THIRTEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK— PART IX 503 



When we first connected the 10-horse boiler we were unable to keep up 

 steam, but as soon as all the leaks were stopped, the pipe leading to 

 the skim-milk tank covered with asbestos to prevent condensation, we 

 had no trouble whatever. We found that by having 100 pounds of steam 

 up before starting that it not only required less fuel but less attention. 

 The more pressure there is to steam the more efficient it is. To be sure, 

 a small boiler requires more attention, but not so much as to be im- 

 practical. Mr. Edwards goes out to the creamery in the morning, gets 

 his churning started, and has up steam by the time he is ready for it, 

 thus saving fuel and time. 



In creameries where the building is heated in the winter by steam 

 radiators, the steam must be kept up all the time and the small boiler 

 Yvould not be practical. But there are hundreds of small plants like the 

 one at Dewar where a stove is used for heating purposes. I am not 

 recommending this combination as being practical in all cases, but expect 

 managers to use judgment in comparing their plants with the ones which 

 I have mentioned. 



It will be obvious to all that we could handle 10,000 pounds of milk 

 with a small increase in cost over that required for 5,000. 



I am not alone in my enthusiasm over this economical and efficient 

 power plant. Every place where they are used nothing but satisfaction 

 is expressed and not one would consider going back to the big boiler and 

 steam engine. 



R. B. Young, president of the Iowa State Dairy Association and 

 manager of the Buffalo Center Farmers' Creamery Company, writes that 

 they have installed the gasoline engine and small boiler combination and 

 have reduced their cost more than 50 per cent. Ask him whether he 

 would go back to the expensive method. 



C. N. Hart, president of the Iowa Buttermakers' Association and the 

 buttermaker for the Plymouth Co-Operative Creamery Company, writes 

 under date of May 13th: 



"We have changed our power from steam to gasoline and have been 

 using the latter since the 5th of April. We are well pleased with the 

 change. We installed a 6-horse Economist boiler and a 10-horse gasoline 

 engine, and our fuel bill for the first month will not exceed $8.50. Our 

 make during that time was fifty tubs of butter per week." 



The writer read a paper on this subject at the Waterloo and Green 

 Bay conventions and in both places my conclusions were verified by 

 different buttermakers who were using gasoline power. 



B. T. Soles, of Fern, Iowa, is an enthusiastic user of the gasoline engine 

 and small boiler combination. In a recent interview, he told me that 

 he made 228 tubs of butter with fifty-two gallons of gasoline. He operates 

 two deep-well pumps, one 300-gallon Wizard and one 600-gallon Wizard 

 ripener and a 900-pound churn with a twelve-horse gasoline engine and an 

 eight-horse boiler. He ran his engine an average of nine hours per day. 

 Thus you will see that his power for manufacturing 14,136 pounds of 

 butter cost $6.24. He did not know just how much coal he burned in 

 the little boiler, but said it was a very small amount. He volunteered 

 the information that they paid $500 for the engine and boiler and that 



