ae 237
AYS

Ne fe ee
My ip app ee
+

A48
opy l

DIFFERENCES

IN

AIRY PRODUCTS.

BY

HENRY E.’ALVORD.

FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION

(Copyright, 1886.)

, slew Ajork :
PUBLISHED BY THE CLUB BY PERMISSION OF THE AUTHOR.

JULY, 1888.

“Ee Re FT

eros

an | :
o& 4 6 :

‘ sian BAL TST

’

DIFFERENCES IN DAIRY PRODUCTS.

BY HENRY E. ALVORD.

Milk is a fluid, and has been so regarded from time immemorial.
It has been bought and sold by liquid measure. And in referring
to the use of milk it is ordinarily spoken of as a fluid. We say com-
monly that we drink milk, and rarely speak of eating it. Yet milk
is food rather than drink. It is the perfect food provided by Nature
for the young of the most important grand division of the animal
kingdom, And we know it is largely consumed as food by human
beings of all ages. It is, then, as a food, that milk, and chiefly the
milk of the cow, is so conspicuous in commerce and in domestic
economy. But our first idea of human food is a solid substance ;
and although some food appears in a liquid form, it is valued for the
solid matter it contains. Milk is no exception. It is a fluid because
largely composed of water; but all its other constituent parts are
solids, and they are what give milk its food value. Some of these
constituents, the curd or caseine, the sugar and the salts or mineral
matter, are dissolved in water ; other parts, the fats, are in semi-solid
particles, held in suspension in the fluid, causing the opaque appear-
ance. So milk is at once a solution and an emulsion. (By ‘‘emul-
sion,” a word itself meaning milk-like, we intend to describe a
physical mixture of different substances like oil and water, which do
not form a chemical union.) ‘To thoroughly understand milk, its
composition and value, it must, therefore, be examined chemically
and physically.

Chemical examination reveals the fact that milk varies greatly
in its composition, or, rather, in the relative quantity of its parts.
By carefully evaporating the water we secure all the other parts, and
these collectively are called the “total solids” of the milk. The fat
may then be easily separated from the rest and its quantity deter-
mined, the remainder being what are known as “‘ the solids not fat.”
These,.in turn, are usually separated into caseine, sugar and salt,
or ash. The notable differences in milk are in the proportion of fat

+

to other solids, and of the total solids to the water. The range of
total solids is from below 11 per cent. to above 20 per cent. It is
unusual, however, to find pure milk from a healthy cow with much
less than 12 per cent. solids, and over 16 per cent. is also uncommon.
The highest record found for a single cow is 23.43 per cent., and the
lowest, 10.55 per cent., the former a Jersey and the latter a Holstein ;
and the highest for a herd, for any length of time, is 15.45 per cent.,
for a herd of registered Jerseys in the State of New Jersey, tested
for one full year, and the lowest, 11.77 per cent., for forty-five Dutch
cattle at Proskau, for over two years, as reported by Dr. Schmoeger
in the ‘‘ Milch Zeitung,” for 1881. The range of fat is even greater,
proportionally, being from 2 per cent., or even less, to 12 per cent.
But 3 per cent. is as low as allowable for pure milk from a well kept
cow, and anything over 6 per cent., maintained for any length of
time, is very rare. The fats of milk being included in the solids and
the most variable portion, we naturally find most fat with the most
solids, and the lowest fat with the lowest total solids, and vice versa.
The highest and lowest records of fat which I have seen for single
cows are 12.53 and 2.70 per cent., being the same animals previously
referred to as showing the extreme for total solids. Both were
examined at the New York Agricultural Experiment Station. The
highest and the lowest for a herd, 5.53 and 2.82 per cent., respect-
ively, for Jerseys and Holsteins.

