1889.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — Xo. 4. xiii 



addition to the above, C. Brigham & Co., of Boston, made 

 from their surplus milk in 1888 about 500,000 pounds of 

 butter; also, O. S. French & Co., of Boston, made about 

 44,200 pounds of butter from their surplus milk during the 

 same period. 



There seems to be no obstacle to the indefinite increase of 

 this industry in our State except the unfair competition of 

 oleomargarine, of which the milk inspector of Boston tells 

 us there were sold by Boston wholesale dealers alone 5,420,- 

 000 pounds in 1888. When we consider that many dealers 

 outside of Boston receive their supplies direct from Chicago, 

 we may realize in some measure the competition to which 

 honest butter is subjected in our markets. If this com- 

 modity was preferred to butter by the consumers, and was 

 sold at the low price at which it can be afforded, we might 

 feel that the people of the State were profiting by the com- 

 petition ; but the inspector of the Board of Health testified 

 before a committee of our Legislature that he believed that 

 most of it was eaten by people who supposed it to be honest 

 butter, and that the average price at which it was retailed 

 was not less than 25 cents per pound. 



The increase in the number of our neat stock is quite sug- 

 gestive. The census of 1885 reported 162,847 milch cows 

 and 57,044 of other neat stock. These numbers were some- 

 what less than the assessors' returns for the same year. We 

 have no census since 1885, but the aggregates of polls, 

 property, etc., for 1888, show 187,994 milch cows and 65,609 

 of other neat stock." The consumption of milk is also 

 rapidly increasing. The statistics of the Boston milk trade 

 show that 1,689,311 gallons more milk were sold in that 

 city in 1888 than in 1886. There is no doubt that in other 

 parts of the State there has been the same ratio of increase. 



The past season has not been as favorable for farming 

 operations as that of a year ago. Spring opened late. May 

 was a month with few pleasant days, but the weather suited 

 the grass crop ; both meadows and pastures were unusually 

 promising. June gave us a still larger rainfall than May, 

 and hoed crops were backward and those on low ground 

 suffered materially. July had less rain, and the hay crop 

 was generally secured seasonably and in good condition. 



