
48
46 43 44.5
43
45
47
44.5
46
45.6
1930
. 43
44.5
45
46
43.5 42 34
37
40.5
39.5
36.5
36
40.6
1931
. 35
35.5
35
35.5
33 30 19
16.5
18
17.5
21.3
20.5
26.4
1932
. 20
19.5
19.5
19.5
18.5 17.5 15
13.5
12.5
12
11.5
12
15.9
1933
. 12.5
12.5
13
16
21.5 24 38.5
32
32
30.5
31.5
33
24.8
1934
. 33.5
38
36
36
34 38.5 39
44
49
50
50
55
41.9
(Indexes:
same month 19X5-1919
= 100)
1925....
. 122
117
115
102
95 100 98
102
96
93
90
93
102
1926
. 88
88
84
87
86 85 85
93
93
93
96
94
89
1927
. 89
87
90
90
94 95 104
112
113
111
113
111
100
1928
. 106
112
118
124
129 133 116
87
88
94
97
100
110
1929
. 94
96
93
96
96 88 97
107
110
109
105
103
99
1930
. 89
89
89
92
91 86 74
92
99
92
86
81
88
1931
. 73
71
69
71
69 61 41
41
44
41
50
46
57
1932
. 41
39
38
39
39 36 33
33
31
28
27
27
34
1933
. 26
25
26
32
45 49 84
79
78
71
74
74
54
1934
. 70
76
71
72
71 79 85
109
120
116
118
123
91
SOYBEANS
(Dollars per bushel)
1925-1929. . .
. 1.91
1.91
2.10
2.11
2.22 2.36 2.39
2.29
1.78
1.52
1.55
1.66
1.98
1925
. 2.00
2.14
2.18
2.25
2.32 2.60 2.38
2.01
1.78
1.40
1.38
75
2.02
1926
. 2.44
1.86
2.51
2.22
2.42 3.01 2.63
3.21
2.57
1.62
1.67
84
2.33
1927
. 1.85
2.09
2.10
2.14
2.19 2.21 2.22
2.11
1.27
1.72
1.63
.52
1.92
1928
. 1.56
1.58
1.67
1.86
1.96 1.57 2.12
2.02
1.48
1.32
1.40
.48
1.67
1929
. 1.72
1.86
2.06
2.08
2.23 2.41 2.62
2.08
1.79
1.52
1.66
.70
1.98
1930
. 1.68
1.80
1.90
2.02
2.03 2.08 1.63
1.49
1.51
1.51
1.49
.36
1.70
1931
. 1.32
1.38
1.36
1.32
1.36 1.17 1.18
1.00
.57
.40
.36
.40
.98
1932
. .44
.46
.47
.45
.44 .45 .43
.36
.37
.38
.37
.39
.42
1933
. .40
.38
.43
.45
.66 .93 .98
.94
.83
.64
.66
.64
.66
1934
. .80
1.02
.96
1.79
1.13 1.35 1.42
1.16
.83
.82
.82
1.06
1.10
(Indexes:
same month 19S5-19S9
= 100)
1925....
. 105
112
104
106
105 110 100
88
100
92
89
105
104
1926
. 128
97
120
105
109 128 110
140
144
107
108
111
118
1927
. 96
109
100
101
99 94 93
92
71
113
105
92
95
1928
. 82
83
80
88
88 67 88
88
83
87
90
89
83
1929
. 90
97
98
99
100 102 110
90
101
100
107
102
100
1930
. 88
94
90
96
91 88 68
65
85
99
96
82
86
1931
. 69
72
65
63
61 50 49
44
32
26
23
24
49
1932
. 23
24
22
21
20 19 18
16
21
25
24
23
21
1933
. 21
20
20
21
30 39 41
41
47
42
43
39
34
1934
. 42
53
46
85
51 57 59
51
47
54
53
64
56
•For Illinois districts South-Southweet and Southwest, as obtained from Illinois State Department of Agriculture.
1935}
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
171
TABLE 25. — FARM PRICES — Concluded
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May June July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Deo.
Average
VEAL CALVES'
(Dollars per 100 poundi)
1925-1929...
. 11.95
11.96
12.07
11.39
11.09 11.01 11.21
11.77
12.63
12.64
11.93
11.99
11.80
1925....
. 9.68
8.68
10.25
9.54
9.04 8.10 9.53
10.07
10.45
10.72
10.30
10.24
9.71
1926
. 11.51
11.65
11.01
10.39
10.45 11.22 10.70
10.76
11.88
12.46
10.84
10.84
11.14
1927
.. 11.54
12.14
12.07
11.57
10.26 10.04 10.28
11.66
12.17
12.41
11.64
12.42
11.52
1928
.. 12.41
13.03
12.66
12.00
12.25 12.75 12.44
13.00
14.60
13.82
13.73
13.06
12.98
1929
. 14.62
14.30
14.34
13.46
13.45 12.96 13.10
13.35
14.03
13.80
13.15
13.39
13.66
1930
.. 13.22
13.54
12.52
11.54
9.83 10.18 9.83
9.57
10.22
11.12
10.42
8.18
10.85
1931
. . 9.98
9.46
8.56
7.78
7.39 7.28 7.20
7.37
7.92
7.61
6.80
6.84
7.84
1932
. . 6.69
6.50
6.85
5.42
4.64 4.57 5.31
5.12
5.51
5.55
4.98
4.60
5.48
1933
.. 4.68
5.80
5.35
4.64
4.90 4.68 4.74
5.08
5.50
5.50
5.20
4.52
5.05
1934
.. 5.03
6.05
5.55
5.25
4.89 4.26 4.34
4.54
5.80
5.85
5.75
5 60
5.24
(Indexet:
tame month 1915-1919
= 100)
1925....
81
73
85
84
82 74 85
86
83
85
86
85
82
1926
. . 96
97
91
91
94 102 95
91
94
99
91
90
94
1927
. . 96
102
100
102
93 91 92
99
96
98
98
104
98
1928
. . 104
109
105
105
110 116 111
110
116
109
115
109
110
1929
. . 122
120
119
118
121 118 117
113
111
109
110
112
116
1930
. . Ill
113
104
101
89 92 88
81
81
88
87
68
92
1931
.. 84
79
71
68
67 66 64
63
63
60
57
57
66
1932
.. 56
54
56
48
42 42 47
44
44
44
42
38
46
1933
. . 39
48
44
41
44 42 42
43
44
44
44
38
41
1934
.. 42
51
46
46
44 39 39
39
46
46
48
47
44
WHEAT*
(Dollars per buthcl)
1925-1929. . .
.. 1.46
1.48
1.44
1.40
1.47 1.41 1.31
1.30
1.30
1.31
1.29
1.32
1.37
1925....
