Front Cover
 Personnel of the department of...
 Part I. Dairying in Florida
 Part II. Report of state chemi...
 Back Matter

Group Title: Florida quarterly bulletin of the Department of Agriculture.
Title: Florida quarterly bulletin of the Department of Agriculture. Vol. 32. No. 2.
Full Citation
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00077080/00003
 Material Information
Title: Florida quarterly bulletin of the Department of Agriculture. Vol. 32. No. 2.
Series Title: Florida quarterly bulletin of the Department of Agriculture.
Uniform Title: Report of the Chemical Division
Physical Description: 9 v. : ill. (some folded) ; 23 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Florida -- Dept. of Agriculture
Publisher: Department of Agriculture, State for Florida
Place of Publication: Tallahassee, Fla.
Publication Date: April 1, 1922
Subject: Agriculture -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Agricultural industries -- Statistics -- Periodicals -- Florida   ( lcsh )
Genre: Periodicals   ( lcsh )
Statistics   ( lcsh )
General Note: Title from cover.
General Note: Each no. has also a distinctive title.
General Note: Many issue number 1's are the Report of the Chemical Division
General Note: Issues occasional supplements.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00077080
Volume ID: VID00003
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 28473180

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Personnel of the department of agriculture
        Page i
        Page ii
    Part I. Dairying in Florida
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
    Part II. Report of state chemist
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
        Page 184
        Page 185
        Page 186
        Page 187
        Page 188
        Page 189
        Page 190
        Page 191
        Page 192
        Page 193
        Page 194
        Page 195
        Page 196
        Page 197
        Page 198
        Page 199
        Page 200
        Page 201
        Page 202
        Page 203
        Page 204
        Page 205
        Page 206
        Page 207
        Page 208
        Page 209
        Page 210
        Page 211
        Page 212
        Page 213
        Page 214
        Page 215
        Page 216
        Page 217
        Page 218
        Page 219
        Page 220
        Page 221
        Page 222
        Page 223
        Page 224
    Back Matter
        Page 225
Full Text


Dairying in Florida


Commissioner of Agriculture

APRIL 1, 1922

Entered January 31, 1003, at Experiment Station. matter
under Act of Congress of Jul ..~pLance for mailing at special
rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, Act of October 1, 1917,
nulhorized September 11, 1918."



of the

Department of Agriculture

W. A. McRae, Commissioner.

Miss Sallle Lewis,
T. J. Brooks, Chief Clerk.
Russell T. Mickler, Clerk.
Mrs. Lizzie Lee Leman, Stenog-
J. H. Pledger, Clerk.
.J. Frank Smith, Inspector.
A. M. Lewis, Inspector.
Ellis Woodworth, Inspector.
Citrus Fruit Inspectors:
C. E. Johnston.
W. R. Griffin.
J. M. Keen.
S. B. Moon.
'. IH. Gwynn, Clerk.
.1. E. Downing, Land Clerk.
Mrs. Laura B. Hopkins. Stenog-
W. C. Lockey, Clerk.
Miss Bessie Damon, Stenogra-

T. E. Andrews, Clerk.
T. It. Ilodges, Commissioner.
S. C. DeGarmo, Clerk.
R. E. Rose, Slate Chemist.
A. M. Henry, Assistant Chemist.
Gordon lHrt, Assistant Chemist.
B. J. Owen. Assistant Chemist.
Miss Muriel Rose, Stenographer.
E. T. Casler. Chemist.
C. E. Shackleford, Clerk.
Walter McLin. Inspector.
E. M. Johns, Inspector.
G. T. Spears, Inspector.
L. M. Rhodes, Commissioner.
Moses Folsom, Secretary.
Neill Rhodes. Market Agentt.
Robert Folsom, Market Agent.
Mrs. M. E. Keane, Stenographer.
Thos. E. Bennett. Clerk.
J. Summers, Multigrapher.


The New Capitol of Florida, and the Old (insert).





The use of dairy products and the utilization of live
stock have come down to us from the most primitive days
of man.
In varying degrees all the peoples of the earth look to
dairy products and to live stock for part of their food and
to domestic animals for much of the power needed to pro-
duce and transport.
At present the most prosperous agricultural sections are
those which feature largely dairying and live stock.
The greatest unnecessary drain upon the resources of the
people of Florida is the untold millions that are pouring
continuously out of the State for dairy, live stock and poul-
try products. This drain is unnecessary because each of
these can be produced on a large scale in Florida, as ex-
perience has proved.
We are in the pioneer days of the creamery industry of
the State, and must needs go through the usual difficulties
incident to this character of development. There is suffi-
cient headway being made to encourage the increase of this
particular branch of the dairy industry on an extensive
When tick eradication is put effectively into oper-
ation and the task accomplished Florida will be in position
to take an advanced place as a dairy and live stock State.
The Department of Agriculture is lending its best efforts
toward encouraging the development of these essential in-
dustries, and this issue of our Quarterly is sent forth as
one of our efforts to push forward the good work of accom-
plishment. I wish to thank all those who have contributed
to this issue of our Quarterly.

Note: A number of live stock raisers were asked to furnish information
concerning the raising of live stock in general, Mr. J. J. Logan
was the only one who responded. His article is devoted to tick
eradication. As he views it future successful cattle raising in the
State depends on lick eradication.


The following table gives the average content of cow's
milk according to Dr. Flieschman.

W ater ............................ 87.75%
Butter-fat ......................... 3.40%
Protein .......................... 3.50%
Milk sugar ........................ 4.60%
Mineral salts ...................... .75%

Total ............................. 100.00%

Separator skim-milk contains the same as whole milk ex-
cepting butter-fat of which only a trace is left.
Cream should contain not less than 18% butter-fat. The
other substances in cream are the same as in skim-milk but
vary in proportion to the richness of the cream.
Butter is a mechanical mixture of butter-fat, water, salt
and curd. It must contain at ]:last 80% butter-fat and
not over 16%/ water.


Try it for yourself: If you are buying your living-all
of it-from retail grocery stores try a month without milk
and then try a month with the same articles with a gallon
a day of sweet milk-for say, a family of three. If your
milk costs you 40c a p'llon you will find that your grocery
bill will be cut short by several dollars after adding the
milk bill to the grocery bill. The writer has tried this out
to his entire satisfaction and is thoroughly convinced that
you will materially reduce the cost of living by using all
the good sweet milk you can drink at not exceeding 40c a
This is a phase of the dairy business that should be
stressed in advertising dairy products.

Jersey Herd of H. F. Bostic, Gadsden County, Florida.



"Science has long known the value of milk as a food, but
it is only in recent years that it has been learned that milk
contains health-giving vitamins that cannot be found all
together in any other food. It is for this reason that die-
titians are advising the use of milk in cooking and prepar-
ing foods. It is not only to be used as a drink. There are
many easily prepared combinations which milk and cream
may be easily used.
"Nutrition clinics are advising that children be given a
quart of milk to drink each day. Adults should have at
least a pint daily.
"Then it is possible through the use of cream soups and
creamed vegetables to add to this daily allotment.
"Since milk is so healthful because it contains vitamins,
the housewife should also consider other foods that are
more or less rich in these mysterious little health-giving
organisms. Such vegetables are spinach, carrots and turnips
-which are among the cheapest-are the richest in vitam-
ines. All green vegetables in season are healthful and
should be made the basis of at least one meal a day when
"Salads, both vegetable and fruit, are exceedingly
healthful. Whole wheat bread should be used by the house-
wife who is considerate of the health of her family.
"'It has been argued that the Indians were quite healthy
although they lived on meat almost exclusively. But such
an argument does not take into account the fact that the
Indians also consumed the heart, liver, kidney and other
parts that are rarely eaten by us. Such parts contain the
proper amount of vitamins for a healthy diet. It is ad-
visable, therefore, to vary the diet often with liver or sweet-
breads since it has been proved that a man will almost
starve on a continuous diet of meat, potatoes and white
It was four times safer for a man in the
World War than for a baby to be born in the
United States. There are six million under-
nourished school children in this country and
the majority of these are found in well-to-do

As strange as it may seem, a rural campaign just com-
pleted in Wisconsin, the great dairy state, by the Walworth
County Farm Bureau, the National Dairy Council, the
Wisconsin Dairy Council, and the Wisconsin College of
Agriculture, reveals the following very interesting and sur-
prising facts:
One month before the campaign was started a survey of
school children in rural schools was made. Six hundred
and eighty drink tea and coffee regularly-averaging 1.5
cups daily, 980 drink milk regularly, 268 drink no milk at
all, 365 drink milk occasionally, 241 use no butter.
The closing day of the campaign at the county seat
brought together 10,000 people, who gathered to hear the
story of the magic of milk.
The final results of the campaign have not been com-
pleted, but there are some things that have been found out
already: There has been an increase of 19 per cent in the
consumption of butter, 18 per cent in the consumption of
fluid milk, and 30 per cent in the consumption of cheese
and a falling off of 34 per cent in the sale of butter sub-
If so splendid results can be had in a state that stands
out as a great dairy state, then what may we not expect in
sections where dairying is practically unknown, and where
many people keep no cows whatever ?
When the milk campaign was put on in Jacksonville last
year only 140 half-pint bottles per day were served in the
schools. Now there are 4,000 half-pint bottles served per
day. Over one-half Ihe children were found to be below


The value of dairy products of farms in the United
States in 1919 was $1,481,462.091, compared with $596,-
413,463 in 1909, representing an increase of $885,048,628,
or 148.4 per cent. In 1919 dairy products constituted 55.5
per cent of the total value of live stock products as com-
pared with 50.6 per cent in 1909. Dairy products comprise
milk, cream and butter-fat sold, and butter and cheese
made on farms.
Seven states reported dairy products valued at more
than $70,000,000 in 1919 as follows: Wisconsin, $180,306,-
599; New York, $179,695,810; Pennsylvania, $99,617,373;
Ohio, $81,148,586; Minnesota, $77,870,358; Illinois, $71,-
998,333, and Michigan, $71,074,727.

AT 1,981,514 HEAD.

The number of purebred cattle on farms on Jan. 1, 1920,
was 1,981,514, or 31/ of the total number of cattle (66,810.-
836), according to the Census Bureau.
The States reporting the largest numbers of purebred
cattle were as follows: Iowa, 171,645; New York, 155,185;
Wisconsin, 137,527; Texas, 113,107; Illinois, 109,996; and
Missouri, 102,939.
The percentage of all catle which were purebred ranged
less than 1% in Louisiana and Florida to 9.3% in Mas-
sachusetts. The States reporting the largest percentages
of purebred cattle in 1920 were Massachusetts, with 9.3V4
New Hampshire, with 7.7%; New York, with 7.2%; Ver-
mont, with 6.8%; New Jersey, with 6.5%; Connecticut,
with 6.3%; and Maine, with 6.1%. These States are in-
terested primarily in raising cattle for dairy purposes.



During the last ten years butter has brought the follow-
ing prices in the Chicago markets:

In 1911 ........................... 26.2 cents.
In 1912........................... 29.9 cents.
In 1913 ........................... 31.1 cents.
In 1914........................... 28.6 cents.
In 1915 .......................... 28.2 cents.
In 1916.......................... 32.5 cents.
In 1917........................... 41.1 cents.
In 1918........................... 49.5 cents.
In 1919 ........................... 58.3 cents.
In 1920. ............................58.4 cents.
In 1921 ........................... 41.6 cents

The average wholesale price of butter is approximately
the average price received by the farmer, if you consider
the butter the producer sells directly to the consumer.
Therefore the producers of butter are today receiving about
two-thirds more for their wares than they received in 1911.
Can this be said of the producers of corn, wheat, pork or
fruits? We haven't the official figures, but are confident
that no such increases in the prices of these commodities
have been received by the farmers.
We are often given facts which inform us that the nor-
mal demands for butter and other milk products are far
greater than the supply. Therefore, there is little danger
of a big proportionate slump in the prices of these pro-
With this prospect coupled with the fact that our State
offers unparalleled advantages for dairying, there is every
encouragement for the dairyman of Florida to increase his
business and for others to go into the business.


Tennessee leads all Southern states in dairy industry ac-
cording to C. A. Hutton, dairy specialist of the Division of
Extension University of Tennessee.
During the year 1920 eight new creameries began oper-
ation in Tennessee, making a total of 26 in operation. Ap-
proximately 6,028,000 pounds of butter were made in the
State during the year, as compared with 3,822,634 pounds
in 1919, or an increase for 1920 over 1919 of 58 per cent.
The 9 co-operative creameries made approximately 2,328,-
000 pounds of butter during the year, or 38 per cent. of
the total made in the entire State. Creamery patrons re-
ceived in round numbers $2,893,000 for butter fat for the
1920 output. Seven of the co-operative creameries handled
1,747 tons of feed for their patrons at a saving of $10,552.
Eight co-operative cheese factories are now in operation
and 75,000 pounds of cheese were manufactured during
1920. These factories are laying the foundation for a new
industry in the South.
Over 8,000 head of Jersey cattle were exported from the
State during the year for breeding and dairy purposes. The
number of dairy cows in Tennessee has increased from
397,104 in 1910 to 415,129 in 1920. A total of 250 cows
from 50 Jersey herds are on the Register of Merit test.
Tennessee leads all Southern States in number of cows on
test, as well as being the greatest dairy State in the South.

Specimens of Ayershire Herd of Water Oak Plantation-Miss Frances Griscom-Leon County, Florida.



The general principals which govern dairy farming are
the same in Florida as in all other sections of the world.
The ease with which these principals are applied is what
gives one section an advantage over any other section. The
chief essentials to success are the man, the land, the herd
and the market. To get the right combination of these is
the hard problem.


More depends upon the man behind the cows than upon
any other factor. For this reason a man should examine
himself as to his own fitness before lie spends even one dol-
lar upon a cow. He must have a natural love for stock
and the dairy cow in particular. He must be energetic
and willing to work, for the true dairyman is a worker and
not simply a boss. He must have that ability to see and
plan ahead so as to get the most out of his business. He
must be able to choose the best and cheapest feed and then
feed it to the best advantage. He must keep records so
that he can find out the cows that are making a profit from
those that are boarders. He should strive all the time to
increase the production and to lower the expense of the
farm. If he does not know what he gives his cows and
what his cows give him why should he keep cows?


Any well drained land that will grow well the regular
farm crops Will be good for dairy farming. While some
low land may be well adopted to the making of a good pas-
ture, such land would not do for the location of the barns
and other buildings.

While the poor management of a good herd can keep it
from making a profit, it is very hard with the very best of
management to get a profit from a poor herd. The rule
should be to get a herd in which each cow will return a

good profit. It will be found that it is much better to have
a few good cows rather than a large herd in which many,
maybe all, are making no profit but are being kept at a loss.


No matter how good the man, the land or the herd, there
can be no profit if there is not a market for the products of
the herd. To sell whole milk, sweet cream, sour cream or
butter will have to be decided. The manager must study
the several methods, and use the one that suits his condi-
tions best. The selling of whole milk, either retail or whole-
sale, is always risky, and unless a very high price is obtain-
ed, is not as good as some think. The chief advantage is
that a larger cash income is obtained. The disadvantages
are as follows:
The milk must be delivered at certain hours and must
be produced under certain regulations. There is much
time lost when whole milk is delivered each day. The dray-
age of any large herd is quite an item. No milk is to be
had for the growing of calves, poultry or hogs. The sel-
ling of cream, either sweet or sour, requires very much less
labor, allows the farmer to stay at home more; cream being
delivered not more than twice a week; furnishes milk for
poultry, calves and hogs and thus allows the farmer to
become interested in other branches of farming. The sell-
ing of butter can be carried on to only a limited extent.
While some farmers make a very high grade quality of
butter and get a good sale for their product, the majority
produce a very poor grade of butter and as a result get a
very poor price. Here is where the creamery comes as an
aid to the farmer. Send the cream to the creamery and
there it can be made into a uniform grade and of a much
better quality than could be made under average farm
conditions. The farmer never knows just how much butter
he will have each week but when he ships to the creamery
this problem need never worry him for the creamery can
use any amount of cream. Another great advantage of
selling to the creamery is that the trouble of churning and
selling the butter is done away, with. While whole milk
can be shipped only a short distance to the market, cream
can be shipped a much longer distance and thus the farmer
who ships cream to the creamery may be located quite a

distance away. The creamery offers a steady market and
this is very much to be desired in the selling of any pro-

There are two general systems of keeping dairy catle.
The one where the herd is the chief work and the other
where the herd is kept as a side line. The principals which
govern the business are in both cases the same. It is also
true that in both systems success will depend upon the
growing of the greater part of the feed upon the farm.
The smaller the sum paid to the feed dealer the greater the
profit on the herd.

The profit in keeping dairy cattle comes from the follow-
ing sources: The increased value of the land from the use
of the manure. (2) The increased value of the herd if
a good bull is used and the heifer calves raised. (3) Selling
to the dairy cow all the farm produce that she will eat.
(4.) The sale of milk, cream or butter.


No one questions the value of animal manure in build-
ing up the fertility of the soil. The value of such manure
depends upon the feed fed and the care taken of the man-
ure. The dairy cow being fed a ration rich in mineral
matter will produce manure rich in those elements most
needed in building up the fertility of the soil. The cow
returns to the soil at least 75 per cent of the food eaten.
But this is the least important part of the value of animal
manure. The chief value being the power to absorb mois-
ture and carry into the soil millions of bacteria which help
to convert the other elements in the soil into plant food.
The soil that is full of well rotted animal manure will stand
a drough better and will produce more than where the fer-
tility is obtained by the use of chemical fertilizers only.
It is also a fact that where the soil contains the most ma-
nure, the largest amount of chemicals fertilizer can be used
to advantage. Florida Imports Animal Manure by the
Train Load. Why Not Keep Dairy Cows and Save This
Enormous Amount of Money? This then is one of the
chief reasons why the dairy cow should be kept in Florida.


If only good pure bred bulls of known value are used the
calves raised should produce more than their dams. Also
at the end of each year the poor cows should be sold and
replaced by the heifers which show the greatest promise.
Regular culling and good heifers to replace the culls sold
will soon increase the production of any herd. Many herds
of very high production have been started with only a few
cows. No cows have ever been purchased. But always
trying each time to get a bull of a higher production than
the one last with the herd. When cows are purchased the
buyer always has to take the risk of getting poor ones.
When the herd is bred by the owner the risk of getting
poor cows is nothing like as great.


