THIRTEENTH ANNUAL YEAR BOOK— PART IX 519 



^m, r ask. again if you do not conclude that large amounts, larger tnan 

 *fnat goes to these papers, find enlodgement in the pockets of others oc- 

 ■jupying positions of influence? That is, can you not guess that this easy 

 money does not stop with the papers but much goes to other sources 

 where it will do the most good to the interests they represent, 



A prominent dairy paper refused to use an article showing how the 

 farmer could produce pork at less cost by using corn and pasture than 

 could be done with corn and skim milk, allowing ten ceucs per 100 

 pounds for the skim milk. Yet, the very next issue contained a report 

 placing $1.00 per hundred as the value on fresh skim milk because the 

 party fed it to chickens and sold the eggs at forty cents per dozen. How 

 ridiculous! The only way to place a correct value on the skim milk was 

 at what cost a substitute could have been supplied. 



At our factory in Janesville, Mr. Bye recently fed ten shoats forty days 

 on whey and fifty-six cent corn. He showed that at seven cents per 

 pound for pork he, with a little over $6.00 worth of corn had produced 

 more than $26.00 worth of pork, getting almost $20.00 for the whey or 

 seventy cents per 100 pounds. Will any farm paper pay $100 for this 

 dairy item? Why, bless your heart no! Why not? Because there is no 

 farm machinery connected with it whereby they can get the farmer's 

 money. As it would be only for the benefit of the farmer, do you con- 

 clude they would care for it? 



PROFESSOR henry's MISTAKE. 



You all have seen over and over again that skim milk, according to 

 this professor, who is usually correct, because he fed shoats corn and 

 skim milk, and, of the many tests the one where he fed nearest right 100 

 pounds skim milk saved a half bushel of corn, that, therefore, was its 

 value. The corn was worth sixty cents, so the value of the skim milk 

 would be worth thirty cents per hundred. Oh my, what reasoning! Yet 

 these people are pleased to use it. The only way it could be made to 

 appear this way was to feed the check lot as poorly as possible corn only, 

 which he did. I am showing you that it would have been just as reason- 

 able to have fed one lot skim milk only and then concluded because the lot 

 which he fed skim milk and corn did so much better, therefore the corn 

 was worth two to three dollars per bushel. One might just as consistently 

 say in testing the value of gluten as a cow feed, because I fed a cow corn 

 only and got such results and then added gluten and obtained so much 

 better results, therefore, the value of the gluten was $150 to $200 per ton. 

 If gluten feed people tried to do this, we would say, "You are not in 

 competition with corn. Your competitors are cotton seed. meal, oil meal, 

 bran, oats, etc., and a mixture of which, that is as good as gluten and 

 contains the same nutrients, can be compounded at a cost of $25 to $28 

 per ton, and that decides the value of your gluten." 



One says, "I see, Mr. Fowler, those interested deeply in promoting 

 gathered cream make much of their skim milk for hog feed. What do 

 you say to it?" The skim milk is rich in protein and therefore ranks 

 along with tankage, oil meal, and gluten (more especially with the lat- 

 ter), but is handicapped by containing 90 1-2 per cent water, so, in each 