. 1.82
1.82
1.77
.60
1.65 1.66 1.42
1.55
1.53
1.48
1.54
.65
.62
1926
.. 1.72
1.72
1.53
.50
1.56 1.46 1.29
1.26
1.24
1.28
1.28
.26
.42
1927
.. 1.26
1.26
1.24
.18
1.28 1.35 1.34
1.28
1.28
1.29
1.27
.29
.28
1928
.. 1.28
1.30
1.42
.52
1.80 1.56 1.41
1.22
1.24
1.28
1.22
.25
.38
1929
. . 1.24
1.28
1.22
.18
1.08 1.00 1.10
1.18
1.21
1.20
1.13
.17
.16
1930
.. 1.19
1.10
1.05
.04
.98 .98 .76
.80
.82
.75
.73
.70
.91
1931
.69
.68
.66
.67
.66 .59 .39
.38
.38
.37
.50
.46
.54
1932
.. .45
.45
.46
.46
.44 .40 .37
.42
.42
.40
.38
.38
.42
1933
.. .40
.39
.42
.52
.71 .66 .94
.82
.76
.72
.80
.77
.66
1934
.. .78
.81
.80
.76
.74 .86 .82
.92
.94
.90
.90
.92
.85
(Indexet.
tame month 19t5-19t9
= 100)
1925....
. 125
123
123
114
112 118 108
119
118
113
119
125
118
1926
.. 118
116
106
107
106 104 98
97
95
98
99
95
103
1927
.. 86
85
86
84
87 96 102
98
98
98
98
98
93
1928
.. 88
88
99
109
122 111 108
94
95
98
95
95
100
1929
.. 85
86
85
84
73 71 84
91
93
92
88
89
85
1930
.. 82
74
73
74
67 70 58
62
63
57
57
53
66
1931
.. 47
46
46
48
45 42 30
29
29
28
39
35
39
1932
.. 31
30
32
33
30 28 28
32
32
30
29
29
30
1933
.. 27
26
29
37
48 47 72
63
58
55
62
58
48
1934
.. 53
55
56
54
50 61 63
71
72
69
70
70
62
•For Illinois districts South-Southwest and Southwest, as obtained from Illinois State Department of Agriculture.
172 BULLETIN No. 412 [.April,
TABLE 26. — COST OF A ST. Louis DAIRY RATION,* BY MONTHS, 1925-1934
(Per 1000 pounds)
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average
1925-1929.
1925 ...
....$14.06
. 16.70
$14.17
15.90
12 04
$14.27 $14.33
15.89 15.06
11 51 11 83
$14.69
15.70
11 75
$14.95
16.07
11 76
$14.63 $14.46 $14.24
15.17 15.43 14.08
11 83 12 24 11 96
$13.75
12.78
11 66
$13.11
12.34
10 98
$13.20
12.35
11 09
$14.15
14.79
11.76
13.64
16.04
14.54
12.39
7.91
4 75
1926
12 39
1927
11 63
12.12
15.55
15 26
12.21
16.77
14 97
12.20
17.84
14 62
12.98
19.21
13 82
14.44
18.82
13 65
14.58
16.88
14 67
14.75
14.91
14 96
15.15
14.60
15 42
14.57
14.66
15 08
14.38
13.99
13 82
14.64
14.51
13 41
1928 .
. . 14.78
1929
14 82
1930
13 03
12.66
9.84
5 31
12.47
10.09
5 37
13.47
10.10
5 35
13.22
9.18
4 95
12.66
8.45
4 61
11.73
7.57
4 42
13.52
6.84
4 84
13.12
5.92
4 74
11.80
5.20
4 21
10.73
6.16
3 95
10.31
5.64
3 81
1931
. 9 97
1932
5 49
1933
. 3.87
4.02
9 08
4.44
9.19
5.30
9.14
6.55
8.76
6.82
9.88
10.02
10.38
8.92
12.61
8.09
13.17
7.23
13.16
7.68
13.67
7.77
15.24
6.73
11.05
1934
8 30
•Composed of 450 pounds of corn-and-cob meal, 180 pounds of oats, 190 pounds of bran, and 180 pounds of cotton-
seed meal. Farm prices as obtained from the Illinois State Department of Agriculture have been used for corn and oats;
St. Louis prices as obtained from Crops and Markets, U. S. Department of Agriculture, and from the St. Louis Merchants
Exchange have been used for bran and cotton-seed meal. This ration was recommended by W. B. Nevens, Department
of Dairy Husbandry, University of Illinois.
TABLE 27. — QUANTITIES OF A ST. Louis DAIRY RATION THAT 100 POUNDS OF MILK
WOULD BUY, BY MONTHS, 1925-1934
(Pounds)
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average
1925....
. 138
145
126
133
111
109
128
126
146
164
178
178
140
1926 .
178
183
187
159
136
144
161
163
167
172
200
212
172
1927
1928
. 206
. 166
190
148
184
121
164
112
131
88
118
90
123
113
129
127
132
137
144
143
156
161
160
162
153
131
1929 .
159
151
147
137
123
124
130
134
130
143
163
172
142
1930
165
150
144
134
121
126
154
140
160
170
170
164
150
1931
. 147
148
153
138
138
167
218
234
277
312
244
257
203
1932
220
220
182
168
164
182
199
178
188
221
230
228
198
1933
. 214
199
180
160
137
139
116
130
143
160
151
175
159
1934
. 146
145
140
131
132
131
129
113
111
96
104
115
124
TABLE 28. — AVERAGE DAILY PRICES OF 92-ScoRE BUTTER AT CHICAGO,
BY MONTHS, 1919-1934*
(Cents per pound)
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average
1919 ...
. 60
49
60
62
57
51
51
53
57
64
69
68
58.4
1920
. 63
63
66
64
57
55
55
54
57
57
60
51
58.5
1921
48
47
47
44
29
32
39
40
42
45
44
43
41 6
1922
, . 34
37
38
37
34
36
34
34
39
44
50
53
39.1
1923
. 50
50
49
45
40
39
38
43
46
47
52
53
46.0
1924
52
49
46
37
37
39
38
37
37
37
42
42
41.1
1926
. . 39
40
48
43
41
42
42
42
46
49
50
47
44.1
1926
43
43
42
38
39
39
39
40
43
46
49
53
42 8
1927
. 48
50
49
48
41
40
40
41
45
46
48
51
45.5
1928
. 47
46
48
44
43
43
44
46
47
46
49
49
46.0
1929
. 47
49
48
44
42
42
41
42
45
44
41
39
43.7
1930
. 35.1
35 3
37.2
37.2
33.7
32.1
34.6
38.0
38.2
37.7
33.7
30.5
35 3
1931 .
27 3
27 1
28 7
24 4
22 4
22 3
23 8
27.2
30.3
32.2
29.7
29.1
27.0
1932
23.0
21.6
22.0
19.0
17.1
16.3
17.7
19 4
20 0
19.8
22.1
22.7
20.0
1933
.. 18.8
17.8
17 6
19.8
21.8
22 4
23.9
20.6
22.7
23.0
22.6
18.6
20.8
1934
19 3
24 4
24 5
22 4
23 2
24.2
23.6
26.4
24.8
25.9
29.0
29.5
24.8
•From U. S. D. A. Yearbooks 1919 to 1932, and current copies of Michigan Milk Messenger, Jan., 1933, to Jan., 1935.
