Page images

(c) The soil of the farm is excellent for the intended purpose.

The owner of the Remson farm holds the farm at present at $100,000; but it is believed he will reduce his price to that of the above estimate, particularly in view of the fact that there are other farms in the vicinity of Annapolis which can be obtained for this figure and which, while not as suitable for the purpose intended as the Remson farm, will form a basis of competition to bring the prospective seller within the limits of the appropriation above mentioned.

The conditions under which we are producing clean milk are such that the cost of maintenance is high. This is due to several causes:

1. The dairy barns and farm are separated-41 miles by road, 2 miles by water.

2. The area occupied by the barns and exercising ground does not exceed 6 acres; hence there is no grazing.

3. All cows have to be fed, a dry cow costing about as much as one that is in milk.

4. Extra labor that is required to handle the output of the barns and the product of the farm.

If the dairy and its barns were located on the farm, where the work could be centralized, where all necessary crops could be raised, and grazing for dry cows furnished, the cost of maintenance would be very much reduced. This reduction would more than offset the extra charge of $3,000, i. e., 3 per cent on the investment of $100,000.

At present the litter from the cow barns has to be handled four times before it is spread on the land. With a farm only one handling would be necessary. In filling the silos the corn for ensilage has to be handled five times; with a farm, only two handlings would be required.

The farm (100 acres of tillable land) is large enough to raise the necessary corn, but no other crop can be made. All other feeds have to be purchased. By raising them ourselves the cost would be reduced.

The subsistence of dry cows and calves, if pasturage were furnished, would cost little or nothing.

The milk produced by the Naval Academy dairy meets with all the requirements of certified milk. Certified milk in the larger cities is sold from 60 cents to $1 per gallon, and all certified dairies have waiting lists—i. e., they can sell more than they can make.

If the academy should desire to purchase certified milk, there is no dairy that could meet the demand. With a properly equipped plant, dairy, and its farm, certified milk to the proper amount could be produced at a price not to exceed 35 cents per gallon.

Appended are papers showing the difference between the milk used before and after the establishmenut of the dairy.



Washington, D. C., October 31, 1910. Paymaster SAMUEL BRYAN, UNITED STATES Navy,

Commissary, United States Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. SIR: The milk and cream which was received from you on October 21 has been examined, with the following results:

Cream (T), fat, 18.5 per cent.
Milk (T), fat, 3.5 per cent; total solids, 13.24 per cent.
Milk (R), fat, 3.1 per cent; total solids, 11.34 per cent.
Cream (T), total bacteria, 26,000,000 per cubic centimeter.
Milk (T), total bacteria, 62,200,000 per cubic centimeter.
Milk (R), total bacteria, 15,900,000 per cubic centimeter.
Bacteria in certified milk should not exceed 10,000 per cubic centimeter.

Both the fat and total solids in sample R are below the average for milk of fair quality. You should be able to get milk at this time of the year with a bacterial count considerably lower than that given by these samples. No arbitrary standard can be given, but it should be materially lower than any of the counts made on these samples. Very respectfully,

A. D. MELVIN, Chief of Bureau.



Washington, D. C., January 3, 1913. Paymaster SAMUEL BRYAN, United States Navy,

Naval Academy, Annapolis, Md. DEAR SIR: The bacterial counts on the samples of milk taken at the Naval Academy dairy on December 30 were as follows:

Sample taken from milk as it came from barn, 6,630 bacteria per cubic centimeter.

Sample taken from trough above cooler, 5,370 bacteria per cubic centimeter.
Sample taken from can No. 1, 5.170 bacteria per cubic centimeter.
Sample taken from can No. 2, 8,250 bacteria per cubic centimeter.
Water, 89 bacteria per cubic centimeter.

The results from the can which we cooled by placing in ice water were not very satisfactory, so I will not report them. These counts were not high, but showed that this was an efficient way of cooling. However, the plates were not as uniform as I desired, and therefore I will not give any report on these samples.

The results show that efficient work can be accomplished with the system which you now have installed at the dairy. The samples taken from the trough above the cooler and can No. 1 were the very first milk sent through the system. The sample from cau No. 2 was nearly the last. Very respectfully,

L. B. Cook,

Assistant, Market Milk Investigation. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any other question, gentlemen!

Mr. HOBSON. I would like to ask the captain about these items that follow right here [indicating]:

The CHAIRMAN. That has been taken up with the Bureau of Yards and Docks.

Mr. WITHERSPOON. I would like to ask the captain if we would not be likely to get this land at a more reasonable price if we got an option before we passed an appropriation bill for $100,000 to buy it.

Capt. GIBBONS. The appropriation does not give $100,000 for the land alone. Twenty-five thousand dollars of it is for the expense of transferring it, and repairing the buildings, and all that.

Mr. Hobson. Yes; I think we ought to know before we finally pass an appropriation bill; we ought to know that that land can be secured at a reasonable rate.

Mr. WITHERSPOON. This is a great big appropriation, and you might as well try to fly as to try to get it through that way.

Thereupon, at 12.40 p. m., the committee adjourned.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

[No. 9.]


Wednesday, January 8, 1913.

The committee this day met, Hon. Lemuel P. Padgett (chairman) presiding



The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the coinmittee, we have with us this morning Gen. Biddle, Col. Richards, and Col. McCawley, of the Marine Corps.

General, I notice that you have inserted “one colonel, one major, five captains, one captain assistant quartermaster, six first lieutenants, and four second lieutenants," and then a proviso:

Provided, That the increased compensation as now fixed by law for the Marine Corps for foreign shore service shall hereafter be paid to the officers and enlisted men of that corps while on sea duty, in the same manner and under the same conditions as is provided by the act approved May 13, 1908, for officers of the Navy.

And you increase the appropriation from $936,278 to $1,014,058. I will ask you to explain, first, the increase in the officers.

Gen. BIDDLE. That is to keep up with the increase of the Navy. You gave us an increase in proportion for the 2,000 men that you gave the Navy last year, and then you gave them an extra 2,000 for which you did not give us the proportionate increase, and we are asking for that this year—that is, a battalion of about 400 enlisted men, with the corresponding officers and part of the higher officers required for the regiment of which this battalion and the battalion of the previous year would form a part.

The CHAIRMAN. Is it necessary that the Marine Corps should be increased in the same proportion as the Navy is increased? I know the law provides that it should be done, but do you need the men ?

Gen. BIDDLE. Yes, sir; as you increase the number of battleships they need more marines to man the battleships together with the bluejackets.

The CHAIRMAN. And with the ships coming into commission you will need 400 ?

Gen. BIDDLE. Yes, sir. The 400 you gave us last year have all been absorbed, as follows:

Men. Owing to placing detachments on small ships and new vessels.

440 Increase due to establishment of disciplinary barracks, Puget Sound

51 Increase at the American legation, Peking---

100 Increase due to the establishment of a legation guard at Managua vicaragua.---




« PreviousContinue »