Physical examination, chiefly with a microscope, shows the condi-
tion in which the fat is held in the serum or fluid, and demonstrates
great differences, in this particular, in the milk of different cows.
The fat is found in globular form, myriads of these minute globules
floating at will, in the otherwise colorless fluid, and giving to milk a
physical character and quality quite distinct from its chemical
quality. The main differences in these fat globules are in their
average size and their uniformity of size as seen in different milks.
It requires from 1,500 to 10,000 of these fat globules, placed side by
side, to cover an inch in length ; from 6,000 to 7,000 is a fair average.
Sometimes, but not often, globules are found as large as 1-1000th of
an inch in diameter, and in most milk there are those so minute as
to be called granules, to distinguish them, and which are 1-25000th
of an inch, or less, in diameter. Dr. Sturtevant, as the result of
thousands of examinations, reported the average size of the fat
globule in Jersey milk as 1-5252d of an inch, and in Ayrshire milk
1-7080th of an inch ; the average size for Dutch or Holstein milk
was still smaller. ‘The larger the fat globules in any milk, the easier
and quicker they separate from the fluid, and the more difficult it is

5

to remix the parts; that is, the cream and the skim milk. I quote
from Dr. Sturtevant on this subject of the differences in milk as
regards its physical character: ‘‘The globule of the milk of the
Jersey breed is larger than that of other breeds examined, and there
are fewer granules; asa result, the cream rises with considerable
rapidity, and so completely as to leave a very blue skim milk, which
does not readily remix with the cream. The milk of the Ayrshire
breed furnishes a globule intermediate in size between the Jersey and
the Dutch, and a predominant feature is the presence of numerous
granules, or extremely small globules, which give a white rather than
a blue appearance to the skim milk. Of the three breeds we are con-
sidering, the Dutch or American-Holstein presents the smallest
globule to its milk. The globules are more uniform in their size than
in the Ayrshire milk, and there are fewer granules. The cream, on
account of the uniformity of size of the globules, rises completely
making the skim milk appear blue, and on account of their small
size, the cream can be readily mixed with the skim milk by shaking.”
Prof. Arnold adds, on this point: ‘‘The milk of Devons closely
resembles that of Jerseys ; the milk of native cows is usually similar
to that of Ayrshires, and the milk of Shorthorn cows somewhat
resembles that of the Dutch, but the globules are larger and not so
uniform in size and quality.”

Investigations in another direction have determined what may be
called either physiological or hygienic differences in milk. The
character of the solids, and particularly of the fats and caseine,
appears to differ as regards digestibility. 1t is believed by some that
the caseine is more or less ina solid form, instead of all dissolved,
and that this solid portion varies greatly in different milks. This
variation makes one milk much more wholesome, or easier of diges-
tion, than another, which becomes a matter of importance in the case
of infants and invalids. Furthermore, milk differs in the matter of
color. Some cows, as a part of their animal economy, have the power
of secreting, in various parts of the body, an orange-colored pigment.
This coloring matter has a special affinity for the fatty tissues, and
appears in the fats of the milk. In this respect, as stated, cows
differ greatly, and the matter of color seems to have no relation
whatever to the quantity or other qualities of milk. It is certain
that color is in no respect an indication of the quantity of fat ina
milk, or of the butter that milk will produce. Erroneous views on
this point have led to undue value being placed on high-colored milk
and cows producing such. Repeated trials have shown that cows
whose bodies and milk are destitute of this often-prized quality yield

6

milk richer in the quantity and quality of butter produced from it
than other cows specially selected for their high development of this
peculiar attribute of color.