1935]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
173
TABLE 29. — AVERAGE NET PRICES PAID TO PRODUCERS FOR S.S-PERCENT MILK
F.O.B. COUNTRY PLANTS IN A 41-TO-50-MiLE ZONE FROM
ST. Louis, 1909 TO 1934»
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May June July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average
1909 ..
. 1.52
1.52
1 68
.47
56
1.14
1 33
(Dollari per 100 poundt
.84 .91 .06
1 07 1.07 16
1.20
1 26
.25
39
.52
63
.56
72
.66
83
1.30
45
.44
.39
.53
.55
.34
.45
2.18
2.86
3.22
3.19
2 02
1010
1 70
1911
1 87
1.82
1.74
1.73
1.80
1.64
1.63
1.99
3.20
3.39
3.42
2 63
.68
.56
.56
.66
.52
.52
1.70
3.10
3 18
3.11
2 15
1.31
1.30
1.36
1 35
1.34
1.48
1.70
2.65
2.78
2.98
2 21
1.01 1.01 .19
.01 .08 .11
1.11 1.26 .31
1.11 1.30 .39
1.00 1.02 .16
1.47 1.14 1.15
1.30 1.30 2.10
1.95 1.80 2.24
2.25 2.58 2.97
2.92 2.77 3.25
1 83 1 32 1 63
1.32
1.19
1.42
1 45
1.20
1.15
2.20
2.69
3.10
3.75
2 06
.29
.28
.50
.49
.13
.24
2.20
2.94
3.65
3 52
1 94
.50
.47
.69
64
.24
.34
3.20
3.30
3.66
2.76
1 94
.59
.59
.80
.73
1.50
1.78
3.20
3.65
3.67
3.02
2 15
.73
.76
.87
.77
.62
.89
3.20
3.66
3.80
3.07
1 75
1912
. 1.77
1913
. 1.76
1914
1 90
1915
. 1.76
1916
. 1.65
1917
. 2 04
1918
. 3.20
1910
3 56
1920
. 3 67
1921
2 70
1922
1 74
1.64
2.37
2.45
1.56
2.25
2.25
1.40
2 15
1.95
.35 1.40 1.80
.85 1.85 2.00
.60 1.60 1.80
1.80
2.10
1.80
1.80
2.10
1.85
1.95
2.25
2.00
2.25
2.40
2.00
2.45
2.40
2 20
1.76
2.18
2 00
1923
. 2 50
1924
. 2.45
1925....
. 2.30
2.30
2 20
2.00
2 15
2.00
1 90
.75 1.75 1.95
60 1 70 .90
1.95
2 00
2.05
2 00
2.10
2 00
2.20
2 20
2.20
2 35
2.05
2.02
2.06
2.07
2.07
1.85
1 50
1926 .. . .
2 20
1927
. 2 40
2.30
2 30
2.25
2 20
2.00
2 00
.70 1.70 .80
70 1 70 90
1.90
1 90
2.00
2 00
2.10
2 10
2.25
2 25
2.35
2.35
2.30
1.69
1.45
1028
2 45
1929
2 35
2.30
1.90
1.46
2.20
1.80
1.54
2.00
1.80
1 39
.70 1.70 .90
.60 1.60 .80
.27 1.41 .65
2.00
1.90
1.60
2.00
2.10
1.64
2.15
2.00
1.62
2.25
1.82
1.50
1930
. 2.15
1981.
. 1.47
1932
. 1 21
1.17
.80
1.32
101
96
101
101
101
83
64
51
35
58
.98
.80
1.29
93
100
104
102
102
83
71
45
39
60
.90 .81 .84 .88
.85 .90 .95 .16
1.20 1.16 1.29 .34
(Indezet: tame month 1915-19X9
101 104 102 103
96 95 99 101
101 101 99 95
101 101 99 101
101 101 99 101
91 95 94 95
70 75 82 87
45 48 49 47
43 53 56 61
61 69 75 71
.86
1.16
1.43
= 100)
100
103
97
97
103
97
82
44
59
73
.89
1.16
1.46
102
100
100
100
100
104
82
44
58
73
.93
1.16
1.53
100
96
100
100
103
96
78
44
56
73
.91
1.16
1.54
99
99
101
101
101
82
67
41
52
69
.87
1.36
1.43
95
102
102
102
100
73
63
38
59
62
.94
1.02
1.35
100
99
100
101
101
90
73
46
50
66
1933
.83
1934
. 1.21
1925 .
98
1926
. 94
1927
. 103
1928 ...
105
1929
. 100
1930
92
1931
63
1932
. 52
1933 .
35
1984
. 52
•The prices shown for October, 1930, and subsequent months are weighted averages of the prices paid members of
the Sanitary Milk Producers for each month that milk was sold on a classified basis. Prices previous to October, 1930,
were obtained thru the courtesy of the St. Louis Dairy Company.
An additional 10 cents a hundred pounds of milk was paid from July, 1927, to March, 1930, to those producers
who installed certain specified equipment.
The weighted gross average price f.o.b. country plant was calculated from October, 1930, to October, 1934. Classi-
fication prices were quoted f.o.b. city from December, 1933, to October, 1934. The transportation differential from the
50-mile zone to St. Louis from December, 1933, to February, 1934, was 15 cents per 100 pounds on each of the three
classes of milk. The following transportation differentials were applied in the sale of milk to distributors from March
to December, 1934, on 100 pounds of milk:
City limitt to 50-mile tone
March 1 to May 31, 1934
June 1, to August 13, 1934
41 to 50-mile tone
August 14 to December 31, 1934.
ClattI
cent*
20
20
21
Claiill
centt
10
20
21
Clot* III
centt
5
5
These differentials were applied to the volumes in each classification for each month from March to November 14,
1934, in arriving at a weighted average transportation differential as applied to producers in the country-plant zones.
The differentials per 100 pounds of milk for the 50-mile zone and 41-50 mile zone were as follows, in cents: March, 13;
April, 12; May, 11; June, 14; July, 14; August, 13; September, 13; October, 15; November, 18; and December, 21.
These differentials were subtracted from the weighted average gross price f.o.b. city to obtain the average weighted gross
price f.o.b. country plant from November 14, 1934. From November 15, 1934, the transportation differential to pro-
ducers was 21 cento per 100 pounds on all milk from the 41-50 mile zone to the city limits.
The following check-off was deducted from the average weighted gross price f.o.b. country plants to obtain the
average weighted net price per 100 pounds paid to producers:
Sanitary Milk Producers centt
October, 1930, to February, 1932 3
March, 1932, to November, 1932 5
December, 1932, to February, 1934 4
February to December, 1934 3
Milk Industry Board
November 25, 1933, to February, 1934 1
Milk Market Administrator
March to December, 1934 1
174 BULLETIN No. 412 [.April,
TABLE 30. — GROSS PRICES PAID FOR S.S-PERCENT MILK BY DISTRIBUTORS, F.O.B.
COUNTRY PLANTS FROM OCTOBER, 1930, TO NOVEMBER 25, 1933,» AND
F.O.B. CITY PLANTS FROM NOVEMBER 26, 1933, TO OCTOBER, 1934
(Dollars per 100 pounds)
Year Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Class I milk
1930....
2.43
1 93
2.43 2
1 93 1
43
93
04
945
00
1931....
