57o 
TIIE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
August 26 
An Old Friend with a New Face. 
Older readers remember what we have raid about 
the Fairfield Dairy, owned by S. Francisco, of Cald¬ 
well, N. J. Three years ago we found Mr. F. selling 
500 quarts of milk per day among the aristocratic 
people of Montclair. At eight cents a quart this gave 
an income that ought to satisfy any ordinary man. 
Hut Mr. F. is not an ordinary man, and when he came 
and told us last spring that he had put up a perfect 
dairy barn costing $10,000, and was fixing up a plan 
to sell milk at 12 cents a quart, we knew something 
had come. The following facts about this new busi¬ 
ness were obtained at interviews with Mr. F. at his 
farm and elsewhere. 
“ What is your new scheme ? ” 
“ Certified milk ! I propose to make milk that the 
leading doctors of Newark and other large cities will 
indorse as absolutely pure, and recommend to their 
patients.” 
“ How did you think of that?” 
“ I have studied this matter a long time, and talked 
it over with many doctors. They all agree that with 
weak and ailing children the milk is of far more im¬ 
portance than any drugs. While they can buy pure 
drugs and medicines, they cannot guarantee that the 
milk is pure because they cannot oversee and regulate 
its manufacture. I propose to put my dairy under 
control of a committee from the medical society.” 
“ Let them run it ? ” 
“ Yes, in one sense. I proposed to let them draw 
up a set of rules and regulations, provide for inspec¬ 
tions, in fact make any laws they like about the hand¬ 
ling of cows and milk. I will guarantee to live up 
to these rules. In return they are to guarantee my 
milk, and authorize me to certify to its purity.” 
The Milk for Medical Men. 
“ Did you have any trouble in getting doctors in¬ 
terested ? ” 
“Oh, no. I have for years been perfecting my 
methods, and advertising my milk by calling for in¬ 
vestigation and analysis. I tried to get ready for the 
doctors before they came to inspect my dairy, so they 
would have as little as possible to change in my regu¬ 
lar methods. They looked at the matter from a scien¬ 
tific standpoint, while I took the practical end. It is 
surprising.how little difference there was between us.” 
“What had the doctors done about the pure milk 
question ? ” 
“ Discussed it over and over at their meetings. Dr. 
nenry L. Coit was chairman of a committee appointed 
by the State Medical Society to investigate cows’ 
milk. He said there were five requisites which phy¬ 
sicians should demand in such milk : 
“ 1. Good keeping qualities. 
“ 2. Uniform quality and percentage of fat. 
“ 3. Uniformity in the curd as regards both quality 
and digestibility. 
“4. A constant percentage of mineral salts. 
“5. Freedom from pathogenic bacteria and all poi¬ 
sonous bacterial products. 
“The three practices that he claimed were most 
injurious to milk were : 1. Use of unwholesome food. 
2. Too much filth about the stables. 3. Careless 
methods of cooling and shipping milk. The use of 
wet brewers’ grains was condemned in every way. 
He told of one man who feeds 1 % bushel a day to 
each of his cows.” 
“ Were the grains sweet ? ” 
“ No, but sour, and awfully nasty. Tt is hard to 
see how they can get a cow to eat them.” 
“ What is the effect. 
“ See what Dr. Coit says : ” 
The effects of this diet, when used wet and In place of fodder, are 
twofold : In the cow It Impairs the digestion, lowers her nutrition, 
and probably renders her an easy prey to tubercles. It Is the testi¬ 
mony of many that In a very few’ years even when this material Is 
used moderately, the cow Is no longer valuable for milking, and is 
sold. It Is also stated on good authority that autopsies reveal the 
apparent fat of these cows to be oedema. In the milk, the effect Is a 
product which Is ur lformly thin, and of poor keeping qualities. The 
putrefactive change will often occur In this milk before It will Bour. 
It often has an acid reaction, Is usually too rich In casein, and the 
lighter fats: and is deficient in lactose and the mineral salts. We 
are convinced that our uniform failures with tills milk In Infant feed¬ 
ing, are almost wholly due to the unstable character of the fats which 
It contains. These being easily broken up in the alimentary canal of 
the child, the acids liberated are free to act as Irritants. The excess 
of these compounds Is accounted for by the highly nitrogenous char¬ 
acter of the beer grain diet, and, on the other hand, the lack of car¬ 
bohydrates and mineral salts In this milk Is due to the fact that these 
substances have been taken from the barley In the manufacture of the 
ale and beer. 
“ Hut would not sterilized milk answer ? Why not 
take ordinary milk and heat it to destroy the disease 
germs ? ” 
“The doctors do not want it. They prefer pure 
milk, which can be made and packed in ice so it will 
keep plenty long enough. I have often sent milk out 
on my wagon on Thursday, had it brought home and 
kept it a week and sold it on the next Thursday.” 
