Some Foundations of the Dairy Industry

Summary Difficulty was encountered in trying to evaluate the generous responses to the questionnaire. The percentage distribution method was used throughout to rank the responses made in the six categories of subject matter. For the most part, only the ten highest ranking items under each question were listed herein. One must remember that ten is an arbitrary number which does not reveal the whole picture but often renders injustice to some of the important, yet unlisted factors. Each of the named and unnamed introductions, contributions, or leaders might well be studied further. The field for future studies is unlimited. No sooner had the present task been undertaken when responses indicated that several dairy scientists were already steeped in dairy history and that this phase of history was more or less a hobby of theirs. The positive and negative responses from distinguished scientists were challenging. For the most part, they were encouraging. Several seemed to welcome the opportunity to furnish in detail the information sought. To them evaluating the dairy scientists and their contributions was a game. The Historian is amazed at the wealth of historical data embedded in the minds of many dairy scientists. Failing to tap this current source of information would have been a lost opportunity. Asking a busy person to fill out the questionnaire was little short of an imposition. This is fully appreciated and the Historian is ever grateful for the generous release of this information summarized herein. One noted teacher and investigator returned the questionnaire blank, penning a note to the effect that he no longer had access to the J ournal and an agricultural library and thus could not be of much help with these milestones. He concluded by saying, “Anyway, the proper ones to evaluate history are the young people— not the old timers.” Perhaps he was right. Nonetheless, the task has been interesting, though tedious, and enlightening. May the older dairymen review the summaries critically and the younger scientists be inspired by the accomplishments of the workers of yesterday. In conclusion, the Historian of the American Dairy Science Association would point out that this survey confines itself quite largely to the growth and development of the dairy industry in the United States. Likely, surveys in other countries would reveal much of the same information. Several of the leaders are of international scope and would appear on any foreign list of outstanding dairy scientists. But many of the leaders would be from specific countries making a similar survey. One is reminded that two approaches exist to any historical study—the events themselves or the lives of the men contributing to those events. Carlyle stated, “The history of the world is but the biography of great men.” Emerson put it another way, “There is properly no History; only Biography.” So it had to be in surveying the history of dairying in the United States. The events stood out, but were not complete without the leaders who made them possible. At this point, the final statement of one responding scientist lends encouragement. After having exhausted himself in a monumental reply to the questionnaire, he wrote, “Good luck to the Historian, for no matter what decisions are made, others will have different viewpoints. It is fortunate so, for if everyone agreed always, there would be no thought stirred up and no progress made.”