Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1898-09-06
WHY SOME cReAMeRles FAIL.

that 10 desired In patronage, manage
ment and quality Of produce, It will be
discovered that Its managers are not only
well up In intelligence, but are students
Ia dairy matters, and are applying them
selves 70 solving the problem Of dairy
economics. When = creamery falls Il
will be found that the chief causes will
be narrowed down TO these: A creamery
built "too sOon," built where Il could
not get dairy support enough TO keep II
in life, or else the patrons had so little
conception Of their obligations that the
scheme fell through for lack OF con-
centrsted action 10 supplying the raw
material In amount and uniformity that
would have made success possible. Then
followed the usual exhibition Of jealousy,
mistrust, whisperings and insinuatiOns
which raised "ferment'-nOt In the
cream-which put speedy extinguisher
upon the enterprise and sealed Its doom.
Even in the old settled dairy districts
where the keeping Of cows Ia almost uni-
versal, the creamery Otter fails To be a
success, and, while much Is charged
TO the creamery shark" who promoted
the concern, there Is much which the
patrons could have done to promote 1t
and make success where failure was
written all over the venture.
A case is now In mind. In the midst
ofs thickly settled dairy district the
patrons Of two cheese factories became
disgusted with the ready made prices
they were receiving for milk, and ir an
hour Of great susceptibility ''listened to
Chicago feller" and $4,000 creamery
WAS erected and opened for business.
Not three Of the few who finally did
bring their milk to the creamcry-less
than three hundred cows-had ever
thought that u COW could not change
from cheese-factory COW, where milk
WAS sold by the hundred pounds, quality
not examined, TO q creamery COW, and
have the milk tested for butter fat. and
the value Of the herd gauged according
ly. These farmers had not prepared for
the change. Their common cows, giving
somewhere about TO 3.3 per cent milk,
and at the common rate OF three thousand
pounds Of milk year, brought them lit
tie income. Comparing receipts with
last years factory prices they were TO
the disadvantage Of the creamery. There
WAS row at once, and the charge was
ming" them with the Babcock test, and
there should be no more testing, or they
would pull out" Some Of the patrons
finally did.
The pooling plan proved no better, for,
10 their surprise, the amount Of butter
remained the same, but some dsiries,
which, under the test, were getting q
premium for having the best milk, were
scaled down, and the fellow with the 3
per cent milk got raise In butter credit.
The first man saw this was his ''dona-
ton" 10 the other fellows poor dairy,
and he left the creamery. Then the mat
ter Of uniform quality Of milk became q
matter OF disagreement. One part Of
the patrons had always taken any sort
Of milk to the factory, at any time Of
day or night they elected, and no one
objected, and now they were not going
to be dictated to, and strain their milk
and "arryeate" IL: 'twasn't worth much,
anyhow. Here u dissension arose that
caused more patrons to withdraw. Then
u patron would keep out his milk day
or two and make little butter at home.
and by the usual summer methods Of
combining lots Of butter, salt and butter
milk together, such as Is commonly
dipped with spoon for softness, It
would be announced that they could
make more butter at home than they got
creamery credit for and another casus
belli WAS added. Later on the fellows
Who fed some grain TO their cows and
soiling crops, ss well, and maintained
their milk flow, were accused by the
others of-well, not exactly watering the
milk, but coming some sort OF book
farming trick on the rest. Later on,
when some Of the patrons opened their
silos and began feeding silAge and "sec-
onds" for grain, and got summer messes
Of milk, the hay ana cornstslk fellows
said that the silage milk Was thin and
spoiled the butter by its bad taste, and
when the salesman settled up with the
good, aud the ''snide" commission men,
and struck dividend, Ii struck all but
two or three Of the patrons that II was
s~indle from end TO end, and the only
salvation was TO ship cream. So cream
was shipped for white; then the fac
tory closed, and soon the sheriifrs ham
mer fell on q $500 bid, and So. 200 went
10 the account OF experience, aud all
they have to "salye their wounds" with
Is the satisfaction Of knowing that they
put over 81 900 into active circulation.
What is true Of them Is true Of many
others. They refuse to believe thar
there is an advance education In the
dairy. They refuse TO believe that there
is any difference in the milking habit OF
cows or such n thing MS dairy form and
heredity. They contend that the breed
is all in the feed, but haven't time to
demonstrate ii. They refuse to believe
that there Is anything in the combining
Of feeds 10 create greater milk secretion,
or that care and warmth combined with
comfort make cheaper milk; and, last 0i
all, fellow who Is green enough to put
up lot OF green corn sauerkraut for his
cows 10 eat, and say II Is cheaper food,
is no pattern for them. At this cream
cry the failure came about simply be-
cause the patrons could not run cream.
cry on cheese-fsctory principles, with
cheese-factory cows, and on 1850 plans
Of COW care and selection. This Is why
this creamery failed, and, in the main, is
why others have failed and still continue
TO fail.
There are q hundred reasons why
creameries fail, outside of the creamery
itself. No concern can run with cows
Of w-prodncing power either In milk
or fats, or both, any more than they will
succeed with high-priced feeds and poor
care. There is a crudeness In our dairy
ing that must give place to better organ
lied effort and q better understanding.
Cows are not all cows. Some are only
boarders. Some men are dairymen,
others are COW herders. The COW can
not change or be changed. The man,
by study and intelligent effort, can do
better, and IL he will msy rise to the
high sttainments Of dairying. When
this comes there can be no reason given
why the creamery should fail or burn up
by reason OF bad hne.-New York
Tribune.
A NATIONAL VIEW.
Farmers at times talk poverty, but
they produce In the Uuited States wealth
enough to pay the entire cost Of the late
war and have spending money left, said
assistant secretary Of agriculture Brig
ham at recent New Hampshire Pomona
meeting. In 1897 they produced In
round numbers o., SOC, ,000, 900. Of which
81, ,l00, ,000, 600 was in the cereals. There
has not been mined in the United States
since 1884 gold and silver enough to buy
the crops Of q single year, not half
enough to buy the eggs laid in year by
the farmers hens. Ii we had all the
-