Vermont phÅ“nix. [volume] (Brattleboro, Vt.) 1834-1955, 1901-12-13

IL 10 Shai dCISIlSIlC Win that class
of people to lose their tempers and call
names because they have no good ar.
guments and must depend on bIuffina.
Our would-be competitors are
squrming terribly because the United
States beat the DeLaval in the Model
Dairy at the Pan-American, and are re.
sorting to all sorts of schemes to break
the force of the victory of the United
States over the DeLaval Separator.
They say we put out what purports
to be a sl1immilk record of the WORK
done by the u. s. machines in the
Model Dairy" We gave the exact
statement signed by the Superinten-
dent of the Model Dairy, namely;
Average test of the U. S..-.o13e.
They published a statement also
signed by the Superintendent of the
Model Dairy showing an average or
.0161. The superintendent afterwards
found he had made an error, and stated
over his own signature the correct
average for the DeLaval was .O172:
but these "would-be competitors" do not
correct the error, but continue to adj
vertise the figures which they know TO
be wrong.
The DeLaval Co. published their Sec
ond period of running, which was in
the best season of the year. from
August 9th to September 2Sth, inclu-
sive. We publish the second period
from Sept. 20 to Oct. 80 inclus-
sive. All experienced dairymen know
that the U. S. had the hardest milk to
separate, as the cows were longer in
milk, giving less quantity, and cold
weather coming on; yet, with all these
conditions against the U. s.. It ex.
celled the DeLaval, as the Superinten-
dents reports show. ct also beat the
DeLaval in the first period, after ad-
justment.)
The DeLaval statement reads "Tests
were from August 9th to September
2Sth, but the record books of the Model
Dairy show no record was made until
the 18th of August. This gives them
two days to adjust the machine under
the friendly expert operators before
any tests were recorded.
Our statement includes the first run
of our machine with no time allowed
for adjustment.
The records after adjustment of the
first period show that the United
States beat the DeLaval on these runs
also.
The DeLaval Co., being aware they
were beaten in the first period, sent
their machine back to the factory to be
fixed over and improved, If possible,
for second trial. Their machine was
one made special for that work. The
U. S. was taken from regular stock and
was returned to it's booth after the
first run and remained there until we
were requested by telegraph from the
Superintendent of the Model Dairy to
put in the U. S. to make second run
We wondered why the necessity for
telegraphing such a request, but tele-
graphed back we would comply with
the request. We learned later that
the DeLaval was shaking so badly that
it was not deemed safe to run it longer,
therefore the necessity for arranging
by telegraph to replace it with the
U. S.
The DeLaval Separator is top
heavy machine filed with 40 to so
metal discs. and when they get out Of
balance, cause trouble if continued in
use. Therefore the necessity for i'm
mediate change when it begins to
shake. They claim to run on slow
speed, DuJ always, Wnen III compeIl-
ton with the U. s., attempt to run at
very high speed-sometimes more
than so per cent higher than they ad-
vertise to run. They know that their
separator cannot run at high speed
long, so run it at high speed only in
tests with the U. S.
The U. S. is made more substantial
ly, and does stand high speed, and
runs longer and easier at its peed
than the DeLaval does at its claimed
lower speed.
The DeLaval Co. advertise a "volun-
tary" CD statement purporting to be
from the engineer of the Model Dairy
in which he says at took but one
fourth as much steam to do our work
with it (DeLavaD as the United
States used" Such statement is so
ridiculous on it's face that no expert
enced dairyman would doubt that 1t
was voluntary on the part of the De-
Laval Co.
We have hundred of statements
from dairymen, who have used both
separators, that the U. S. runs easier
than the DeLaval. and wears much
better.
- ants \