Aithough the variations in milk, as described, appear more or less.
among cows of the same breed, and more decidedly among animals of
mixed blood, it has been well established that the contrast ismostmarked.
between pure-bred cows of the several recognized dairy breeds of cattle.
The differences in the milk from these breeds is so positive as to be
regarded as characteristic of the breeds themselves. Thus, high
medical authority pronounces the Ayrshire milk to have special
hygienic properties which adapt it, above all others, to the use of
infants and invalids. The predominating feature of Guernsey milk
is the deep orange color which becomes imparted to the butter. The
cattle of Holland and Holstein are noted for yielding enormous
quantities of milk, very low in fat and other solids, but of such
physical character as to make it the best of all to transport long dis-
tances and maintain an even quality for retail city delivery. And the
Channel Island cattle—the Guernseys and Jerseys—give the highest
per cent. of fat and total solids, together with high color. The
differences which are to be found in milk and the products of milk are,
then, mainly a difference of breeds. ‘The study of the characteristics
of the milk of different breeds of cattle has, therefore, a direct
practical bearing, and becomes of interest to all consumers who are
discriminating buyers, and to all producers whose business sense leads
them to take every advantage of a discriminating market. Hereto-
fore there has been difficulty in pursuing this study because of the
lack of sufficient data. In the old records, of which there is a great.
mass, we have widely varying results from the examination of milk,
cheese and butter ; but they are valueless as bearing on the question of
breed, because rarely, if ever, do such records give any history of the
origin of the substances examined. Facts of a more complete and satis-
factory character have been accumulating of late years, however, and
while it is not unlikely that further data will cause some modification
of existing averages, and the deductions to be made from them, we
have now enough to at least makea very interesting subject for study
and to lead to some well-defined conclusions.

My attention has been attracted, for two or three years, by the dis-
cussions of human foods, and the different ways of comparing them.
I have been specially interested in noting the high position occupied
by dairy products as economical articles of food. And this paper
was suggested by, and is mainly based upon, certain tables, with
their explanations, which are to be found in the proceedings of recent

1

meetings of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Those relating to the differences of milk—or rather the variation in
the food value of different milks, and comparing dairy products in
this respect with other articles of food—were presented in the
Economic Section of the Association, and the one on variations in
butter was presented in the Chemical Section, and also contributed
to the last meeting of the Society for Promoting Agricultural Science,
and published in its proceedings for 1887. With such indorsement,
we may rely upon the accuracy and value of these data, and may
deduct some important facts from their consideration.

The tables to which attention is first invited were prepared two
years ago, in connection with a discussion of ‘‘ the food question,” to
illustrate the ‘‘ Relative Values of Human Foods,” upon the basis of
their chemical composition. They have been amplified and rear-
ranged within the past year, separating the long list of dairy products
from the other foods, and giving a new title suited to my present use
of them. (Table illustrating the Differences in Dairy Products, and
comparing the latter with various other standard foods.) The figures,
as presented to the American Association, remain unchanged, and
they represent a very large number of authenticanalyses. In relation
to every article named, the composition on which its value is based is
the average of all the analyses of like articles of undoubted history
which could be found recorded, upon reliable authority, up to the
first of July, 1887.

There are different ways of comparing human foods upon the score
of economy. If one attempts to consider at once their digestibility,
chemical composition and usual cost, besides other conditions which
should not be ignored—nervine properties, for examp]le—the prob-
lem becomes very complex. It is hard to define the average human
stomach, and we are so much-in the dark on the questions of actual
digestion and assimilation of different forms of food that it is safer
to drop that factor than to include it. At all events it is better to
approach the subject by stages ; and in this instance we consider, in
combination, the chemical knowledge of foodsand their market prices.
The basis of comparison is all important. The necessity is apparent
of separating foods into two grand divisions, animal and vegetable,
and of selecting a basis for each. It is needless to here fully explain
the manner in which these tables were prepared. For the details,
reference is made to the original form of publication. (Vol. xxxiv.,
Amer. Assoc. Advancement of Science, 1885, page 504.) The
statement is sufficient, now, that pure lard, at 12 cents per pound,
and average ox beef, flesh free from the bone, at 16 cents per pound,

8

taken as the basis, gives the average cost of the nutrients in animal
foods as 72 cents per pound for protein, 12 cents for fats, and 7 cents
for carbo-hydrates. This assumes the proper ratio between fats and
carbo-hydrates to be 1.75 to 1; so that to combine these two, the
quantity or per cent. of fat in any analyses is multiplied by 1.75 and
added to the carbo-hydrates. For vegetable foods, the potato, at 60
cents per bushel, or 1 cent a pound, is the basis, and the value of
vegetable protein thus fixed at 10 cents per pound, and of carbo-hy-
drates at 4 cents per pound.

