more likely to be polluted, is left in the hands of thousands of men, many of whom are ignorant and unscrupulous.

Dr. Peters of Boston says that at least ten per cent of the cows about the city are affected with tuberculosis. If this be the case, it will take a great many Dr. Kochs and a great quantity of lymph to counteract the evil which will arise therefrom.

The German government is controlling the manufacture of the lymph for the cure of consumption. Perhaps it might be well for Massachusetts to control the milk supply, which is said to be one of the greatest sources of the seeds of consumption. This Board can certainly do something if it will set itself earnestly to work upon the subject.

AGE OF MILK. - STERILIZATION.

In this connection is the question of the age of milk, and its sterilization. There appeared in the Boston Herald," a few weeks ago, a very able article by Dr. Henry J. Barnes upon the age of milk, contending that most of it was too old. He writes: "Half this milk is thirty-six and half forty-eight hours old before it reaches the consumer

I know of no city of Europe or America where such a complicated system of handling is practiced. . . . From an economic point of view, the system is bad; from its influence on public health, it is criminal.”

Other physicians, knowing how difficult it is to get milk free from disease germs, have urged its sterilization; and one wealthy lady, Mrs. Frances Fisher Wood, has started this industry on her Vermont farm, and is shipping the product to New York City. The proper sterilization of milk not only destroys all disease germs, but will preserve it for some length of time. If we are not mindful, this industry may be the means of bringing milk from remote points to compete with the fresh milk of Massachusetts, and we shall find ourselves in the same condition as when "oleo" was introduced, and creamery butter brought from Iowa.

Since there are in round numbers 200,000 cows in Massachusetts, is not the whole milk and dairy question an important one for this Board to consider specifically? Nay, is it not a philanthropic one, as well? If it is not desirable for

the State to assume responsibility, would it not be well for the Board to take some steps to bring both city consumer and country producer together in some efficient organization that shall better protect the public health as well as the farming interest?

ABANDONED FARMS.

As has been stated, there are 36,000 farmers in Massachusetts, and in round numbers say 45,000 farms, or apparently 9,000 in excess. Should we not ascertain how many of these farms are actually abandoned, and try to build them up again? The New Hampshire Board of Agriculture has taken up this question, and the Boston press is constantly speaking of the abandoned farms of New Hampshire. As a result of this discussion, coupled with the efforts of the Board, nearly 400 have been sold in New Hampshire within the last year, many of them for country homes of city people who read about them in the Boston papers. Why not set the Massachusetts press to talking about the farms of Massachusetts, many of which are just as beautiful, and richer, than those in New Hampshire, and so keep the money within our own State? I am told that it is contemplated to introduce a bill into the Legislature, establishing a commission to investigate this subject. If this matter is placed in other hands than this Board, what a sad reflection it will be upon it.

NO CALL FOR ORIGINAL WORK. DISPENSE WITH ANNUAL

REPORT.

There is no call for this Board or the societies to do original work, as heretofore. The agricultural experiment stations and colleges are occupying that field, and it seems to me that it is now a part of our business to popularize the results which are obtained by these institutions, standing, if you please, between the scientist and the practical farmer, to sift the wheat from the chaff and sow the good seed throughout the State.

Instead of expending $7,000 or $8,000 a year in printing the annual report of the secretary, let the same money be used in sending to certified lists of farmers, abstracts in

popular form and simple language, of any important agricultural work in this or other countries. Massachusetts farmers are receiving to some extent the work of our own station, but there may be valuable bulletins issued by other stations, of which we ought to have the benefit. Then there are valuable papers read before the Board from time to time, which are literally buried in the reports. Abstracts of the papers read at our last public winter meeting at Worcester ought to have been sent to every farmer in the State within a week after they were delivered. Mr. Wood's valuable paper on fruits, delivered at Easthampton last year, now buried in the agricultural report, should have been spread broadcast throughout the State; while Mr. Goddard's paper on Choosing an Occupation" ought to have been placed in the hands of every farmer's boy. The reports of the Board are widely circulated; but black volumes are bulky bugbears, while leaflets containing pithy statements are popular, and will be read from beginning to end. The agricultural press is doing a great work in this direction, and deserves recognition; but the work should not be left entirely to the press.

64

REFORM THE INSTITUTES, ETC.

The institutes have also done good work, but they also need to be reformed. In many of the societies they are now perfunctory meetings, held simply for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the Board, in order to obtain the State bounty. The institute of to-day is losing its hold and influence, and its place must be taken by a system of instruction that shall more directly appeal, as Governor Hoard says, to the "good sense and understanding of the farmer."

I have tried to present a line of work broad enough to keep this Board and the agricultural societies employed for some time to come, work which it seems to me is directly in harmony with the laws establishing the societies, and also with section 10, of the law which established this Board, which provides for suitable agents to go about the State not only to inquire into the methods and wants of practical husbandry, but also to disseminate useful information by means of lectures and otherwise." These agents could be the

specialists and teachers to which I have referred, and the methods denoted as "otherwise" could be those of the traveling schools, and the practical lessons in the field.

THE OTHER BOARDS OF THE STATE.

I believe this Board should not only be reduced in numbers, but made in part a bureau, with an able and efficient corps of assistants. When this is brought about, it will be in a position to work in line with the other boards of the State. The Board of Education has ten members, the Board of Health eight, while ours has forty-five. Although their fields of labor open one into the other, these three boards can never meet upon a common ground and work together for the best interests of the State until our Board is brought to a basis more nearly corresponding to theirs, and the fact that no other State in the Union has so large a board of agriculture as ours, most of them numbering ten to fifteen members, adds force to this suggestion.

CONCLUSION.

Our secretary is earnest and zealous, but he cannot do more than he is doing, or even different work, until our system is changed, and more funds placed at his disposal. I would not, however, ask for larger appropriations, for the State is almost prodigal in her gifts to agriculture. No State gives more. I think no State gives so much. It is our duty to see if we cannot use whatever is given to better advantage, and also, by a reorganization of this Board, greatly improve and broaden its work, as well as that of the societies which should come more directly under its control, so far as the use of the State bounty is concerned.

In closing, let us understand just what this plan contemplates.

First. A reduction of this Board in numbers, and making it more representative and to more nearly correspond to the boards of other States and to those in our own State.

Second. To consolidate several of the agricultural bodies of the State into one, under the control of this Board.

Third. To regulate the use of the State bounty given to the different agricultural societies, but in no sense to regulate the management of these societies. They to continue the management of their own affairs, as they see fit, to use their own money as they choose, and also to draw the State bounty or not, as they like; but, if they draw it, this Board to determine whether it shall be applied for premiums, or used in giving instruction by means of traveling schools, institutes, and otherwise, each society to be fully heard as to its wishes in the matter.

The present system is the outgrowth of legislation, and it will require legislation to remedy it. Let us ask for that legislation ourselves, before it is pressed upon us by public sentiment, remembering that other States are leading us today, and we must not lag behind.