Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1902-02-04
Public Opinion on Iowa Subjects
as Reflected in the Iowa
Newspapers.
The News of Iowa From Hun.
dreds of Different Towns
end Communities.

CREAM SEPARATOR DISCUSSED
The Hursboldt Republican reports
the following discussion at tie Hum
boldt County Farmers Institute:
The discussion for the evening was:
rs the Modern Cream Separator Es-
sential to coed Farming? I. A. Ross
ing opened OH the affirmative and said
that 1t was necessary to keep cows t.
preserve the fertility of the soil anc
| that it was essential that all the butter
fat should be- saved from the milk tc
insure profit, He would supply this
such grains and oils as would take
the place OF the extracted fat. b,
this means lie would save the costl,
parts of the fat as source of profit
and raise good steers and heifers
as well as pigs. This would insure
| good profits which can not be had
without the separator. Hence its
value to successful farming. William
| Thomson follows in the negative
claiming that the separator had beer
tried by many and the result was that
they failed TO pay for their use. ano
We're abandoned and thrown aside
that the creamery separator was OF
less value than the farm separator, fol
the reason that the milk was of no val.
ue after being hauled back to the farm.
| rancid and hot fit even for hogs. HIS
claimed this country was outside the
dairy region and dairying was not Il
success here. No farmer could afford
to spend time to fool with the separa-
tor. as he had to neglect his crops
which were much more profitable. T
II. Gamble followed in the affirmative
stating that the extra cream obtained
from the milk over hand skimming
soon paid for the farm separator and
the milk could be fed warm and fresh
before it could sour or become unpalat-
able. and that as good calves could be
raised on Skinned milk. substituting
corn meal and other grains as on
whole milk. S. l.. Stephenson replied
on the negative, stating that the labot
of milking and caring for cows was SO
combining that 1t deprived the farm
family Of all leisure, and was one OF
the best things known to drive the boy
and girl from the farm. 1t made
slaves Of all that followed dairying, as
it tied the farmer and family to the
COWS morning and evening and not
only six days of the week. but the
seventh day. He lost crops, because
compelled To see to dairying. and in
all II was Improbable. and no farmer
should think of engaging in 1t. Mr..
Trauger followed in the affirmative.
stating the cost of the separator and
the value OF the same. He showed its
value as cream saver, and the folly
of feeding butter fat to calves when II
could be substituted by cheaper things
that yielded as good results. BY the
use of the separator you saved valu-
able butter fat. 1t enabled you to
raise good steers. keep the best cows,
enrich the farm and thus add prosper
ity to all. G. b. Stark followed in tho
negative. taking the position that the
farm separator robbed the calf of that
part of the milk that was essential to
the growth and development of the
calf; that the greater part of the calves
raised on SKINNED milk were knocked
in the head by the churn dash. looked
pot bellied and scrawny and that the
buttermaker lost the calf and made
nothing on the COW. Had he allowed
the calf to take its mothers milk. 1t
would have been valuable as a feeder
anu ilaae its owner some prOHt. MIX :
ing and dairying gave no leisure to the
boy or girl on the farm, made them
restless and sought every opportunity
to leave and go to town or city. where
they could have little breathing spell
to themselves. Mr.. Ransom closed,
summing UP the arguments. both pro
and con, In fine style. 1t was agreed
that the house should decide the ques-
ton on the merits of the arguments
advanced. The president then asked
for an affirmative and negative vote
and on count, he declared that the
negative had majority. Thus ended
the debate.