Page images

canning processes themselves, which employ very different heat treatments in different brands of milks, but also in the methods used in determining the vitamin potency of condensed milk. Comparative experiments have not been carried on using the different kinds of canned milk under the same conditions or over long enough periods of time so as to determine if the results obtained were due to seasonal changes in the milk or methods of canning. Unsweetened canned milk (evaporated milk) is preserved by concentration and heating and is given such vigorous heat treatment that vitamin C, the most labile of the three vitamins, is very apt to be entirely destroyed. Condensed milk is preserved by the addition of sugar and by the condensation of the milk in vacuum and therefore is not heated to the same extent as the evaporated milk, and may contain a considerable part of the original vitamin C of the milk. Thus Hess (21) states that condensed milk retains the greater part of its antiscorbutic factor owing to the fact that the condensation process is conducted with very little access to air. No experimental proof is given with this statement. Hume (22) found in feeding experiments with monkeys that milk condensed by the vacuum pan process in which the temperature does not exceed 80° C. and in which there is as slight exposure to air as possible has retained practically all of its vitamins A and C. Hume points out, however, that although the condensed milk when reconstituted to resemble as near as possible raw milk showed little if any vitamin destruction, when it is reconstituted as a modified milk for infants the dilution of the vitamins would probably be such as to make the milk inadequate in its vitamin content. Daniels and Laughlin (23), using both sweetened condensed milk and unsweetened evaporated milk, found that rats made practicaly no gain in weight and speedily died when fed on the latter but made fairly normal growth when fed on the former. They claimed that failure to grow on the evaporated milk was due to a change in the solubility of the calcium in the milk and not to a destruction of vitamins A or B, because purified rations to which the milk was added to supply these factors were adequate to support normal growth.

Contrary to these results are those obtained by art (24) and his associates, who found that unsweetened condensed milk diluted so that its solids were equivalent to normal milk and given in 100 cubic centimeter portions daily to guinea pigs had lost its antiscorbutic value. Giorgi (25) has also stated that children in a foundling hospital in Venice became scorbutic when condensed milk was used in place of fresh milk. Ross (26) has reported specific instances of keratomalacia in infants fed on condensed milk.


The following conclusions may be drawn from the experiments reviewed in this paper:

1. The presence of the three vitamins A, B, and C have been demonstrated in dried milks.

2. While vitamin B is present in niilk dried by either the drum or spray process, vitamins A and Care better protected by the former process of drying.

3. The work that has been done on the vitamin value of condensed milk has not been extensive enough to warrant drawing definite conclusions, although there is evidence that the three vitamins A, B, and C are present in sweetened condensed milk.

4. No definite conclusion can be drawn in regard to the effect of any process used in the preservation of milk on the vitamin content of the milk, as thus far no comparative experiments using the same milk before and after drying have been reported.

5. In general, in order to secure a heat preserved milk rich in vitamins the original milk must be rich in these factors, the period of heating must be of short duration, and the oxygen of the air must be excluded from the milk during the processing as well as in its preservation in the final package.


1. HART, E. B., STEENBOCK, H., and ELLIS, N. R. J. Biol. Chem., 1920, 42, 383. DUTCHER, R. A., ECKLES, C. H., DAHLE, C. D., MEAD, S. W., and SCHAEFER,

0. G. J. Biol. Chem., 1920–21, 45, 119. HESS, A. F., UNGER, L, J., and SUPPLEE, G. C. J. Biol. Chem., 1920–21, 45,

229. KENNEDY, C., and DUTCHER, R. A. J. Biol. Chem., 1922, 50, 339. 2. HESS, A. F., and UNGER, L. J. J. Biol. Chen., 1918, 48, 297; Proc. Soc.

