Vol. LVIII. No. 2580. 
NEW YORK, JULY'S, 1899. 
spt PER YEAH. 
The Cow or the Brewer 
BEER AS A MILK SUBSTITUTE. 
The Saloon and the Dairy Farm. 
THE MILK MARKET.—We all remember the great 
fight made last Winter for the control of the milk 
market of New York City. This was well worth 
fighting for. In 1898, this city received 495,284,240 
quarts of milk, valued by the New York State Agri¬ 
cultural Department at $17,458,759. If the dairymen 
who supply that milk could obtain a fair share of 
what the consumers pay for it, the farms within 200 
miles of the city would receive the greatest en¬ 
couragement they have met since the war. It may 
surprise many farmers to be told that intoxicating 
liquor is the hardest market competitor that milk is 
obliged to face. Beer not 
only often takes the place 
as a beverage that be¬ 
longs to milk, but the 
financial loss and ruin 
that result from drunk¬ 
enness prevent the sale 
of milk to thousands of 
families. Let us take 
milk, and its strongest 
competitor, beer, and see 
how they compare. 
THE BEER BUSI¬ 
NESS—In 1898, there 
were consumed in this 
country 1,264,749,834 gal¬ 
lons of malt liquors, or 
over 62 quarts for each 
man, woman and child in 
the country. In the same 
period, 22,257,699 gallons 
of whisky were pro¬ 
duced. It will be seen, 
therefore, that the pro¬ 
portions in our picture of 
the cow that supplies 
New York City with 
milk, the national beer 
barrel and the whisky 
bottle that supplies its 
share of the devil in so¬ 
lution, are about right. 
The estimated population 
of Greater New York is 
about 3,750,000. The av¬ 
erage beer consumption 
for this great army is 
232,500,000 quarts every 
year, or 637,000 quarts a 
day, 26,500 quarts per 
hour, or 440 quarts per 
minute, or an average of over seven quarts every time 
the clock ticks! In other words, New York consumes 
over four times as much beer as milk. In Sweden, 
the almost general drink is skim-milk. Those who 
like something stronger, pour a little whisky into 
the milk, but the refuse of the dairy may be called, 
in one sense, the national drink. This article is not 
written as a special temperance argument, but it is 
well enough to stop right here and think what an 
advantage it would be to America as a nation if milk 
were substituted for beer as a beverage in our great 
cities. Who can name one single thing that would 
more quickly or surely add to the wealth of farmers 
or the happiness and morals of the people? 
MILK VS. BEER.—What is the real difference be¬ 
tween milk and beer? They are both made from 
vegetable matters. The farmer feeds his hay and 
grain to the cow, and by the wonderful chemistry of 
digestion and secretion, they are mixed with water 
and made into milk. The brewer takes his malt of 
barley, his corn or rice, and by the equally wonderful 
chemistry of brewing, turns out beer. Both beer and 
milk may be said to come from the same materials. 
It is the stomach of the cow against the mash-tub of 
the brewer. The difference in the product turned out 
by brewer and cow is stated as follows from analyses 
made by Dr. H. W. Wiley: 
AVERAGE AMERICAN BEER. 
Protein.Per Cent. 0.45 
Carbohydrates . 2.80 
Ash . 0.40 
Alcohol (by volume). 5.15 
“ ( “ weight).4.12 
It is easy to see from this that, while the cow made 
an honest and healthful food out of her grain and 
hay, the brewer merely turned the grain into a bev¬ 
AVERAGE AMERICAN MILK. 
Protein.Per Cent. 2.75 
Pat . 3.50 
Milk Sugar. 5.25 
Water .87.75 
Ash . 0.75 
TWO TRADE RIVALS OF THE MILCH COW. Fig. 194. 
(The cow that supplies New York’s milk, the American beer barrel, and the National whisky bottle.) 
erage or condiment. The food value of beer is scarce¬ 
ly worth considering in comparison with milk. Dr. 
Wiley figures that the brewer will take either 20,000 
pounds of malt, or 9,500 pounds of malt and 7,500 
pounds of corn grits to make 345 barrels of beer. This 
amount of malt represents 1,880 pounds of protein 
and 15,700 pounds of carbohydrates, while the beer 
made from the malt will contain only 400 pounds of 
protein and 2,500 pounds of carbohydrates. The great 
food value of the grain does not go into the beer, but 
is left in the residue or brewers’ grains, which must 
be turned over to the cow for profitable manufacture. 
A cow that couldn’t get more of the value of that 
grain into her milk, would be voted a humbug, even 
by a farmer who never heard of a balanced ration or 
a Babcock test. The cow takes this grain and mixes 
it with pure spring water in some cool, green pas¬ 
ture. Her chemistry is carried out under a shady 
tree. Her clean, pure milk comes to the city, and 
runs up against—a beer saloon. The brewer took 
that grain and mixed it with water in a sour, ill¬ 
smelling tub. Fat and sweaty men worked over it 
and handled it. Hops and chemicals were put into it. 
In place of the wholesome fats and muscle-makers 
which the good old cow provides, the brewer gets in 
over four per cent of alcohol, turning the honest and 
well-meaning grain into a law-breaker and a manu¬ 
facturer of jail-birds and unhappiness. The cow 
doesn’t put alcohol in her milk. Some man may help 
to do it after the cow is done, but the good old cow 
herself is a good friend of temperance! In the con¬ 
test between the cow and the brewer, the latter seems 
to be far ahead. Our laws are constantly being tink¬ 
ered by people who think milk is “unhealthful.” First 
it is one thing and then it is another to hedge in the 
farmer or the milkman. 
There is twice the dan¬ 
ger to health in the beer 
glass. Chemists often 
find salicylic acid and 
other injurious preserva¬ 
tives in beer, and the 
cheaper liquors sold in 
some of the low-down 
saloons contain the vilest 
materials. The great 
life insurance companies 
now demand special 
tests of the kidneys 
for habitual beer drink¬ 
ers. No one looks with 
suspicion on milk drink¬ 
ers, yet the authorities 
pay little attention to the 
healthfulness of beer, 
while they will send a 
man to jail for selling 
milk below the standard. 
THINK IT OVER — 
Throwing out all consid¬ 
erations of the temper¬ 
ance side of the question, 
it is safe to say that the 
sale of beer in New York 
City is the greatest ob¬ 
stacle to the increased 
sale of milk. Dr. Wiley 
says that it is hardly fair 
to compare milk with 
beer, because one repre¬ 
sents a food, while the 
other is a mere beverage 
or stimulant. To com¬ 
pare their food values, he 
says, would be something 
like illustrating the 
clothing value of a heavy fur overcoat as compared 
with that of a diamond ring! That is true 
enough in one sense, yet there is another side to 
it. We have been surprised to find that beer makes 
such a poor showing as an actual food. The brewer 
wastes far more of the food value of grain than the 
cow does. The ring and overcoat illustration is not 
a bad one. We have sometimes felt almost like in¬ 
terfering when we have seen poor people buy jewelry 
and trifles with the money that should have bought 
warm clothes and wholesome food—which othei’s 
were finally called on to provide. In spite of its low 
value, the fact remains that thousands of people in 
this city, use beer as at least a partial substitute for 
milk. We can easily find children that are fed on 
bread soaked in beer. Watch the cans, pails and 
pitchers carried out of the saloons at meal times, and 