The farmer does not often see the chance to use the cow
as a market for all the hay and grain lie could produce.
Many are today asking for a market when there are hungry
cows in the herd. Why not grow Peavine hay, Corn, Velvet
beans, Napier grass, Kudzu, Rye, Oats. Turnips, and sell
them for cash to the cow. She is the only animal which
pays twice a day for what is sold to her. Sell to the cow,
get three fourths of it back on the soil as manure, and save
the time and trouble of having to haul to the market all
such bulky produce. Butter fat contains only a very small
per cent of soil fertility.


The returns from the sale of the dairy products is too
often looked upon as the only source of income from the
herd. It should be considered the least of the incomes.
While there is a profit from the selling of these products,
the real profit has been made before these sales are made
and these should be considered as so much extra profit. Is
there any other animal that will produce a profit in so
many ways? What would be the result if every farmer
in Florida had a small herd of good dairy cows? The only
answer is to go to those sections of other states where such
a condition exist and see how the dairy cow has increased
the prosperity of that section. What is being done in other

sections can be done better in Florida, for the conditions
are better.


The farmer who expects to get the most profit from keep-
ing dairy cattle should go into the business to stay for he
cannot expect to get very much profit at first. Breeding
cattle is not a "get rich quick" game, but requires time
and hard work.

The first question to decide is the breed to keep. Either
of the four dairy breeds: Ayrshire, Guernsey, Holstein or
Jersey are good and there are many herds of each making
money for their owners. Personal feelings should guide
somewhat in the matter but as a rule it is best to purchase
of the breed which is best represented in the section in which
you are located. The more herds of the same breed in any
community, the better the sale of surplus stock, for many
herds of the same breed near together attract the buyers.
Bull associations can be formed and many other advantages
come from having many herds of the same breed near to-
gether. It is not the breed that brings success but the
management of the individuals of the breed. Being a well
bred does not mean that the animal is a good one. It is
the record of the individual that counts. But never cross
breed with the hope of getting a better cow. Several hun-
dred years are required to really form a new breed and so
much cannot be done by any one man. The selection of
the individual is then the all important question.


In no breed are found all good animals, but inferior ones
are found in all breeds. A pure bred that is not good is
worse than a scrub for it's pure blood gives it the power
to transmit it's poor qualities. Study the breed selected
and find out just what is its true type. Then see that each
individual purchased comes as near that ideal as possible.
This is what is called the "Standard of Excellence" and
it should be the idea of each breeder to set a very high
standard for his herd.


A pedigree is a list of the animals ancestors usually writ-
ten out for five generations. The value of a pedigree de-
pends upon the honesty of the breeder who gives it and the
animals that compose it. To the great credit of the breed-
ers of pure bred animals, it can be said, that very few
fraudulent pedigrees are given. A pedigree having under
each name the record of that individual is called a "Pedi-
gree of Performance" and such a pedigree should always
be called for. Good blood without good records is not good
and should never be purchased. Use the pedigree to keep
the blood lines as desired, but never purchase just because
the animal has certain blood lines. Get that individual
that has the greatest number of high producers nearest to
it, for high production four or five generations away is
not good.

But always look and see that the animal purchased is
in good health, is large enough for it's age and is such an
individual that you will be proud to add it to your herd.
The above are in general the essentials in selecting the
foundation for a pure bred herd. If grade cows are used
then all the more care should be used in selecting the bull
to head the herd for while the bull is considered half the
herd, with a grade herd he is really more than half if he
is a pure bred of good breeding.


While it is possible, under certain conditions, to purchase
all feed and show a profit yet this can only be done when
a very high price is gotten for whole milk. As has been
stated one of the chief profits in keeping dairy cattle is to
furnish a market for feed grown on the farm. So it is es-
sential that each farm grow as much as possible the feed
needed by the herd.
The Florida farmer has a chance to grow an unusual
variety of feed. For the silo there is the choice of Corn,
Sorghum, Napier grass; for hay, Cow peas, Kudzu, Crab-
grass, Beggar weed and many others. Roots such as Ruta-
bagas, Turnips, Beets, Sweet Potatoes furnish a good form
of succulence for the man without a silo and serve at any
time as a good stimulant to the milk flow. To furnish

grain what better line can be asked for than Corn, Oats,
Velvet beans, Soy beans, Cow peas and Cotton seed meal.
The yield of such feed on the farm will of course vary with
the farm but if any care is taken very good crops of all
named above can be obtained.
No farm is complete without some pasture. The better
the pasture the cheaper the milk. Here again the Florida
farmer has a great advantage over many in other states.
Pasture comes early and stays late. Rye and Oats, Car-
pet grass, Dallas grass, Bermuda, many of the clovers and
a great variety of native grass give good pasture most of
the year.
The purpose of food is to rebuild broken down tissue
and to furnish heat and energy. The dairy cow that gives
two gallons of milk per day is working harder than the
mules that plow all day, for she breaks down more tissue
of the body. That the cow is a hard worker is not real-
ized by many, but when it is and she is fed according to the
work she is doing then more profit is obtained. A good
rule is to give all the hay and silage that she will clean up
and then give one pound of grain for every three pounds
of milk given. A better rule is to study the individual cow
and feed each one so as to get the most milk at the least
cost. Study the feed that can be obtained and make up a
ration that contains the proper amount of the nutrients
needed. If the cow is on a good pasture very little grain
is needed. But always remember that it does not pay to
either under or over feed. Keep a record of the feed fed
and the milk given and so know what the cows are doing.
The cow is a machine to convert feed into milk. Then see
to it that she gets good clean material to work with. Stay
away from the prepared or ready mixed feeds. These are
good but much higher in price than equally as good feed
which can be mixed up at home. As a rule grinding and
cooking of feed does not pay. In a few cases cooking makes
a food more palatable. As far as possible let the cow get
her own feed. This cuts down the labor bill. This is why
good pasture is the cheapest source of feed. But to be worth
while a pasture must contain so much feed that the cow
will not have to work to get her food, but can soon get her
fill and lie down and digest what has been eaten.
There is a common opinion that the dairy cow should
not be fat. It is true that it is hard to keep a good dairy
cow fat but the farmer should do his best to keep her as


fat as possible. It is almost impossible for the cow that is
giving a large flow of milk to eat enough to keep up the
body and also give the milk, this is why the real good cow
gets thin during the milking period. If she is the right
kind of a cow, there need be no fear of getting her too fat.
If food is to furnish heat then it is important that the
cow be protected from cold rains and winds. In this clim-
ate expensive barns are not needed, but it is time that a
good shelter is badly needed and the man who forces his
cows to sleep out of doors with no protection from the cold
rain and wind lose much more in the flow of milk than
such a shelter would cost.
Select good cows, give them enough of good feed and a
good comfortable place to live and the result in most cases
that the cow will give in return a good flow of milk which
will give a good living to her owner. But give good cows,
poor feed and poor care and the result will be a small milk
flow, a small milk check and a badly disappointed farmer.
Pure bred cows require pure bred attention but will pay
for that kind of attention. Better never begin than to try
to make money with scrub cows and scrub attention.



The Leon County Milk Company was organized in 1921
for the purpose of selling the dairy products of this sec-
tion. The first step towards this end was the plan to estab-
lish a creamery at Tallahassee.
For several years the Purity Ice Cream and Dairy Com-
pany had had a milk station in Tallahassee and purchased
milk for their plant in Jacksonville. This gave an outlet
for the milk produced in a very limited area and furnished
no market for sour cream or the production of those herds
too far out to get their milk in sweet. To furnish a market
for all milk produced, either as milk or cream, was then
the reason why the milk company decided to establish a
creamery. Stock in the new company was taken by the
farmers and business men. In the charter it is stated that
the stock shall not pay more than 8% interest. This was
to insure to the farmer that the creamery would not be run
in the interest of the business men alone.
The new company purchased the plant of the Purity Ice
Cream and Dairy Company, and added equipment for
making butter and ice cream. The plant is now well
equipped and has a capacity of 1,000 pounds of butter and
100 gallons of ice cream per day. It could also pas-
teurize, cool and ship 500 gallons of whole milk per
day. The demand has been greater than the supply, so the
capacity of the plant has not been reached at any time.
Milk and cream have been shipped to Jacksonville, Palm
Beach, St. Petersburg, Orlando. The butter has been sold
in Tallahassee, Quincy, Perry, Monticello and other near
by towns. The supply has never been great enough to
more than supply this demand.
Cream is now being received from the following points:
Quincy, Marianna, Chipley, Greensboro, Monticello and
Gretna, Florida, and from several points in Georgia. Very
few of the local farmers have separators and so bring their
milk to the creamery. All is used for shipping as whole
milk as far as possible and the balance is separated.
The farmer takes his share of the skim milk when his
milk is separated, leaving the cream for shipping as sweet

cream or for making into butter. The buttermilk is sold to
the local people for feeding to hogs and poultry.
There is quite a demand for skim milk, buttermilk and
cottage cheese, and so some skim milk is used in the making
of these products.
The creamery has been in operation only four months
but in that time has paid the farmers $11,000.00. What
other industry has done as much with so little outlay?
"Use the Dairy Cow as a Market for Home Grown Feed"
is the slogan of the creamery. The dairy cow will pay
cash for all feed fed her, and so no farmer can say that he
can not get a market.
So far the creamery has handled only milk, cream and
butter, but later may decide to handle eggs and poultry.
The prospect is good and we hope that the dairy industry
will become a permanent part of Florida's agriculture.


By J. M. BURGEss

Average milk is composed of the following:
W ater ............................... 87.1%
Fat ................................ 3.9%
Casein ............................... 2.9%
Sugar ................................ 4.9%
Albumin ........................... .7%
A sh ................................. .5%

Because the fat is the most valuable element, milk is
bought and sold upon it as a basis. It is important then to
understand how to calculate the amount of fat in a given
amount of milk and how much fat is used to make a given
amount of cream or butter. While average milk contains
only 3.9% fat, the percentage will vary very much with
the breed, the individual cow and the length of time the
cow has been milking since calving. The feed has very
little influence upon the percent of fat, but does influence
the quantity and quality of the milk.
The first milk drawn is very much lower in fat than the
last, and for this reason the cow should be milked dry, and
not do, as some, leave the last milk for the calf.

A few problems will illustrate the value of several grades
of milk.
(1) Question: What is the value of 100 pounds of 3, 4
and 5% milk if fat is worth 40e per pound?
Answer: 100X.03=3 lbs. of fat X 40c=$1.20
100X.04=4 lbs. of fat X 40c= 1.60
100X.05=5 lbs. of fat X 40e= 2.00
(2) Question: How much does a gallon of milk weigh?
Answer: 8.6 pounds is the weight of a gallon of milk.
(3) Question: If fat is worth 40c per pound, how much
per gallon is milk testing 4.5% worth?
Answer: 8.6 weight of 1 gallon + 4.5%=.39 lbs. of fat.
.39 X 40c=15.6c per gallon. To this must be added the
value of the skim milk if the cream alone is sold.
(4) Question: What is the value of skim milk as a feed
for hogs?
Answer: The best feeders say that it is worth per 100 lbs.
half what corn is worth per bushel. If corn is worth 80c
per bushel skim milk is worth 40c per 100 lbs.
(5) Question: How much cream will 100 pounds of 4%
milk make?
Answer: That will depend upon the richness or percent
of fat in the cream. The following will illustrate: To find
the pounds of cream that can be made divide the pounds of
fat by the percent of fat in the cream.
100 pounds of 4% milk will make 4 pounds of fat.
4 pounds of fat (30% fat in cream)=13.3 pounds of
4 pounds fat (40% fat in cream)=10 pounds of cream.
(6) Question: What is butter?
Answer: Butter is a mixture of fat, water, salt and some
(7) Question: How much butter can be made from 100
pounds of milk?
Answer: This will depend upon the richness of the milk.
(8) Question: Make calculation, using 100 pounds of
4% milk.
Answer: 100X.04=4 pounds of fat. A good butter
make will get 20% more butter than there is fat in the
cream. Therefore 4 pounds of fatX.20=.8 extra, or what
is called overrun. This added to the 4 pounds of fat will
make 4.8 pounds of butter from 100 pounds of 4% milk.

(9) Question: How much butter will a gallon of milk
Answer: Multiply the pounds of milk by the percent of
fat in the milk and add 20% of the fat.
Example: 8.6X.04=.344 pounds of fat.
.348X.20=.00696 pounds of overrun.
.348+.007=355 pounds of butter.
Question: If butter fat is worth 40c per pound, what is
whole milk testing 4.5% fat worth per gallon?
Answer: (100 pounds of milk to be used as a basis):
100X 4.5 lbs. fat X 40c=$1.80.
100 8.6=11.5 gallons.
1.80 11.3=15.2c per gallon.
But in selling fat the farmer has skim milk to be fed to
calves, poultry and pigs.
(10) Question: How much more will a farmer get by
selling milk for 20e per gallon than by selling fat at 38e per
Answer: 100 pounds-8.6=11.5 gallonsX20=$2.30 re-
ceived for milk.
100X4.5 pounds of fat X 38c=$1.71.
4.5-40c=11 pounds of cream.
100-11=89 pounds of skim milk.
89 pounds @ 40c per 100=35.6c.
2.30 value of whole milk.
2.07 value of fat and skim milk.
23e value of milk more than selling fat.
But from this should be taken the increased cost of de-
livery of whole milk.


General Industrial Agent, Marianna & Blountstown Rail-
road Company, Tallahassee, Florida

The growing of cattle, hogs, sheep and goats has long
since passed the experimental stage in North and West
Florida. These productive, clay subsoil, naturally drained
lands, long given to the growing of cotton, corn and tobacco
are now producing vast quantities of corn, sugar cane,
velvet beans, stock peas, peanuts, chufas, Japanese cane,
Japanese clover, Japanese kudzu, Bermuda, Carpet, Dallas,
clover, etc.,-with the Napier grass producing from 20 to
Napier and native grasses, beggar weed, bur, and sweet
30 tons or more per acre of excellent feed, exceeding, pos-
sibly, all other crops in quantity and, as some have claimed,
equaling if not surpassing alfalfa in stock food value. At
any rate, Prof. J. B. Thompson of the Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, University of Florida, states: "Napier grass
is a splendid crop for soiling purposes, as it ratoons freely,
is palatable as a green fodder, and very nutritious. Fats,
2.15%; protein, 11.36%; sugar and starch, 46.02%." So
the foundation of the live stock and dairy business seems
assured by the possibility of growing the good grasses,
clovers, grains, and flesh and milk producing foods as well
as in any part of the Union. Besides, there are for hogs
the acorns from the dwarf or ground oaks and from the
oak trees, as well as blackberries, dewberries, huckleberries,
and other native products upon which hogs both thrive and
fatten. Other features that add to the value of this region
for stock growing and dairying are the high, rolling natur-
ally drained lands, the healthful, equable climate, the long
pasture season, and the many spring-fed brooks and run-
ning streams of good water. Of course, like all of Florida,
and some other parts of the Union, this region is yet
cursed with "free range" and Texas fever tick. But
throughout these western and northern counties there are
many up-to-date stock growers and dairymen who are fast
becoming tired of fighting tick-infested scrub bulls and
cows that break down fences and roam over their fields,
destroying crops and pastures, and infecting their cattle

with the Texas fever ticks. Happily, we believe the end of
the "free range" to be near, while the discordant notes
foretelling the death knell of the Texas fever tick is grow-
ing louder each day.
In the counties of Escambia, Santa Rosa, Okaloosa, Wal-
ton, Holmes, Washington, Bay, Jackson, Calhoun, Gads-
den, Liberty, Franklin, Leon, Wakulla, Jefferson, Madison,
Taylor, Hamilton, Lafayette and Suwannee, south of the
Alabama-Georgia state line to the Gulf of Mexico, and
between the Perdido and Suwannee rivers, there are to be
found herds of cattle and droves of hogs, of a grade of
stock hardly believed possible in this region a few years
ago, notwithstanding the curse of the "free range, scrub
bull and Texas fever cattle tick. In some of these counties
stock growing and dairying is much more advanced than
in others, but in each county there are growers that have
satisfactorily tested the value of well bred, well dipped,
well kept cattle, so that the end of the fight between "fence
and no fence", "dipping and anti-dipping" is believed
possible in a few more years, especially since the strong
quarantine against Florida tick-infested cattle made by all
neighboring states and the firm stand taken by the govern-