Based upon these values, the following tables have been compiled.
They give the chief nutrients, the computed value, and the average
price, approximately, of 10C pounds of about thirty different dairy
products, and, for comparison, an equal number of other common
articles of food, one-third animal and the rest vegetable. A column
is added at the right of each table, indicating by the signs plus (++)
and minus (—), whether the usual selling price, as stated, is more or
less than the computed food value.

4

Table Illustrating the Differences in Dairy Products, and Comparing
the Latter with various other Standard Food Products,

MILK From Various DIFFERENT Pounds Pounds 1q| Average Price,
BREEDS OF Cows, WITH oon fy Sed ae alte tes po amb ies
ieee in 100 | 100 pounds. hall A Sig
BurrER, CHEESE, ETC. pounds, | poace | 100 pounds. Value.
SFR a en ali Sie erred ban at 52 ss aa CO ret WR
Cow’s milk, chemists’ standard 4.00 10.62 $3 62 $3 25 —a
Cow’s milk, average all an-
BIVReG Re. Sey meen db 2 teak 9.41 | 11.23 3 24 279 | —b
Milk of Galloway cow_________ 5.36 8.86 4 45 325) —a
Gb bengali cow 2.0) S19; f 10-07 4 44 - —
Gi Devon comp 23.) S5s) 4.37 | 12.56 4 02 3825 | —a
of SersGy coy oi vay 3.98 | 13.88 3 82 350) —e
of Guernsey cow _______- 3.97 | 13.63 3 81 350 | —e
of ‘Brittany cow)... 1 2 3.96 | 10.89 3 76 ~ —
of Danish cow....__..__: 3.90 | 10.69 3 56 - —
of Ayrshire cow _._..__.- 3.76 | 11.65 3 54 325 | —a
of Shorthorn cow_______: 3.74 | 11.88 3 52 320 | —a
on Kerry eowe oh 7. 8 3.40 | 10.96 3d 21 - -
of Dexter (Irish) cow ___- SoDe le Lie 3 20 - -
of Holstein cow _.__.__ 2. 3.15 9.67 2 95 325) +a
of Hollander cow_______-_ 3.03 | 10.65 2 93 325) ta
of Fribourg: cow sou 2.84 | 11.68 2 86 300; +d
of Dutch cows... 04 at8 | LaAe 2 80 300| +a
Goats! martes or eae 3.80 | 12.98 3 65 ~ -
piep stmntic 2. eS eee 7.12 | 14.67 6 15
Skim milk (cow's | | eA 3.06 6.15 2 63 177 | —e
Budtemndie i... 29°28 tee 3.78 5.89 3.13 177} —e
Condensed! mille 2° 0 1.81 20) 16.07 | 60.06 15 77 2000; +
Cream, average: 0.0.) Aa) 3.70 | 48.51 6 06 12 50
Butter, average of all_______.. 0.86 | 146.15 10 67 2300; +
Butter, er senye. fT Ts ne 24 as ah 1.30 | 152.78 5 ae i] 30 00 a
Butter, Ayrshire). 0 7) as 1.40 | 151.81 11 42 2500} +
Butter, Holstein.) /0) 1 ¥ 2.65 | 143.55 11 82 23 00; +
Cheese, full cream average ___| 27.16 | 55.78 23 46 15 00; —
Cheese, pure Jersey milk _____ | 28.18 | 64.81 | 24 48 15 00 | —
Cheeses ali-skint 500 9a) 00 27.62 | 38.92 ae Ohh ..de 00. —
Cheese, skim-milk _..____))1- | 32.65 | 21.50 25 01 1000 | —
Cheese whey a0) uk 4) ie eid as ls aacgy EROS. |) 5,12! -

Nore.—a, at rate of 7 cents per quart; 0,6 cents per quart; c¢, 8 cents per quart; @, 63g cents per
quart; e, 4 cents per quart.

10

Table Lilustrating the Differences in Dairy Products, and Comparing
the Latter with various other Standard Food Products.

