Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1886-02-10
>oplrited discussion follovoa .,.s-

eplflted discussion followed chiefly
a:-oo % the butter frauds of the
9ilecte.. ~hibiting the impotency Of
day; and t.. tho people a remsSr ~
the laws to afort4 F'o ielneoy
against them.
C. F. Dexter of Chicago, read q
paper upon the commercial relations OF
the dairy product and the producer. in
cluding quality, presentation on the
market, reputation for uniformly good
and superior quality, uniform style OF
packages, age or freshness, color and
other essential points which determine
the quality or character. Mr.. Dexter
championed the creamery factory sys-
tenn which called out a crisp debate,
the majority of the speakers inclining
to the dairy system rather than the
factory.
Col. T. ID. Curtiss Of Syracuse, N. Y,
read q paper, ''How to make the best
butter" which was of especial value
coming from one of the greatest dairy
students in the country.
G. l.. Smith discovered upon the
unsatisfactory status of the butter in
dustry, and lhought that ignorance
was moro responsible for it than the
counterfeit goods.
At the evening session Prof. Porter of
the state university described the experi-
mental farms. Mr. Smith read =
paper upon Things I did not til d in
the report of the Dairy Commissioner"
Mr.. Hoard enlivened the occasion with
most mir: bful stories, aud Jules Loln-
bard with songs that charmed inde-
scribably.
THIRD DAY.
At the morning session financial
report was presented showing receipts
for 1885, $66S.21, expenditures $685.
IS, balance S2O4.66. The following
officers were elected: President w.
Fowler: Newport; secretary, r. &. judi
son, Pennington; treasurer, j. E.
Putnam, Big Lake. Resolutions were
passed in favor of a Northwestern
stock show, and thanking the citizens
for their hospitality, petitioning the
legislature for an annual appropriation
of $500, and also denouncing the
course of the Illinois state board of
agriculture in the management of-the
stock and dairymen's show at Chicago.
The committees on premiums report
the following awards:
Creamery Butter--F. D. Holmes,
Owatonna. first; G. Kcarns, Austin,
second; 1. E. Starks, Alden, third.
Dairy Butter-M. J. Myers L. Co.,
Wells, first; Mrs. V. c. Holmes, Owa-
tonna, second; H. E. Nelson, Albert
Lea, third; f. A. Rice. fIpestone,
fourth.
Roll and Print-Mrs. N. c.. Holmes,
first; F. u. Holmes, second; Mrs. l.. b.
McKinstry of Winnebago City, third;
G. Kearns, fourth.
Granulated Butter-F. D. Holmes,
first.
Ornament Designs-F. d. Holmes,
first.
Factory Cheese-R. B. Williams,
Lansing, first; A. +. Jones, Morris
town, second.
Dairy Cheese-E. A. Rice, fist; +.
u. Holmes, second.
Best Essay on the Manufacture OF
Dairy Butter-C. l.. Hi, Albert Lea.
The special premium offered by tho
State Holsteip Breeders Association
was awarded to j. M. Myers 4 Co.
W. D. Hoard of Fl. Atkinson de-
livered ringing address upon "A
profit"
"In an experience of thirty years
devoted to study of dairy ques-
tions. dairy economy and dairy
profit" the speaker said, II have ar
rived at the solid conclusion that there
are,in the main, two classes of men en-
gagged in dair,ing. The first always
make money; the second never do, ex-
cept when prices rule high. The first
are commercial dairymen, not mere
cow farmers. The second class are tho
direct opposites of these men. You
can't sell them dollars worth of
knowledge for 50 cents, and by reason
of their low, false estimate they haven't
the so cents. So much for the man
factor in the problem. The first thing
to consider concerning profit is cost.
The man who makes the least money
in dairying is the man who wastes his
forces the most. 1t is less a question
of prices received than of cost of pro-
duction. Few dairymen study this
problem in any but a crude way. Nine
out of ten will tell you the hired help
in the chief item of cost.
Among the leading expenses of
common or Improbable dairy farm
ing are Q) the cost of farming half
productive soil in a half-productiye
way in the raising of food for COWS;
l2) the cost of keeping two cows to do
the work of one-you have heard from
another speaker that there is
difference of so to 100 per cent. in the
butter return of different COWS; (3)
the cost of poor shelter. 10 lessen
this last cost in Minnesota does not
require an outlay Of capital 80 much as
of good, hard cow sense. A great
many farmers do not know what is
good water for mich COWS. Slough
water creates a bad. fermentive milk.
Cold water and cold exposure for two
hours to get 1t cost Mr.. Amcs, as you
have heard. 5000. (4) The cost Of
refusing to feed literally, If at all. and
that, too, of the right kind of food for
milk production. Your hay must
be green and succulent. No form
of the grass plant will produce as
much milk as grass thatis short, sweet
and succulent.
Instead of cutting two good crops
from ten acres, the average farmer
prefers to cut one poor one from twen-
ty acres. With the succulent food
there Is less expense of bodily force in
digestion. 1t has been shown that
three tons ofsweet epsilagc is the equal
for milk production Of one ton Of sweet
hay. yet the ensi|age contains 900
pounds less of solid matter than the
bay. All this talk calls for three spe-
cidc changes; first, in the ideas of the
farmer himself az to what constitutes
sound dairy practice; second, change
in the idea Of what dairy cow is and
what she is for. Too many think she
is for the purpose of raising steer,
and, as q consequence they get tteer
results. The men who make the most
money IN dairying regard her as tho
mother OF another cow that, If possible.
shall be better than herself.
r. C. Judso1 spoke upon the milk
register, o. c. Gregg upon farm econo-
mioa