Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1883-03-16
Agricultural.



There aro arc two sides to many questions;
and everything is questioned. Those who at
tended the farmers meeting at Putney, or who
have read our report Of it, viii remember
that cotton-seed meal was there recommended
~ n better and moro economical food than
corn meal for milk cows. Mr.. Davis, Of the
Board, strongly urged people who keep COWS
for butter and buy meal for them, to use
cotton-seed meal and no one dissented. At
the Connecticut dairymen's association, held
at Hartford in January, quite different opn-
ion prevailed. One of the questions most
frequently asked was What do you think Of
cotton-seed meal for butter2 Aud the gene
raj verdict was, on the whole, against it.
The manager of the Highland creamery at
West Hartford stated that the use of this meal
had for time almost ruined their butter, that
tho price had fallen from As to "a cents, and
that they had suffered more in reputation than
money. When its feeding had been stopped,
the butter began to improve, but slowly, and
it was some time before it was as good as be-
fore. He showed samples of butter from
feeding three quarts per day and diminishing
to light feeding. The first was very bad, and
an inferior flavor was perceptible in all. He
found that the odor, if hardly percephblo at
first, was developed by age.
At the Pennington creamery in January,
1881, the quality of the butter suddenly fell
of. The milk was carefully examined, and q
peculiar taste and smell discovered in that
which came from a part of the town where
cotton seed meal had just come into use. For
a week or ten days this milk was sometimes
used and sometimes sent back to the patrons.
As soon as the managers were satisfied that
this caused the trouble, notice was sent to the
patrons to stop feeding it, and in a few days
the trouble was over and the butter became
as good as usual During this time-besides
what was otherwise disposed of--from 1000 to
1900 pounds of butter had to be put upon the
market to sell for what it would bring.
During the year 1882, aside from an occa-
sional falling off for a day or two, the butter
from this creamery was remarkable in it's
quality from month to month, and the price
obtained was correspondngly good But in
January last there was another sudden change
Complaints came in from all quarters about
the butter. II was found on inquiry that a
few patrons had been feeding this meal for
some weeks without notice. Tempted by this,
carload had been bought at about the price
of corn meal, and a number of farmers were
thus increasing their milk and prospective in
comes. But the same bad effects ensued as
before. The feeding of the milk had to be
stopped, and all the doubtful milk separated
from the rest. For some reason this milk did
not recover its quality as soon as before, and
at the time Of the convention had not return
ed to its former standard 1t is said that the
meal was not as good as usual, and hence its
cheapness. The fact that the butter did not
at once recover its former quality caused di
rect loss of from S7j to 1925 week-not to
those patrons alone who fed the meal but tc
all sending milk to the creamery; consequent
ly the patrons were naturally indignant ant
they have by general vote prohibited the
feeding of this meal, under penalty of ex
pulsiou