There are about 100 or more persons engaged in dairy
work in Leon County, ranging from several head to a large
number of cows. In the vicinity of Tallahassee the dairy-
men have an association that meets each Saturday to dis-
cuss matters pertaining to pasture, stock feed, breeds of
cattle, markets, and practically every feature for and
against the business. Recently I attended an interesting
meeting of this association and there met the following:
Robert H. Mickler who, with George Perkins are operating
a dairy on their large farm at Lake Jackson, with a herd
of 48 cows. They have much faith in the business and have
found it profitable. Nels Hansen, recently from Nebraska,
is milking 16 cows and testing Florida stock feed and pas-
ture. R. H. Smith has a farm of 137 acres and 40 head of
cows, and is getting good results from Lespedeza, or Japan
clover, velvet beans, and native grass pastures. P. B.
Goode, with a farm of 35 acres and eight cows, thinks the
dairy business offers better possibilities than anything else;

while Angus Gillis, who recently started with 15 cows, is
providing feed from 40 acres of velvet beans, three acres
of Japanese cane and other crops, has gotten good results,
and is hopeful. M. D. Hurst pastured 15 cows on 40 acres
of native pasture, has already made the cost of his cows,
and is sanguine as to the possibilities. H. E. Hamilton
has 12 cows and a farm of 400 acres, where he has obtained
good results from Lespedeza and burr clover, oats, Napier
grass, annual sweet clover, and many of the native grasses.
On a farm of 350 acres, W. T. Robertson is keeping 72
cows, pasturing them on 25 acres of Lespedeza and the
wild grasses, and has made valuable experiments with
Carpet, Napier and Dallas grass, while he has faith in the
possibilities of the business. R. W. Scott, of the Boston-
Florida farm, near Bradfordville, with some 80 or 90 head
of cattle, is now milking about 30 cows, part of which are
Jersey and part Ayrshire. Mr. Scott recently added sev-
eral thousand dollars worth of Ayrshire cows, some of the
best he was able to procure in Pennsylvania and New Jer-
sey. He is growing Bermuda, Carpet, Napier and Dallas
grass, Lespedeza clover, Japanese cane, and judging from
his experience and observation, he believes this to be one
of the very best parts of Florida for the livestock and dairy
business. Mr. Scott was pleased to call my attention to
the fact that the United States Government by actual test
had found the cows of Leon County to be practically free
from tuberculosis.
G. H. Lamb, with a farm of 700 acres, is keeping 80
cows. He is well pleased with experiments made with both
Napier and Dallas grass; he had already cut 127 bales of
hay. He also finds Bermuda a good and profitable pasture
grass. The owner of the New Hope Plantation, L. R. Brad-
ley, interests himself on 1,000 acres with 250 head of cattle
and some 50 milk cows; he is enthusiastic as to the climate,
soil, water, and experiments made with various kinds of
grasses and stock food produced, particularly Bermuda,
Carpet and Napier grass, stock .peas, velvet beans, burr,
sweet and Lespedeza clover, as well as corn for ensilage, and
believes the opportunities offered here for the dairy busi-
ness to.be among the best to be found in the United States.
R. J. Johnson, with 800 acres in farms, has 85 cows, and has
made satisfactory experiments in the growing of Lespedeza,
Bermuda, Napier, Carpet and Dallas grass, and the native

pastures. Mr. Johnson is a leading spirit, and is up and
abreast in interest for the benefit of the association.
The Water Oak Plantation, owned by Miss Frances
Griscom and managed by Miss Louise R. Carter, with some
40 cows, part choice Jerseys and part select Ayrshires,
will keep the men busy to keep up with the thought and
activities of these business women. They have just recently
purchased several thousand dollars worth of choice cows
from the North. Miss Carter said she was well pleased
with the results obtained from their experiments with
Napier grass, as well as from Lespedeza and native grasses.
She has faith in the future of the livestock and dairy busi-
ness, but of course she is in favor first of the elimination
of the cattle tick and scrub cattle, and againts free range.
John C. Moore & Son have a farm of 523 acres, with a
herd of 80 cows, 10 of which are registered, as well as five
registered heifers and two registered bulls. The queen of
this herd is Raleigh's Vixen, No. 314,890, that completed
an official test of 365 days, producing 12,208 pounds of
milk, with 668.9 pounds of butter fat, and bringing forth
17 days after completing this test a fine heifer calf, to the
delight of her owners. For this choice cow, and she is just
as pretty as her picture, the Moores paid $1,000. But for
results in milk, butter fat, and the value of her calves, is
she not cheap at that ? On the Moore farm there was pro-
duced this year 200 acres of corn, with velvet beans planted
between, the corn being converted into ensilage and stored
in their two large cement silos. Mr. John Moore, Sr., is
55 years of age and was born within 11 miles of his pres-
ent home; he seems about as energetic and enthusiastic as
a young man from the North. He and his son keep their
farm well fenced, have their own dipping vat, where all
cattle are regularly and methodically dipped. During the
past spring they sold an average of 2,000 gallons of choice
milk per month at an average of 321/ cents per gallon.
One month they sold 2,036 gallons, receiving for the same
$661.70. Later milk dropped in price to 25 cents or less
per gallon.
The Moores use the native grass and piney woods pas-
ture, but have experimented in the growing of Bermuda,
Dallas, Carpet and Napier grass, with results that encour-
age them in establishing pastures of the same.


This incorporated institution, with R. G. Johnson, presi-
dent; R. W. Scott, vice president; J. G. Kellum, treasurer,
and W. F. Robertson, secretary, have a paid-up subscrip-
tion of $24,000, and have bought the building and equip-
ment, located near the Seaboard Railroad depot, formerly
owned and operated by the Purity Ice Cream and Dairy
Company, where they began operations November 1st by
making ice cream, butter and cheese, as well as handling
and shipping milk. They have employed an expert as
manager of the business, Mr. J. M. Burgess, a graduate of
Clemson College, South Carolina, recently in charge of
Canebreak Experiment Station at Union Town, Alabama,
an experienced and trained man in this line of work.
A number of the members of this organization have
visited creameries in several states recently, and have there
observed the operations and learned of the good results
obtained, and thus have become convinced of the great
possibilities of the dairy business, and a first class creamery
for Tallahassee.
In addition to the operations above described there are
many others whom we have not interviewed; besides, there
are a number of colored persons engaged in the business
of stock raising as well as dairying. One of these, John
Rollins, has a good farm, about 50 cows, extensive pastures,
good fields of growing stock-feed crops, a silo, and from all
appearances is making money. Then there is Tom Carr,
with a farm of 300 or 400 hundred acres, where he is keep-
ing 50 to 75 cows, with silo, and other equipment, selling
milk, and building up an attractive bank account.

Marion County Creamery.

'C L


Secretary Chamber of Commerce

Marion County seems destined to become one of the
greatest dairy counties in Florida. This is because Marion
has the soil whereon to grow the necessary forage crops
and because there has been established in Ocala, in the
center of the county, a creamery; and this has been fol-
lowed by the importation in car lots of high grade and
pure bred dairy stock. Marion is located in the center of
the state and has excellent railroad facilities and a system
of hard-surfaced railways radiating out in every direction,
providing for the shipment of the creamery products and
the establishment of motor truck routes for the delivery
of milk to the creamery. Marion County is in the limestone
and hardrock phosphate belt and in the middle Florida
hammock belt.
The Marion County Creamery began operation on Janu-
ary 12th, 1922. The first day's receipts of milk amounted
to 125 gallons. On February 27th the creamery was re-
ceiving 450 gallons a day from 42 farms and dairies, and
three motor truck routes had been established, tapping
three different sections of the county, with a fourth route
to be started shortly. During the first thirty days of oper-
ation the creamery paid a little over $3,000 to the farmers
and dairies for milk. A new outlet for the products of the
farms of Marion County has been provided. By February
27 six car lots of high grade, pure bred dairy cows had been
brought into the county since the establishment of the
Most of the milk received by the creamery has been
handled as whole milk and sweet cream. A small quantity
of butter has been made. Ice cream is being manufactured
and by summer this product will make up the biggest por-
tion of the output of the plant. The management has
seen to it that the products are of the highest quality. The
Marion County Creamery was awarded first prize for
creamery products at the South Florida Fair, Tampa, and
the Mid-Winter Fair, Orlando, during February. These
products are being shipped as far south as Miami on the
East Coast and St. Petersburg on the West Coast.

The plant is well located at one end of the train platform
of the Ocala Union station and a block off the Dixie High-
The Marion County Creamery Company is a corporation
capitalized at $15,000. The stock is divided into shares of
$10 each and has been subscribed by about 100 persons. No
one person can hold more than 10% of the stock except the
manager, who may purchase 20%. The stock has been
purchased by both farmers and business men. About fifty.
fifty. The company has a president, vice president and
secretary-treasurer, and a board of directors of five mem-
bers, three of whom form an executive committee.
The plant is in an attractive frame building, about 70x40,
painted white inside and out and with concrete floors. The
most modern equipment has been installed, including a
refrigeration system. The plant has a 10-ton refrigeration
outfit. There are two compartments, one for hardening ice
cream and one for keeping the milk, the first having a tem-
perature of 10 below zero and the sceond about 40 degrees.
The refrigeration machine is driven by a 20 h. p. crude oil
engine. The other equipment is driven by electric motors.
The milk is delivered at a receiving platform, where it
is weighed and samples are taken for butter fat tests. From
the receiving container the milk flows by gravity into the
clarifier, thence by gravity into the pasteurizer. It is then
pumped over a two-way cooler and into the bottling ma-
chine or into the cans. The plant has a capacity of 2,500
gallons per day.
At present the creamery is doing both a retail and whole-
sale business. A retail milk delivery is being made in
Ocala, taking over the routes of several of the local dairies,
which are now putting their milk through the creamery.
There is a big demand for creamery butter, but the price
paid for milk does not justify the manufacture of butter.
The products of the creamery so far as whole milk, light
and heavy cream, buttermilk, butter and ice cream. The
ice cream is being marketed in bulk and in large and indi-
vidual bricks. A considerable part of the skimmed milk
is going back to the farms as feed for calves, pigs and
Not only has the Marion County Creamery provided a
market for farm products and given the county a new
enterprise which already has a good pay roll and which

should pay a dividend to the stockholders, but the placing
of livestock on the farms will be a big factor in the agri-
culture of the county.


The following data was furnished by Hon. Charles M.
Price, President of the First National Bank of Brooksville,
and by Mr. Charles S. Ashbrook, the present manager of
the creamery:
When this association was started, the First National
Bank of Brooksville told the interested parties that it
would finance the purchasing of good, tested dairy cattle,
and this was done, furnishing the money to ship into this
county several car loads of dairy cows and heifers. The
bank then permitted the individual members to select their
cows through an auction method; after the sale each mem-
ber of the association was refunded pro rata the amount
over the expense of placing the cattle in Brooksville. Some
of the members could not pay for their cows in full, so the
bank accepted their notes-each purchaser paying in cash
25% of the amount of purchase, taking as security the cows
purchased. This note to be repaid by the maker paying
25% of each milk check he received, and he received his
milk checks each two weeks. This association has been
operating over two years, and the members have taken
care of their payments-75% of the notes have been paid
in full.
The association is a success, due to the spirit of coopera-
tion that exists among the members, and to the excellent
manner in which the operating end of the business has been
handled by the former manager, Mr. R. E. McCleery, and
the new manager, Mr. Charles S. Ashbrook, who was as-
sistant to Mr. McCleery.
The Hernando County Cooperative Dairy is owned by
fifty farmers who live near Brooksville, within a radius of
ten miles. Estimated number of cows owned we give as
500, most of which are grade, there being only a few pure
bred cows among them. About 65% or 70% of this num-
ber are "milking" at this time, the dairy depot handling
at present 350 to 375 gallons of milk per day, the average
price paid the members during the first 60 days of 1922


being about 32c per gallon. This product is being shipped
out of Brooksville to Tampa and St. Petersburg and sold
locally in the shape of pasteurized milk and cream.
During 1921 the following was shown by an audit of the
books of the association:
Fifty-seven thousand gallons of whole milk and 6,500
pounds of "Hercoda" butter, whole milk being shipped
over period of 37 weeks; butter made from cream separated
on the farm, the remaining 15 weeks, brought gross $29,-
155.72. Cost of operation, shipping, etc., (after the milk
was delivered to the dairy depot), amounted to 24.5 percent
of the gross receipts, the members being paid 75.5 percent,
which was 34.5 cents per pound for the actual number of
which was 34.5 cents per gallon for whole milk and 34 cents
per pound for the actual number of pounds of butter mar-

The cows of all the members of the association have been
TB tested, and found to be free. The milk handled by the
dairy is frequently tested at irregular periods without
notice, and all milk shipped has more than met the require-
ments of the state law in this respect.

Dairy Barn and part of Herd of B. C. Datson & Sons, Orlando, Florida.



Hon. Jesse H. Hamilton, Pure Food Inspeteor of Or-
lando, furnishes us with the following information:
The Belmont Creamery was organized by a creamery-
man of years of experience. It is a cooperative enterprise
financed by local dairymen. It has wholesale and retail
milk routes and manufactures ice cream. In summer it
makes butter and supplies the local trade with butter and
buttermilk. The skim milk comes in well as a poultry and
pig feed, as well as to help bring up the calves.
Seventy-one "permits" are issued to dairymen to sell
milk in Orlando, with a total of 2,285 cattle, which are
tested annually for tuberculosis. Last year only eight
reactor were found, which were all from the imported
herds. Those found touched with disease are slaughtered.


The following information is furnished us by Mr. W. P.
Sanderup, of Marianna:
The farmers of Jackson County are just beginning to
take interest in dairy farming, and those that have given
this industry proper attention are enthusiastic about the
results and returns; these farmers are planning to improve
and enlarge their herds. The milk money helps to pay
expenses, and some of the farmers are paying all running
expenses out of the cream check received each week.
About a year ago the farmers tried to find a market for
their sour cream, but could locate none close enough to
pay them to ship it. So they formed the West Florida
Ice Cream and Dairy Company, and manufactured ice
cream, which gave them a market during the summer, and
in the fall and winter shipped the sour cream to Talla-
hassee and to Jacksonville. The company proposes to put
in a churn whenever the immediate territory furnishes
enough cream to justify it.
Jackson County is well adapted to production of milk
and cream, as all of the southern grasses can be grown and
cows can have grazing the whole year. In the late fall
the farmer can provide velvet beans, and winter oats and
burr clover until the spring and summer grasses come in.

If he takes care not to pasture his oats too late he can
raise his own seed oats for the next winter.
By having a separator the farmer sells his sour cream,
and retains the milk for his hogs and calves. The fertilizer
will pay for all work. While our farmers were getting
35e net for their butter fat our friends out in Nebraska
were only getting 20c. They can scarcely produce the
cream as cheaply as we can. The dairy interests in Jack-
son County commenced with the farmers, but now the
business men are assisting materially to help develop the



The Dairy Industry in Hillsborough County has always
been one of the important County industries, but in the
past year it has grown to be of the utmost importance.
The majority of dairies producing milk find a ready mar-
ket in the city of Tampa. It is interesting to know that
Tampa consumes about four thousand gallons each day.
Out of this, about three hundred and fifty gallons are used
in the manufacture of ice cream, as Tampa boasts of two
excellent factories.
A pasteurization plant is now being operated, and around
eight hundred gallons per day is being pasteurized.
A year ago some of the dairies were in quite a crude
state, but under new and more drastic ordinances, it is safe
to say that they compare favorably with those of any other
community, especially as to sanitation.
The climate is favorable to bacterial growth, but records
of bacterial counts show a remarkably low count. This
alone is proof of cleaniness in the handling of milk.
Practically all dairies are under State and Federal sup-
ervision and engaged in co-operative tuberculosis eradi-
cation. The percentage of bovine tuberculosis has been re-
duced from about ten per cent to one or two per cent.
Looking at the situation as a whole there is a tendency
toward building up an industry second to none. Education-
al: campaigns are being successfully carried on, as to the

value of milk as a food. This alone is going to stimulate
the production of a clean and wholesome product in suffi-
cient quantity.
Hillsborough County is going to run a race with her sis-
ter counties. Let us see who wins out.



The dairy industry in Duval county is certainly a very
important one. No one will deny that. There has never
been found any food that will take the place of milk for the
growing child and, as a food for adults, milk and milk
products have but few equals in the entire list of healthful,
as well as nutritious diets. We mean perfectly pure milk,
handled in the most sanitary manner from perfectly heal-
thy, well fed cows. Milk, as is well known, if not perfectly
clean, is very, very unclean. Enough for that.
There has been a great deal of discussion here of late
between the local dairymen and the wholesale dealers in
milk and cream concerning the wholesale price being paid
for milk delivered at the various milk depots. The situa-
tion from all accounts is getting extremely grave; in fact,
it has reached the point where if some change is not made
within a very short time, all but a very few, except those
who are able to retail their milk and such others as are so
fortunate as to be out where they can grow at least a part
of their feed will have to dispose of their herds and go out
of business, which to my judgment will be very disastrous
for not only the dairymen but for the entire consuming
population of Jacksonville.
Is there any practicable way to prevent this fast ap-
proaching crisis in the dairy industry in Duval county 1
Yes, there are ways that are thoroughly practicable, but
very doubtful if an immediate remedy will be applied in
time to save many of those who are now suffering the most
from the deflation of milk prices. My sympathy has always
been with the dairyman, for if there is any man who earns
two dollars for every one he receives it is the man who runs
a dairy which requires of him three hundred and sixty-five
days in the year and almost one-half of the nights.


Realizing the unusual long hours and hard work in con-
nection with running a dairy, I am personally in favor of
seeing the price of milk remain at a level which will insure
every dairyman a decent profit on his business, and I am
sure that every consumer feels the same way about the
matter. No business can long exist without a fair profit
above the cost of production, which is the keynote to the
trouble that the dairymen of Duval county are facing at
this time. For the past several months the dairymen of
Jacksonville, as well as of Miami and Tampa, have been
receiving, according to government quotations, the highest
price for their milk of all the dairymen in the United
States, but at that their profits have been no more, if as
much, as some of those in the main dairy centers of the
North and West, the reason for this being the higher cost
of production.
There is no use for us to debate the issue. We cannot
expect the market for milk to escape a decline after the
bottom has fallen out of all other food products. There are
several of the leading dairymen with whom I have dis-
cussed this matter who have freely predicted this decline
in milk. Just how much a decline is justified in the light
of the above facts I am not prepared to say. Whether the
wholesale milk dealers are making more than their share
of profit above the prices they are paying the local dairy-
men at this time, I do not know, but some of the dairymen
are of the opinion that they are. I do know, that the cost
of producing milk here in Duval county under prevailing
conditions is too high, and unless these conditions are
changed, there are but few who can continue business very
much longer.

The two prime requisites in cheap milk production are
the growing of as much as practicable of the feed con-
sumed by the cattle and the keeping of only such cows as
are known to produce more than enough milk to pay for
their keep. I think that it may be conservatively stated
that in many of the dairy herds of this county there are
not more than two out of three of the cows kept that pay
a profit above the cost of the feed, and there are only a
very few of our dairymen that produce any feed at all.

These are the facts, and the only alternative is for every
one who can possibly do so to make some arrangement to
grow at least a part of his feed and eliminate at once his
star boarder cows.
Duval county could be made one of the best dairy coun-
ties in the whole country. There are thousands of acres
of land in this county naturally adapted to pasture grasses
recommended by some of the very highest authorities as
being the equal of the very best to be found anywhere.
There are almost numberless hay and forage crops, many
of which are well known to be most excellent for milk pro-
duction, that grow here to perfection. There are enough
men of practical dairy experience to the north of us, who
have long ago appreciated the opportunities that are
offered here in this county in the dairy industry, and are
only awaiting the time when this county is freed of the
pesky cattle tick, when they will come with a rush, and in
a short time, almost over night, make Duval county the
Most noted dairy section in this whole Southland. Now is
your time, Mr. Dairyman, you who are here now, to move
a little further out where the land is cheap enough for
you to afford to buy for growing cheap cow feed.
If the wholesale milk dealers are treating you unfair,
why not make some kind of an arrangement to retail your
milk? Of those who are retailing, many of them appear
to be very well pleased with the price they are getting.
There are two principles to consider in connection with
the wholesale price question, one is that the wholesale
dealer is justly entitled to a legitimate profit for his per-
formances, as much so as the man who produces the milk;
and the other is that if dairymen in other sections of the
country can, through more eeconomical methods of pro-
duction, ship their milk into Jacksonville, with quality and
all sanitary requirements being the equal to our home-
grown product, and sell it at the present wholesale price
being paid, and realize a satisfactory profit, there is not
very much for our local dairymen to argue about. It is
simply a question of adjusting their business to meet legiti-
mate competition which, as a matter of fact, is no more
than every other line in this country has to do.

