Oklahoma Farmer (Guthrie, Okla.), Vol. 17, No. 40, Ed. 1 Wednesday, March 3, 1909 Page: 4 of 16
This newspaper is part of the collection entitled: Oklahoma Digital Newspaper Program and was provided to The Gateway to Oklahoma History by the Oklahoma Historical Society.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
OKLAHOMA PARMER, WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1 9 0 9.
Readers of the Oklahoma jjj
Farmer are Invited to Con- )|j
tribute Items of Interest to jjj
This Department
THE OLEOMARGARINE LAW.
The followin is taken'frofn the Ohio
Farmer of January 9th, and is a very
good, comprehensive statement of tho
oleomargarine question:
There is evidently a plan on foot to
attack the present oleomargarine law
during this* session of Congress. Re-
cently some of the daily live stock pa-
pers have been publishing editorials
and news stories that seem intended
to stir up public disfavor against this
just law. Whether these articles aro
"inspired" or not we can not say, but
It is quite probable that they ere pub-
lished through the influence of the
strong combination of packers and
olemarglne manufacturers that is
backing the attack upon the - law.
which has now been in force since
July 1, 1902. Its constitutionality was
attacked in May, 1903, In a case
brought in the IT. S. district court of
Cincinnati, by the laV partners of
Senator Foraker. In the decision of
Judge Thompson, however, the con-
stitutionality of the law was upheld
In every way. In order to refresh the
memory of the reader we will give
Ito main provisions, as follows:
Oleomargarine and all renovated or
adulterated iiutter or cheese, not the
natural product of the darry, an1.! not.
made exclusively of pure and unadul-
terated milk or cream, when trans-
ported from any state into any other
state or territory, or into the district
of Columbia, for use, sale or storage,
Immediately becomes subject to the
laws of said state, the same as if
made there, and is not in any way ex-
empted by reason of being Introduced
from another state in original pack-
ages or otherwise. 2. All oleomar-
garine and adulterated butter, artiflc
ally colored to look like pure butter
of any shade of yellow must pay ten
cents tax per pound; that sold in its
natural (white) color must pay one-
fourth'of a cent per pound. Stringent
details for enforcing the law are then
given. Since it went into force the
law has been well executed by the of-
ficers of the IT. S. Internal Revenue
Service. There have been many pros-
ecutions and heavy fines, but the state
merit has been repeatedly made, and
never challenged as far as we know
that these fines are generally paid by
the oleomargarine manufacturers. In
f.\*l. some of the officials maintain
that the manufacturers frequently
have to .guarantee fines and other
losses to get a man to sell their pro-
duct. The officers have the situation
well in hand, and the oleo makers
have been going right on with thfcir
business, although the product was
naturally shortened when it either
hni to be made without color or pay
a \>x of 10 cents per pound.
The quantities made during and
since 1900, were as follows. In 1900,
104.263,651, lhs.; 1901, 101,646.333; 1902,
123,133.853; 1903 (first year after pres-
ent law passed) 71.237.43S; 1904, 48,-
071.850: 1905. 49,880,983; 1906, 53,146,-
659; 1907, 68,988,850. At the same time
the annual exports have shown almost
a steady increase from 5,721,254 in
1902 to 11,794,174 in 1906 Thus when
the business of manufacturing oleo is
getting well established again, under
the present law. a few special live
stock papers suddenly discover, "one
of the most odtus pieces of class legis-
lation ever Inflicted upon the public!"
This editorial goes on to charge: 1
That the bill was passed simply for
the benefit of the dairymen as against
the beef cattle men; 2, that it gives
one product the* advantage of another
—♦qunlly as wholesome: 3, that It was
Intended to kill oft the oleo industry
so that the butter men wou'd have a
monopoly The statement is also made
that the dairy business is brt n s'tinll
part of the industrv ■*= compare-.! with
beef production. All of these are,,;ments
are fallacious. Let us see. 1 The bill
wa# passed to protect the dai vtnen,
In that is laid a duty upon an article
thBl would otherwise have been sold
for, or in.place of, genuine butter. In
olher words. It taxed an imitation, or
fraud 2. The dlar.vmen have never
made a strong fight against oleft, b -
ifnuse It was not considered wholesome
although Its higher melting point
makes it somewhat less digestiblf.
The great fight against colored oleo
has been made because It was colored
to resemble butter. 3. It was not
Intended to kill off the oleo industry.
Before the law was passed the tax on
olem&rgarlne was two cents per pound
The present
fourth cent on the uncolored, but
raised it to 10 cents on the colored.
