cooperative, others the Extension Service, and still others the milk handler or another agency. Some persons interviewed expressed the specific opinion that the cooperative should be largely responsible for the entire educational program relating to seasonality. Several others felt that the Extension Service should be largely responsible, especially for taking technical information about herd management to producers. Officials of cooperatives said more assistance is needed from county agents. They could be particularly helpful by giving attention to a complete forage program, rather than to pasture improvement alone. Timing of Information Program Several persons expressed the view that a program of information is never completed. There may, however, be special need for a more intensive program at some times than others. An official of one cooperative expressed the view that a minimum of a 10-year program is needed when attention is first turned to the seasonal problem. Even then, it is necessary to recognize the turnover of members, and the need to remind old members and keep their understanding up to date. Extra information and a renewed intensive program clearly are needed when the seasonal price plan is changed in a market. One manager said it is necessary to discuss the seasonal price plan thoroughly at district meetings every 2 or 3 years. This is necessary to be reasonably certain members adequately understand the price plan. New Information and Materials Several persons interviewed stated they needed information which was not available or needed information in printed and other forms. They wanted such facts as comparative costs per hundredweight of milk produced in even and in uneven patterns and comparative net incomes to producers from even versus uneven deliveries. Persons who feel these needs might take their requests to their State Extension Service or to Federal agencies for their consideration. Seasonality and Income This section presents data on price and income incentives for a greater proportion of milk deliveries in the fall. And it describes the seasonal pattern of deliveries in the areas included in this study. The data showing seasonal patterns of deliveries over the years reflect the result of educational programs conducted, as well as incentives to adjust the seasonal pattern. Thus these data comprise much of the available evidence of the results of programs discussed in this report. Effectiveness of educational programs and of money incentives must be considered together since their results are difficult or impossible to separate. It is necessary to discuss in some detail how price plans provide incentives for more nearly even deliveries. This presentation places incentives provided by each major seasonal price plan on a comparable basis. Data presented are helpful in reviewing the charts of seasonal patterns which follow. And a thorough understanding of price-income incentives provided by seasonal price plans is necessary for officials responsible for the conduct of educational efforts of cooperatives. An obvious way to describe the incentive for more milk deliveries in the fall is in terms of the seasonal variation of prices. The difference between base and excess prices is most apparent in markets with base excess plans. However, the seasonal difference, or the difference between base and excess prices, tells only part of the story about incentives to individual producers. A dairyman delivers milk throughout the year, and not in just 1 or 2 months. Therefore he cannot choose between delivering milk in the months with the highest and those with the lowest prices of the year. Nor can he usually exactly tailor his deliveries to the base he has formed, in markets with base excess plans. A more precise procedure requires calculation of income incentives for specific changes in pattern of deliveries. We have calculated such incentives for the 12 markets included in the study. Similar calculations can be made for other markets. Results of such calculations should be quite useful to farmers. A farmer may be considering one or more changes in breeding, feeding, or other herd management practices which would affect the seasonal distribution of his deliveries. He must, of course, make an estimate or "guess" of the probable seasonal pattern which would result from the changes before he can make a truly informed decision. Then he can compare what would be the gross returns from the specific alternative seasonal pattern with gross returns from his present pattern. Please note that it may not pay a farmer to change his seasonal pattern although the average price (and gross income received) would be higher. In other words, the calculations which follow are in terms of gross rather than net returns. The extra cost, if any, of obtaining more fall deliveries is not a part of this discussion. A farmer must estimate these costs, as well as the seasonal pattern which would result. We developed four composite "producers" A, B, C, and D representing seasonal patterns of deliveries. Note that the initials A, B, C, and D are assigned in order of the relationship between spring and fall deliveries. A had the lowest and D the highest percentage relationship of spring to fall milk deliveries. A represented producers who usually delivered more milk in the fall than in the spring; his was a fall peak pattern (table 1 and fig. 1). B represented producers who usually delivered the same amount of milk in the fall as in the flush season. C delivered more milk in the spring than in the fall but did not have a large spring peak of deliveries; his was a moderate spring pattern. Finally, D usually delivered much more milk in the spring than in the fall; his was a high spring pattern. These patterns were developed from data on actual deliveries by producers. Producers were grouped by the average of their seasonal patterns for 3 years. This averaging procedure seemed realistic, since most dairymen. Table 1.