Exptl. Biol. Med., 1921, 18, 14:3. DELF, E. M., BIOCHEM. J. 1918, 12, 416; 1920, 14, 211. WEILL, E., and MOURIQUAND, G. J. physiol. et path. gen., 1918, 17, 819. HARDEN, A., and ZILVA, S. S. Lancet, 1918, ii, 320. LAMER, V. K., CAMPBELL, H. L., and SHERMAN, H. C. J. Am. Chem. Soc.,

1922, 44, 172. DUTCHER, R. A., HARSHAW, H. M., and HALL, J S. Jour. Biol. Chem., 1921,

47, 483. ELLIS, U. R., STEENBOCK, H., HART, E. B. Jour. Biol. Chem., 1921, 46, 367. 3. OSBORNE, T. B., and MENDEL, L. B. Jour. Biol. Chem., 1913, 15, 311. 4. McCOLLUM, E. V., and DAVIS, M. Jour. Biol. Chem., 1915, 20, 641. 5. OSBORNE, T. B., and MENDEL., L. B. Jour. Biol. Chem., 1918, 34, 537. 6. SHERMAN, H. C., and Smith, S. L. The Vitamins. 1922. The Chemical

Catalog Co. (Inc.). 7. SHERMAN, H. C., ROUSE, M. E., ALLEN, B., and Woods, E. Jour. Biol.

Chem., 1921, 46, 503. 8. JOHNSON, J. M. Pub. Health Rpts., vol. 36, No. 34, 1921, 2044. 9. JOHNSON, J. M., and HOOPER, C. W. Pub. Health Rpts., v. 36, no. 34,

1921, 2037. 10. GIBSON, R. B., and CONCEPCION, I. Philippine Jour. Sci., 1916, 11, B, 119. 11. SHERMAN, H. C., MACLEOD, F. L., and KRAMER, M. M. Proc. Soc. of Exp.

Biol. Med., 1920, 18, 41. 12. WINFIELD, G. Reports to the Local Govt. Board (Foods Reports, No. 24),

1920, 139. 13. MATTILL, H. A., and CONKLIN, R. E. Jour. Biol. Chem., 1920, 44, 137. 14. KENNEDY, C., and DUTCHER, R. A. Jour. Biol. Chem., 1922, 50, 229. 15. HART, E. B., STEENBOCK, H., and Ellis, N. R. Jour. Biol. Chem., 1921,

46, 309. 16. HESS, A, F., and UNGER, L. J. Jour. Biol. Chem, 1919, 38, 293. 17. Hess, A. F. Scurvy: Past and Present. J. B Lippincott Co. 1920. p. 46. 18. BARNES, R. E., and HUME, E. M. Biochem. Jour., 1919, 13, 306. 19. JORDAN, J. O. Ninth Annual Report of the Intern. Assoc. of Dairy and

Milk Inspectors. 1920. p. 50. 20. WINFIELD, M. A. Repts. of Local Govt. Board, 1918, N. ser. 116, 139. 21. Hess, A. F. Jour. Indust. & Eng. Chem., 1921, 13, 1115. 22. HUME, E, M. Biochem. Jour., 1921, 15, 163. 23. DANIELS, A. L., and LAUGHLIN, R. Jour. Biol. Chem., 1920, 44, 381.

[ocr errors]



24. HART, E. B., STEENBOCK, H., and SMITH, D. W. Jour. Biol. Chem., 1919,

38, 305. 25. GIORGI. Jour. Amer. Med. Assoc., 1921, 76, 689. 26. Ross, S. G. Amer, Jour. Diseases of Children, 1921, 22, 232.

Chairman Ross. You have heard this very interesting paper which discusses matters of utmost moment in connection with the use of preserved milks. Would you like to discuss it, some of you who have worked on this problem? If not, this coneludes the programas arranged for the session, and we are in a position to adjourn.



Chairman, E. G. MINER, president and general manager, The Pfaudler Co.,

Rochester, N. Y. Secretary, LEON M. Davis, assistant in marketing dairy products, United States Department of Agriculture.