Herd of Jerseys of A. R. LaNier, Orange County, Florida.



MARCH 27, 1922


The dairy industry, which has its roots in $47,000,000,-
000 worth of American farms-not to mention the $1,900,-
000,000 invested in 31,400,000 cattle and the billions more
represented by creameries, milk distributing plants and
cheese, ice cream, condensed milk, machinery and utensil
factories-is trending toward a unity of effort under the
influence of the World's Dairy Congress Association.
This was pointed out by Dr. H. E. Van Norman, presi-
dent of the association, when the executive committeemen
and vice presidents met with Secretary of Agriculture Wal-
lace on March 13, to adopt a working plan for the internat-
ional meeting. It was the first time that the officials had
come together since the association was formed, while the
last National Dairy Show was in session. A score or more
of leaders of the industry were present from New York,
Chicago, Harrisburg, Pittsburg, Detroit, Lincoln, Nebr.,
and elsewhere.
President Harding will invite foreign Governments to
send delegates to the congress, which was authorized by an
act of Congress, approved March 3, 1921. The congress
will be held just before and in the same city with the Na-
tional Dairy Sh6w of 1923. The meeting place has not yet
been selected and a sharp rivalry is developing among the
cities that would like the chance of entertaining the 500,000
visitors from home and abroad, which number, it is esti-
mated, will spend a fortnight listening to the discussions
and examining the exhibits. The association will manage
the congress with the co-operation of the Department of


Producers who ship milk to the city distributors have
voiced frequent complaints because of the disparity between
their figures on the quantity of milk shipped and those of
the dealers on the quantity received. In order to locate
the cause of complaint by studying the actual loss between
the country shipping point and the city plant the United
States Department of Agriculture made an investigation
on the Baltimore market. Records kept on more than 1,100
cans showed that the loss between the country station and
the city plant was less than 1 per cent. The loss on trains,
probably due to spilling, was only 0.19 per cent; and from
the city railroad platform to the plant it was 0.55 per cent.
However, it was found that when the milk was weighed
in the city plant there was a shortage of 2.56 per cent on
the amount shipped according to can measure in the coun-
try. Of this shortage, 0.74 per cent was due to actual loss-
es, while 1,82 per cent was the difference between can meas-
ure and weight. This is easily accounted for by the fact
that cans become dented and battered, which decreases their
holding capacity.
In a former investigation an even greater discrepancy
was found between can measure and weight, the difference
being over 3 per cent. It would seem that there would be
less trouble between producers and dealers if the milk were
weighed at both ends of the line .


Gray Silver, Washington representative of the Farm
Bureau Federation, in presenting the case of the dairy
farmers who are opposed to the manufacture of "filled
milk", made the following statement before the House
Agricultural Committee at Washington:
"The dairymen of the country believe that very few of
the people who consumed the 86,000,000 pounds of filled
or imitation evaporated milk realized that they were using,
skimmed milk and cocoanut oil instead of the condensed
whole milk containing the fat vitamins so essential to the
growth and development of humans and especially babies.
"Aside from the various refinement or slight modifica-
tions of the process, filled condensed milk is manufactured

by skimming the cream from whole milk and then substi-
tuting cocoanut oil for it. In taking away the butter fat
the life-sustaining fat soluble vitamins are removed and
in its place is substituted oil which does not contain the
vital growth-producing substance. Blindness and death
ultimately follow the use of food lacking in vitamins.
There are other sources of vitamins, according to the scien-
tists, but mothers are not in the habit of feeding large
quantities of kidneys, liver fats, carrots and yolks of eggs
in order to obtain the fat soluble vitamin which is well
and handily supplied in milk.
"The production of evaporated milk from which part or
all of the fat has been skimmed and vegetable oils substi-
tuted has nearly trebled in the last four years in this coun-
try. It is a business which thrives upon the dairy business,
has its very foundation in the dairy industry, and yet one
which if continued will work untold damage to it, for the
modified or imitation evaporated milk is being sold as the
true product. In 1917 the output of imitation or filled
milk was about 40,000,000 pounds. This increased steadily
until in 1920 about 86,500,000 pounds were produced. In
the manufacturing of this amount of condensed filled milk
there was removed about 7,605,000 pounds of butter fat
and virtually the same number of pounds of vegetable oils
was substituted, since about nine pounds of oil is used to
each 100 pounds of evaporated product. This virtually
destroys the market for about 7,500,000 pounds of butter
fat product. But its effect is much further reaching than
that. It is a matter of vital concern to every dairyman in


"When the manufacturer labels condensed filled milk
in such a way as to show it condensed skimmed milk and
cocoanut oil instead of whole milk containing butter fat
they neglect to advise the public of one big factor, namely,
that the very life of the milk was taken from it when the
butter fat was extracted. Labels on cans of condensed milk
products advise consumers to use it in the making of cus-
tards, cake and general cooking and for use in coffee and
cocoa. They do not state, however, that the milk is lifeless
and does not carry the necessary ingredients for health of
humans, particularly babies."


Dairy Division, U. S. Department of Agriculture


The necessity for a milk room separate from the stable
arises from the delicate nature of milk. Milk is easily con-
taminated by stable dirt and absorbs stable odors very
readily. If contaminated it may become unhealthful for
the consumer and may occasion losses to the producer
through souring and the development of bad flavors. It
should therefore be removed promptly to a clean, airy place
free from dust, insects, and objectionable odors.


The best results will be obtained if the milk room does
not open directly into the stable. Stable air and stable
dust should not have a chance to enter the place where milk
is handled.
On the other hand, if the milk room is far removed from
the stable it will take much additional labor to carry the
milk from each cow directly to the milk house. Prompt
removal is desirable so that the milk will not be subjected
to stable contamination and will be cooled promptly.
If proper surroundings are maintained, it is not objec-
tionable to build the milk house directly adjacent to the
stable, but with an outside entrance. Of course the milk
or dairy house should be located on a well-drained spot.
No accumulations of manure, refuse, or other objectionable
material should be allowed near the milk house. They give
rise to undesirable odors and attract flies.


Building Material.-A concrete or tile house with an
asbestos-shingle or slate roof is fireproof, durable and sani-
tary. While the initial cost of such a house is high, it is
believed to be cheapest in the long run, for it requires few
repairs, and no painting.
Other materials that may be used are brick, stone, cement
block, and wood. The roof may be covered with slate, as-

bestos shingles, tile, prepared roofing, wooden shingles, or
metal. Any of these materials may be used in the following
plans if due allowance is made for the thickness of walls
of different materials. Outside walls should be of approxi-
mately the following thicknesses: Concrete, 6 to 8 inches;
brick, 9 inches; tile, 8 inches; stone, 14 inches to 18 inches;
cement block, 8 inches; and frame, 6 inches.
Floors.-Particular care should be used in constructing
milk-house floors. Concrete is by far the best material for
this purpose, as it resists moisture, decay and wear. Con-
crete floors should be built of a base made up of 1 part
cement, 3 parts sharp, clean sand, and 5 parts stone. This
base should be about 5 inches thick and should be covered
with a top coat 1 inch thick made by mixing 1 part cement
and 2 parts sand. The top coat should be troweled hard
and smooth. The whole floor should be pitched at least
one-fourth inch to the foot to one or more large bell traps,
so that it will drain thoroughly.
Walls.-Cement plaster (1 part cement to 3 parts sand)
makes the best inside finish, and this can be applied di-
rectly to the walls if they are composed of stone, tile, con-
crete, brick or cement blocks. Where the house is of frame,
it is necessary to use expanded metal lath on which to plas-
ter. Dressed tongue-and-groove lumber may be used for
inside finish, but its life is not so long nor is it so sanitary.
Such an interior should be kept thoroughly covered with
a good white enamel paint.
Door knobs and other hardware should be of porcelain or
china so far as possible. Such materials are cheap and will
not be affected by moisture.
Windows.-All milk houses should have plenty of sun-
light, well distributed. Window-glass surface equivalent
to at least 10 percent of the floor area is necessary. Thus
a building 10 by 20 feet, for example, should have windows
with a total glass area amounting to at least 20 square feet.
It is better to have counter-balanced or sliding sash so that
screens may be placed on the outside without interfering
with the operation of the windows.
Ventilation.-Steam and water are apt to make the dairy
house damp, which hastens deterioration, and favors the
growth of mold and bacteria. Odors are also likely to arise
from spilled milk. To keep the air dry and sweet, proper
ventilation is necessary. In some climates ventilation can

be obtained by openings, such as doors and windows, but
in most localities some other method is necessary. Some-
times a ventilating flue is desirable, which should run from
the ceiling out through the peak of the roof, the outer open-
ing being shielded to keep out rain and snow.
All openings, such as doors, windows and ventilators,
should be thoroughly screened to prevent the entrance of
flies and other insects. Insects carry disease germs which
may get directly into the milk or may be deposited on the
clean cooler, strainer, and other utensils.
Cleaning and Sterilizing Facilities.-Milk houses should
be supplied with an abundance of cold, running water for
cooling milk. In addition there should be adequate facili-
ties for hot water and steam, for without these, utensils
can not be properly washed and sterilized. Directions for
constructing cooling tanks and for cooling milk and cream
may be found in Farmers' Bulletin 976. A simple sterilizer
for sterilizing dairy utensils on the small farm is described
in Farmers' Bulletin 748. These bulletins are sent free by
the United States Department of Agriculture.
Drainage. Every milk house should be provided with
a proper means of waste disposal. More or less milk is
spilled on the floors or washed oT of utensils. Milky water
swept out of the milk house door attracts flies and gives rise
to disagreeable odors. The floor should be drained through
bell traps into a drain of 6-inch glazed tile. Four-inch tile
is sometimes used, but this is apt to become clogged. The
drain should be laid 2 feet deep, and should have a fall of
at least 1 foot to every 60 feet in length. A rapid fall tends
to prevent clogging. Drainage should be carried well away
from the milk house. Persons contemplating the construc-
tion of dairy houses, and especially waste-disposal systems,
should apply to their local and state health departments
for copies of regulations on sanitary requirements. These
requirements vary somewhat in different states.



Better dairy cattle, how to get them, and the more eco-
nomical ways of using dairy by-products, were the subjects
featured in the exhibit of the United States Department of
Agriculture at the National Dairy Show held in St. Paul,
October 8-15.
Starting with special panoramic scenes, arranged accord-
ing to the "habitat group" idea and designed to stimulate
an interest in better sires, the visitor was carried through
the various phases of dairying which have a bearing on the
more economical production of milk and other dairy pro-
ducts, with special attention given to breeding, feeding,
dairy cattle diseases, cost of milk production and methods
of increasing the consumption of milk.
The national need for cows of higher producing capacity
was shown by a comparison of average production in the
United States and in the dairy countries of Europe. The
average milk production in this country is 3,627 pounds a
year. Denmark's average is 5,666, the Netherlands' 7,585,
Switzerland's 6.950. The central idea of the entire exhibit
was to stimulate interest in raising the American average.
If this can be accomplished, a long step will have been
taken toward putting the United States on the right dairy
basis. The important stens toward reaching this result
were shown in scenic exhibits on cow testing association
work, co-operative bull associations, scientific breeding and
In a manner of speaking, the cow and the farm always
hold the center of the stage at the National Dairy Show, but
at this one they were actually on the stage in lifelike mod-
els Instead of depending upon charts and statistics, the
salient points were brought home to the observer by stage
settings representing actual farm scenes and cattle, of the
kind that usually go vith the surroundings, shown grazing
in the painted fields.

One farm breathed comfort and prosperity, and its lush
pastures grazed cattle that showed the effect of years of
careful breeding. The other was the kind of farm that in
the old days would have been known as Farmer Slack's
place. In its pastures were nondescript cows-the kind
that too many farmers still keep but that do very little to-
ward keeping the farmer and his family.
The reason for these two stage farms, set side by side,
was evident-the striking contrast of abundance and pover-
ty emphasized the difference in what may be expected from
good and poor cows, from poor sires and sires bred from
a long line of high-yielding ancestors. Poor animals soon
paint the whole farm in drab colors, while good ones keep
up the fences and brighten the buildings. The improve-
ment is even more noticible in the bank account.
But this series of stage scenes that the Department of
Agriculture puts on goes farther than merely to show beau-
tiful pictures of success and somber paintings of failure.
It showed pictorially how a farm community may organize
to obtain improvement at the lowest cost and in the short-
est practicable time. One stage showed how the farmers
in a community grouped their farms into blocks and organ-
ized a bull association that resulted in a marvelous develop-
ment in the herds-shown in the records which were posted
at the side of the stage. On another stage was a show ring
in which were 6 purebred bulls, and another ring in which
there were 19 scrubs. These models were exact reproduc-
tions in miniature of real animals, the purebreds represent-
ing the bulls owned by the first co-operative Ayshire Bull
Association of America, which took the place of the 19
scrubs depicted.
But this was only a small part of the story of milk pro-
duction and marketing that was unfolded by the artist's
brush and actual demonstrations. Some of the questions
answered were these: What feed is needed to make 100
pounds of milk? How can undernourishment in children
be eliminated? How are bacterial counts of milk made?
What is the "Better Sires-Better Stock" campaign and
how can a farmer avail himself of its advantages? What
do certain germs look like? What various things and how
much of each can be made from 100 pounds of milk? Is
dairying more profitable than formerly?
Each year more and more farmers are realizing that no
matter how they improve the methods of production they

are still far from the head of the procession if they do not
give a great deal of attention to the matter of markets. And
it is no longer difficult for a dairyman to obtain the best
market information, for the Bureau of Markets and Crop
Estimates of the Department of Agriculture is always at
his service. What this bureau can do for him was forceful-
ly brought out at the dairy show by striking illustrations
and by men who are able to answer the various questions
that the problems of selling bring up.
One of the striking illustrations of the exhibit showed
an enormous balance that extends across the Atlantic from
America to Europe. It showed how vital to the American
producer are world supplies of dairy commodities and the
leveling influence of easy transportation and the dissemin-
ation of market news. Charts showing how this leveling
has actually occurred in the case of butter accompanied
the central illustration. Another panel in the series showed
streams of milk flowing into a big pool which is the world's
exportable surplus. Statistics of the world milk trade were
shown in connection.
The whey utilization booth was one of the most interest-
ing features of the exhibit from the standpoint of the manu-
facturer of milk products. For some time past, the De-
partment has been carrying on experiments to find new
ways of utilizing the enormous quantity of whey produced
in the United States each year, a large part of which is
wasted. The Exhibit showed the production of whey to
be 3,796,000,000 pounds annually. It contains 182,274,000
pounds of lactose, 30,370,000 pounds of protein, and 26,-
574,000 pounds of milk salts. While the experiment is still
incomplete, a number of uses for whey are suggested.
Dried whey, for instance, is found to be a satisfactory sub-
stitute for eggs in baking, and cakes made with dried whey
were on exhibition. Sugar extracted from whey was also
shown to have commercial possibilities if the market for
milk sugar can be extended.
In another booth, various ways of utilizing milk were
presented, together with the amounts of the various pro-
ducts that could be made from 100 pounds of four per cent
milk. Some of the combinations are: Pecorino cheese 6.5
lbs., butter 3.6 lbs., whey 88 lbs., Camembert cheese 11.5
lbs., whey 88 lbs., Cheddar cheese 11 lbs., whey 88 lbs.;
Swiss cheese 81/2 lbs., butter 1.3 lbs., whey 88 lbs.
In a special dairy laboratory, the visitor was shown how


bacteria counts are made, how various types of media are
prepared and what equipment is desirable for a modern
laboratory for bacteriological examination of milk. In con-
nection with this laboratory was shown a significant result
of a study of the streptococci carried on by the Department
for a number of years. Up to about two years ago, it was
believed that hemolytic streptococci, which cause certain
types of pneumonia and other infections in human beings,
were apparently identical with certain streptococci found
in the udder of the cow. All known tests showed them to
be the same, and milk was therefore brought under suspic-
ion as a possible carrier of disease. Test devised in the
dairy division laboratories of the Department of Agricul-
ture clearly show that they are different. These tests were
displayed to the public for the first time in the exhibit.
Visitors were shown these streptococci under the micro-
scope and in all of the formerly recognized tests, where
they appear identical. Then they were shown under the
dairy division tests, which reveals the difference.