Pounds Price,

STANDARD ARTICLES OF ponade Carbo- | Computed arareee Greater

HumaN Foop in 1) | eti00 | | 100 poanda, | SHioeper rae ®

; pounds. pounds. P "| 100 pounds.) vaine.
Beef, without bone, average__- 21.39 9.08 |} $16 82 | $16 82) —
Veal, meditim fat 2.00 sees 18.88 13.89 14 57 15 00 | +
Mutton, fo 3 Sits see 14.80 63.73 15 12 15 00 | —
Pork, fat. oe el ee 14,54 65.35 15 04 13 00 | —
Fowl, domesti¢:=. 3.2... ewes 18.49 17.54 14 54 16 00 | +

Elens” eggs. 204 Col Aes 55 21.74 10 56 1065} +f
Salinon 2+ Ge 2.. Jaen ees 13.10 12.67 10 32 30 00 | +
Mackerel (020 chime 2a ieee eg 23.42 11.83 17 69 10 00 | —
Codtish: dmed:.- 2» Soar 22 ees 7.90 2.25 13 05 800; —
Oysters: <5 20 ly 2 tee ae 4,95 3.27 3 97 10 00 | +
Fine wheat flour 0) 222-2228 8.91 76.12 3 94 300 | —
Coarse wheat flour ...._______ Ley le puleeerr (ony 4 16 250) —
Oatimealk .. 2.08. $e ae 15.50 74.37 4 52 300, —
Corm meal. 2.02.2 lubee cee. aes 13.47 78.02 4 55 150) —
Fine*wheat bread ......-...-- 6.82 53.69 2 83 400) +
Coarse wheat bread ._....-.-- 6.23 91.52 26% 300) +
POLALORS foe: eee) Vee ee 1.79 20.84 1 OL 1 00 —
vice pvt. hee eee Be pre 1.81 76.61 3 24 600; +
PF OAMIS EY So Teo eek eee | ° 28.56 52.10 4 44 400; —
Pease 2. Use os es ee 22.63 56.25 4 51 500); +
Gampamecc ls... te ee eee a 2.95 9.24 0 66 100); +
rigs 2. eet. 2 aie eee ao 1.68 10.99 0 61 200; +
Tometoes us” 2 1 ae ee 1.25 4.66 0 31 200; +
Surar, POM Canes 2022. = oe 0.35 96.73 3 90 600; +
PROMO Sit ae A aoe eee 1.29 81.43 3 39 23 00 | +
PA DIES Soule et SS eee oe 0.39 13.74 0 59 150) +
Dried apples See iia eet an ones ee 1.06 55.97 2 35 = —
PeACHES: hiv < ey ee ee eae 0.65 12.57 0 57 - a
SLEAW DEITIES nha )2 hie Lee 1.07 8.48 0 45 - —-
tapesis: to. 4. ac ae cee 0.59 pet 0 74 - +
Banana, yellow, hard..._.___- | 1.41 30.85 1 23 - —-
Banana, tilly ripe... (3.425) ee 4.82 | 20.96 1 382 - aa

Norte.—/, 16 cents per dozen.

Certain general explanationsand remarks should be made in taand
to these tables before referring to any special points of interest. In
each table the first column gives the name of the article of food to
which the figures on the same line apply. The remaining columns
in the two tables are duplicates in their headings and objects. 'The
column headed ‘‘ Protein” gives in pounds and hundredths of a
pound the average quantity found in one hundred pounds of the
articlenamed. By ‘ protein” is meant that class of compounds, the
most important of all the ingredients of food, whose four elements
are carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and especially nitrogen (with, per-
haps, a little sulphur or phosphorus). Under the head of protein
are, therefore, included what are variously called albuminoids, gela-