1932....
1933....
1934....
2 18
2 18
2 18 2 18
2 18
2 18
2 18
2 18 2
01
1 81
1.81
1 40 1 40
1 40
1 40
1 40
1.40 1
40
1 40
1 18 1
. 1.09
1 945
1.09
1 945
1.09 1.09
1.85 1 85
1.14
1.85
1.14
2 00
2 00
2 00* 2
T>
1.20*>
2 35
i:945«) 1
2 35" 2
(2.35)
(2.00)
Class II milk (formerly termed "first surplus")
1930 ...
1.58
1.35
1.42 1
1.25 1
28
22
95
29
54
1931....
1932....
1933....
1934....
. 1.15
1.14
1.20 1.02
.94
.94
1.00
1.14 1
?7
97
91
93 80
.72
.68
.74
76
76
.76
93
. .79
1 04
.75
1 265
.74 .80
1 33 1 24
.91
1.28
.94
1 27
1.24
(b) (
1 33<< 1
»)
Tl
1 38
(b) 1.
1 50* 1
(1.41)
(1.53)
Class HI milk (formerly termed "second surplus")
1930. . . .
1.32
1.13
.63
1.06
1.18 1
1.04 1
.77
0) 1
.79"
1.15* 1
(1.18)
.07
02
79
04
18
1931....
1932....
1933....
1934....
.96
. .81
. .66
. .84
.95
.76
.62
1.01
1.00 .85
.77 .66
.62 .69
1.01 .93
.78
.60
.76
.96
.78
.57
.78
1.00
'!62
.98
.95 1
.63
1.05<» 1
(1.08)
06
63
b)
02
•Prices from October, 1930, to November 25, 1933, are those paid by distributors contracting with the Sanitary
Milk Producers.
'•'Producers were paid a flat price from July 1 to November 25, 1933.
°The Marketing Agreement under the Agricultural Adjustment Administration became effective November 26,
1933, and from that date prices were quoted f.o.b. city plants, St. Louis.
''These prices were in effect from August 1-13, 1934, when a new price series shown in parentheses became effective.
•Prices in effect November 1-15, 1934, when a new price series, shown in parentheses, became effective.
1935]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
175
TABLE 31. — AVERAGE PRICES PAID TO PRODUCERS FOR 3.5-PERCENT MILK AT THE
GREENVILLE CONDENSERY, BY MONTHS, 1909 TO 1934"
(Dollars per 100 pounds)
Year
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Average
1909....
. 1.70
1.70
1.60
1.35
1.00
1.00
1.15
1.30
1.30
1.55
1.60
1.70
1.41
1910
. 1.75
1.75
1.60
1.40
1.15
1.15
1.25
1 30
1.35
1.75
1.80
1.90
1.51
1911
. 2.00
1.95
1.75
1.40
1.15
1.15
1.25
1.40
1.40
.60
1.75
1.90
1.56
1912
. 2.00
1.90
1.70
1.45
1.05
1.10
1.20
1.30
1.35
.55
1.75
1.95
1.521
1913
. 1.95
1.85
1.70
1.45
1.25
1.40
1.45
1.45
1.45
.80
1.90
2.00
1.64
1914
. 2.00
2.00
1.80
1.45
1.25
1.40
1.55
1.55
1.70
.90
1.90
2.00
1.71
1915
. 2.00
2.00
1.80
1.50
1.20
1.20
1.35
1.35
1.40
.50
1.65
1.80
1.56
1916
. 1.90
1.85
1.70
1.55
1.30
1.35
1.40
1.50
1.50
.90
2.00
2.25
1.68
1917
. 2.25
2.25
2.25
2.20
2.10
2.15
2.30
2.45
2.75
3.20
3.20
3.20
2.521
1918
. 3.20
3.07
2.95
2.65
2.00
2.00
2.30
« 75
3.00
3.35
3.68
3 70
2.89
1919
. 3.60
3.35
3.25
2.65
2.50
2.50
3.00
3.52
3.65
3.65
3.70
3.821
3.27
1920
. 3.70
3.45
3.00
3.00
2.90
2.80
3.25
3.75
3.25
2.65
3.10
2.50
3.11
1921
. 2.25
2.121
2.121
2.18
1.80
1.29
1.60
2 08
1.92
1.91
2.19
1 80
1.94
1922
. 1.75
1.65
1.55
1.40
1.35
1.40
1.80
1.80
1.80
1.95
2.25
2.45
1.76
1923
. 2.50
2.30
2.25
2.15
1.85
1.85
2.00
2.10
2.10
2.25
2.40
2.40
2.18
1924
. 2.25
2.25
2.15
1.85
1.60
1.60
1.70
1.70
1.70
1.85
1.921
2.20
1.90
1925
. 2.20
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.75
1.75
1.95
1.95
2.05
2.10
2.20
2.20
2.01
1926
. 2.20
2.10
2.10
1.90
1.60
1.70
1.90
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.10
« 35
1.991
1927
. 2.40
2.30
2.25
2.00
1.70
1.70
1.80
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.25
2.35
2.06
1928
. 2.45
2.30
2.20
2.00
1.70
1.70
1.90
2.00
2.10
2.20
2.35
2.45
2.11
1929
. 2.45
2.40
2.30
2.10
1.80
1.80
2.00
2.10
2.10
2.25
2.35
2.35
2.17
1930
. 2.00
1.80
1.75
1.75
1.60
1.60
1.80
1.90
1.90
1.70
1.75
1.60
1.76
1931
1932
1.40
. 1.071
1.30
.971
1.25
.95
1.20
.90
1.071
.85
1.021
.771
1.00
.75b
1.05
.75
1.20
.80
1.271
.80
1.25
.80
1.20
.85
1.181
.86
1933
. .82*
.75
.75
.80
.871
.90
1.021
1.05
1.05
1.06
1.06
1.00
.93
1934
. 1.02J
1.15
1.16
1.04
1.081
1.14
1.09
1.22
1.15
1.19
'Prices were obtained thru courtesy of Pet Milk Co., Greenville, 111.
bFroni July, 1932, to March, 1934, an additional 10 cents per 100 pounds was paid to each producer having a
milk house.