H. A. Harding, M. J. Prucha, E. F. Kohman, H. M.
Weeter and W. H. Chambers, Dairy Husbandry Depart-
ment, Urbana, Illinois, on Journal of Dairy Science:

Almost everyone has an opinion regarding the influence
of the visible foreign matter, commonly referred to as dirt,
upon the bacterial count of milk, and these opinions fall
into two groups, the larger of which supports an old view
and the smaller one a modern one.
The old view is illustrated by the fact that much of the
past advice to the producer and dealer who are striving
for a milk of low germ content may be summarized in the
injunction, "Get it clean and keep it cold." In many of
our cities, milk ordinances have been enacted setting limits
to the permissible bacterial count of milk, with the avowed
object of providing a clean milk supply. In some cases the
authorities delegated to enforce our pure-food laws have
taken the position that the presence of large numbers of
bacteria in milk is evidence of filthy conditions of produc-
tion or handling. Accordingly, it is natural that the gen-
eral public should regard a milk which sours quickly as
dirty and, therefore, objectionable from the esthetic and
sanitary standpoint.
On the other hand, the modern view has been based upon
certain facts which have suggested that dirt has but slight
influence upon the bacterial count. Where market milk has
been cored both on its content of visible dirt and on its
bacterial count, no well marked relation has been found
between the dirt score and the bacterial count. Apparently
the milk containing evident dirt is about as likely to have
a low bacterial count as are other samples.
The importance of the keeping quality of milk has led
to studies of the source of its bacterial life. It has been
established that in a few cases the udder of the cow makes
large additions to this bacterial life but that ordinarily the
udder contributes about 500 per cubic centimeter. It has
also been shown that in warm weather, utensils which are
well washed and steamed but not promptly and thoroughly
dried, when used some hours later contribute 30,000 or
more per cc. to the bacterial count of milk. The morning's
milk as it is delivered from the farm to the milk plant often

shows a bacterial count of approximately 50,000 per cc.
The much higher numbers which are later found in the
same milk are the result of growth. There is no known
relation between the dirt content and the bacterial count
due to the udder, between the dirt content and the bacteria
from the well washed utensils, or between the dirt and the
rate of bacterial growth in the milk. Inasmuch as udder
flora, utensils, and growth seem to account for practically
all of the bacteria found in city milk supplies, it is hard for
those holding the modern view to believe that the dirt con-
tent exerts a controlling influence over the bacterial con-
tent of the milk.
The accumulation of this kind of circumstantial evidence
has led to the gradual development of a new point of view
regarding the relation of dirt to the bacterial count of milk.
This point of view is indicated in the following quotation
from Third Revision of the Standard Methods for the Sani-
tary Analysis of Milk as approved by the Laboratory See-
tion of the American Public Health Association at the San
Francisco meeting, September, 1920.
Because much of the dirt that appears as a visible and
insoluble sediment in milk is accompanied by relatively few
bacteria in proportion to the number derived from other
sources, it frequently becomes desirable to use a test that
will reveal the amount of visible sediment in the milk. For
this reason the committee has included a description of the
commonly used sediment test. It is only by using this sedi-
ment test in conjunction with the bacterial count that it is
possible to prevent the occasional approval of dirty work.
Considering the practical importance of this matter,
there is a surprising lack of data regarding the relationship
of dirt to bacterial count. The old idea that the dirt con-
tent exercises a controlling influence over the bacterial life
in the milk rests partly upon the fact that the dirt has been
long said to control the bacterial content.
Any belief which is held by so large a number of intelli-
gent people should be treated with respect, but at the same
time the important relation which this matter sustains to
the milk business makes it very desirable that the facts in
the case be determined. The following data are submitted
with the hope of furnishing a more substantial basis for
the discussion of this question.
While dirt may enter milk at any stage on its journey
from the cow to the consumer, the milk is normally pro-

tected by being placed in covered cans almost immediately
after it is drawn from the cow. Accordingly, the entrance
of dirt, at least at the farm, is practically restricted to the
milking process and the main source of dirt is the material
falling from the coat of the cow.
During 1914-1915 a study was made of the bacterial
count of the milk from the cows in three barns. This milk
was drawn by hand in the ordinary way into small-topped
milk pails, having an oval opening 5 by 7 inches. The pails
had been thoroughly steamed and protected from contami-
nation up to the beginning of the milking process. The
samples for bacteriological study were taken from the pail
when the milker brought it from the barn into the adjoin-
ing room. Examinations were also made of the udder flora
of the cows. This study included 1,665 samples.
In barn I, in which the general conditions of cleanliness
were comparable with conditions in some certified milk
barns, the bacterial count of the milk, if that from one ab-
normal cow be omitted, averaged about 1,000 per cubic
centimeter. Since this represented the combined influence
of the udder flora and of the dirt, the influence of the dirt
may be obtained by subtracting the 500 per cubic centi-
meter which has been found to be a normal figure for the
udder flora of normal cows. On the basis of this calcula-
tion, the dirt falling into the milk in this barn increased
the bacterial count by approximately 500 per cubic centi-
In barn II the general conditions of the barn and cows
were comparable with those of the better market milk
dairies. Here again, the milk as it came from the barn
showed a bacterial count of approximately 1,000 per cubic
centimeter. The udder content of the cows was normal,
and making the deduction of 500 per cubic centimeter for
udder flora leaves 500 per cubic centimeter as the increase
due to dirt entering the milk. The explanation of these
identical results in two barns which appeared to be quite
different in their cleanliness lies in the fact that in both
barns the cows were well bedded and were clean and in
both cases hair and dandruff from the cows fell into the
milk during the milking process.
In barn III conditions were quite different. This barn
had a dirt floor and no provision for drainage, and the cows
were allowed to run loose in it except at milking time.
Straw was added to absorb the liquid and cover the manure

and the resulting accumulation became two to four feet
deep before it was removed twice a year. Straw was sup-
plied abundantly, and in the main the coat of the cows
remained fairly clean, though the conditions of the stable
floor and, to some extent, the coat of the cows would un-
doubtedly have called forth a protest from a city milk
inspector. The conditions of cleanliness were roughly com-
parable with those of ordinary dairies during the winter
season. The average bacterial count of 238 samples of milk
from this barn was 5,775 per cubic centimeter. As the
bacterial from the udder of the cows in this barn gave a
bacterial count of about 1,000 per cubic centimeter, the
bacterial count due to the dirt amounted to approximately
4,500 per cubic centimeter.
The barn conditions already studied are representative
of dairy conditions ranging from very good to rather ques-
tionable. In order to cover the subject it was desirable to
study the milk produced by extremely dirty cows. It is
the unwritten law of public institutions that dairy cows
must be kept clean, and accordingly it was difficult to pro-
vide suitable material for such a study. In the work already
described, the cows were allowed to become so dirty as to
provoke unfavorable comment.
In the winter of 1916, taking advantage of a quarantine
due to a neighboring outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease,
the cows in barn III were allowed to become extremely
dirty. The accumulation of manure on the floor of the
stable in which the cows were loose became about four feet
deep. Practically no attempt was made to clean the cows
for some months. Dirt and dried feces accumulated on the
flanks and abdomens of the cows and they were fairly rep-
resentative of extremely dirty conditions.
When the condition of the cows had become representa-
tive of extremely dirty conditions, the study of the milk
was begun. This study included a determination of the
bacterial count and the dirt content of the milk of seven
cows. The determinations of the bacterial count were made
in three series of 10 milkings each, and in addition the
bacterial count of the milk directly from the udder of each
cow was determined at six separate milkings. Unfortun-
ately the difficulties of determining the dirt content were
such that it was accomplished at a total of only 24 milk-
ings. Bacterial counts were made from a total of 252 sam-

The three series differed from each other in that in the
first series of milkings from the extremely dirty cows, the
milk pail was the small-topped one, with an oval opening
5 by 7 inches, used in the previous studies in barns I, II
and III; in the second series the cows were extremely dirty
and an ordinary open-topped pail, having a diameter of
about 12 inches, was used; and in the third series conditions
were the same as in the first except that the coat of the cows
had been thoroughly cleaned. The milk pails, in all cases,
were carefully steamed and protected until used.
The sample for determining the bacterial count of the
milk was taken from the milk of each cow as the milk came
in the pail from the stable to the milk room. The dirt
determinations were made from the unstrained milk, col-
lected in eight-gallon cans. The toal weight of this milk at
each milking varied between 112 and 168 pounds.
A combination of sedimentation and centrifugal force
was used in determining the amount of dirt. After the cans
of milk had stood for eight hours, the bulk of the milk was
siphoned (the first five samples were poured) through a
weighed, 100-mesh to the inch sieve. The remaining milk
was poured through the same sieve but collected in a glass
cylinder. The cans were then rinsed and the rinsings
poured through the sieve into the cylinder. The sieve was
washed with water and a little alcohol to free it from milk
and fat and these washings were added to the cylinder.
The sieve was then dried and weighed. The material
retained by the sieve was largely hair, and bits of straw,
and what appeared to be scales from the skin of the cow.
Corrosive sublimate was added to the material in the
cylinder as a preservative, and after the cylinder stood
eight hours the upper portion of the fluid was siphoned off.
The remaining material was centrifuged for half an hour,
the liquid pored off, the sediment again suspended in dis-
tilled water and the centrifuging repeated. The liquid was
then poured off and the sediment washed into a weighed,
folded filter, dried and weighed.
Series v. When the small-topped pail was used. In order
to get information comparable with that from the earlier
studies in barns I, II, and III, the small-topped pail was
used in this first series of samples. The average of the bac-
terial count from 70 samples of the milk from individual
cows averaged 12,954 per cubic centimeter. Fifty-nine
samples direct from the udders of these cows gave an aver-

age bacterial count of 964. Accordingly, the bacterial
count due to dirt falling from these extremely dirty cows
during the milking process, into small-topped pails, aver-
aged 12,000 per cubic centimeter.

TABLE 1.-Dirt and bacterial count from milk, drawn from
dirty cows, into small-topped pails

--- DIRT per cu.
On On Per centi-
Date Milk sieve filter Total qt. meter
pounds mgm. mgm. mgm. mgm.
Feb. 24, a. m...... 162.1 236.6 250.7 487.3 6.5 12,734
Feb. 23, p. m...... 148.1 727.2 259.6 986.8 14.3 8,416
Feb. 25, a. m...... 167.7 518.4 66.2 584.6 7.5 12,400
Feb. 25, p. m...... 148.9 352.4 96.2 448.6 6.5 12,115
Feb. 26, a. m...... 161.1 512.7 83.8 596.5 8.0 17,896
Feb. 29, p. m...... 142.1 370.0 133.9 503.9 7.6 14,800
March 1, a. m..... 158.7 435.6 82.5 518.1 7.0 19,577

Av. per quart... 6.2 1.9 8.1
Av. per cu. cent. 14,000

The dirt content of the milk was determined at seven
milkings, and the results of these determinations as well as
the bacterial count of the milk in which the dirt was deter-
mined is given in table 1.
As shown in table 1, the dirt collected on the sieve repre-
sents the dirt falling into the milk later removed by careful
straining. It consisted of bits of straw and hay, hair, dan-
druff, and coarse particles. At the second milking it in-
cluded a large piece of hay which made up the larger part
of the material. It will be noted that the material removed
by the sieve averaged 6.2 mgr. per quart of milk. The finer
material which passed the sieve represents the dirt which
ordinarily remains in the milk unless removed by the clari-
fier or similar means. In these seven tests this material
averaged 1.9 mgm. per quart. The total dirt recovered'
from this milk from extremely dirty cows when drawn into
a small-topped pail averaged 8.1 mgm. per quart, or if the
milking in which the large piece of hay fell be omitted, the
average would have been 7.1 mgm. per quart. The bac-
terial count of the milk was fairly uniform, varying from

8,500 to 19,500 per cubic centimeter. It will be noted that
the smallest bacteria count was from the milk containing
the largest proportion of dirt, but it has already been ex-
plained that this dirt consisted of a piece of hay, which
was undoubtedly low in bacterial count. Had the milk
from these seven milkings been blended together, it would
have had a bacterial count of 14,000 per cubic centimeter.
In this connection it should be noted that this bacterial
count was made after the plates had been incubated for five
days at 20C. and two days at 37C. instead of the single
incubation for two days at 37.5 C. as required by the offi-
cial methods for routine milk examinations. This longer
incubation period has been used consistently in all of these
studies because it gives distinctly higher bacterial counts.
Accordingly, had these samples of milk been given the offi-
cial routine bacteriological examination, the majority of
them would have shown bacterial counts below 10,000 per
cubic centimeter, which marks the upper limit for certified
Series II. When the ordinary milk pail was used. In
commercial dairies, under the exceptional conditions where
the cows would be permitted to become as dirty as those in
this study, the ordinary open milk pail would be used.
Under these conditions the maximum amount of dirt would
fall into the pail. In order to measure the dirt under the
worst conditions, the seven cows were milked into open-
topped pails for ten successive milkings. Samples repre-
senting the milk of each gave an average bacterial count of
18,229 per cubic centimeter. Forty-six per cent of the
samples gave a bacterial count below 10,000 per cubic centi-
meter, and there was but one sample among the seventy
with a bacterial count above 60,000, which marks the upper
limit for New York Grade A milk.

TABLE 2.-Dirt and bacterial count from milk, drawn
from dirty cows, into open-topped pails

-- DIRT ---- per cu.
On On Per centi-
Date Milk sieve filter Total qt. meter

pounds mgm.
March 1, p. m..... 140.0 574.1
March 2, a. m..... 162.1 871.7
March 2, p. m.... 143.8 695.6
March 3, a. m..... 158.0 562.7
March 3, p. m..... 140.5 589.9
March 6, p. m.....149.2 1103.5
March 7, p. m ... 132.8 1029.9
March 8, p. m.....150.7 1309.2

Av. per quart...
Av. per qt. omit-
ting last three.
Av. per cu. cent.

mgm. mgm.
107.7 681.8
108.1 979.8
66.9 762.5
98.4 661.1
75.5 666.4
119.5 1223.0
271.4 1301.3
157.7 1466.9

12.4 1.8 14.2

9.5 1.3

The dirt content of the milk was determined at eight
milkings and the results of these determinations as well as
the bacterial count of the milk is given in table 2.
Of the dirt determinations shown in table 2, it is evident
that the last three samples are abnormal. The results are
given here just as determined even though the reason for
the abnormality was understood at the time of determina-
tion. On these three days the milk promptly became ropy,
and it was not possible to separate all of it from the sedi-
ment. The difficulty is most evident in material retained
by the sieve, though the results from the filter were also
affected. If these abnormal results were included, the sedi-
ment per quart would average 14.2 mgm.; or if the calcula-
tions were restricted to the five days when conditions were
normal, the average dirt content would be 10.8 mgm. per
quart. The bacterial counts show that at two milkings the
entire product of the seven cows had a bacterial count of
not less than 10,000 per cubic centimeter, and that at no
milking did the count go above 36,000 per cubic centi-
meters. The average bacterial count for the entire 1,177
pounds of milk was 18,244 per cubic centimeter.






Series III. When the cows had been cleaned. In series
I and II are given the germ count found and the dirt recov-
ered from the milk of seven extremely dirty cows when
they were milked into small-topped and into ordinary pails.
The cows were dirty as a result of their lying upon an
accumulation of straw and their own manure, which at the
time of the study was about four feet deep.
In order to bring out more clearly the effect of the con-
dition of the coat of the cow upon the cleanliness and the
bacterial count of the milk, the coats of the cows were
cleaned and all the other factors in the situation allowed
to remain unchanged. For ten successive milkings these
cleaned cows were milked into small-topped pails and the
bacterial count and the dirt content were determined as in
the preceding series. Only 15 per cent of the 68 samples
gave a bacterial count of over 10,000 per cubic centimeter,
and the average of all the samples was 7,165 per cubic
The dirt content as determined at 9 milking as well as
the bacterial count of the milk is given in table 3.
The coats of the cows were thoroughly cleaned before
starting this series of samples. Then before each milking,
the milker made some effort to remove the dirt evident
upon the cow, and the resulting cleanliness of the cows was
in sharp contrast to their former condition. Sufficient
labor was not available, however, to keep the coats of the
cows clean when they were living on the top of a manure
heap. It will be noted from table 3 that at the first three
milkings the dirt content of the milk steadily increased.
Since this milk was drawn into small-topped pails, the re-
sults in table 3 are directly comparable with those in table
1, the single difference being that the coats of the cows had
been cleaned.
The total dirt recovered from the milk of the cleaned
cows was 4.6 mgm. per quart, as against 8.1 mgm. recovered
from the milk of the extremely dirty cows. Likewise the
average bacterial count of 7,117 per cubic centimeter from
the milk of the cleaned cows is comparable with 14,000 per
cubic centimeter in the milk of the extremely dirty cows.
Allowing 1,000 per cubic centimeter as the bacterial count
due to the udder, these results indicate that cleaning the
coat of the cows resulted in a 44 per cent reduction in the
dirt content and a 46 per cent reduction in the bacterial
count. It chanced that two of the highest bacterial counts

of the series occurred in the samples on the morning of
March 18, and the average bacterial count for that milking
was 17,219. The combined average for the bacterial counts
of the other eight milkings was but 5,780 per cubic centi-

TABLE 3.-Dirt and bacterial count from milk, drawn
from cleaned cows, into small-topped pails
--- DIRT per cu.
On On Per centi-
Date Milk sieve filter Total qt. meter
pounds mgm. mgm. mgm. mgm.
March 17, a. m... 145.6 160.6 7.6 168.2 2.5 3,490
March 18, a. m.... 143.3 208.7 26.0 234.7 3.5 17,219
March 18, p. m .... 128.1 210.8 54.5 265.3 4.5 5,379
March 20, a. m.... 126.4 142.6 60.1 202.7 3.4 3.672
March 20, p. m.... 112.4 249.8 56.8 306.6 5.9 6,473
March 21, a. mi.... 148.7 222.3 48.9 271.2 3.9 5,650
March 21, p. m .... 134.4 415.1 79.1 494.2 7.9 6,382
March 22 a. m.... 155.0 103.3 75.6 178.9 2.5 6,086
March 23, a. m .... 146.7 392.9 26.1 419.0 6.2 9,108

Av. per quart... 3.8 0.8 4.6
Av. per cu. cent. 7,117

The smallness of the increase in the bacterial count of the
milk in these series of tests, that was due to dirt falling
from the extremely dirty cows will undoubtedly be a sur-
prise to all and perhaps something of a disappointment to
those who hold that dirt is a large source of germ life in
It may be suggested that for some reason the dirt from
these cows did not furnish a large bacterial count. How-
ever, the amount of milk, the dirt content, and the germ
count are all known with regard to each of the three series
of tests, and from those data it is possible to compute the
bacterial count of the dirt recovered from the milk. This
may be done by computing the total germ count of the milk,
subtracting the 1,000 per cubic centimeter due to udder
flora, and dividing the resulting number by the grams of
dirt. The data for this calculation for each of the three
series are given in table 4.