Y. W. C. A. ASSEMBLY HALL, Syracuse, N. Y., Friday, October 5, 1923–1.30 p. m. NOTE.—The delayed arrival of trains bringing delegates from the Philadelphia session to Syracuse, necessitated the postponement of this session until the afternoon. However, some of the delegates held an informal meeting in the morning. At that time the first three papers were read and discussed. One paper, “ The function of the local bank in financing the farmer," was read by Mr. Harshaw at both meetings and the discussion, as here given, has been combined.

Chairman Miner. The first speaker who is present to read his paper, is Mr. E. B. Harshaw, cashier of the Grove City National Bank, of Grove City, Pa. Mr. Harshaw.


EDWIN B. HARSHAW, cashier, Grove City National Bank, Grove City, Pa.

As far back as 1859 Abraham Lincoln said, in a speech before the Wisconsin Agricultural Society, "Population must increase rapidly, more rapidly than in former times, and ere long the most valuable of all arts will be the art of deriving a comfortable subsistence from the smallest area of soil. No community whose every member possesses this art can ever be the victim of oppression in any of its forms. Such community will be alike independent of crowned kings, money kings, and land kings."

We are just now beginning to realize the truth of this statement. It is generally acknowledged that agriculture is the basic foundation of our country's progress, but from the fact that it seems so easy to get into, compared with manufacturing and business, it receives very little attention from our financiers. As bankers and business men we have only visualized in single units; while comparing farming with other industries and business enterprises farming seems too small.

We forget that there is twice as much capital invested in the farms of the United States as there is in all the manufacturing plants, transportation, and other industries and that one-fifth of our total income is from agriculture.

Railroad and mill employees, as compared with farmers, furnish only a small proportion of productive labor, and the farmers are the stability of our country.

Without investigation we would naturally think that railroad employees would outnumber those in any other line of business, but in 1921 there were seven times as many employed on the farms as on the railroads. The same is true of men employed in plants making iron and steel products. In fact, one-fourth of the persons engaged in gainful occupations are on the farms.

An analyst employed by the Government finds that the farmer's purchases pay the wages of 797,584 workers in industry and that these wages amount to $855,245,869.

One can easily see what the prosperity of the farmer means to our country's prosperity and how we should be exercised regarding his proper financing.

There can be no doubt in the minds of any that in the deflation from war prices the farmer has received the worst of it, and compared with manufactured products and labor, his returns are much nearer a pre-war basis, while on account of the maintained high cost of labor and materials, and the cost of transportation, his purchases are largely out of proportion to the selling price of his products. It takes 63} dozen, or_762, eggs to pay a plasterer for one day, or eight hours' work. It takes 23 chickens, weighing 3 pounds each, to pay a painter for one day's work in New York. It takes 42 pounds of butter, or the day's output from 14 cows, to pay a plumber $14 a day. It takes a hog weighing 175 pounds, representing eight months' feeding and care, to pay a carpenter for one day's work.

To stabilize the farming industry it will require the best thought of the business man and economist as well as the farmer.


No one denies that proper financing is one of the first great needs of the farmer. In a certain way he has been taken care of, but it has cost too much and it has been for a too indefinite time.

Our country's prosperity will always depend on the success of the farmer. When the farmer is unsuccessful, when he can not find a market for his crops at a satisfactory price, an opportunity is presented for some leader with false ideas to start a propaganda to raise the prices of farm products by some short cut, usually by Government interference in a wrong way, sometimes in the increase of money supply, even today, overlooking the condition in Russia and Germany augmented by their plentiful rubles and marks.

Two problems, if properly solved, will go a long way to place the farmer on a stable footing and they both go together, cooperative marketing and proper financing.

Even with an established market, the individual farmer being such a small unit, finds that the expense of selling his products individually is out of proportion to his profits.

Most farmers have made a study of and understand cooperative buying, but few have made a study of and understand the much more important subject cooperative marketing.

The plan of cooperative marketing has been fully worked out in manufacturing and merchandising. When there is group capital a corporation is formed and the laws of each State have made provisions for it, but the farmer has been overlooked mainly because we have failed to see his need and because his problem must be handled differently. The lawmakers have thought that because the

« PreviousContinue »