Tough Rules and Regulations. 
“ Did the doctors come and look your place over ? ” 
“ Yes, a committee came and examined everything, 
They then went back and drew up a long agreement 
which all signed. Here it is.” 
Mr. F. here produced a long type-written agreement 
of 12 pages. It would fill a whole page of Tiie R. N.- 
Y. We shall use sections of it as we go along as texts 
for each part of the business. 
Mr. F. agrees to conduct his dairy as called for in 
this agreement. He is also to pay for bi-monthly 
expert examinations of his milk and for bi-monthly 
inspections of his dairy stock, oftener, if necessary, by 
an approved veterinarian—all to be chosen by the 
doctors. He is also to pay for printing and distribut¬ 
ing copies of the reports of these experts. Hefore 
erecting any new buildings or selecting any new land 
for pasture, Mr. F. must have the approval of this 
committee of doctors. We will now take up the con¬ 
tract in detail, and by means of interviews with Mr. 
F. show what he has done to make certified milk 
possible. (I o be continued ) 
TO MAKE WOODCHUCK FERTILIZER. 
Stephen II. Saycr, of the Mt. Vernon Farmers’Club, 
of Orange County, N. Y., hates a woodchuck—has no 
use for him, in fact. For a time he was obliged to 
take it out in hatred, for the chuck laughed at the 
methods devised for taking his life. The matter was 
discussed before the farmers’ club, and, as a result, 
this note came from a farmer in Nebraska : 
The farmers here are much troubled by gophers. One gentleman 
has a little machine that kills them effectually—a sheet-iron can, 14 
or 16 Inches long, and 6 or a little more In diameter, with a cap over 
the top: at the other end a tube two Inches In diameter, six or eight 
inches long; a sheet-iron valve on a hinge at the junction of the 
tube and can perforated so that smoke can pass through. On the top 
of the can fastened to the center of the cover Is a small pair of hand 
bellows, with a valve so arranged that fire cannot pass from the can 
to the bellows. Fill the can with hay, fire it, put In a certain amount 
of sulphur, put the tube In the woodchuck hole, and fill up around It 
with earth; pump the fumes Into the hole. These will kill the gophers 
at an almost Incredible distance, and, unless the woodchuck fills the 
hole behind him, one machine will exterminate the Mount Hope 
chucks. 
The result is the machine shown at Fig. 11)2, which 
Mr. Sayer has found very effective. With it he says 
he is prepared to quote the great Perry : “ We have 
A Woodchuck Exterminator ! Fig. 192. 
met the enemy and they are ours ! ” In the picture, A 
represents a two or four-quart can, B a pair of old- 
fashioned hand bellows, C a tapering hollow tin or 
iron spout, and D a tight-closing hinged door. 
BOGUS CREAMERY OPERATIONS. 
The R. N.-Y. has had more or less to say about the 
operations of a certain firm at Chicago that deals in 
creamery supplies. It is represented by agents who 
work after the plan of the old “ Bohemian Oats ” fraud. 
That is to say, they tell great stories of what may be 
done in the dairy business, if all the conditions are 
just right, neglecting to tell the farmers any of the 
obstacles to success that they know are in the way. 
The result in many cases is that the farmers buy a 
creamery for more than it is worth and then lose it, 
because they have not milk enough to run it at a profit. 
Here is a letter from one who has been through the 
mill—an Illinois farmer who bought an elephant: 
“ I’ve no doubt it seems incomprehensible to sensible 
men how a lot of farmers or of any other class could 
be taken in by a firm doing business in this manner. 
Indeed I am fully as much astonished myself now as 
any one else could be. The whole thing was worked 
up in so short a time while we were expecting a more 
complete and definite set of specifications to be drawn 
that the names were all signed before we got very 
suspicious. 
“We farmers are so accustomed to dealing with each 
other without contracts or writings of any kind that 
we hardly thought about what was needed. Our com¬ 
mittee were taken to Chicago and shown through 
the extensive works belonging to the concern, which 
were run in a business-like way, and to creameries 
around Elgin where they were told the cost of the 
plants ranged from $8,000 to $12,000, and that the 
profits of the business had enabled the owners to pay 
the debt in one or two years, and they were then 
paying from 25 to 40 per cent dividends. They were 
also introduced to farmers who were very enthusiastic 
and reported that they were making from $5 to $9 per 
month per head on herds of 20 to 50 cows, etc. Then 
we inquired the cost of some of the nearest creameries 
and were told that one eight miles away cost $10,000, 
so we concluded we were getting ours at a reasonable 
figure. But our main fault lay in not having the building 
and machinery examined by an expert before accept¬ 
ing them. None of us knew what we ought to have 
and when we came to operate the plant, we found the 
15-horse-power engine and 30-horse-power boiler, for 
which we had paid S WQ, were not put up properly and 
the refrigerator, etc., were of no use in the shape they 
were left, and it cost us $500 more in time, worry and 
expense to get them in shape. A committee went to 
see the firm last summer, and after much figuring and 
twisting they succeeded in worrying them into giving 
us a rebate of nearly $200. 