TABLE 4.-Bacterial count of dirt recovered from the milk
Se- Vol. of Dirt Germs Germs Germs Germs from
ries Milk Found in Milk from Udder from Dirt 1 Gram Dir
I 478,537 4.1258 (,690,610,147 378,537,000 6,221,073,147 1,507,840,000
II 327.162 3.7506 5,338,981.994 327,162,000 5,011,810,994 1,341,600,000
III 545.765 2.5408 3.884,347.760 545.765.000 3.338,582,760 1,313.980,000
The data in table 4 place the bacterial count of the dirt
recovered from the milk at approximately 1.5 billions per
gram. Those who are familiar with the bacterial count of
milk and surface soil will at once recognize that this is a
high figure. In fact it is so high that those who feel that
the amount of dirt recovered from the milk was too small
to suggest that this large amount of bacterial life may have
entered the milk in connection with a larger amount of dirt
than was later recovered from the milk.
Manifestly the most direct means of determining the bac-
terial count of the dirt falling from the udder and flank of
the cow during the milking process is to secure some of this
dry material directly from the cow and determine its bac-
terial count.
This plan was followed, two cows in two different barns
being used for the purpose. Cow 152 in barn I had been
brushed daily, and her coat showed no visible dirt. She
was representative of very clean cows. Cow 1039 in barn
III was an extremely dirty cow. Her condition and sur-
roundings were the same as the seven cows in series I and
II. Her flank and abdomen were partially covered with
dried manure.
Neither cow was in milk, and the samples were collected
by using a sterilized, open-top milk pail. Any loose bed-
ding on the flank or udder was brushed away by hand, as
is customary before milking, but the cows were not other-
wise prepared for the tests. The pail was held partially
under the cow, as would be done during ordinary hand-
milking, and the udder manipulated as though the cow
was being milked. In the first two tests the manipulation
was continued for seven minutes and in the three others
for ten minutes. The pail was then taken to the laboratory
and the visible dirt brushed out and weighed. The dirt
was then mixed with a definite amount of milk and after
being mixed for fifteen to twenty-five minutes, plates were
prepared for determination of the bacterial count.
The results of five such determinations are given in
table 5.
From table 5 it is seen that the clean and the dirty cows

were quite unlike both in the amount of dirt falling into
the pail and in the bacterial count per gram of dirt. In
other words, the dirt from a dirty cow is not only more
abundant but it is also a different kind of dirt with a much
higher bacterial count per gram.
In removing the dirt from the pail during the experiment
it was noted that the dirt falling from cow 152 consisted of
some hair and fine dandruff. The dirt from cow 1039 was
made up of considerable hair, dandruff, and many fine par-
ticles of dirt, presumably in part dried manure. Because
of the distinctly different bacterial count of the material
from the two cows, interest is at present centered upon the
results from cow 1039, since she was a companion cow with
the seven dirty cows in barn III.
It will be noticed that four tests of this cow on successive
days gave widely differing results, not only in amount of
dirt collected, but in the bacterial count per gram of this
dirt. While this variation is undoubtedly due in part to
the varying bacterial count of the different kinds of dirt
finding their way into the pail, it is also due in part to the
difficulty of getting representative samples of the material
in making the plates. In preparing the samples, the dirt
was placed in measured amounts of milk varying from 500
to 5,000 cubic centimeters, and after fifteen minutes, with
thorough shaking, samples were taken for plating within
the following teit minutes. The number of samples taken,
from which dilutions and plates were made, varied from
two to twenty on the different days and six to nine plates
were made from each sample. Not all of these plates could
be counted, but the bacterial counts given for the four tests
of cow 1039 are based upon counts from 11, 20, 13, and 46
plates respectively. The fact that in these experiments the
dirt was suspended in less than one-tenth the volume of
milk in which it would be suspended in ordinary milking
undoubtedly added to the difficulty of getting accordant
bacterial counts.
It is plain that little can be gained by considering a
mathematical average of bacteral counts which vary as
widely as those in table 5. At the same time it is clear
that if a large number of such determinations were aver-
aged, as was done with each of the three series of samples
from barn III, it is altogether likely that such an average
would show a bacterial count for the dirt of at least 1.5
billions per gram.

No. Condition Dirt from Germ Count Germ Count
of Cow of Cow Milk Pail of Dirt per 1 Gram
152* Clean 0.043 766,000 17,814,000
1039* Dirty 0.240 94,285,000 392,800,000
1039 Dirty 0.108 496,000,000 4,592,000,000
1039 Dirty 0.038 15,300,000 184,000,000
1039 Dirty 0.171 293,475,000 1,716,000,000
In these two tests the manipulation of the udder was continued but
seven minutes while in the other three the manipulation lasted ten min-
utes. To facilitate comparison, the amount of dirt and its bacterial count
were increased to a ten-minute basis. This did not affect the final compu-
tation of bacterial count per gram of dirt.

Accordingly, in so far as conclusions can be drawn from
such a limited number of observations, these direct exam-
inations of the dirt falling into the milk pail from a dirty
cow suggest that the visible dirt recovered from the milk
in the three series of experiments was sufficient in amount
to account for the accompanying increase in the bacterial
count of the milk. In other words, these results tend to
show that the methods employed in recovering the visible
dirt from the milk recovered essentially all of the dirt.
In the case of three of these suspensions, where a known
amount of dirt was suspended in 500 cubic centimeters of
skim milk, advantage was taken of the opportunity to test
the etxent to which it is possible to recover this dirt by
filtration through cotton. In each case the weight of the
cotton filter after filtration and drying was found to be
increased by an amount slightly in excess of the weight of
the dirt added to the milk. Evidently the milk adhering
tenaciously to the cotton more than offset the weight of any
dirt which went into solution or passed through the cotton.
As the technique employed in the case of these 500 cc. sus-
pensions was different from that employed in removing the
dirt from the larger quantities of normal milk, they throw
little light upon the accuracy of the other method except
to suggest that the element of solubility is not large in the
case of the dirt falling into the milk from extremely dirty

Practically all of the dirt entering the milk at the farm
enters during the act of milking.
The use of a small-topped milk pail materially reduces

the amount of dirt entering the milk, the reduction varying
from 25 to 40 per cent.
These studies show that the weight of the dirt entering
the milk during the milking process is surprisingly small.
Even when the cows were extremely dirty and were milked
into an open-topped pail, the dirt in the unstrained milk
amounted to only about 10 mgm. per quart. When the con-
ditions were comparable with those of ordinary dairies and
the small-topped pail was used, the dirt in the milk was
less than 5 mgm. per quart. Under conditions comparable
with the better class of market milk dairies and where the
small-topped pail was used, the proportion of dirt was not
over 2.5 mgm. per quart.
The kinds of dirt falling into the milk vary with the con-
dition of the coat of the cow. With hand milking, the en-
trance of some hair and dandruff is practically unavoid-
able, though the amount may be reduced by regularly
brushing the coat of the cow. If the flank or udder is soiled
with dried manure and other dirt, some of this may find
its way into the milk.
Thorough straining removes the hair, dandruff, and
larger particles, which form 75 to 90 per cent of the visible
Undoubtedly some of the dirt goes into solution in the
milk, but the amount was so slight that we did not succeed
in measuring or even in detecting it.
The increase in the bacterial count due to dirt entering
the milk varies widely with the nature of the dirt. Hair
and dandruff from the farm to the milk plant has an aver-
age bacterial count than dirt from extremely dirty cows.
The germ life on dirt from extremely dirty cows gave
a bacterial count of approximately 1.5 billion per
gram of dirt. Under the worst conditions, when the dirt in
the milk amounted to 10.8 mgm. per quart, the increase in
bacterial count of the milk was about 17,000 per cubic cen-
timeter. Under the same conditions except that the small-
topped pail was used, which reduced the dirt entering the
milk to 8.1 mgm. per quart, the bacterial count due to dirt
fell to 13,000 per cubic centimeter.
Previous studies have shown that in warm weather the
use of clean utensils which have not been promptly and
thoroughly dried results in an immediate increase of the
germ count of the milk varying from 30,000 to 1,000,000
per cubic centimeter. In the summer season the milk drawn

in the morning and delivered from the farm to the milk
plant has an average bacterial count of at least 50,000 per
cubic centimeter. After the first six to ten hours, growth
begins and may rapidly increase the bacterial count.
In view of these facts, it is plain that variations in the
bacterial count as large as 17,000 per cubic centimeter due
to dirt, at least in the summer season, will be promptly
overshadowed by other factors. When the time interval
permits growth, any attempt to judge of the conditions of
cleanliness surrounding the production of a given sample
of milk on the basis of its bacterial count becomes hopeless.
When the results of this study are properly understood,
it will be clear that they can not be used legitimately as an
excuse for the production of dirty milk.
These studies show that where the germ count is relied
upon to protect the consumer against dirty milk, the con-
sumer will not be protected. It is entirely possible for the
dirtiest milk to pass the most stringent standards based
on bacterial counts which have been established in connec-
tion with the supervision of municipal milk supplies.
While it is still an open question as to what may ulti-
mately be accepted as the most satisfactory index for the
keeping quality of milk there is no question but that when
the bacterial count is properly determined it is a serviceable
index for this purpose. It is not, however, an index by
which the presence of dirt can be determined, for the bac-
teria are commonly so numerous in milk and come from so
many sources other than dirt that there is no constant rela-
tion between the dirt content and the number of germs pres-
ent. Such being the case, the conclusive demonstration of
the uselessness of bactrial counts as a means of detecting
the presence of dirt is the necessary first step toward devel-
oping methods for accurately safeguarding the public
against dirty milk.
As has repeatedly pointed out in this publication and in
the report of the Committee of the American Public Health
Association already quoted, if the public is to be protected
against dirty milk it must be, not through attention to bac-
terial counts, but through attention to measurements of the
dirt actually present.
The measurements herein reported are respectfully sub-
mitted as a pioneer attempt looking toward the ultimate
formulation of reasonable and helpful standards for clean


Holsteins of Madison County, Florida.

r?- i



To make a good live stock and dairy country requires a
healthful climate, plenty of pure water, and where can be
cheaply produced an abundant supply of good pasture and
stock feed. I will endeavor to show in this article from
the highest authorities that Florida is peculiarly favored
in these essential requirements, and why the live stock and
dairy interests are nevertheless seriously retarded, if not
actually menaced.


'Another advantage we have in the South,"' says the late
Prof. McQuarrie, assistant superintendent Farmers' Insti-
tute of Florida, "is the climate." We do not have to supply
an extra 25 per cent of feed for eight months of the year to
keep up the natural heat of the animal, as is the case dur-
ing the cold weather that prevails in the Northern states.
Another advantage is freedom from flies and insects of all
kinds. While it may be difficult to believe (by people of
the North), it is nevertheless a fact that in Florida the
flies do not become the pest to cattle that they do in the
Northern states, and it is a rare occurrence to see cattle
tearing around in a half-crazed condition trying to get
away from their tormentors We do not require
the costly and elaborate barns as in the North-
ern states."
President Nielsen of the Florida Dairy Association, in
his annual (1920) address, stated that "our soil and cli-
mate make the intensive plan of farming more economical
as well as profitable. * Our climate allows us to
keep our cows on pasture the year round, and where our
farming is properly planned, there are but few days that
we are not able to have some succulent forage crop to ad-
vantage. That we can produce milk and butter-fat as
economically and profitably as in any of our greater dairy
states has been proven conclusively. * Our natural
advantages are bound to make the dairy business in Florida
one of her greatest industries."


While V. C. Johnson of the dairy association, said: "We
can, right here in Florida, meet any competition from any
section of the country in the matter of cost of production.
Certainly we have many advantages over the producers of
milk in what are usually considered our great and most
favored milk producing sections; for instance, the states
of Wisconsin, Illinois, or New York. We have a far longer,
in fact an endless season in which to produce pastures or
soiling crops for our herds; we have no weather cold
enough to materially affect the comfort or milk production
of our cows, and are practically free from that dread dis-
ease, tuberculosis, which is so prevalent in every dairy state
of the North and much more subtle and difficult of eradi-
cation than the Texas fever tick.'
Dr. Fish, inspector in charge of tuberculosis eradication,
bureau of animal industry, Washington, D. C., reports:
"There are thirty government accredited herds in Florida,
and the State has an excellent chance to become the first
free state in the Union, possibly within the next three years.
An effort is now being made to have Leon county (Florida)
made an accredited county, some 2,000 cattle having been
tested without showing presence of the disease. This is a
most remarkable showing when compared with the preval-
ence of this dread disease, tuberculosis, in every great dairy
state of the North."
Dr. Blackman, of the Florida State Live Stock Associa-
tion, has stated that he believes "that Florida possesses a
number of advantages for the profitable growing of live
stock, greater than those to be found elsewhere; among
these are a mild, equable and healthful climate, compara-
tive freedom from animal diseases, a long grazing season,
vast areas of cheap land, a soil adapted to the growing of
numerous improved grasses and forage crops (especially
such legumes as the velvet bean, cowpea, soy bean, the
vetches, the indigenous beggarweed, the peanut, and cer-
tain clovers), a copious and well distributed rainfall, and
countless springs, streams, and lakes providing almost
everywhere an abundant and unfailing supply of pure

And now let some men of extensive experience and ob-
servation from other states speak: W. N. Waddell, of Fort
Worth, Texas, for four years chairman of the Texas Live

Stock Sanitary Board, having observed conditions in both
Old and New Mexico, thus spoke after his visit here: "The
climate in Florida is temperate and mild, rainfall is regu-
lar and abundant, and, so far as the production of forage
for live stock on the range is concerned, your rainfall and
your soils all seem to combine in favor of the producer of
live stock.
"I think Florida offers the best field for live stock pro-
ductions along improved lines of any state in America.
That is, cattle can be raised here cheaper and with less un-
certainty than any place of which I know."
President Sansom, of the great Cassidy-Southwestern
Commission Company, Fort Worth, Texas, after viewing
Florida, said: "The only trouble you have in Florida
nature has been too good to you. If it had done half as
much for Texas the government officials would not be wor-
rying about the future meat supply of the United States.
* Florida now has a very great advantage over
pioneer Texas. Your luxuriant range grasses
and abundance of stock water are almost unbelievable.
Your range will carry from three to ten times as many
cattle per section as the Texas land in a normal year. Some-
times the rain clouds seem to forget all about Texas for
months at a time, and then our ranges suffer from drouth."'
Another experienced cattle man from Texas, A. C. Wil-
liams, thus wrote for The Cattleman: "Nature has been
very kind to Florida, providing delightful climate, fertile
lands and adequate rainfall for farming purposes; broad
prairies, in some parts of the State; carpeted with succu-
lent grasses and watered by running streams for live stock
raising, timber galore for saw-mills, and countless beauty
spots, beckoning to tourists. But the citizens of Florida
have been slow to take advantage of their opportunities.
Agriculture in many sections has been a neglected art.
Practically all of the foodstuffs, including grain, meat, but-
ter and eggs, have been produced outside of the State."
Mr. Williams did not visit the great agricultural region
of North and West Florida, and there view the fine crops
of corn, velvet beans, stock peas, peanuts, sorghum, Jap-
anese cane, chufas, Japanese Kudzu and good grasses.
He further said: "Among the neglected industries, none
stand out more conspicuously than stock raising. The
native cattle, inbred, stunted specimens of doubtful origin,
have been turned loose on the free range to hustle for

themselves, and little effort has been made in most sections
toward breed improvement. Due to the mild climate, good
range, adequate water supply and absence of screw worms,
coyotes and other pests, they have survived, and with open
range and no expense they have been very profitable.
Florida is so far ahead of Texas in advantages for raising
cattle that there is no comparison.'
And to the Times-Union, nearly four years ago, Caesar
Kleburg of Kingsville, Texas, manager of the "largest
fenced ranch in America, if not in the world," comprising
1,700,000 acres, and having 100,000 head of cattle on the
same, made this statement: "Florida is so far ahead of
Texas in advantages for raising cattle that there is no
comparison. When I see what you have in the way of luxu-
riant grasses, abundant rainfall and ideal climate, I can-
not understand how any cattleman can fail here. You have
a good proposition in this State, and cannot get away from
it, for God gave it to you."


Frank S. Hastings, manager of a 450,000-acre ranch near
Stamford, Texas, after spending several weeks traveling
over Florida and studying conditions, thus wrote: "In a
general way, conditions are very similar in Florida now, to
those of some thirty-five years ago in Texas, at which time
that state was an open range proposition. Today, with
the exception of a very small strip along the gulf coast,
the entire state of Texas is under fence, and in a general
way has been under fence for nearly twenty years.
"Fencing means that an area may be developed to its
capacity. For instance, on your ranges fire kills the varie-
ties of the carpet or blanket grass and kills the little blue
cane as well as a number of other grasses, all of which,
however, come back where an area is protected, and as
they are among your very best feeds, the carrying capacity
of a pasture is materially increased.
"It is a scientific fact that eradication of the tick may
be accomplished by resting a pasture for a certain time.
Fencing means the concentration of that area to the best
bulls, as against not only their mixture with the scrub bulls
on the open range, etc. Fencing means that lands which
are now occupied by some one else without revenue, but
at an expense, may be made to either pay a fair interest

on the investment in land, improvements and cattle; or at
least a rental revenue which will take care of taxes, in-
terest on improvements and become a net economy, as
against the open range. I believe, too, that the principle
will stand that a property defined by fences immediately
takes on increased value. I do not think that in
the whole State of Texas you will find a single land owner
who has fenced his ranches and who does not know that
it has been done at a splendid profit.
"You begin your problem with state-wide eradication
law, which Texas has only had a very short time. Eradi-
cation means larger cattle in better condition on the same
feeds and less mortality. It means that they can go any-
where in America without restriction; or, in other words,
a broader market and no punishment just before shipment.
I do not think that the perpetuity of the tick can be de-
fended from any economic standpoint.
"I thought I knew something of my own country and
something of the possibilities of land available for cattle
production, but seeing your ranges has been a revelation.
In fact, they might be, in a sense, called a hidden country.
Practically every question I have asked about water, has
been covered by the reply, 'water everywhere.' Much of
your area is watered by rivers and lakes, and where good
surface water is not easily available for stock your well
water is easily obtainable. It is my observation that under
proper development of water, a fenced area and proper
subdivision fences permitting the protection of one pasture
for winter purposes, forcing the cattle out in summer upon
areas best adapted to that season, that Florida lands will
carry from two to three times the number of cattle that the
average Texas land does.
"I find, too, that a great deal of the range offers a
splendid hog feed from the cabbage palm, the seed of the
palmetto, and from the mast found. It would
seem, therefore, that an appreciable number of hogs may
be produced without extra cost on most Florida ranges.
"You can make your own posts at a comparatively small
cost and with normal prices for wire, I should say could
construct your fences for three-fourths of what it costs us.
You have no very long drives for your cattle when ship-
ping them, and in the matter of winter help for your cattle
it will cost very little as compared with what we have to
spend in Texas."


