As illustrative of the importance of the potato crop in this State, the following figures, taken from the annual reports of the United States Department of Agriculture, are given :

The first of July the outlook for a crop of apples, both fall and winter, was very poor. There was a full bloom, but for some reason the apples had nearly all fallen off. The orchards that promised remunerative crops were the exception. On the whole, the yield of small fruits was fair, and the prices received were good. In most sections, however, dry weather shortened the yield very materially of all save strawberries.

The tobacco crop in the Connecticut valley was unusually large, of excellent quality, and mostly harvested in good condition; but the wet, muggy weather in September caused pole-sweat to make its appearance in the sheds, and considerable damage resulted. The growers are receiving fairly remunerative prices for the crop.

Celery, cabbages, onions, turnips, rye and garden truck were generally satisfactory. Oats and beans were greatly injured by unfavorable weather.

An

Grape culture in this State has not increased to any extent in the past five years. This year's crop was a fair one. article on "The Grape Industry in Massachusetts" will be found printed in this volume. An article will also be found upon "Lettuce and Cucumber Culture under Glass."

The cranberry crop was somewhat less than an average, owing to drought, fire worms, worm in the berry, hail and late frosts.

About the usual amount of fall seeding was done, and, as a rule, a good catch was secured. In reply to the question,

"Considered as a whole, has the season been a profitable one to the farmers in your neighborhood?" sixty-eight of our correspondents stated (November 1) that in their opinion it had, and twenty-four that it had not.

The following table will illustrate the price of certain farm products in Massachusetts, as compared with other States. The States for comparison are selected solely for their location:

Average Farm Price of Agricultural Products, Dec. 1, 1890. (United States Department of Agriculture, Report on the Crops of the Year.)

An article on "The Dairy Industry in Massachusetts' was prepared for our crop bulletin for October, and will be found printed in this volume.

Believing that it would be of interest to the milk producers and consumers to know about what compensation the average producer of milk receives, the following questions were asked in our June circular to correspondents: "What was the price per quart received for milk at the door, in your locality, for May? Also, if furnished to milk contractors, what was the price received after surplus was deducted?"

The price received at the door, as given, varied from two to seven cents per quart. The following replies will illustrate the price received when the milk was shipped to

contractors :

Barre. Sixteen cents per can at railroad station or factory. Some have to pay one cent for cartage, some two cents, according to distance.

Beichertown. Five cents per quart to local customers. To milk contractors, delivered on cars, twenty cents per eight and onehalf quart can.

Berkley. Retail price at door, four cents per quart. Contractor's price, three cents for May. Now it is two and one-half cents.

Bolton. Fifteen and seven-eighths cents per eight and onehalf quart can to contractors, and five cents per quart if retailed in the villages.

Danvers.

Twenty-eight cents per eight and one-half quart can. Hardwick. - All milk delivered at car; and, allowing one cent per can for delivery, and taking out the surplus from the eighteen cents, the price of a can of milk which holds eight and one-half quarts, we find that one of these cans brings the producer the whole amount of a fraction less than fourteen cents.

Harvard.-Graded price at depot, twenty cents per eight and one-half quart can for May; surplus taken out by contractors, two and one-quarter cents; cost of getting milk to depot, from one to three cents per can, according to distance. That would leave the milk producers about sixteen cents per can, on a fair average, or a trifle less than two cents per quart at the door. Leominster. Two and ten-seventeenths cents to peddlers for home use. To milk contractors, seventeen cents at door for eight and one-half quart can. The surplus for May not yet returned. Probably one and a half cents off per can, as in April.

Littleton. The milk produced in this town is sold principally to contractors for the Boston market. The price at the door for May was two and three-tenths cents per quart for three-fourths of the quantity sold, and for the other one-fourth of the quantity sold, one and one-tenth cents per quart.

Montague. Seventeen and eight-tenths cents per eight and one-half quart can.

North Brookfield. - Milk goes mostly to Boston. Will net in June about sixteen cents per can at car.

Norfolk. Two and seven-tenths cents per quart at car. Price at door varies according to distance from station. No surplus.

Westminster. Price of milk sold at the door is five cents per quart the year round. Contractors returned eighteen and onehalf cents per can for May.

In our circular to correspondents for the October crop bulletin, the following questions relating to the dairy interest were asked:

First. "Has the season been favorable for the production of milk and butter?" The correspondents were almost unanimous in stating that it had. The drouth from the middle of June to the middle of July materially checked the flow of milk, but, as the feed on the whole was unusually abundant, the total production of milk was above the average.

Second. "How have dairy products averaged in price as compared with former seasons?" Of the ninety-one replies to this question, forty-eight stated the price to have been about the same as in former seasons, thirty-three that it had been lower, and ten that it had been higher. It is thought that the price of milk has not materially differed from the average price in years past, but that the price of butter has averaged lower.

"In your section, what is the chief disposition made of the dairy products produced?" It is a little difficult to condense the replies received to this question. Producers living near cooperative creameries generally send their cream to them, where it is made into butter. Others make butter on their own farms and sell in local markets, or, if they are fortunate enough to have a permanent city trade, dispose of their butter product in that way. The milk used in our cities is largely obtained from the Massachusetts farmer, and considerable is sent to Boston over the several railroads, where it is disposed of by milk contractors. Some of this milk comes to Boston from points more than one hundred miles westward. Other milk is retailed by the producer. Some is made into cheese, which is largely sold in Massachusetts markets.

Fourth. "Do you consider the business of dairying profitable to the farmers in your section?" The replies to this question covered quite a range of ground, but the central idea seemed to be that, if properly managed, dairying in this State is perhaps as profitable as any other branch of farming. It is not safe to say that those who are engaged in it are making much money. The farmer must have manure in order to grow crops, and he therefore cannot get along very well without keeping dairy animals.

Fifth. "What are the chief drawbacks, at present, to the carrying on of this industry?" The following were given as a

portion of the reasons why dairying is not more profitable to our farmers high taxes; unscrupulous middlemen; over-production in summer, and shortage in winter; low prices of milk, butter and beef; cost of feed; competition of oleomargarine; abortion in cows; lack of good pasturage, and distance from market in some sections. The past year the scarcity of ice was a drawback.

A special circular was also sent to the treasurer of each of the then twenty-seven co-operative creameries in the State, and replies were received from eighteen of them. It appeared from the replies received that since April 1 last there was a slight increase in the amount of butter made; that the quality of the cream furnished was much the same as last year; that the prices received for butter averaged about one cent per pound less than last year; that the product sold as readily as last year; that most of the product was marketed in the State, although certain creameries sent more or less to New York, Brooklyn, Bridgeport, New Haven, Albany, Philadelphia and Providence; that it took from 6 to 6.53 spaces of cream to make a pound of butter; and that the creameries made a practice of coloring their butter a little, in order to have it uniform in appearance throughout the year. Some do not color from May 1 to November 1; others color a little nearly every month in the year. Most of the creameries reported that the market does not call for a highly colored product. Some of the creameries sell considerable unsalted and uncolored butter in New York markets.

The following were given as some of the drawbacks to the successful operation of co-operative creameries: Lack of capital to hold butter in summer; too much cream in summer, and too little in winter; cost of gathering the cream, on account of the distance necessary to be traveled; failure of patrons and creamery officers to co-operate heartily; under-selling by creameries, and want of unity as to selling-price of butter each month; competition of milk car; low prices received for butter; and lack of patronage caused by the hesitancy of farmers to join creamery associations.

The following table gives a list of the creameries in the State, date of their incorporation, and their work during the year 1890: