The progressive farmer. [volume] (Winston, N.C.) 1886-1904, 1899-11-28
THE DAIRY.
DAIRYING.


After reading Prof. Emery's letters
on the above subject we feel sure u
readers will be anxious to learn some
thing of the details of the work, as car
ried on so successfully and probably
in the great dairy regions Of the North
and West. In a recent issue OF the
New York Outlook, Mr.. Charles B
Spahr has an account of q trip tout
West" in which he describes his visit
to a CO. operative creamery. In part,
he says:
Most of the work Of the farm insti
tutes was, Of course, technical, but
there was a part of it which I was able
thoroughly to appreciate. The insti
tute lecturers made it their business to
preach cooperative diaries, and to pre-
pare the way for them by teaching
their audiences how to select dairy
cattle, and care for their cream, go as
to get the best results. Superintend
ent Gregg spoke so warmly of the u
cess of this form of CO operation that /
inquired where, on my way to the R9d
River Valley, I would find a good dairy
district. At his suggestion ! stopped
at L~ischfeld, and saw for myself an
American experiment in cooperation
almost IS remarkable az that of the
Rochdale Pioneers in England.
reached the Litchfi5ld creamery at
four O'CLOCK in the afternoon, just as
the young Danish superintendent was
about to leave for the day. He proved
to be another Observation-Disclosures
seemed full of such people-and for an
hour he talked with me, really explain
ing every part of the system. The
creamery had cost So 200, and handled
about 90, 900 pounds (pints) of milk a
day. The farming district from which
milk was brought to the Litchfield
creamery was only five or six miles in
radius, as there were other co operative
creameries in other parts Of the coun
ty. IL was not necessary for each far
mer to haul his own milk to the cream
cry, but different farmers along the
same road were able to take turns, and
thus drive to the creamery hardly
otlener than they would wish to come
to town anyway. 1t was thus CO operI-
ton all along the line.
When the farmer brought in his
milk, it was at once weighed, and
when a sample had been taken it was
poured into the common receiver. The
farmer did not have to wait for the
cream to be separated in order to get
back his skim milk to feed his calves,
etc. At once he received checks for
the approximate weight of both the
skim milk and the buttermilk that
would be due him, and these checks he
at ono cashed by q simple automatic
arrangement. The milk check, for ex
ample, varied in lsngth according to
the weight Of milk it called for. If the
farmer had brought 100 pounds of
fresh milk, he was entitled to IS
pounds of skim milk, and by showing
his long check through q slot he re
ceived exa stly TO that amount. By a
similar ''check in the SLOT device he
would get 10 pounds of buttermilk. No
labor or even supervision was called
for on the part of those in charge, and
everything vas 80 conveniently ar.
ranged, that in a fe minutes the far
drove away with all that was COM
ing to him except the payment for his
cream.
From a hundred pounds Of milk
about five pounds of butter could be
made. The milk varied so much in
q lality, however, that the farmers
were not paid according to q Isntity
but according to the amount of ''but
ter fat" contained. E tch farmer had
a separate glass ar in which the sam
Piles from his milk were preserved til!
the end OF the month, and then tested.
Al the time Of my visit the price paid
for 'butter fat" was eighteen cents a
pound, and the average payment to
the farmers for their milk was seventy
one cents a hundred pounds; but some