176
BULLETIN No. 412
{.April,
TABLE 32. — DAIRY CATTLE POPULATION AND PRODUCTION OF MILK IN THE ST. Louis
MILKSHED, JUNE, 1933, TO MAY, 1934"
Number of Average production
producers per cow
Average number of
cows per 10 farms
Average number of
heifers per 10 farms
question-
naires
Annual
Per dayb
Milk-
ing
Dry
Total
Two-
year
olds
Year-
lings
Calves
Total
Illinois
Madison
624
4 883
17.1
71
15
86
9
12
11
32
Clinton
489
4 618
16.0
81
19
100
10
12
11
33
St. Clair
447
4 235
14.3
58
12
70
7
10
9
26
Randolph
409
3 957
14.6
64
16
80
8
11
14
33
Washington
391
3 890
15.4
59
14
73
7
9
9
25
Effingham
361
3 924
15.1
76
18
94
12
15
13
40
Fayette
281
3 486
14.4
63
15
78
9
12
11
32
Montgomery
220
4 424
17.0
71
18
89
10
17
13
40
Bond
193
4 312
15.2
67
14
81
9
12
11
32
Marion
192
3 889
14.6
61
12
73
8
10
9
27
Greene
106
3 810
14.3
82
22
104
11
22
20
53
Monroe
103
4 809
16.6
53
10
63
7
8
8
23
Macoupin
102
5 050
17.3
89
19
108
15
19
15
49
Shelby
73
3 766
10.1
78
15
93
9
14
13
36
Moultrie
66
3 201
25.8
82
13
95
8
15
24
47
Others
64
4 514
12.2
84
16
100
14
14
19
47
Jersey
53
4 450
16.9
80
18
98
16
14
12
42
Perry
42
3 570
14.4
61
16
77
7
13
12
32
Christian
27
3 891
13.8
84
9
93
11
19
16
46
Cumberland
24
3 141
14.5
67
22
89
9
19
22
50
Clark
14
3 591
15.5
61
21
82
8
11
11
30
Jefferson
13
2 656
8.9
84
17
101
13
34
22
69
Average
(4 294)"
4 290
15.5
69
16
85
9
12
12
33
Missouri
Franklin
305
3 067
13.2
75
21
96
10
13
11
34
Jefferson
282
4 028
15.8
94
22
116
14
17
13
44
Lincoln
104
4 096
15.8
59
17
76
9
9
7
25
St. Charles
83
4 637
14.1
76
15
91
10
14
12
36
Texas
49
3 829
15.6
127
21
148
16
20
24
60
St. Louis
31
8 016
28.1
119
28
147
16
23
23
62
Others
29
3 744
16.6
116
28
144
18
41
30
89
Phelpe
28
2 826
11.2
77
28
105
7
11
10
28
Wright
28
3 852
12.0
141
14
155
19
18
38
75
Audrain
27
4 181
17.0
84
21
105
10
14
18
42
Pike
25
4 158
18.2
118
28
146
11
35
25
71
Montgomery
24
3 257
7.5
83
27
110
9
17
18
44
Howell
22
2 621
11.9
129
19
148
16
25
18
59
Marion
18
3 219
11.3
209
40
249
41
53
49
143
Gasconade
17
2 824
8.7
79
27
106
9
15
16
40
Crawford
16
3 951
14.5
99
21
120
19
22
29
70
Osage
14
2 323
10.1
97
50
147
12
29
23
64
Warren
13
3 602
13.7
62
23
85
4
18
8
30
Average
. (1 115)°
3 793
14.6
90
22
112
12
17
15
44
Illinois and Missouri
Average ,
. (5 409)"
4 161
15.3
73
17
90
10
13
12
35
•Based upon answers to questionnaires by 5,409 producers, June, 1934.
k-For May, 1934. 'Total.
1935]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
177
TABLE 33. — DAIRY CATTLE ON FARMS IN THE UNITED STATES AND IN ILLINOIS ON
JANUARY 1, 1920-1934"
United States
Illinois
Year
Milk cows and
heifers two years
old and older
Dairy heifers
one and two
years old
Milk cows and
heifers two years
old and older
Dairy heifers
one and two
years old
1920
21 427 000
4 418 000
1 047 000
1921
21 408 000
4 155 000
1 027 000
1922
21 788 000
4 023 000
125 000
1923
22 063 000
4 147 000
148 000
179 000
1924
22 256 000
4 137 000
159 000
196 000
1925
22 481 000
4 195 000
049 000
187 000
1926
22 188 000
3 916 000
039 000
167 000
1927
21 801 000
4 059 000
988 000
184 000
1928
21 828 000
4 201 000
968 000
175 000
1929
21 919 000
4 413 000
958 000
186 000
1930
22 499 000
4 669 000
1 006 000
208 000
1931
23 576 000
4 775 000
1 057 000
234 000
1932....
24 475 000
4 685 000
1 089 000
215 000
1933
25 277 000
4 704 000
1 122 000
219 000
1934
26 062 000
4 749 000
1 165 000
209 000
•As reported by the U. S. Department of Agriculture.
TABLE 34. — AVERAGE NUMBER OF DAIRY CATTLE PER 10 FARMS IN THE ST. Louis
MILKSHED, JUNE, 1934
Number of
milking cows
Number
of
producers
Cows per 10 farms
Heifers per 10 farms
Milking
Dry
. Total
2-year
Yearlings
Calves
Total
0-4....
1 300
33
64
102
142
184
221
345
73
13
15
20
25
32
32
54
17
46
79
122
167
216
253
399
90
6
8
8
18
28
42
54
10
7
12
16
27
35
53
74
13
6
11
10
27
30
42
63
12
19
31
40
72
93
137
191
35
5-8
2 643
9-12
1 004
13-16
285
17-20
95
21-24
37
Over 24
45
Average
. (5 409)<>
•Total
178
BULLETIN No. 412
{.April,
TABLE 35. — TOTAL MILK PRODUCTION OF MEMBERS OF SANITARY MILK PRODUCERS,
AND OF NONMEMBERS, BY COUNTIES, JUNE, 1933 TO MAY, 1934
Volume of milk in
millions of pounds
Percent of
county totals
Volume of milk in
millions of pounds
Percent of
county totals
Illinois counties
Non-
Mem- mem. Total
bers bers
., Non-
Mem- mem.
be" bers
Missouri counties
.. Non-
Mem- mem. Totai
be« bers
Non-
Mem- mem.
bers berg
Madison
. 54.9 20 4 75 3
73 27
Jefferson
13.5 6.8 20.3
67 33
Clinton
. 31.9 11.6 43.5
73 27
Franklin
11.3 8.6 19.9
57 43
St. Clair
21 7 14 9 36 6
59 41
St. Charles
42 20 62
68 32
Washington ....
. 21.8 95 31 3
70 30
Lincoln
42 .9 5.1
83 17
Randolph
. 13.2 9.8 23 0
57 43
Marion
.5 4.5 5.0
10 90
Kffingham . . .
. 12.4 8.0 20.4
61 39
St. Louis
1.3 2.7 4.0
32 68
Bond
11 7 40 15 7
74 26
Texas
1 32 33
4 96
Montgomery
. 10 9 41 15 0
72 28
Pike
1.8 .8 2.6
68 32
Macoupin
. 10.5 3.8 14.3
74 26
Montgomery. . . .
1.3 .6 1.9
70 30
Fayette
9.1 35 12 6
72 28
13 3 16
81 19
Marion
.77 18 95
81 19
Wright
(») 15 15
2 98
Greene
.61 12 73
83 17
Crawford
.5 .9 1.4
36 64
Monroe
. 2.2 6.5 8.7
25 75
Phelpe. ..
.1 1.0 1.1
9 91
Jersey
48 12 60
81 19
Howell
11 11
100
Shelby
. 15 27 42
35 65
Warren
1 .7 .8
16 84
Moultrie
.4 3.2 3.6
11 89
Gasconade
.6 .2 .8
72 28
Perry
8 11 19
42 58
Osage
156
23 78
Clark
6 12 18
32 68
Cole . .