11

tinoids, nitrogenous parts, and proteids ; the most familiar example
of which is the albumen, or ‘‘ white” of eggs. The next column,
headed ‘‘ Carbo-hydrates,” gives likewise the quantity of this class
of nutrients in one hundred pounds, expressed in pounds and deci-
mals. These substances include sugar, starch, dextrin, digestible
woody fibre, etc., which, as well as fats, are composed of the three
elements, carbon, oxygen and hydrogen. It should be especially
noted that in these tables, to save a column and simplify their ap-
pearance, special columns for fat have been omitted, and the fats
have been included in the columns of carbo-hydrates, being first. re-
duced to an equivalent on the ratio previously stated. This accounts
for the apparent anomaly of the figures in this column, in some cases
—butter, for example—indicating more than one hundred pounds of
carbo-hydrates in a hundred pounds of the article named (!). The
explanation is as given—that the fat, having the higher nutritive
value, has been multiplied by 1.75 before adding to the carbo-hy-
drates proper. ‘The reason undoubtedly was, that the nutritive
parts of food are commonly, if not correctly, classed as flesh-forming
and heat-producing, or life-sustaining. Fats and carbo-hydrates
both belong to the latter class, and hence are expressed in combina:
tion. In these tables, therefore, the protein columns represent flesh.
forming parts of the food, and the carbo-hydrates columns, heat:
producing. (It is a recognized fact that this last classification is de.
fective in several particulars, but especially because the protein o:
food may be changed in the body into fats and carbo-hydrates, anc
serve, as do the latter, for fuel in sustaining animal heat and life.
These two columns are based upon fixed facts, determined by chemi
eal research, and not liable to change, although slight modification:
may result from adding new analyses, and the articles may, in th
course of time, while maintaining the same name, acquire new char
acteristics. The next column, headed ‘ Value,” is based upon thos
before, with the rates assigned for protein and carbo-hydrates, pe
pound, in animal and vegetable substances, and thus gives the actua
value of the nutrients in one hundred pounds each of the foods named
computed upon their chemical composition. If exceptions are taker
to the assumed prices of the basic articles, it is manifest that by
simple calculation, based upon existing market rates, the column
of food values may be easily reconstructed to suit any given locality
As the figures stand, however, they are relatively correct, and serv
our purpose better, in comparing different foods, than do those c
the previous columns. ‘The columns headed ‘‘ Average Marke
Price” are simply for illustration, and will vary more or less wit

12

time and place. The purpose of the signs in the right hand columns
have already been explained.

It may be noticed that the tables do not include the mineral constit-
uents of food, which are usually denominated the ash. No diet is
complete without some mineral ingredients, and in milk for babes
these are an important factor. But sooner or later after we begin to
crawl—and sooner rather than later—we all, it is said, ‘eat our peck
of dirt,’’ so that this omission may be regarded as unimportant, and,
perhaps, be thus accounted for.

For the single object of showing the differences in dairy products,
and hence, for this occasion, we should have found it more satisfac-
tory to place the fats in a separate column, and also have a column of
total solids. But I thought it best to use the tables as originally
published, rather than change any figures.

At this point, attention is especially invited to the demonstration
given by these tables of the cheapness, when compared with their
nutritive value, of nearly all dairy products (butter excepted). Skim
milk, buttermilk and cheese, at their usual retail prices, are cheaper,
as nutritious food, than any other article on the list, and are ap-
proached in this respect only by fresh mackerel and dried codfish.
Butter is an exception, and, while it unquestionably serves special
purposes in the human diet, it must, upon the basis of its chemical
composition, be regarded as a delicacy or luxury, and not as a food.
It ordinarily costs two or three times its real food value, and often
more. Of the more solid foods not specially perishable, nothing
begins to compare, in cheapness, with cheese. What shall be said of
the domestic economy of America, where more butter and less cheese
are consumed, per capita, than in any other nation in our zone? And
what of the wisdom of the lawmakers, in some of our States and great
cities, who, to escape the difficulties of regulating the milk traffic,
utterly ignore the vital question of cheap and wholesome food for the
poor, and, sanctioned even by boards of health, absolutely prohibit
the sale of skimmed milk, and actually authorize the destruction of
all that can be found !