Prof. C. V. Piper, agrostologist, bureau of plant indus-
try, United States Department of Agriculture, speaking
before the Florida Live Stock Association, among other
things said: "The ordinary northern or western man, who
is, of course, a superficial observer, has gotten the idea from
the scrub cattle and razorback hogs that he saw, that there
is something in the South that is inimical to good live
stock. Usually he has decided it is the climate. Fortun-
ately we know from the work of every Southern experi-
ment station, as well as a few good live stock ranches, that
the South can raise just as good cattle and hogs as the
North. It isn't a matter of climate at all, but purely one
of breed and feed."
From statistical information it is computed that there is
brought into the State an average of about thirty million
dollars from the sale of citrus and other fruits, and about
fifteen million dollars from the sale of the vegetable crop,
while there is paid out for meat and dairy products im-
ported, about forty-five million dollars. And yet Florida
could well produce all of this meat and dairy products,
with millions more for the market, since it is one of the
largest states east of the Mississippi river, with an area of
54,240 square miles, or more than thirty-five million acres,
as compared with 56,650 square miles and thirty-six million
acres of Illinois, and 58,900 square miles and thirty-seven
million acres of Georgia, while out of Florida's vast domain
there are less than 5 per cent in cultivation. There are
now thousands of acres of cut-over timber land with abund-
ance of shade, water and native grasses, from which much
pasturage might be obtained, while part of it was being
placed in cultivation, or developed into pastures of car-
pet, Bermuda, Napier and other grasses.


The United States Department of Agriculture estimates
that a Texas cattle fever tick lays 3,000 to 5,000 eggs per
season, that an average of 200 pounds of blood is sucked
from a 1,000-pound steer in the same time, while the milk
production of the cow is reduced from 18 to 42 per cent.
thus offsetting much of the benefit that might have been
obtained from each pound of hay, pasture and concentrates,


so that these worthless ticks are costing the South alone
a loss of at least fifty million dollars annually.
And that's what's the matter with Florida's cattle in-
dustry! It is cursed by the cattle tick!
Throughout the State there are thousands of head of tick
infested, inbred, scrub cattle, that roam at will over the
"free range," (everybody's land), sometimes even fatten-
ing at certain seasons when the native pasture is the most
nutritious, and at other seasons nearly starving when the
grass has lost its nourishment, and the ticks have sucked
their best blood away. These tick-infested, wild range cat-
tle have usually cost the owner little or nothing for feed,
pasture, water and care. All that die may be considered
an unreckoned loss, and all that are sold as almost that
much clear gain. Hence it is plain why the owners of free
range cattle have made thousands of dollars out of the
business. Is it any wonder that they fight for this free
range and oppose cattle dipping, and the fencing and de-
veloping of the "wild lands?" It is said that these men
and their friends controlled sufficient votes in the recent
legislature to defeat the no-fence law, state-wide dipping
and, worse than all, the appropriation of sufficient funds
to properly maintain the work of the State Live Stock San-
itary Board in its fight against the Texas fever tick and
the diseases of animals. It is the same old fight as fought
out in state after state by men selfishly wanting to con-
tinue their business of growing their cattle on the lands of
the other fellow, in opposition to the actual settlers who
may wish to develop it into farms, gardens, groves, or
pastures for their own stock. "Whom the gods would de-
stroy they first make mad." Slavery when apparently the
strongest was nearest its end. So with the owners and
friends of these herds of tick-infested, free range, scrub
cattle. For while apparently victors in their recent legis-
lative battle, they now find themselves vanquished, with a
quarantine on every side, except the one doubtful market
of Cuba. And it is reported, that even some of the home
packing plants may close their doors against them. It may
happen that the owners of these ticky cattle may glady dip
them and make them tick-f ree in order to place them on the
Mr. Neilsen. president of the Florida Dairy Association,
stated in his last annual address: "To my mind the great-
est and most serious menace we have in Florida today is

the successful and rapid development of the dairy industry,
is the Texas fever cattle tick. This pest is ever taking its
toll in the decreased milk flow due to his blood-sucking
habits, and thereby making the cost of producing milk
where he reigns from 40 to 60 per cent greater than where
tick-free conditions prevail. The eradication of the Texas
fever tick is the one great work that we, as an association
of dairymen, should make every effort to bring to a suc-
cessful issue."
At the same meeting, spoke Mr. Mahood, another dairy-
man: "There are, however, a few things we will have to
overcome before we make a success as a dairy state, first
and foremost is tick, tick, tick. That is our biggest handi-
cap toward stock improvement in the majority of the
The manager of the great Armour & Company packing
house, has thus written me: "In regard to the cattle busi-
ness, as a whole, as we see it, the two great drawbacks in
Florida are the natural pasturage and the tick. The fact
that the wire grass does not contain sufficient nutriment
is undoubtedly responsible for the inferior Florida range
cattle. The tick, until he is eliminated, will prevent the
breeding-up of these cattle with any degree of success, as
the well-bred bull, not being acclimated, will not thrive
on wire grass and ticks. In our opinion the answer is, the
elimination of the tick by the most effective means, and
good grass pasturage. The experiments that have been
made clearly demonstrate there are a number of good
grasses adaptable to Florida, and the sooner these pastures
are made and fenced, and the tick eliminated, the sooner
we will have good beef in this section. We believe good
cattle can be raised much more cheaply here than in other
"The same applies to hogs. Housing requirements are
almost nil, and the climate is adaptable for green grazing
crops the year round for both hogs and cattle, and with
these crops rotating, supplemented with a little solid food,
there is no reason why good live stock, both hogs and cat-
tle, cannot be produced in this section on a profitable basis,
and I think the time will come when we will see these con-


When Oklahoma was opened for settlement, the cattle
men there were compelled to rush their cattle into Kansas,
where I then resided, to find pasture for them. There were
thousands of acres in parts of southern Kansas of hilly,
broken, Flint Hill land, sometimes partly covered with a
growth of wild blue-stem grass. These lands were con-
sidered poorly adapted for agricultural purposes and of
little value. But with the demand of the Oklahoma and
Texas live stock men for pasture, thousands of acres of
these very cheap lands were fenced, water provided from
springs and wells, rock salt scattered, and the farmer and
his boys received and watched the long-horned wild cattle
from April to October for $1.50 per head for the season.
Subsequently these prices nearly doubled. Besides, the
Kansas farmer found a ready home market for his surplus
corn, hay and alfalfa, for full feeding this stock at the end
of the pasture season. Consequently, these cheap Flint
Hill pasture lands of Kansas grew into good value just the
same as these lands of Florida may.
Mr. Waddell, chairman of State Live Stock Sanitary
Commission of Texas, previously quoted, wrote: "There
was never any marked development or improvement in the
live stock industry in the State of Texas as long as the
cattle ranged on the free grass, but in 1884 the legislature
passed what was known as a lease law. Then it was that
the fencing of the State of Texas began in earnest. No
man was willing to pay a lease on land and let somebody
else's-cattle graze on it. And that is the first step to be
taken in the evolution of better cattle in Florida. The land
owners should fence up their lands, cut them up in pastures
to suit the men who want to run their cattle on them,
making the lands of Florida revenue-producing, instead of
being a liability, and put the cattle of Florida under fence
and under control in order that better cattle and more
cattle may be raised. Let the people, not only of Florida,
but the people outside of the state, know that they can come
to Florida and at a small rental cost lease as many acres
of good grazing land as they have money to get cattle with
which to stock it, assuring the prospective lessee that they
will fence the land according to his desires, build him a
ranch house, fence him a pasture for his saddle horses,
build him dipping vats, and furnish plenty of water for

the live stock. For all of this the owner of the land will
be paid a rental for the pasturing of the live stock and the
lands will consequently grow into real value." Here is a
practical way for the extermination of the Texas fever cat-
tle tick and the wild, worthless, tick-infested Florida scrub


Hundreds of head of high grade cattle and hogs are be-
ing grown in various parts of the State, with fenced past-
ures, dipping vats and home-grown feed and pastures.
Near Jacksonville, Tampa, Miami, Pensacola, Orlando,
Tallahassee. etc., great advancement has been made in the
dairy business during the past five years. At Orlando,
'V. M. Gerard started four years ago on 171 acres of unim-
proved land, where lie has expended nearly $200,000 with
fine home and first class dairy equipment and 100 select
dairy cows, and is planning to grow all of his own feed and
forage. Other progressive dairymen near Orlando are
Messrs. Brown, Datson, Wadsworth, Hoskinson, McGruder
and Smith, said to be not far behind Gerard.
There are some forty dairies near Miami, some of them
well equipped, perhaps the one costing up into the thou-
sands being that of Mr. Minott, formerly of Iowa. At
Tallahassee they have a dairy association of ninety-four
members that are milking and shipping thousands of gal-
lons of milk by special express car to Jacksonville. This
association has a subscribed and paid-up fund of $25,000
for the erection and development of a factory for the mak-
ing of butter, cheese and ice cream. At Marianna, Jackson
county, a factory of the same kind has been established.
Washington county established a first class packing plant,
where thousands of pounds of meat has been prepared for
market, while at Jacksonville has been built the great
Armour & Company packing plant, at an estimated cost
of one million dollar's. Suwannee county has built one
packing plant and is preparing to erect the second at a
combined cost of $90.000. Th is county shipped nearly half
a million dollars' worth of hogs. besides selling $50,000
worth to home markets, and retaining a supply for home
use. Then there is the Curtiss-Bright ranch near Miami, of
11,000 acres with 3,000 acres in pasture, and 300 choice
Holstein cows, and pure bred Duroc hogs, and several hun-

dred sheep. Concerning the opportunity in Florida Mr.
Bright says: "When I state that live stock can be grown
and brought to maturity here at a much less cost than in
northern and western climates, I am stating a fact which
I have proven to be true, having tried out stock growing
here and in Missouri. It is also true that milk can be pro-
duced here at less cost than in the colder climates, pro-
vided the dairyman produces the feed for his cows on his
own place. Six years ago there were no grasses grown
here, very little other forage plants, and when I look at
our 3,000 acres in grasses and forage plants producing a
greater amount of feed to the acre than in any other por-
tion of the country, I feel that I am justified in taking a
very roseate view of the future."


Armour & Company claim to pay as much for cattle and
hogs, "quality considered," "as do any markets in the
country." Evidently when better quality of cattle and
hogs are grown, better prices will prevail. Now it is said
of hogs, "95 per cent of them are soft and oily," and the
finished cuts have to be marketed at a discount of 2 cents
to 5 cents per pound under the corresponding cuts shipped
in here from the northern corn fed hog." But when Flor-
ida produces tick-free cattle and good hogs, each of the
same high grade and quality as produced elsewhere, evi-
dently the same prices will be obtained.
"It cost an average of 78 cents per 100 pounds," it is
estimated, from points in the middle West to the Atlantic
Seaboard, as compared with only 22 cents per 100 pounds
from Florida via steamship on her all water route. Even
if this great advantage of freight rates cannot be main-
tained there is the cheaper production, and the remarkable
ever-growing tourist trade market, to be supplied. There-
fore, the elimination of the free range and the accursed
Texas fever cattle tick followed by the development of the
wild lands into real farms, with good pastures and stock
feed and pure breeds of live stock, aided by the wonderful
advantages of a mild and healthful climate and with pure
water and ever-growing pastures, will certainly provide the
way to make of Florida one of the greatest live stock states
of the Union.

'! ^fr

Dairy Barn in Marion County.


Supt. State Farm, Raiford, Florida
(In Florida Grower)

I will take up the subject of pastures first, inasmuch as
it is of vital importance in connection with the dairy indus-
try. Without providing good pasturage for the dairy herd
(this of course includes soiling crops), which will be a de-
pendable source of green forage, throughout each month of
the year, (unless you have sufficient ensillage to feed your
dairy herd twice daily, or 50 to 60 pounds per cow), I do
not see how dairying can be carried on successfully.
In this state we are fortunate enough to have a climate
that will enable us to grow green forage the entire year
around. Putting this against the north's bare seven months
it would seem that we are very much favored, and there
is no doubt but that we are. It only remains for us to take
advantage of our great opportunity; but being favored as
we are in many ways, many of us are unwilling to make the
effort which would lead to success with our dairies. Of
course you may be pluging along and making both ends
meet possibly, but the kind of success I mean is not only
paying your bills and your way, but by getting better
cattle, cultivating more land, growing more feed, improving
your farms and bringing them up to a higher state of fer-
tility and productiveness as well as your dairy cows, that's
what we should aim to do.
If you always intend to run your dairy herd in the woods
you need never expect to make very much of a success.
Well bred dairy cattle, or any other kind, will not bring
you much of a return on this sort of a pasture. The aver-
age dairy cow wastes more energy in foraging on woods
pasture than she obtains in pursuit of it, besides it ruins
her digestion, to fill her up with the coarse and tough
natural grasses of the woods. Of course there are excep-
tions as to the locality, but I am speaking of the general
run of natural woods pastures. My experience is, that
they will not keep yearling heifers in even a fair condition,
let alone a good dairy cow. There is a short time in the
early spring, before the grass becomes toughened, that
young stock will do real well on it, but it doesn't last long,
and if you want to grow out your young cattle and make

future dairy cows that will be worth while, you will not
turn your young stock loose on this sort of pasture, to sink
or swim. It is in your young cattle that the hope of success
lies, and they cannot be given too much care.
The great question before us today is, what shall we do
to feed our stock to the best advantage? I shall not mis-
lead you to think that I am able to solve this question for
all, or any of you; I am simply giving my opinion as based
upon the short experience of two years which I have spent
in Florida.
I am supposing that most of you have a reasonable size
farm. Some of you have a large acreage. I would say that
the main issue with the dairy farmer, is to raise sufficient
succulent feed to supply his dairy herd. It may not be
feasible for some to plant permanent pastures, your farm
may be too small, or your land too good, and might better
be planted to soilage crops, which you cut daily and feed
your cows in troughs in a lot of sufficient size as to give
them ample room to feed and exercise. As a matter of fact,
it is better to cut your farm up into small fields and keep
moving your feeding operations from one to the other,
plowing up the one you have sufficiently trampled and fer-
tilized and putting in some forage crop. However, if you
have the land available, whether it's poor, low, or stumpy
and rough, it should be your greatest endeavor to get it
broken, the tough native grasses turned under for humus,
and after it becomes adapted through disking and working,
then set it out to one or more of the suitable grasses which
we have. It is true there are several good pasture grasses
in Florida. The best known is the Bermuda grass. It
seems to thrive anywhere, but of course the better the con-
ditions the better the growth. Bermuda will grow right
through the hot summer and is always good grazing. If
you once get a good stand, you can hardly destroy it. It
thrives very well, too, on low land. The cold weather dead-
ens the tops for a while, but it will put out early in the
spring and be thicker and better than ever.
There is another grass however, which I believe is far
superior to the Bermuda. That is joint grass. This may
be known in some sections by a different name. I have
heard some call it cane grass, not meaning maiden cane.
Its habits are a great deal like the Bermuda, in that its
runners lie very close to the ground. It has short joints
from which it sends out roots below and shoots above from

6 to 18 inches high. It is much more succulent and tender
than Bermuda, its shoots or stalks are about the thickness
of good oat straw, and it is a most prolific grower. After it
once gets a firm hold in a field it is hard to destroy it en-
tirely, but crops may be grown right through it, such as
corn or sorghum. The only thing, after your corn is pulled
and you are ready to turn your cows in upon the field for
pasture, instead of almost dead crab and other grasses, you
will find the joint grass has been busy since you laid by the
crop, and you will have a valuable stand of green and ten-
der forage which will afford an excellent pasture for some
time and which stays green all winter except in very severe
weather, when the tops of the shoots die down, only to
recover very quickly. It is particularly adapted to low
land. (In writing of this grass I am giving chiefly the
experience of Mr. Joel Griffith, who has farmed near Sapp
Station for a long time; in fact he was born on this farm
58 years ago and has resided there all his life.)
In South Florida you have the Para grass, which no
doubt is superior to any where the soil and climate are
favorable. I do not know how this grass would thrive in
the flat woods country of the north central section. There
is no question in my mind but that we can have plenty of
pasture the whole year around, if we will only manage
rightly. About this time, or a little later, most of you have
bean fields to turn your cattle in upon. From my observa-
tion I would say you hold your cattle off too long, just for
the sake of maturing all the beans. Mostly the vines are
dead and most of the grasses. You have a tendency to
hold them back for winter grazing. Would it not be better
to turn them in just as soon as you can get your corn off,
while the vines are yet green and the beans are not so tough,
and just as soon as they have one field eaten out pretty well,
disk it, plow it and plant your winter pasture ? You should
have something in by the end of September. and continue
to plant as many of your fields as you are able. For winter
pastures there are a host of things that will make good,
such as oats, rye, barley, vetch and others. All do well
sown in broad-cast drills unless your land is low. It would
be better in this case to ridge up and sow in close rows, say
three feet apart. This gives room for light cultivation, and
the cattle will not trample so much under foot in grazing,
but as a rule, walk in the middles, nibbling as they go. For
small patches and lots which have received heavier supplies

of animal fertilizer, there is nothing you can plant which
will turn out more winter forage than Dwarf Essex Rape.
It will show up in the milk pail as nothing else in that line.
This may be sown along in late September and will be ready
to graze by December first or before. The stock will eat the
leaves off the stalk, which will put out again and again.
Rape may be sown any time up until hot weather.
Another article of feed to sow in your better lots in the
fall and winter, is rutabagas. They are a little slow to get
started, but by having them grown and ready to pull late
in the spring they will hold the dairy cow up to her full
In the early spring, just as soon as the possibility of a
frost is over, one of the best crops for early pasture, soiling,
or for ensilage, is pearl or cattail millet. It should be sown
in drills about three or three and one-half feet apart. It is
a very rapid grower and may be pastured when it reaches
12 to 18 inches in height, or cut for soiling as may be pre-
ferred. It grows, if allowed to mature, from 10 to 12 feet
in height and will produce upward of ten tons to the acre.
The stalk is always tender and succulent. If cut before it
gets too tall or shoots its head, it will stool out again and
again. Cattail millet may be grown right through the hot-
test weather. The state farm has a section of a large field
just maturing. Our dairy cows did very well on this crop.
There are many volunteer grasses which make good pas-
turage during the summer, such as crab grass, carpet grass,
and others. Beggarweed is hard to beat either as pasture
or hay, it being of the legume family. However, there are
times when our crops run short between seasons if we have
not planned carefully, and it is then that the Bermuda or
joint grass pasture would become a great asset.
Almost if not quite of equal importance is the silo, pro-
viding you have ample crops with which to fill.it. One feed
of ensillage in the evening 365 days in the year, should be
the aim of every dairyman. It is not only economical and
beneficial in so far as the food value is concerned, but the
cow, like every other creature, should have ample time to
lie down and rest and chew her cud to her heart's content.
If after your evening's milking is finished and the cows
have received their usual grain ration, you turn them out
again in order that they might graze half the night to
satisfy their appetites, it is in my opinion a very poor pol-
icy. How much better will a cow do if she may go out of