5 .5
8 92
Douglas
.2 1.6 1.8
11 89
Rails
.4 .4
7 93
Coles
.3 1.4 1.7
17 83
Maries
.2 .2
0 100
Cumberland .
6 915
42 58
.2 .2
0 100
Christian
.1.0 4 14
71 29
Washington . . .
.1 ... .1
100 0
Jackson
.1 .3 .4
35 65
Others
.1 .1
0 100
Piatt . . .
(») 4 4
6 94
Jasper
.2 .1 3
60 40
Missouri totals. .
41 0 37.7 78.7
52 48
Jefferson
Clay
. (») .2 .2
1 (») 1
6 94
67 33
Sangamon
1 (•) 1
60 40
Illinois totals
.224.8 113.8 338.6
66 34
Grand totals.. . .
265.8 151.5 417.3
64 36
•Less than 100,000 pounds of milk.
TABLE 36. — MONTHLY VARIATION IN AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCTION OF MILK BY
MEMBERS OF THE SANITARY MILK PRODUCERS, NONMEMBERS, AND TOTAL
FOR THE ST. LOUIS MlLKSHED, JUNE, 1933, TO MAY, 1934"
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
NOT. Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May Average
(Average daily production per farm in poundt)
Members
111
101
104
94
91
94 97
102
103
99
112
140 104
Non-members..
108
97
97
87
84
85 86
92
94
92
105
132 97
Total
110
100
102
92
89
91 93
98
100
97
110
137 102
(Indeiet of average daily production: It montht average —
100)
Members
107
97
100
90
88
90 93
98
99
95
108
134 100
Non-members..
112
101
101
90
87
88 89
95
97
95
108
137 100
Total
108
98
100
90
88
90 92
97
98
95
108
135 100
•Based upon data for 8,426 producers who shipped milk 10 months or longer.
1935]
ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS
179
TABLE 37. — AVERAGE DAILY PRODUCTION PER PRODUCER BY COUNTIES IN THE
ST. Louis MILKSHED, JUNE, 1933, TO MAY, 1934
Counties
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Average
Ittinou
Bond
108
99
99
87
91
92
89
93
94
89
106
137
99
Christian
Clark
95
97
90
70
87
78
75
85
70
84
71
92
75
99
75
100
74
103
71
91
85
90
115
128
82
93
Clinton
126
112
114
105
108
111
118
125
126
123
137
171
123
Cumberland. . .
Effingham
Fayette . .
66
122
90
55
107
84
50
111
85
54
99
72
53
90
68
66
93
68
80
98
69
71
100
68
77
100
66
66
98
63
67
106
74
90
143
101
66
106
76
Greene
129
115
121
114
104
108
105
107
103
99
113
137
113
Jackson
124
106
105
86
77
121
148
142
145
128
118
141
120
84
96
76
51
58
70
76
82
84
80
98
128
82
Jersey .
126
114
114
101
94
107
106
102
100
101
114
124
108
Macoupin
164
121
151
111
148
114
140
102
151
104
160
110
165
114
176
120
175
119
170
114
184
128
216
160
167
118
Marion
109
96
104
88
88
94
77
88
89
86
102
136
96
Monroe
81
72
72
62
60
65
72
80
83
80
86
102
76
Montgomery. .
Moultrie
110
339
97
237
98
192
• 89
174
86
187
96
191
103
229
97
273
96
294
90
352
101
392
131
373
100
269
Perry
98
86
92
84
68
70
68
76
76
76
83
105
82
Randolph
Shelby
92
95
80
87
82
92
68
96
67
94
72
99
78
102
85
117
88
124
84
113
94
97
114
133
84
104
St. Clair
91
86
89
82
77
76
78
84
87
86
95
113
87
Washington . . .
Missouri
Audrain
87
135
77
129
78
121
66
112
60
105
62
100
67
99
74
103
75
105
73
103
84
109
113
137
76
113
Buchanon
Cole . ...
23
3
28
3
23
7
26
139
45
116
71
96
79
100
56
112
48
109
35
113
24
119
19
129
40
87
Crawford
Franklin
Gasconade
Howell
162
101
73
180
164
92
72
144
172
94
90
154
156
84
95
145
126
76
92
135
112
67
73
120
119
68
69
85
131
74
71
81
146
76
69
100
151
75
60
103
184
85
71
139
226
108
94
176
154
83
77
130
Jefferson
Lincoln
140
92
125
77
126
80
120
70
114
70
106
73
99
76
106
81
112
84
114
78
137
95
166
117
122
83
Maries
188
183
204
172
201
187
143
146
118
144
154
177
168
Marion
, 172
177
154
160
134
158
160
101
106
111
129
164
144
Montgomery .
Oregon
, 96
. 825
81
790
82
963
93
804
98
629
91
438
100
317
116
363
122
266
117
156
128
190
151
559
106
525
Osage
107
97
99
120
134
108
89
86
88
89
118
140
106
PheTpa
82
74
106
95
79
65
66
61
62
64
84
95
78
Pike...
. 195
167
160
129
141
135
128
122
125
124
152
186
147
Rails
. 172
153
126
104
83
60
84
112
104
110
139
171
118
St. Charles...
St. Louis
Stoddard
Texas . .
. 103
. 200
. 43
222
103
193
34
212
112
199
49
212
101
188
36
176
104
185
33
148
110
190
48
126
85
202
51
121
102
196
56
128
104
193
45
138
106
195
32
14
124
203
39
192
144
209
49
254
108
196
43
173
Warren
90
85
91
85
66
73
86
93
91
80
107
121
89
Wright
. 187
168
167
165
155
144
150
150
161
169
206
277
175
180
BULLETIN No. 412
{.April,
TABLE 38. — NUMBER OF PRODUCERS IN THE ST. Louis MILKSHED, BY COUNTIES,
MAY, 1933, TO JUNE, 1934
Number of producers shipping —
Number of producers shipping —
Illinois counties
10 months
or more
9 months
or less
Total
Missouri counties
10 months
or more
9 months
or less
Total
Madison
1 397
862
920
856
627
308
369
368
300
145
249
190
133
115
18
2
63
0
6
1
13
33
3
7
0
0
0
0
6 985
631
389
267
173
205
298
212
82
147
186
66
104
78
52
113
106
20
58
50
54
37
15
21
6
13
8
4
2
3 397
2 028
1 251
1 187
1 029
832
606
581
450
447
331
315
294
211
167
131
108
83
58
56
55
50
48
24
13
13
8
4
2
10 382
Franklin
453
380
105
132
36
32
46
36
29
35
32
12
15
22
13
23
14
13
4
4
0
3
1
1
1 441
8 426
218
112
66
36
100
42
23
21
25
12
7
23
13
5
13
2
5
5
6
0
4
0
1
0
739
4 136
671
492
171
168
136
74
69
57
54
47
39
35
28
27
26
25
19
18
10
4
4
3
2
1
2 180
12 562
St. Clair
Jefferson
Washington . .
St. Charles
Clinton
Lincoln
Randolph
Marion
Texas
Fayette
St. Louis.