Now, let the consideration be confined to that part of the first table
which relates to milk. Great differences are here shown in the com-
position, and hence the value of the average milk of cows of different
breeds. It is worthy of notice that the milks which, as shown in the
column for carbo-hydrates, have the most fat, are, as a rule, also the
richest in protein, or curd. This table indicates at once the breeds
of cattle whose milk we should buy, if consumers, and which we
should keep, to be the producers of milk of high quality. The milk

13

of the chemists’ standard, “average cow’s milk” (as determined by
very many analyses), and of all the breeds enumerated, except four,
usually sells for less than its computed value. Four breeds, all of the
same general class of stock, yield milk so low in its nutrients that it
is, on the average, not worth the prices at which it usually sells. This
difference in value would be still more marked, if the same selling
price was assigned to all milk, but special allowance is made in the
table for higher prices for milk of exceptional richness, and low
prices for that of poorest quality.

Manifestly, we do not buy milk, and we are foolish if we produce it,
for the water it contains. The greater the proportion of water, the
poorer, less valuable the milk. It is the solid portion, and that only,
which gives milk its food value, and I firmly believe the time is near
at hand when its commercial value will be fixed by the total solids.
Indeed, a system of grading milk according to its solids, and selling
it at different prices, fixed by its quality, has already been inaugu-
rated by at least one enterprising milk dealer in Philadelphia. To
illustrate : compare the milk of one of the breeds of high quality, and
one of those of a low standard, with the general average. We will
take the fourth from the top, the Jersey, and the fourth from the
bottom, the Holstein, as being familiar breeds, and expand the figures
of the table, to give the full average analyses :

| | :
KIND OF MILK. | Water. | Solids. | Casein. | Fat. Sugar. | Ash. eee
Maximum, Jersey--=----- 85.18 | 14.82 3.98 5.06 5.03 | .75 | $38 82
Mean, Average of all____| 87.31 | 12.69 3.41 3.66 4.92 | .70 | 38 24
Minimum, Holstein_----_- 87.92 | 12.08 3.15 3.30 4.90 | .73 2 95

A graphic illustration is more satisfactory than the mere figures.
Three sets of glass jars, six in each, can be prepared so as to show
respectively the component parts of one gallon of each of the three
grades of milk represented by the figures in the table just above,
and thus strikingly exhibit the difference in composition of these
representative samples of milk.

The question may be asked: Is not this theoretical? Not at all!
Excepting the single item of the relative nutritive value of fats and
carbo-hydrates, everything about these tables is fact,—simply the
condensed record on innumerable facts, determined by many careful
men, working through a long term of vears.

14

Is this not all scientific work? Yes, it is, mainly, the work of
scientific men. But if the word ‘‘ science,” which to some is so
repugnant, is, as it ought to be, interpreted as meaning simply the
truth, or, as Davy so well defined it, as ‘‘ common sense, refined and
classified,” there seems no reason why these records should not be
accepted by the most ‘‘ practical”? man. While I have the most
profound regard for science and scientific methods, I measure the
value of both solely by their practical results. And I believe that
the statements thus far made herein, accord perfectly with practical
experience. ‘They are fully substantiated by the facts developed in
the dairy farming of this country, at the present time, and by its
allied industry and commerce.

So far recorded facts. But now, when we come to a discussion
of the lessons they teach, and seek for examples in practice, we
necessarily reopen ‘‘the battle of breeds.”? Only facts which can
easily be authenticated will be given, and comparisons will be fairly
made, but it will be impossible to occupy strictly neutral ground.
The question is, Which cattle produce the best milk,—the best to
sell, and the best to buy? I will not attempt to further argue that
the best milk is the most profitable, for seller as well as for buyer.
We will take the most familiar rival dairy breeds,—the Holstein-
Friesians (as now called) and the Jerseys. According to the
chemists, the average milk of Holstein cows has but 12.08 per cent.
of solids, including 3.30 per cent. of fat. This would barely escape
the lowest legal standards that are justifiable. It will readily be
understood that the probability is, that more of the milk of cows
of known breeding has been from animals above the average quality,
rather than below. Do practical results sustain the testimony of
chemistry? Within two years, I have personally known of two
herds of highly bred Holstein-Friesian cattle, many of them im-
ported, and valued as better than the average of their breed,
owned in two different States, by men of absolute integrity, and yet
both these owners have suffered the penalty of the law, because the
milk sold from their herds, and which they insisted was pure milk
from their fine cows, fell below the local standard in their re-
spective States. The case of Uriah Borten, of Rancocas, N. J., the
facts of which have been given to the public, is another of a similar
nature. I know of the case of a substantial dairy farmer, who
made his whole living from his farm, and who sold off a profitable
dairy herd of mixed blood, and replaced them with Holsteins, in
which he invested all his savings. He did well in the sales of
cattle, became a large importer, and one of the most highly esteemed

