The Bennington evening banner. (Bennington, Vt.) 19??-1961, 1909-07-23
FARMERS SHOULD KEEP MILK
Selling it Away from Farms Means an
Enormous Waste


Producers of milk who insist on
selling milk away from the farms,
should understand the enormous was
tage implied in the "easy" business of
marketing whole milk at the prevail
ing market prices. says an exchange.
Farmers in some cases do understand
this wastage and some OF them are
churning their milk, selling their but
ter for more than the current market
prices of the whole milk, and feeding
back their skimmilk or buttermilk to
livestock on their farms with a two
fold benefit, the Increase of tneir in
comes and the increase in the fertil-
ity of their soil.
What is the wastage in selling milk
away from the farms? The West Vir-
ginia experiment station reports an
interesting and convincing demonstra-
ton of the value of skimmilk in a
ries of feeding tests with laying
hens. The first test covered 122 days.
The % hens fed on skimmilk laid 1874
eggs, compared with 1856 laid by %
hens fed on a masn wet with water.
In another test 60 hens fed on skim
milk laid S62 eggs in 81 days compar-
ed with 632 eggs laid by a similar lot
fed with no milk. Other tests gave
similar results. The conductors of
these experiments estimate that un-
der prevailing conditions with eggs
selling at 20 to 25 cents a dozen the
skimmilk had feeding value of IL
to 2 cents a quart.
Figure on that basis. The June
price of whole milk in New York city
was 1921 gross per 40-quart can. The
producers netted SO cents a can in the
23-cent zone, 80 cents a can in the &c
cent zone. 81 cents a can in the 49,
cent zone and 81 cents a can in the 80
cent zone. Averaging theeyield of the
cows per head, and calculating the
high feed and labor costs of produc-
ton, it is safe to say that the milk
cost, as the lowest estimation three
cents a quart or S120 per 40-quart
can. These figures are furnished by
large producer whose cows range
from big yield to small and average
something over the socalled average
yield"
This producer is in the 29-cent zone.
For June milk he netted 81 cents a
can and he acknowledged a loss of As
cents can on 1t. He is up against a
serious condition. What can he do TO
better his situation financially? Fig
ure on ii. His milk averages per
cent of butter fat A can of It weighs
SO pounds and contains 344 pounds of
butter fat, equivalent to four pounds
OF butter. The market wholesale quo
tation of good butter in June was
about 26 cents a pound If he had
churned his milk, he could have got
Sl.O4 of tne butter in a can of 1t.
while he netted only 81 cents for the
whole contents of his 40-quart can.
Had he churned he would have had
after selling his butter about so lbs.
OF skimmilk and buttermilk left. Had
he fed the leftover milk to hens ii
would have produced eggs to sell and
in the eggs the refuse milk would
have netted him 1 10 to 2 cents a at.
or 60 TO so cents per 40-quart can.
Thus the market value of his 40 quart
can OF 4 per cent fat milk in June
really was the combined value of the
butter and the refuse milk or S1.O4
plus go to so cents, or $f.64 to 1884
He took 81 cents for the 40 quart can.
Would IL pay him to churn. Yes If
he wishes TO make money and is will
ing to do the needed work No, If he
prefers tne easier" work implied in
selling milk away from his farm and
Is willing to net 81 less per can in or