REPORT OF DAIRY INSPECTION.

HON. ELLIOT O. Grosvenor, State Dairy and Food Commissioner:

SIR-I herewith submit to you, as required by law, a report of my work as Dairy Inspector for the year beginning July 1, 1899, and ending June 30, 1900:

I have visited the following cities and towns during the past year: Dundee, Milan, Ida, Petersburg, Samaria, Temperance, Ottawa Lake, Jackson, Sault Ste. Marie, Newberry, Munising, Grand Marais, Marquette, Ishpeming, Negaunee, Houghton, Hancock, Laurium, Calumet, Iron Mountain, Menominee, Hudson, Waldron, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Ypsilanti, Battle Creek, Adrian, Hillsdale, Jonesvills, Quincy, Eaton Rapids, Charlotte, Wayne, Northville, Plymouth, Albion, Marshall, Grass Lake, Chelsea, Saginaw, Mt. Pleasant, Bay City, Port Huron, Pontiac, Ann Arbor, Coldwater, Sturgis, White Pigeon, Constantine, Three Rivers, Niles, Kalamazoo, Benton Harbor, St. Joseph, South. Haven and Holland.

I have made a thorough inspection of five hundred dairies, including the wagons, barns, milk rooms, if any, feed and general surroundings of the premises where the herds were kept.

I have also examined carefully (for lumpy jaw or other ill conditions) the 6,716 cows which I have found upon the above 500 dairy farms, and am pleased to be able to state to you in this report that I found only a very few cases of lumpy jaw, and that the general condition of the dairy cows of Michigan seems to be good.

No one should think that my work has anything in particular to do with that of the State Veterinarian in regard to tuberculosis, except as I have been instructed by yourself to report to you any cows that I might find to be coughing or that might be in an emaciated condition indicating disease. I was again near enough, in a few instances, to the premises from which I had reported to you cases of lumpy jaw, to be able to look up the matter a second time, and in each and every case I found the animals had been destroyed. According to your instructions I tried to ascertain from each dairyman the average daily amount of milk produced from his herd. I find according to the reports kept by myself that the average daily supply of milk from the 500 dairies to be 13,500 gallons, or an average per cow of two gallons a day. This part of the work has been rather unsatisfactory to me, as I feel certain that the average of two gallons is greater than is really attained by the dairymen of Michigan, taken as a whole.

I have found very few men who knew absolutely how much milk their cows averaged during the year, and usually I have been told in answer to my question of "How much milk do you get?" "Oh, I don't know, how much do you think it ought to be?" or "How much have you an idea that it is?" Thus you see that it is very hard to get anything like a correct estimate of their output.

I have found, however, some milkmen who weighed their milk twice each day, and knew and could tell at once just to a pound what their cows averaged for the year, and invariably I found these men to have the best cows, to be the best feeders, and as a rule their herds averaged two gallons and a half a day to the cow. There are too many men keeping a few cows, from which they sell milk rather as a side issue in connection with their general farming, saying, "We have to keep a few cows to eat up the rough feed, and selling the milk is easier than making butter." These are the men who bring down the average flow of milk, who strain their milk in the stable, then close the can, set it in the water tank, allowing the milk to cool in the closed can, thus retaining all the animal heat. Ask such a man why he does not aerate his milk, and he will say, "Why, I cannot afford to spend six or seven dollars for an aerator and go to all of that trouble each time I milk." The milk from these small producers, as a rule, goes to some milk or creamery company, and is in turn retailed by them, or perhaps some one individual may purchase the product of three or four small herds and then deal it out to his customers.

I am certain that there is no branch of the department that has accomplished a greater good in the past three years than the dairy and milk inspection. When one stops to think that a daily supply of 13,000 gallons of milk has been looked after, he must know that a great many people have been benefited; when he considers that the average amount purchased by each family is less than two quarts per day, this means then that at least 25,000 families have received a direct benefit, if the conditions surrounding the production of their daily milk supply are bettered just a little by this work.

I often wish the public could visit, with me, some of the places inspected for the first time, and then make a trip around some city which has been inspected once or twice before, and see the vast difference. In one place is apt to be found old, leaky stables, with poor floors, ceilings decorated with dust and cobwebs, and yards wet and full of manure, as well as manure piled against the stable to the top of the windows; while in the other will be found many new barns or stables with cement floors, neatly whitewashed walls and ceilings, a good ventilating arrangement, clean, dry yards, good drainage, and the manure drawn from the premises each day.

Of course I find some men engaged in the sale of milk who seem to think this inspection to be a huge joke, and if there could be passed a law stating with just what conditions a man must comply in order to be allowed to sell milk, it would reach this class of men and greatly aid in the work. I also think that if the local newspapers would publish the dairy inspector's report as it appears in the bulletin, the same good results would be accomplished, as I find the slack milkmen are greatly in fear of getting into the papers with a poor report.