Therefore. the tax was almost alto-
gether on the yellow color by# which
the product was made to resemble
butter, and thus more desirable to be
used as a substitute. As for the state-
ment that the dairy industry is but a
small affair as compared to the beet
industry, the last Year-book of the
U. S. Department of Ariclulture
shows the value of the milch cows of
the United States, Jan. 1, 1908,, to
have been $650,057,000; all other cat-
tle, $45,938,000. .
Thus the dairy industry is more
than a mere "small branch." The
dairymen, and tha farmers who make
butter, must keep close watch of this
fight, and each should write, to his
Congressman to be on his guard. The
oleomargarine men will try to show
that the present law is unjust and dis-
criminating. It is a just law, has been
pronounced constitutional and is dis-
criminating only in that it requires
that oleomargarine shall be sold for
what it is; or that if it is colored so
as to pass as genuine butter it must
pay the penalty of tax.
SKIM MILK ON THE FARM
Of all the by-products on the farm in
the dairy line, skimmed mil k should
head the list. If this article was prop-
arly appreciated the value of many a
so-called "poor cow" would be consid-
erably increased.
Skimmed milk may be safely estimated
to be worth from fifteen cents to on§
dollar per one hundred pounds, accord-
ing to its quality and the use that is
made of it.
I believe hand separator skimmed milk
is of greater value and of greater use
than skimmed milk obtained by any
other method. It will give better satis-
faction and produce better results as the
milk is uniform from day to day.
Skimmed milk as a food for young
animals is hardly to be surpassed if fed
right. The greatest danger and a de-
cided waste is in overfeeding, especially
young pigs and calves.
After a calf is two weeks old, the
feed may be gradually changed from the
whole milk until only skimmed milk Is
given. Calves thrive much better on
the warm skimmed milk from the hand-
tfeparatirr than on the skimmed milk
brought home from the creamery whei.
the milk of several hundred cows is
probably mixed, or the milk set in pans
and crocks or deep cans, which, when
the cream is taken off is always cold and
usually half sour. I think skimmed milk
may be fed to calves with more profit
than to any other thing about the farm
unless it be the poultry.
Chickens fed almost entirely on it but
allowed to run at large will grow very
fast. The skimmed milk if allowed to
stand until thick and loppered will be
greater economy and prove satisfactory.
Pigs fed on skimmed milk, either
sweet or sour, give good satisfaction al-
though care should be taken not to
change from one to the other. Pigs seem
inclined to the sour rather than to the
sweet and in either case grain foods
should be fed with it in order to make
a balanced ration. Skimmed milk as a
food for all young animals is an aid to
the digestive organs as there is not a
particle o| it but is digestible.
Its use in increasing the fertilizing
qualities of the manure must not be
overlooked. This is considered one ot
the greatest losses when the whole milk
is sold off from the farm. Skimmed milk
is used in making "Cottage" or "Dutch"
cheese and when properly made it lias
brought $1 for every 100 pounds used, in
many instances. This of course depends
on the market.
Authorities on this subject assert that
If there are no other uses to take up
the skimmed milk it Is worth at least
seven cents per hundred to throw* on the
land, but a very large amount may be
used that will bring in a higher cash
valtia than that.—Estella F. Miller, New
York.
(First Prize Essay of New York State
F.iir In class—The Use of Skim-milk up-
on the Farm.)
WHAT OF BALANCED RATIONS
Whether It is possible to feed fat
into milk has long been a mooted r;ues
tion. Many have contenPed that by
feeding a ration low In fat that the
fat content of the inilk would be de-
creased. In order to thoroughly test
the possibility of such n contention,
Dr. Jordan of the New York station
conducted an experiment along thig
line. lie did not believe that the low
1001 • A YEAR
FOR TWENTY YEARS
TO COW OWNERS
That's the marvelously good investment that more than
ONE MILLION satisfied users are finding the
DEIii/EL CREAM SEPARATORS
With three or more "cows a DE LAVAL separator saves
its cost the first year, in more and better product, .and It may
be depended upon to go on doing so for twenty years, as there
are already thou^andst of instances to prove.
There's half this much saving in the use of e DE LVVAL
over inferior separators, while other separators last but from
six months to five years Instead of twenty years. They lose
half that might be saved while they do last.
That's the whole separator story in a "nut shell" and the
reason for the now nearly universal sale of DE LAVAL sepa-
rators.
A DE LAVAL catalogue may be had for the asking. Like-
wise the trial of a DE LAVAL machine.
The De Laval separator Co.
Randolph ft Canal Sts.,
CHICAGO.
1213 Filbert Streit,
/- PHILADELPHIA,
e & l I Drumm Sr.,
8AN FRANCISCO.
General Offices:
74 CORTLANDT STREET,
NEW YORK.
121 youvilli 6quasi,
MONTREAL*.
