Manchester Democrat. [volume] (Manchester, Iowa) 1875-1930, 1901-02-06

buut l0 C8u Out VI tuo I6Itu W COup6u6-
lte him for his money outlay and often
10 the detriment Of the land. Mr.. Huh
bell gave It as his opinion that In the
long run there was no doubt but that
the owner Of the farm Lost by the cash
rental system, and was the gamer when
he rented on shares.
e. N. Carr followed the last named |
gentleman on the same subject. Mr..
Carr spoke from long experience IN
the rental OF farms and he also dis
Carr said In part, that what the owner
suggested: Let the owner contract to
put In the use Ut the farm sgainst his
assoctate's contract to do all the neces-
sary work on the farm, each partner
furnishing share Of the required stock
and machinery, and each sharing equal.
" In the profits. Hugh Clemans and
j. G. French were to have talked on
this subject, but were not In attendance
upon the session.
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON SESSION.
Promptly at the hour of one fifteen
Wednesday afternoon, the Presidents
call TO order was obeyed and the sub
ject, Are Farm SeparatOfs Profitable,
announced, with L. G. Clute opening
the discussion. Mr.. Clute said In part:
In the matter of having better milk 70
feed our, calves and pigs, the I'D
vantages are all on the side of the seps-
rat0r. for the average creamery sepa-
rated milk is decidedly too thin upon
which to grow the average calf. By
using the farm separator, starting 1t as
soon as you begin milking In the morn
Ing, you have the warm sweet skinned
milk for feeding and 1t can always be
fed sweet, not sweet one meal end sour
the next, as is the case too usually with
creamery separated milk. Bnt while
fayoring separating milk upon the farm,
do not want to make butter upon the
farm; let the team come along and take
lessen the expense Of hauling and ex-
by milk souring In the hauling during
the summer and freezing and Ice during
the winter. favor the farm sepsra-
tor because 1t means less expense, bet
ter milk for the calves, better steers,
more money for the farmer, more of the
comforts of life for his family and Q
greater love for farm life on the part of
the farmer, his wife and his children.
8. B. Smiling, Of Mason CITY, followed
Mr.. Clute In the discussion Of this sub
ject. Mr. Shilling Is we'll known In this
vicinity, Delaware county having been
his former home; he 10 fat, fair and on
the bright side OF forty, bis remarks
partsking of his sunny disposition. He
rather scOffed at the idea that one could
possibly doubt the prOhtableness OF the
baby separator, but further stated that
be was employed on q salary to convince
his farmer brothers that there were bar
rels of money In every baby separator
And then speaking seri0usly, Mr.. Shil.
ling answered the question under dis
cussion IN two words-It depends, fur
ther stating that 1t depended wholly
upon the people. He made some YER,
Interesting statements, one of which was
really startling as he said
that two thirds of the 107, 00O, 600 pounds
of oleomargarlne sold in this country
last year sold under the name OF butter
Another fact given out by Mr.. Shilling
was to the effect that but one third of
the butter shipped to the eastern mar
kets gardes as extra first. These are
both important matters especially to be
considered bv the formers OF Delaware
county, who are primarily dairymen
good datrymen ranking we'll up to the
top with the best butter makers of the
land.
Mr.. Shilling laid the chief blame for
the poor grade of butter made, q OF 90
much with the creamery as with the
farmer, claiming the farmer as rule
was not sufficiently acquainted with thu
cows individually. He said IL the farm
er did know each one Of his cows indi
vidually and knew what crack COW wal
paying him, If he were to subject esct
one in the herd to the Bsbcock test, he
would soon rid himself of q large mum
4 Der of his cows. He spoke with much
emphasize In favor OF the Bsbcock tesl
on the farm, saying the andn probably
only then would our butter grade bettel
in the market place. Mr.. Shilling CLOSED
his remarks by reading letter recently
received bearing on the support of thu
CIRCUIT bill before the Senate BY the
farmers OF the state. This letter was
given over to the Committee on Reso-
lutions for action upon at late date
Watson Childs. one of our county't
foremost private dairy men spoke short
~ and In favor of the Babcock test ani
the farm separator. Mr.. Chllds is ont
who is listened to with much respect bl
the dairy farmers Of the county as ont
Vi tatko9 pt0CttC6l 0ARCkl6uS0
line of the farm industry.
f. w. BDusks WAS called for and re-
itself into three different phases: from
the standpoint of the man who makel
butter on the farm; the patron of thu
cream gathered factory; and the patron
of the milk creamery. For the first twt
classes the home separator 10 profitable
but possibly not to the last. The Onl,
way to determine this will be by actua
test and Mr. Bouska knew of no cream
gathering creamery that was making
the test as q financial experiment.
Chairman Coon here announced tina
the paper to be given by j. b. Ruther
ford. on the question, Shall We Rails
Our Own Cows, 7 which was postpone,
on account of lack of time in the morn
ing session, would here be introduced
Mr.. Rutherford rather startled his hear
ers by making the statement that b.
did not consider 1t of profit to raise
COW, further celebrating by saying thu
the farmer could buy two heitefs TO
what 1t cost him to raise one. but advis
ing that the farmer never buy unde
four years of age. Those taking up tn
discussion of this after Mr.. Rutherford
with one accord disagreed with tina
worthy gentleman. Watson Child
.isss his own dairy COWS, adding how
S7er that he thinks 1t slways advisable
to subject his young COW to the teal
ten II she prove what he hoped for he
he keeps her, otherwise not. j. F. Ora
ham strongly favored raising bis own
dairy COW and was seconded In his ap
p.oyal Of that side By L. g. Clate. TheJ