4 ‘ 1 am told that they have in their pay a certain clique 
of farmers and creamery men to tell fine stories to the 
committees they bring around. We had to drill a well 
at a cost of $140, build an icehouse and fill it at a cost 
of $300, buy another separator for $450, and there have 
been other expenses to the amount of $1,200, which 
we still owe at the end of our first year’s experience. 
We were fortunate to secure a first-class butter-maker 
at $50 per month, whieh helped us out. Here is our 
last season’s work: 
Total milk received. . 1,161,824 ponnds. 
“ Batter manufactured.. 45.7 Jm “ 
“ Receipts for butter.*9.849 80 
44 Paid for milk. 8,542 69 
44 Paid In wanes to two men and secretary ... 656 82 
1 It ran nine months and here are the expenses: 
79 cords wood. 
. $178 60 
Insurance for one year on $2,500 . 
Incidentals about. 
Oil. 
. 50 00 
. 100 00 
Hauling butter eight miles to railroad. 
. 65 00 
“ A better creamery than ours can be built for 
$3,000, well equipped, and the firm deliberately and 
knowingly overcharged us and drew $4,650, with $450 
for a larger boiler and engine, and the work was not 
well done.” 
SHEEP FARMING. 
Home Lambs for Market and Home Market for Lambs. 
Part I. 
Use Business Sense Along With “Science.” 
We are continually exhorted from the platform and 
by the press to apply “business principles” to our 
farming, and yet as continually expected to ignore 
certain of those common principles manifestly ac¬ 
counted by business men as among the most impor¬ 
tant to success, and without which disaster is certain. 
When a business man discovers a good thing he keeps 
“mum” about it, and, like still swine, drinks his fill 
and doesn’t “squeal” for company and competition 
in it. When a manufacturer, e. g , discovers a new 
process or invents a new machine by which he se¬ 
cures results at half the cost of old-time methods, he 
straightway gets a patent on it, or “ swears in ” his 
help not to reveal the secret. Why should he “give 
it away ” to the public and invite all Christendom to 
turn in and help him glut the market and reduce the 
price ? 
When, however, a farmer makes an advance in 
science, method or practice, he is expected, his face 
beaming with unsophisticated delight, to set out to 
reveal it to the nearest farmers’ convention or Grange 
meeting, or, in default of these, to write it up for an 
agricultural paper or column, and thus give it away. 
“The man who makes two blades of grass grow 
where only one grew before is a benefactor of man¬ 
kind ! ” “ Every advance in agriculture is a benefit to 
all,” you know, making food, the necessity of all, 
cheap, even to the poor! And the farmer is expected 
to be a sort of universal philanthropist, not greedy of 
gain or expecting much (in this world) save the most 
meager reward for his toil—the barest necessities and 
plainest comforts of life. Progress, leisure, culture, 
travel, artistic home surroundings and adornment, 
luxury, sccial festivity—these are for others, but, ac¬ 
cording to current sentiment, improper or not to be 
expected for him. Satisfied to be “content with his 
lot,” “economical,” “industrious,” “ear'y to bed and 
early to rise his life a “round of small economies,” 
a mere circle of eating and sleeping and going to 
meeting and work ; politically powerless; financially 
and forever stuck in the mud—such is his predeter¬ 
mined lot, merely that he may furnish the basis on 
which others may build up and enjoy a grand de¬ 
velopment and civilization. 
What, then, if by hard work and high science, modern 
methods or improved machinery making “two blades 
of grass grow where only one grew before,” and be¬ 
coming a “ benefactor of mankind,” what if by thus 
doubling the hay or any other crop, he makes his own 
stand of grass worthless, or worth only half as much 
as it would otherwise fetch, while he has double the 
work to handle it? Or, what if, by “reducing the 
cost of production ”—that last sophism of agricultural 
against economic science—by competition and over¬ 
production (both certain to follow), he also reduces 
the market price and is not one whit better off him¬ 
self than before ? Let him still rejoice. Others gain 
by it ! Cities and villages live at a cheaper rate and 
more luxuriously for it! What if he is led—as he in 
fact has been by this very process of cost reduction 
and ove . production—to discharge the help he should 
employ to ease his own labors and to make permanent 
improvements about his farm and home ? Let him 
think only of the good (?) he is doing, content with 
the privilege of being a mere mudsill as compared 