-Seasonal indexes of deliveries for illustrative fall peak, equal, moderate spring peak, and high spring peak producers (moderate (high spring) spring) Monthly index in percent 104 93 90 86 96 95 95 97 95 101 102 109 95 101 108 120 92 108 Monthly Index PERCENT Figure 1.—Illustrative seasonal patterns of milk deliveries. JAN. FEB. MAR. APR. MAY JUNE JULY AUG. SEPT. OCT. NOV. DEC. Source: Data are from table 1. do not maintain the same pattern cluding provisions of seasonal pricing consistently year after year. Note that even B did not have a uniform flow of milk in all months. Producers with the same volume of milk in the fall and the spring may ordinarily have a large proportion of their cows freshen in the early fall and another group in the early spring. They would in that case have a slump in production in about July and August and another slump in midwinter, when many of their cows would be dry. How would the average prices received by A, B, and C compare with D's price in the 12 markets? Table 2 shows these prices computed by using 1952-54 prices for the respective markets. Thus, the same patterns for all markets, and prices which actually applied to the markets, in plans in effect were used. Incentives for more fall deliveries were modest in markets I and II. Class price differentials were varied seasonally in these markets, but fali premium or base excess plans were not used. In market I producer C received an average of 2 cents more a hundredweight than did D. A and B received averages of 6 and 4 cents more a hundredweight, respectively, than D. Markets III and IV, with similar types of seasonal pricing but different details of the plans, provided producers greater price incentives. Comparing two extreme patterns, A in market IV received 14 cents more a hundredweight than D. (Actually, comparison of extremes of patterns may be less useful to producers than comparisons representing moderate changes of seasonal patterns, since producers are not likely to change suddenly from one extreme to the - other.) Markets V to VIII had fall premium pricing plans. Again, the extent of the price incentives varied between these markets. But incentives in two of the markets, VII and VIII, exceeded incentives in any of the markets, I to IV. Similar comments apply to markets IX to XII, which had base excess pricing plans. The extent of the price incentives varied between these markets. Incentives in two of the markets, XI and XII, substantially exceeded those in any of the other markets. Note the price difference between a moderate spring peak pattern and a high spring peak pattern in market XII. C received 18 cents a hundredweight of milk more than D. Both A and B received more, 26 cents each more than D. even What do the differences between annual average prices for producers A, B, C, and D mean in terms of extra gross returns a year for other than a high spring peak of deliveries? This information should be most useful to producers. Table 3 shows the conversion of the price differences in table 2 to differences in annual gross returns, using a volume of 150,000 pounds a year to represent a typical volume of deliveries. Producer C received only $30 a year more than D in market I. Comparing extremes of seasonal patterns, A received only $90 more than D. Differences in annual gross returns were far greater in most markets. In market XII, C received $270 more than D, and both A and B received $390 more than D. The gross income incentives appeared to be modest in some of these markets. Substantial changes in herd Table 2.-Incentives for fall production of milk in 12 markets 1 1 1 Seasonal patterns of deliveries taken from table 1. Prices for each market were averages of monthly prices, 1952–54, in the respective markets. 2 Differences in annual average prices between the 4 respective patterns of deliveries would be the same for any total volume of deliveries. Table 3.-Incentives for fall production of milk in 12 markets, at a typical volume of deliveries 1 1 Based on data from table 2. Amounts are price differences from that table multiplied by 150,000 pounds a year, used to represent a typical volume of deliveries. management practices may be necessary to change from one pattern to another. The modesty of differences in gross returns would be particularly apparent if the change(s) a farmer is considering would alter his pattern only a little, rather than from one extreme to another. For example, it seems likely that a farmer would try to change his pattern by degrees, as from high spring to moderate spring, or moderate spring to equal, rather than all the way from high spring to fall at one time. The differences in annual gross returns between the different patterns representing moderate changes were not large in several of the markets. Now to review the seasonal patterns of deliveries in the 12 markets. Several factors, including production conditions, price-income incentives for greater production in the fall, and education about the seasonal problem all probably have had a major Data in figure 2 show several characteristics of seasonal patterns of deliveries in the 12 markets. First. seasonal swings in deliveries were more pronounced in some markets than others. Each section of the figure is plotted on the same scale. Note the contrast between the degree of the swing in areas II, IV, and V and the swing in IX, XI, and XII. Second, note the trend in the markets toward more nearly even deliveries between about 1945-47 and 195254. Going back further, note that the seasonal swings became greater from 1940-41 to the early post-World War II years. This change is evident in most of the areas. Reasons for the tendency in those years toward greater seasonal swings were given earlier. Incentives for more nearly even deliveries again became effective after the war and educational programs |