your milking barn, into a large feed lot where in one hour's
time or a little more, she can fill herself up with good well-
kept ensillage and satisfy her thirst with pure and cool
running water, after which she will pick out a suitable
place and lie down for the night? And, even though her
internal machinery may be running at full blast, her ex-
terior portions are resting and gaining strength for the
morrow's work.
I do not mean to touch on the silo particularly, but where
is a better way to preserve every ounce of your crop than
by putting it into a good silo ? More live stock may be
carried on a given acreage when crops are fed in the form
of silage. It insures the utilization of practically the whole
corn or sorghum plant. It preserves the succulence of the
plant and has a beneficial effect upon the digestive organs.
In summing up on the pasture situation, I am quit" con-
vinced that the best method for those who have a limited
acreage, is to put every foot of it in silage crops, and if
possible feed ensilage twice a day during the entire season,
providing shelter and shade for the cattle to rest in during
the day, with access to fresh, cool water.
Now as to the dairy industry in Florida, I would say it
really hasn't started. Our present dairy production is not
a drop in the bucket compared to the amount imported into
the state. We are told that upwards of $20,000,000 worth
of dairy products were shipped in the state last year. Our
market here at home is the best in the country and will be
for a long time to come, as the population of the state in-
creases faster than the dairies. We need have no fear of
overcrowding for years and years to come. Take the State
of Wisconsin with all its fine herds of cattle, still increas-
ing, still clearing more land and making it into productive
dairy farms. They have 2,752 cheese factories, 762 cream-
eries, and 67 condenseries in the state. How many have
we in Florida? From the manufacturing records which I
have received from the Commissioner of Agriculture, I fail
to find that we have a single cheese factory or condensery,
and but a very few creameries which manufacture butter
for the markets. Surely the opportunities for commercial
dairies in the state are without limit.
There are, however, a few things we will have to over-
come before we make a success as a dairy state. First and
foremost is the tick, T-I-C-K, tick. That is our biggest
handicap toward stock improvement in the majority of

counties. Progress is being made in some counties, but un-
less compulsory dipping becomes a law, it will not be pos-
sible to clean up the tick entirely. I believe the "No-Fence"
law would be a solution to the whole situation. Just as
soon as we get rid of the "horns and hides" that roam up
and down our highways and lanes and wind up the day by
bedding down on front walks, then and only then will the
tick see the ''setting of his little sun', and we will be free
to ship in better cattle for both dairy and beef purposes,
and start something going in this great state. Those who
have fought the good fight and are established here, will
then be in an excellent position to reap the benefits.
But while we are still handicapped with the tick and all
that goes with it, we have great opportunities now for big-
ger and better business. The first move in this direction is
to improve your herd. If you cannot afford to take the
risk of shipping in purebred cows, or further, do not par-
ticularly care for a purebred dairy, there surely is no rea-
son why you cannot build up your grade herds, and no sire
is too good even to breed cows when we are looking to im-
provement. I firmly believe we can raise just as high class
of cattle, whether purebred or grade, as in any other state,
and whether or not we are raising purebred stock to supply
a cattle market, or are simply selling their product, there
are many points in favor of the purebred cow. Would not
your advertisement reading, "pure, clean milk and cream,
from a purebred, accredited, and tick free herd, appeal
more to the consumer than just plain milk from plain cows
In making a comparison of purebred and grade cattle, for
an example we have at the State Farm, a cow known as
No. 27, "Alice, breeding unknown. "Alice" is a remark-
able cow both as to looks and performance. No doubt she
has some very good blood in her, but no one seems to know
about her, except that she has been in the herd a long time.
She freshened last, on November 10th, 1919, and receiving
exactly the same treatment as the other cows in the herd,
which at times during this period has been none too good.
Up until September 10th. 1920, milking 10 months, twice
daily, she has given 8514.2 pounds of milk, yielding 428.89
pounds of butter fat, or 504.49 pounds of 85% butter. At
the present rate she is milking, by October 9th, making 365
days, she should have to her credit 9500 pounds of milk,
480 pounds of butterfat or 565 pounds of 85% butter, and
will have carried a calf 224 days of this period. The point

I wish to bring out is, what would she have been worth were
she a purebred ? I say have been, as she is just a little past
her prime now. The unfortunate part of it all is, that
"Alice" has a mania for having bull calves. She has not
been known to have a heifer calf.
Just while I am telling you of this cow I wart to say she
is not the only good thing we have at the State Farm. To
those of you who have never visited the state's penal insti-
tution, I wish to say it will be well worth your while to
spend a day with us, and I am sure you will be just as
proud of it when you come away, as we who are employed
there. I know many of you have a feeling of repulsion
about prisons and penitentiaries. Possibly that's why it
keeps so many of us straight, but I want to tell you this
prison is in the new order of things. It's gotten beyond
the days of shackles, armed guards and brutal whippings.
We have the "honor system" in control. All told there are
but eight free people on the whole 18,000 acres which com-
prises the farm property. These include the superinten-
dent, his assistant, who is also the agriculturist, and the
heads of some of the departments.
But to return to the subject of the dairy industry, there
is one point still which is a volume in itself, and I shall
touch upon it very little-Feeding the Dairy Cow. Econ-
omy must be practiced during these times of extreme high
prices, and we cannot give this matter too much thought or
study. It has been hard to wrestle with this item of expense
for some time. When wheat bran jumped to $72.00 per ton
it set some of us scratching our heads, for with the majority
of dairymen, wheat bran comprises the bulk of our ration.
Other concentrates higher in protein are added to bring
the analysis up to the required ratio. However, the feed
situation has cleared up considerably the past month; but
even as it was, we had the satisfaction of knowing we were
beating the northern dairymen in buying cottonseed meal,
peanut meal and velvet bean meal, they being the product
of our own state.
In summing up, there are a few points we shall have to
reach, if we expect to make a success of dairy farming,
viz. :
First. Better cattle. A purebred sire, if not the whole
Second. Silos of sufficient capacity, and crops to carry
us through the season without stint.


Third. Better pastures of cultivated grasses and green
forage the whole 12 months through.
Fourth. A knowledge of how and what to feed to obtain
the dairy herd's full cooperation.
Fifth. Sanitary conditions to govern the method of
obtaining and handling dairy products.
Sixth. Proper housing and care of the herd in general,
especially the calves and young stock.

Napier Grass-Loring Brownb Orlando, Florida.


Most of the Failures of Live-Stock Husbandry in the
South Have Been Due to the Fact That the Farmers
Bought the Stock Before Getting the Feed Ready


The question of the introduction of more and better live-
stock of all kinds into the South is worthy of the careful
and thoughtful attention of every one of our Southern
farmers. Many of the farmers labor under the impression
that the proper way to start into the livestock business is
first, to decide on the kind of breed of livestock best suited
to their farm and conditions and then get the stock.


But the man who has never maintained stock upon the
farm is usually not equipped with fences and pastures, and
this kind of farmer cannot be impressed too strongly with
the thought that pastures come before livestock, and that
pastures are essential to profitable live stock production.
The farmer who has good pastures soon learns that they
have saved from 50 to 75 per cent of the high-priced grains.


For instance, a dry 300-pound sow requires about six
pounds of grain daily to maintain her weight when she has
no pasture, but when she is given the run of a good Ber-
muda lot no more than two pounds of grain is required
each day. When the writer was at the Alabama Experi-
ment Station, hogs were fattened on peanut pastures at
a cost of less than three cents a pound, while similar hogs
which were being fattened on corn in a dry lot were fin-
ished at a cost of 91/2 cents a pound. A third bunch of
hogs were fattened during the winter months on rape
pasture, corn and shorts at a cost of four cents a pound,
but when a similar bunch was fattened in a dry lot on corn
and shorts the expense was raised to 6.9 cents a pound.
Steers, sheep, horses and all young animals make the
cheap and economical growth during the pasture season;
the longer the pasture season the cheaper animals can be

produced. When a steer is fattened during the winter
months on dry feed it costs from eight to twelve cents to
put on each pound of fat; these same gains can be made
during the pasture season at a cost of not more than three
to four cents a pound. These figures all emphasize the im-
portance of having good pastures and having them extend
over as many months of the year as possible, as the animals
all make their cheap gains during the pasture season and
their expensive gains during the dry lot no-pasture season.


Bureau of Markets and Crop Estimates-Division of
Agricultural Statistics and Prices-Office of
Agricultural Statistician

Gainesville, Florida, February 20, 1922.


Values of farm animals show a heavy depreciation dur-
ing the past two years.
For Florida a drop of more than eighteen million dollars,
amounting to a thirty-five percent reduction from January,
1920, values, has taken place.
The total value of all farm animals on January 1, 1920,
was $52,013,000, a year later, $42,591,000 and on January
1, 1922, $33,785,000.
Numbers of horses, cattle and swine have decreased dur-
ing the two-year period; mules and sheep have remained
practically the same, and milk cows show an increase.
Very similar conditions exist over the United States, with
a drop of more than forty-one percent in total value of farm
animals during this period.
Revised estimates of numbers and values for the past
three years are as follows for both Florida and the United



Date Number
Head Total

Horses ........

Mules .........

Milk Cows ....

Other Cattle ...

Sheep .........

Swine .........






38,000 $115.00
38,0001 123.00
39,000 140.00

42,0001 148.00
42,0001 167.00
42,0001 197.00

95,0001 57.501
90,0001 74.001
90,000 72.001

774,000 16.10
766,0001 21.701
790,0001 27.401
65,0001 3.101
63,0001 3.501
65,0001 5.201

725,0001 7.00
740,0001 10.001
755,0001 13.001









Date Number
Head Total

Horses ........ 1922 19,099,0001$ 70.481$1,346,154,000

M ules .........

Milk Cows ....

Other Cattle ...

Sheep .........

Swine ......... I









1 I



84.311 1,619,423,000
96.511 1,907,646,000
88.261 479,806,000
116.691 636,568,000
148.421 805,495,000

50.971 1,224,767,000
64.22 1,515,249,000
85.86 2,036,750,000

23.781 982,666,000
31.361 1,316,727,000
43.211 1,875,043,000

4.80| 173,159,000
6.301 235,855,000
10.471 408,586,000

10.061 573,405,000
12.971 727,380,000
19.071 1,131,674,000

Agricultural Statistician.


The following table, taken from the foreign crop and
live stock reports of the Bureau of Markets and Crop Esti-
mates, shows that the world's supply of cattle has changed
little as compared with the pre-war period. Complete esti-
mates were not given for Bulgaria, Czecho-Slovakia, Russia,
Poland and Serbia, and these countries, therefore, have
been omitted from the table.

Pre-War Estimate Recent Estimate

Leading Cattle
Producing Countries
I Date Number Date Number

(000) (000)
omitted omitted
United States .......... Jan. 1, '14 56,592 Jan. 1, '21 66,191
Canada ................ June 80, '13 6,656 '21 10,206
Argentina ......... .... Dec. 31, '13 30,796 Dec. 31, '20 27,000
Brazil ................. '12 '13 30,705 '18 37,500
Paraguay ...... ... '13 4,572 Dec. 31, '18' 5,500
Uruguay ............... ''0S 8,193 April 20. '161 7,803
Australia Dec. 31, '13 11,484 Dec. 31, '19 12,711
New Zealand april '11| 2,0201 '21 3,113
1 Total Total
Other Countries Pre-War 151.018 Post-War 170,024
Chile ................... '13 2,084 '19 2,163
Ven zuiela................D '12 2,004 '20 2,238
Austria ................ Dec. 31, '10 t 9,159 '18 1,633
Hungry ............... April 30, '13 6,045 '18 4,446
Belgium ............... Dec. 31, '13 1,849 '20 1,292
Denmark .............. July 15, '14 2,463 July 15, '21 2,591
Finland ................ '13 n 1.178 Maay 30. '18 1,400
France . . ....... IDec. 31, '13 14,807 Dec. 31, '20 13,217
Germany ... ....... Dec. 1, '13 20,994 Dec. 1, '20 16,7)0
Greece ................. '14 300 '18 527
Italy ................. . '14 6,646 April 6, '18 t 6,264
Netherlands ............ June '13 2,097 March '19 1,969
Norway ................ Sept. 30, '10 1,134 June 30, '18 P 1,038
ioumania .............. 'll ft 2,667 '19 t 4,664
Portugal ............... Oct. '06 703 March '20 741
Spain ................ '1 2,879 '21 3,718
Sweden ....... .. Dec. 31, '13 2,721 June 1, '19 2,551
Switzerland .. ... April 21, '11 1,433 '21 1,425
United Kingdom ........ '13 11,937 June 4, '21 11,854
British India ........... '13 '14 124.965 '19 '20 117,428
Japan ... ....... Dec. 31, '18 1,389 Dec. 31, '18 1,307
Chosen ............ De. 31, '13 1,211 Dec. 31, '18 1,480
Formosa ............... Dec. 31, '13t 419 Dec. 31, '18 t 385
Madagascar ......'14 5,885 Dec. 31, '19 7,27
Union of South Africa... Dee. 31, '11 5,797 '20 1 5.975
IGrand Total | Grand Total
I PreWar 383,784( Post-War 384,398
*Unofficial estimate.
tBuffaloes included.
$Old boundaries.
DExclusive of animals under 2 years.
'Alsace-Lorraine included with France in 1920 and with Germany in
EExclusive of native locations, reserves, etc.

In the United States the total number of Milk Cows is
24,028,000, which is a 2 per cent. increase over last year
and a 1 per cent. increase over 1920.
In the United States there was a 11/2 per cent. decline
in other cattle from last year and a 5 per cent. decline from
the number two years ago.
Sheep in the United States show a decline from 39,025,-
000 in 1920 to 36,048,000 in 1922.
The number of horses in the United States is reported at
19,099,000 which is 700,000 less than two years ago.


Some Suggestions for the Production of Clean Wholesome

1. Handle milk so as to keep out all dirt.
2. Keep cows clean and free of dirt, before milking use
a damp brush or cloth.
3. Use milk pail with small top to keep out all dirt
4. Always keep milk cans covered.
5. The milker should be free from infectious or con-
tagious disease and clean.
6. All cows should be tuberculin tested.
7. The milk house should be fly proof, water tight, floor
kept white-washed, and located at least 100 feet from
manure piles.
8. All milk should be cooled as fast as drawn. This
prevents milk becoming sour.
9. All milk utensils should be thoroughly cleaned im-
mediately after use, submerge in boiling water or better if
possible steamed.
10. Barn should be kept clean at all times and fre-
quently disinfected.



Farmers wish to know what is the "best" dairy ration.
The answer must always be in terms of the conditions exist-
ing on each man's farm. On the average farm that ration
may be classed as the "best" which will return the great-
est production at the least cost.
In formulating an ideal ration, these six factors may be
regarded as essential: 1 Balance of nutrients. 2 Succu-
lence. 3 Palatability. 4 Variety. 5 Bulk. 6 Economy.
Balance of nutrients to keep cows at their maximum pro-
duction, means one pound of digestible protein for each
41/ to 7 pounds of digestible carbohydrates and fat accord-
ing to the cow's rate of production.
A succulent feed when given with other roughages and
grains renders them more palatable and aids in their
digestion. When good pastures are not available corn
silage is the cheapest succulent feed that can be given.
Beet pulp and linseed oil meal, also, have somewhat the
same qualities.
Palatability is most important as it is essential that a
cow's feed appeal to her appetite. Make the feed palatable
by keeping the mangers clean and by feeding three or
more different grains.
Variety. While for low producing cows a variety of
feeds is not so essential, maximum production cannot be
obtained without at least three grains in the mixture and
four plants should usually be represented in the entire
ration including both roughage and grain feeds.
Bulk is necessary because the cow's stomach its essen-
tially adapted to handle bulky feeds. A ration deficient
in roughage does not seem to satisfy the cow, regardless of
the amount of grain feed she receives. A good rule to fol-
low is to feed, daily, one pound of dried roughage and
three pounds of succulent roughage for each one-hundred
pounds live weight.
Economy. Home grown feeds usually furnish nutrients
most cheaply. Every dairyman should grow all the feed
possible and, when necessary to purchase feed stuffs, select
those which furnish nutrients most economically.
One of the principles that should be observed in mix-
ing grains is that light grains should be mixed with heavy


ones to aid in the more readily assimilation of the latter.
Heating feeds such as cotton seed meal, gluten and corn
should be combined with cooling feeds such as bran, ground
oats or linseed oil meal. There should also be a sufficient
amount of mineral matter. This is usually supplied when
three or more grains are used, especially if a leguminous
hay such as alfalfa is also used. Bearing these points in
mind the following ration is suggested as approaching the
Corl silage: 3 lbs. for each 100 lbs. live weight.
Alfalfa hay: 1 lb. for each 100 lbs. live weight.
Grain mixture: 400 lbs. ground corn, 200 lbs. ground
oats, 200 lbs. wheat bran, 100 lbs. cottonseed meal, 100 lbs.
linseed oil meal. Feed daily 1 lb. for each three to four
lbs. of milk produced according to richness. Also make any
slight variations that may appeal to the appetite of the
individual cow.


Little do we realize the debt we owe the cow. Crops may
fail and pastures turn brown, but from what is left, the
cow manufactures milk and butter for the home. She is a
faithful servant. She pays our debts, and saves the home.


1. She produces the most and best food at least cost.
2. She brings in a steady income.
3. Converts cheap rufage into profit.
4. Makes the farm worth more.
5. Builds big red barns.
6. Means living on the farm.
Means rich prosperous communities.
Listen to the performance of Lady Oaks, a cow owned
by the Dairy Division of the Minnesota Experiment Sta-
tion: She produced in one year, 993 lbs. of butter fat,
631 lbs. of protein and 1,052 lbs. of carbohydrates. This
product is equal to 266 calves weighing 125 lbs. each, or
142 calves weighing 200 lbs. each; 28 yearlings weighing
500 lbs. each, or 5 steers weighing 1,100 lbs. each. One
day's production of milk was equal in food value to the

University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs