are all scattered through milk in enormous numbers. Now when rennet causes the casein throughout the whole mass of milk to solidify or coagulate, the fat globules are retained or imprisoned in the solidified mass just where they were at the instant coagulation took place. When the curd knife passes through the mass, immense numbers of the minute fat globules are exposed on every cut surface, and numbers of these fall into the whey and are not retained in the cheese. The more finely we cut the curd and the more violently we handle the cut pieces of curd, the larger will be the number of fat globules that go into the whey.

In regard to the loss of casein, the larger portion of loss appears to be in the form of fine particles of coagulated casein, which pass through the strainer, when the whey is drawn from the curd. These minute particles can readily be seen by letting a pail of freshly drawn whey stand until the casein settles, and then pouring off the whey, when a noticeable quantity of finely divided casein can be seen at the bottom of the pail. This passage of casein into the whey is not entirely avoidable, but may be needlessly made greater by carelessness or violence in cutting the curd and in subsequent handling, by agitation while drawing off the whey, and by imperfect strainers. The amount of casein that thus passes into the whey averages about one-tenth of a pound for 100 pounds of milk.

The amount of fat lost in whey in cheese making averages about 5 ounces for 100 pounds of milk. The amount of this loss is quite independent of the amount of fat in milk. The variations that occur in loss of fat are due either to the conditions of the milk or to some special conditions employed in manufacture, or to both.

IV.

FAT IN MILK AS A BASIS FOR DETERMING THE CHEESE-MAKING
VALUE OF MILK.

Until quite recently the universal custom has prevailed of paying for milk at cheese factories by weight alone. This method is based upon the assumption that, for the purpose of cheese-making, milk is milk; that all kinds of normal milk are of equal value for cheeseproduction; that 100 pounds of one man's milk will make just the same amount of cheese as 100 pounds of every other man's milk. The old method can be just only in case this assumption be true. Now, is it true that 100 pounds of one herd's milk will make just the same amount of cheese as 100 pounds of the milk of every other herd? We can answer the question by saying that we have found normal milk 100 pounds of which made 8 1-4 pounds of cheese; and again we have found normal milk, 100 pounds of which made 14 1-4 of cheese. Here is a difference of six pounds of green cheese for 100 pounds of milk. No more figures need be presented to show that milk differs greatly in its cheese-producing value. The old method is, therefore, founded on a false basis. Since fat and casein in milk determine the amount of cheese produced, the method of strict accu

racy for finding out the cheese-producing value of milk would be based upon the amounts of fat and casein contained in milk. But we have no simple method for determining casein, while we have such a method for fat. Again, casein has a very small commercial value compared with fat. Rich milk, as a rule, may contain slightly less casein for fat than poorer milk, but when such is the case, the cheese is of better quality. If fat and casein were always present in the same uniform proportion in rich and poor milk, then fat alone would be an accurate guide as to the cheese-producing value of milk. the results of long extended work in this line, we have found that while casein does not always follow fat in milk, the variation is of such a character as not to affect the practical accuracy of fat as a basis for fixing the cheese-making power of milk. Without dwelling further upon this point, I will close by briefly summarizing the advantages which attend the use of the new method of paying for milk at cheese factories on basis of fat alone, in place of the old method of paying by weight alone.

The old method should be discarded:

As

1st. Because it is based upon the false assumption that all kinds of milk have the same cheese-producing value. It fails to recognize the fundamental fact that milks differ in regard to the amount of cheese they can produce

2d. Because the method, being founded upon a false basis, is unjust, and is, therefore, not business-like. By this system money that belongs solely to the producer of the better milk is taken from his pocket and transferred to that of his neighbor who produces poorer milk.

3d. Because the old system discourages the production of better milk and is a positive barrier to improvement.

4th. Because the old system encourages the addition of water, removal of cream and all similar forms of dishonesty.

Why should milk fat be used as a basis in paying for milk at cheese factories?

1st. Because the amount of fat in milk offers the most accurate, practicable and just basis we have for determining the cheese-producing value of milk.

2d. Because this method recognizes the fundamental truth that different milks possess different values for cheese-making,

3d. Because this method being based upon the truth, is just to all and is, therefore, in the highest sense business-like.

4th. Because the adoption of this method will result in an improvement in the character of milk-production.

5th. Because all temptation to adulterate milk by watering or skimming is removed.

6th. Because the adoption of this system lies at the very fonndation of the future improvement of the dairy industry.

7th. Because improvement in the character of dairy animals and in the consequent yield and composition of milk means economy of production and increased profits.

AFTERNOON SESSION.

The afternoon session was called to order by the President, who said:

I am glad to see so many remaining. We have an interesting subject, which to me, is always as interesting as any subject connected with our farm work. The foundation of all our farming is fertilization. It is treated by one who is conversant with the subject, and, I take pleasure in introducing to you Prof. J. L. Hills.