75 * 77 YORK STRttT,
TORONTO.
S4S McDenuoT AviNUt,
WINNIPEG.
fat content of the mill^. In order to
prove his contention he devised a plan
of feeding a cow on a feed that con-
tained little or no fat.
This was rather perplexing at first
as ajl feeds that can be fed to cows
contain more or less fat. However,
the Cleveland Linseed Meal Co. came
to his recue and offered to extract
the fat from all the feed necessary
for his experiment. Accordingly 1,-
000 pounds of chopped hay and 1,-
500 pounds each of corn meal and
ground oats were sent to this Cleve-
land company. After some trouble
the most of the fat was finally extrac-
ted from the feed and the experiment
was begun.
The animal selected for this experi-
ment was a young Jersey cow of a
vigorous type. When the experiment
was begun she was somewhat thin in
flesh and about four months advanc-
ed in the period of lactation. Accord-
ing to the plan of the experiment the
cow was fed a normal ration for a
period of about two weeks, followed
by the same foods from which the fats
had been axtracted and the food, as
a result, rendered slightly less pala-
table. The normal ration consisted of
.untreated timothy hay, cornmeal,
ground oats and wheat gluten. The.
latter feed is naturally free from fat
and hence did not have to be treated.
The cow was now being fed on a feed
practically free from any fat and if
there was found in tMe milk produc-
ed, more fat than in the feed fed the
ease would be very plain that the cow
was able to manufacture fat from a
non-fatty substance by breakiv. ? up of
compounds containing the necessary
elements and recombining them in the
form of fat.
The experiment was carried out and
the analysis of thed milk produce
showed no change in the fat content.
She went right on making normal
milk. As a matter of fact she even
gained in weight during the trial.
When tjhe summaries were taken
Jordan found that the cow had pro-
duced 62.9 pounds of fat in her milk
during the experiment. On the other
hand he found that the cow had, dur-
ing the entire time, taken in, her
feed only 11.6 pounds of fat, and out
of this only 5.7 pounds of the fat was
digested. Here were then 57.2 more
pounds of fat produced in the milk
than were digested by the cow in the
feed which she ate. And this isn't
all. The cow actually gained 47
pounds in weight during the test.
Ilcnce there is but one conclusion to
be drawn, viz: that cows are able to
make fat from feed which does not
contain any fat itself. The cow was in
better condition than when she started
and some of the increase in her weight
must naturally have been fat added to
her body from feed that contained
very little fat.
Now the question will naturally
arise in the mind of the reader: Where
does the cow get this fat? At first
thought it would appear that the cow
was getting something for nothing
She ate food that contained practical-
ly no fat and produced therefrom
over 60 pounds of fat in her milk not
to say anything about the gain in
weight of 47 pounds. That her gain
in weight was entirely due to a de-
posit of fatty tissue between the lay-
ers of muscles is shown by the fact
.hat all of the nitrogen eaten in the
feed was accounted for in the extra
which was carefully analyzed. If the
gain in weight had been of a muscu-
lar nature there would have been a
great difference between the amount
A Great Offer
8
QUARTS FOR
Just send us $3.yo and wo will ship you 4 *
Quart! Private Stock Simpson WhUkey,
nn<l FREE 4 Quarts Private Htock Wine.
< hotro of Port, Catawba, Hherry, Blackberry
or CHEH.RO CORDtJU. OR
2 GALLONS JftQ.75
FOR ad ■ ■■■
OLD SIMPSON
Wfu
tanucgi
WHISKEY "L
SJMPSO* COWPAIIV ?
l cit/.mo.
One Gallon Private Stock Simpson Whit,
key and One Gallon Private Stork Wine,
choice as above.
CORK SCKKW AMI WH1HKJKY CI.AS8
SENT I'BEJE WITH KACH ORDEJi
Write for Special Prices on Pints and Half Pints.
Till* la positively the greatest offer ever made by any wfclskoy
concern fcnywsera. Upon r.rrtval, you cm opon ono bottle and ton
it--tifiv* yonr friend* taet* It-and if not Batinfartory & ovftiiy way
return the gonda ^ o wtyl chcerfulty refund your uiou< y in full
Bond of your order today.
JOHN SIMPSON CO., Depi, 40, Kansas City, Mo,
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Greer, Frank H. Oklahoma Farmer (Guthrie, Okla.), Vol. 17, No. 40, Ed. 1 Wednesday, March 3, 1909, newspaper, March 3, 1909; Guthrie, Oklahoma. (https://gateway.okhistory.org/ark:/67531/metadc88228/m1/4/: accessed April 25, 2024), The Gateway to Oklahoma History, https://gateway.okhistory.org; crediting Oklahoma Historical Society.