Bond
Pike
Montgomery
Montgomery
Marion
Phelps
Monroe
Audrain
Macoupin
Wright...
Howell
Jersey
Shelby
Warren
Moultrie
Crawford
Perry
Osage
Douglas
Cole
Clark
Rails
Coles
Cumberland
Christian
Stoddard
Jefferson
Piatt
Missouri totals
Jasper
Clay
Illinois totals ...
TABLE 39. — AVERAGE DAILY MILK PRODUCTION PER FARM BY 8,232 PRODUCERS IN
THE ST. Louis MILKSHED, CLASSIFIED BY PROPORTIONS THAT BASE
VOLUMES WERE OF MAY VOLUMES, JUNE, 1933, TO MAY, 1934
Percentage
that base
volumes were of
May volumes
Num-
ber of
pro-
ducers
June July Aug. Sept. Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
Aver-
age
Under 10. ..
21
•
70
M
118
122
113
110
100
84
94
74
W2
l()ti
tea
no
10S
lor,
1(14
UK)
104
111
138
(Daily production per farm in pounds)
45 51 36 28 42 68
54 47 34 32 42 56
81 76 62 61 67 78
104 103 92 89 91 95
114 119 109 107 106 106
110 120 112 110 110 103
112 122 118 114 114 109
102 113 106 104 99 90
91 103 104 98 90 83
94 106 103 100 92 89
76 87 79 67 48 38
(Indexes of production: It months average =
74 84 59 45 68 112
82 72 52 49 64 85
89 84 68 67 74 86
97 96 86 83 85 89
100 105 97 95 94 94
103 113 106 104 104 96
106 115 112 108 108 104
111 124 116 114 108 99
112 127 128 120 111 102
111 126 122 119 108 106
139 160 144 123 88 70
77
70
91
104
108
101
100
86
76
84
62
100)
127
107
100
97
95
95
95
94
94
100
113
79
77
98
106
107
98
94
77
67
76
50
130
118
108
99
95
92
90
84
82
90
01
60
76
100
106
104
90
83
69
59
59
23
99
116
110
99
92
85
79
78
73
70
42
71
95
120
123
115
96
87
70
56
56
20
116
145
132
115
102
90
82
76
70
67
36
112
135
158
156
140
114
101
81
64
60
32
185
206
174
145
124
107
96
88
79
71
59
61
66
91
107
113
106
105
92
81
84
55
10-19
350
20-29
. 1 726
30-39
. 2 466
40-49
. 1 772
50-59
. 1 034
60-69
. 452
70-79
238
80-89
111
90-99
55
100 or over
7
Under 10. ...
21
10-19
. 350
20-29
. 1 726
30-39
. 2 466
40-49
. 1 772
50-59 ....
1 034
60-69
. 452
70-79
. 238
80-89
111
90-99
65
100 or over .
7
J9J5] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 181
TABLE 40. — TOTAL MILK PRODUCTION AND CLASS I SALES IN THE ST. Louis SALES
AREA, JUNE, 1933, TO SEPTEMBER, 1934a
Month
Class I sales
1
Indexes
(January,
934 = lOO11
Total ,
) production
Indexes
[September,
1933 - 100")
19SS
June
Ibi.
17 213 443
104
Ibt.
33 501 951
117
July
17 533 395
103
31 272 214
106
August
17 493 687
102
31 833 882
108
September
. 17 743 826
107
29 590 729
100
October
17 785 607
104
29 679 179
100
Nnvemhar ...... {..... .......
17 001 608
103
31 458 586
110
December
17 130 784
100
34 899 504
118
19S4
January
17 101 920
100
36 767 334
124
February
, 15 711 592
102
33 351 332
125
March
17 542 852
103
35 696 052
120
April
16 824 101
102
39 162 270
137
May...
. 18 091 395
106
51 198 356
173
Total for 12 months 207174210 ... 417311389
June 17928154 108 40423669 141
July 18 285 155 107 36 056 652 122
August 17482020 102 39554000 134
September 16 167 425 95 37 366 322 126
October 16922948 99 35393900 120
November 15 976 444 93 32 312 455 109
December 15 850 820 93 31 506 673 106
»Aa reported to St. Louis Milk Market Administrator under U. S. License No. 35.
'•This was the low month of the 12 months June, 1933, to May, 1934.
(Sources of Data in Table 2, page 100)
•Rent intervals and number of families were determined from the 1930 U. S. Census (Population,
Vol. 6: p. 63; Table 69, p. 756; and Table 24, p. 15). The number of families includes only the number
reported in the Census classification on rents. For families owning their own homes the rental value is
considered to be 10 percent of the total Census valuation. See "Marketing Notes," personal pub-
lication by Paul D. Converse, University of Illinois.
bAverage incomes were estimated to be four times the rentals in 1930. See "The American
Consumer Market," 1932, Table 23, p. 37, published by The Business Week.
"The weighted average income for 1930 was corrected to the 1934 general price-level by multiplying
by — -' • (from Farm Economics, N. Y. State Coll. Agr., Cornell Univ., June, 1934, p. 2073).
(Sources of Data in Table 6, page 109)
ui HX iiiuusinee.
The number of families in the area using mechanical refrigeration is based on a survey made by the Union Electric
Light and Power Company of St. Louis.
The number of families in the United Stalei using some kind of refrigeration is quoted from a statement by W. S.
Shipley in the Refrigerating World, October, 1933, p. 5.
(Sources of Data in Table 13, page 139)
Baltimore. Information furnished by J. M. Lescure, Director, Bureau of Milk Control.
Boston. Health Department, city of Boston, "Regulations for the Care and Sale of Milk," Art. 6 and Art. 12,
Sec. 2 and Sec. 8. Maximum bacterial count after pasteurization also fixed by Massachusetts statute.
Buffalo. Information furnished by the Board of Health.
Chicago. Information furnished by Herman H. Bundesen, President, Board of Health.
Cleveland. Cleveland Sanitary Code, Amendment 9, Sec. 451, para. H.
Detroit. Information furnished by Russel R. Palmer, Chief Milk Inspector, Department of Health.
Los Angeles. Information furnished by Wm. Veit, City Veterinarian, Department of Health.
Milwaukee. Milk ordinance of the city of Milwaukee, Sec. 780.
Minneapolis. Milk ordinance of the city of Minneapolis, Sec. 2 (B), para. 1, and Sec. 11, para. 11.
New York. City of New York, Board of Health, "Regulations Governing the Production, Handling, etc., of
Milk," Regulation 79.
Philadelphia. Information furnished by Edward E. Behrens, Supervisor of Cattle, Food, Meat, and Milk Inspec-
tion, Bureau of Health.
Pittsburgh. Information furnished by Leicester Patton, Assistant Superintendent, Bureau of Food Inspec-
tion, Department of Public Health.
St Louis. Milk ordinance of the city of St. Louis, Sec. 27 (b).
San Francisco. Information furnished by Board of Health.
182 BULLETIN No. 412 [.April,
QUESTIONNAIRE SENT TO PRODUCERS
MARKET ADMINISTRATOR
UNITED STATES MILK LICENSE NO. 35
ST. LOUIS MILKSHED
3688 CHOUTEAU AVE.
ST. LOUIS, MO.