The milkmen, as a rule, seem to be greatly interested in this work. and seem pleased to have little suggestions made as to how they can better their conditions, and they frequently ask "Who has the best barn?" as they wish to make such improvements as will bring their places up with the best. I have taken a good deal of pains during the past year to try and interest the dairymen in reading some good dairy paper, as they would thus learn what is considered to be the best feed ration for producing milk, as well as acquire many good ideas concerning the improved methods of dairying.

I have made tests with the Babcock machine of samples from nearly all of the milkmen, and have found but very few to be below the required standard for butter fat, and in some cities the milk will average 4 per cent of butter fat. This good average is found in the parts of the State where the dairymen keep Jerseys, or at least many grades of this breed. In connection with the dairy inspection, I have picked up samples of butter from the tables of the various hotels and restaurants visited by myself throughout the State. I have found the conditions to be better than they were a year ago, at least I have found more oleomargarine signs in the dining rooms, and consequently a less number of places where oleomargarine was being used in violation of the statute.

Many cases were started as a result of this work, and a conviction has been secured in every instance where the case has been brought to trial in the circuit court. The month of December was spent in calling upon the licensed oleomargarine dealers in Detroit, of which there were forty-five at that time. I found most of these to be complying with the law, unless upon some little irregularity in labeling or delivering the slip, etc.

There were a few found, however, who were wilfully violating the law day after day. I stood in a store one day and saw a sixty pound tub of oleomargarine sold out to persons calling for seventeen cent butter, and these packages were put out without stamp or label, except the federal stamp, and that printed in closely with a lot of advertising matter upon a dark brown wrapper, making it very indistinct and illegible. Samples were procured, in the presence of a witness, from several of these dealers, and a case was begun against the worst violator, in which instance the sample was purchased for butter and nothing whatever said about oleomargarine. The package was not stamped, neither was a slip or anything given to indicate the contents to be other than butter, except that the groceryman wanted to stamp the package, after he saw the State seal placed upon the same, yet he was unable to find his stamp, showing very plainly that he was not in the habit of using the same, except upon "state" occasions.

A case was begun against the said dealer, and when upon the witness stand he admitted that oleomargarine was not mentioned in the deal, but offered as an excuse that he was cleaning house and painting, and his stamp was mislaid, and upon these excuses he was discharged. This shows plainly that in Detroit oleomargarine is a popular commodity, and the law very unpopular, yet nowhere else in the State does such a condition exist.

I also visited 142 hotels and restaurants, in Detroit, during this month, and procured samples of butter from the tables of such as had

no oleomargarine signs displayed in their dining rooms. Twenty-two were found violating the law, yet none of these were the same as found violating the law during the inspection of the previous winter, which goes to show that a prosecution has its good effects, quickly bringing the violators into conforming with the law.

Nearly another month was spent in looking up and purchasing samples of so-called "Process butter," and this work led up to the famous case begun against the Armour Co., in Jackson, and while the respondent was discharged because the police judge thought and declared the law to be unconstitutional, yet the case had its good effects, as Armour's butter is now labeled according to law, and the other manufacturers are quickly getting in line with their product.

I have no suggestions to make for the ensuing year, well knowing that this work has been pushed under your direction as widely as possible with the limited means at your command. Very respectfully,

Lansing, June 30, 1900.

LYNDE H. KIRTLAND,

Inspector.

DAIRIES INSPECTED.

At Adrian:

J. G. Engle-Condition of cows, fairly good and clean; feed, hay, bran and shorts; stables neat and clean; yard, fairly dry and clean; drainage, good; ventilation, good; water, well; sells milk to John Lofberg.

Frank L. Hough-Condition of cows, good and clean; feed, hay, oats, bran, straw and corn meal; stables, fairly neat and clean; yard, clean and neat; drainage, good; water, river and spring; ventilation, good; sells milk to Ethridge.

W. H. & N. J. Baldwin-Condition of cows, good and clean; feed, ensilage, stalks, meal and bran; stables, very neat and clean, nicely whitewashed; yard, clean and dry; drainage, good; ventilation, good; water, spring; uses an aerator.

T. S. Tayer-Condition of cows, very good and very clean; feed, hay, shredded stalks, bran, corn meal and linseed meal; stables, neat and clean; yard, clean and dry; drainage, good; water, well; uses an aerator.

J. R. Nothrup-Condition of cows, good and clean; feed, hay, corn stalks and ground corn and oats; stables, neat and clean except lots of cobwebs on ceilings; yard, clean and dry; drainage, good; ventilation, good; water, well; sells milk to H. L. Church.

F. D. & L. A. Teachout-Condition of cows, good and very clean; feed, ensilage, shredded fodder, corn and bran; stables, very neat and clean; yard, clean and dry; drainage, good; ventilation, good; water, well; uses an aerator.

L. E. Older-Condition of cows, good and clean; feed, ensilage, hay and bran; stables, very neat and clean; yard, clean and dry; drainage, good; ventilation, fair; water, river and spring.

J. B. Basselin-Condition of cows, good and very clean; feed, clover hay, ground corn and oats; stables, fairly neat and clean except some cobwebs on ceiling; yard, clean and dry; drainage, good; ventilation, good; water, creek.