Prof. Hills then delivered the following address:

RATIONAL USE OF FERTILIZERS.

In addressing the Dairymen's Association upon the topic of fertilizers I feel somewhat as though I were re threshing old straw, as though I were simply rehersing truths as well, or perhaps better appreciated by my hearers than by myself. I may, however, dress some of these truths in new garb, and possibly something I may say may bring them home more forcibly to your minds. So, without further preface, I will proceed with the new setting of the old saws.

The fertilizer problem has not as great financial importance in Vermont as in most other States east of the Mississippi. Statistics show that the tonnage of commercial fertilizers sold in Vermont is less than that sold in any other State using this class of goods. This is caused partly by our small area, but without doubt is largely due to the practice of dairying throughout the State. The eleventh census shows that Vermont is led but by two states in the number of cows per square mile, and but by two in the number per inhabitant. This means the concentration of cows and of manure upon comparatively few acres. My associate and friend, Hon. Victor I. Spear, Statistical Secretary of the State Board of Agriculture, tells us that the average Vermont cow produces 156 pounds of butter per year, an amount well above the average, and perhaps, higher than that given in any other State. Although not a maximum yield, it is not

attained without liberal feeding with materials containing the deficient elements of plant food, which in large measure pass through the digestive canal and into the manure pile.

Those who are engaged in dairying need not pay homage to the fertilizer bag and dollars to the manufacturer to so great an extent as those not thus happily engaged. It does not follow, however, that there is not much to be learned, and, when learned, applied in the rational production of, care for, and use of manures made on the farm, as well as those bought for the farm. It is, therefore, the adjective in my topic, the word "rational" upon which I wish to lay the greatest stress this afternoon.

The matter as I have blocked it out, naturally groups under four heads:

1. RATIONAL FEEDING WITH DUE REGARD TO THE FERTILIZING INGREDIENTS IN THE FODDERS.

2. RATIONAL Care and USE OF FARM MANURES.

3.

RATIONAL SELECTION OF COMMERCIAL FERTILIZERS TO AMEND AND SUPPLEMENT HOME MADE MANURes.

4. HOME MIXING, A RATIONAL WAY OF BUYING PLANT FOOD.

Nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash, the three deficient elements of plant food, the three ingredients which alone cost money in our commercial fertilizers, and which give them crop producing power, are present in the various feeding stuffs which we buy and which we grow. They cost in the commercial fertilizer, at the market prices of the past year 163, 6 and 4 cents per pound, respectively, and are nearly as readily available in some of our fodders and feeds as in the average commercial fertilizer. More or less of these ingredients are placed by the animal upon its frame or into the milk pail; but threefourths or upwards are voided with the solid and liquid excreta.

The amounts contained in the various fodders and feeds are widely different. If we look at the printed tables we see that the fertilizing value of a ton of oat straw is but $3.38, while clover hay contains $9.39 worth of nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash; that corn meal contains but $7.72, while cotton seed meal contains $26.84, the linseed meals $21.98 and $24.26, and gluten meal $20.05 worth of the same ingredients. The fertilizing ingredients and the food nutrints run fairly paraellel, most of the better class of fodders and feeds being also comparatively rich in nitrogen, phosphoric acid and potash.

Let me call attention now to a couple of tables which will indicate somewhat of the economies which may be expected to result from a rational use of the concentrated meals :

Gain $2.42 or 2 cents a day, (25 per cent gain.)

Grain feed in corn bran ration costs $7.70, and contains manurial ingredients worth $3.87, or half its cost. Grain feed in corn bran, cotton seed, linseed ration costs $8.50, and contains manurial ingredients worth $6.29, or three-quarters its cost.

The upper half of the table shows two rations, the first consisting of the daily feed of ten pounds of corn stover, ten of hay, four of corn meal and four of wheat bran. The fertilizing ingredients contained in one hundred days' feeding amounts to $9.51. If, however, the corn meal be cut down to two pounds, the wheat bran to three pounds, and a pound and a half each of cottonseed and linseed meals be substituted for the three pounds taken out, the fertilizing value of one hundred days' feeding amounts to $11.93, a gain of $2.42 or 24 cents a day or 25 per cent.

The lower half of the table shows that the grain fed in the first ration costs at the market prices of the past year $7.70, and contains manurial ingredients worth one-half its cost; that the grain fed in the second ration cost $8.50, but 80 cents more, and contains manurial ingredients worth three-fourths its cost.

The next table shows the same thing graphically by the use of lines.

Relative values of rations given in table above from standpoint of manurial constituents.

1. In Corn and Bran Ration.

2. In Corn, Bran, Cottonseed and Linseed Ration.

3.

Cost of 100 days Feeding of Corn and Bran.