June 15, 1934
MR. JOHN SMITH
EDWARDSVILLE, ILLINOIS
Answers to the following questions will furnish information necessary for a study of
the St. Louis Milkshed. Answer each question and return in enclosed stamped
envelope not later than June 20, 1934.
1. What is the name of the dealer who buys your milk? Dealer
2. What is the name of your hauler? Hauler
3. What is the name of the station or plant where your milk is Station
received? or plant
4. How many miles from your farm to the plant or station
where your milk is received? Miles
How much of this distance is hard road? Miles
How much of this distance is gravel road? Miles
How much of this distance is dirt road? Miles
5. How much per 100 pounds are you now paying for having Cents per
milk hauled from your farm to the milk plant? 100 pounds
6. How many cows are you now milking? Cows
7. How many dry cows do you have? Cows
8. How many two-year-old heifers, which have not calved, are Two-year
on the farm which you operate? old heifers
Yearling
9. How many yearling heifers on the farm which you operate? heifers
10. How many heifer calves less than a year old do you have, Heifer
which you are raising to produce milk? calves
1935] ST. Louis MILK PROBLEMS 183
TABLE LIST OF TABLES AND CHARTS PA01
1. Daily consumption of milk in 14 U. S. cities 96
2. Incomes of St. Louis families calculated from rentals 100
3. Per-capita consumption of milk by income-groups, St. Louis, 1934 101
4. Changes in retail delivered milk prices, St. Louis, 1925-1934 102
5. Evaporated milk consumption in 15 U. S. cities 106
6. Refrigerating facilities, St. Louis and U. S., 1933 109
7. Theoretical consumption of milk in St. Louis, by nationality and race,
1934 110
8. Prices of farm products, including grains used in dairy ration, St. Louis
milkshed, 1925-1934 120
9. Dairy cattle population and milk production, St. Louis milkshed, U. S.,
and Illinois, 1934 123
10. Volumes of different classes of milk purchased by distributors, St. Louis,
July, 1934 132
11. Handling margins on Class I sales units, St. Louis, July, 1934 134
12. Average handling margin on wholesale quarts, Boston and St. Louis, 1934 134
13. Bacteria permitted, before and after pasteurization, 14 cities, 1934 139
14. Average returns per cow as related to volume of butter fat 143
15. Milk production of group of New York dairymen under weighted aver-
age price plan, 1922-1930 149
16. Transportation differentials, St. Louis dairy district, 1934 152
17. Equilization fund in operation, an example 153
(Appendix, detail tables)
18. Population and consumption of milk, 14 U. S. cities, 1934 161
19. Population of milk sales areas, 14 U. S. cities, 1934 162
20. Family incomes and milk consumption, St. Louis, 1934 163
21. Racial population by Census districts, St. Louis, 1930 164
22. Indexes of retail food prices, St. Louis, by months, 1925-1934 164
23. Average retail prices of evaporated milk, St. Louis, 1925-1934 165
24. Price differentials, whole and evaporated milk, St. Louis, 1925-1934 165
25. Average farm prices of twelve farm commodities, St. Louis milkshed,
1925-1934 166
26. Cost of St. Louis dairy ration, 1925-1934 172
27. Milk values in relation to cost of dairy ration, St. Louis, 1925-1934 172
28. Average daily butter prices, Chicago, 1919-1934 172
29. Average net milk prices f.o.b. country plants, St. Louis, 1909-1934 173
30. Gross milk prices f.o.b. country plants and city plants, St. Louis,
1933-34 174
31. Average milk prices, Greenville condensery, 1909-1934 175
32. Dairy cattle population and milk production, St. Louis milkshed,
1933-34 176
33. Dairy cattle on farms in U. S. and Illinois, 1920-1934 177
34. Distribution of dairy cattle by farms, St. Louis milkshed, 1934 177
35. Milk production of Sanitary Milk Producers and of nonmembers,
1933-34 178
36. Seasonal variation of Sanitary Milk Producers and of nonmembers,
1933-34 178
37. Average daily production per producer, by counties, St. Louis milkshed,
1933-34 179
38. Number of producers, St. Louis milkshed, 1933-34 180
39. Average daily milk production per farm, by 8,232 producers in St. Louis
milkshed, 1933-34 180
40. Total milk production and Class I sales, St. Louis, 1933-34 181
184 BULLETIN No. 412
FIG. PAGE
1. Map of St. Louis milk sales area 94
2. Milk production by counties in St. Louis milkshed 95
3. Per-capita consumption of milk in St. Louis Census districts 96
4. Map, city of St. Louis, showing areas surveyed 98
5. Additional income from greater milk consumption 99
6. Family incomes in St. Louis by Census districts 100
7. Relation between incomes and milk consumption, St. Louis Census
districts 102
8. Changes in retail food prices and milk prices, St. Louis, 1925-1934...... 103
9. Price indexes of 16 foods, St. Louis, 1934 104
10. Changes in evaporated and whole-milk prices, St. Louis, 1925-1934 105
11. Difference between evaporated and whole-milk prices, St. Louis, 1925-
1934 105
12. Increase in use of evaporated milk with widening of price differentials. . 107
13. Evaporated milk prices, Chicago and St. Louis, 1925-1934 108
14. Average summer temperatures in 14 U. S. cities 108
15. Relation between refrigeration facilities and use of fresh milk 109
16. Differences between retail wagon prices and store prices of milk,
Boston, 1922-1933 112
17. Population of St. Louis Census districts, 1930 115
18. Families on relief in St. Louis Census districts, 1934 116
19. Changes in wholesale prices, U.S. and other countries, 1924-1934 117
20. Index of farm food prices in U. S. compared with St. Louis milk
prices, 1910-1934 118
21. Milk prices in relation to cost of dairy ration, St. Louis milkshed,
1925-1934, by years 119
22. Milk prices in relation to cost of dairy ration, St. Louis milkshed,
1925-1934, by months 120
23. Changes in Chicago butter prices compared with changes in factory
payrolls, U. S., 1919-1934 121
24. Cattle price and production cycles, U. S., 1873-1934 122
25. Whole-milk prices at St. Louis country plants compared with con-
densery prices, 1909-1934 124
26. Monthly sales and surpluses of whole milk, St. Louis dairy district,
1933-34 126
27. Seasonal variation in milk production of two groups of dairymen, St.
Louis milkshed, 1933-34 127
28. Seasonal variation in milk production of dairymen paid on basic-
surplus plan and dairymen not so paid 128
29. Seasonal variation in sale and production of milk, St. Louis, 1933-34 129
30. Seasonal production of producers shipping milk 9 months or less and
producers shipping 10 months or more 130
31. Proportions of Class I milk sold thru retail and wholesale outlets, St.
Louis, July, 1934 132
32. Proportions of Class I milk sold in the principal sales units, St. Louis,
July, 1934 133
33. Returns per cow as related to volume of butterfat 142
34. Average daily increase in milk production of group of New York dairy-
men under weighted average price plan, 1922-1930 148
35. Map showing country shipping stations and transportation zones, St.
Louis milkshed, 1934 151
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11