15

expert judges of the ‘‘blacks and whites” in his section of the
country. Lately he surprised his neighbors by selling out his pure-
bred cattle, stocking his farm with grade Jerseys, and resuming his
old dairy business. Upon being asked to explain, he stated that
he was unwilling to continue selling to other people, as fine dairy
stock, animals which in his own practice had proved to be unprofit-
able; that he had lost, by keeping Holsteins as his dairy herd,
about as much as he had made trading in them, and resolved to
return to stock that could be kept ata profit. Another case, with
the details of which I am familiar, is this: A man, whose name you
would all recognize, owns a large farm near one of our principal
cities, well adapted for milk production. He had a stock of Jerseys
and grade Jerseys, and mixed-bloods, or ‘‘ natives,’ and bought a
good milk route, on which he disposed of their products. The
demand soon exceeded his supply, and upon the advice of friends,
he purchased Holstein-Friesians to increase his herd. Fancying the
fine, large animals newly acquired, and having ample means, he sold
off all but three or four of his Jersey cows, and, with this exception,
stocked up entirely with Holsteins, buying at high prices from sev-
eral of the most celebrated breeders in America. Almost immediately
his milk route began to run down, and he had nearly lost his whole
trade before he became satisfied of his mistake, and began to sell
Holsteins and buy Jerseys. Now I see his name, every few weeks,
as the buyer of registered Jerseys, from the most noted deep-milking
families. I was lately told by the farmer of this gentleman, that the
latter had become fully convinced as to which breed of cows gave
the best milk, and were the ones best adapted to a profitable milk-
selling business. Our table gives, for average Holstein milk, total
solids, 12.08, and fats, 3.30. Not long ago I saw the record of the
analyses of twelve samples of milk, from five exceptionally fine Hol-
stein cows—none better anywhere—and one or more being at the time
of examination specially fed to produce rich milk for a butter trial.
The work was done by an eminent chemist, and the average result
was, total solids, 10.93, and fats, 2.84. Analyses of the milk of a
herd of Holsteins near Philadelphia, given by the owners, in 1884,
averaged for total solids, for April, 11.33 ; May, 11.59; June, 11.64
—all on liberal rations of substantial and good milk producing food.
At the State Experiment Station in Wisconsin, examinations of Hol-
stein milk gave total solids, 11.28, and fat, 2.88. For three consecutive
years, at the Royal Dairy Show in London, the milk of the Holsteins
exhibited has been tested and found to average, total solids, 11.80,
and of this 2.97 per cent. was fat. Such milk cannot be sold, under

16

the laws of the State of New York, outside the county in which it is
produced.

Let us see if milk of a better quality cannot be found. The chem-
ists’ average for Jersey milk, according to our table, is for total solids,
14.82, and for fats,5.06. As before remarked, this may be a little high,
and for the reasons stated. But I have in my possession the record
of more than a year, of weekly tests made of the milk sent to Phila-
delphia daily, for sale, from a herd of registered Jersey cows, owned
by Mr. H. Lippincott, of Cinnaminson, N. J. The dealer who re-
ceives this milk, on some day in every week, according to his fancy,
samples the milk and has the total solids chemically determined.
The record for the herd for a year just closed, shows a range from
13.13 one week in June, to 16.16 in January, and an average for the
year of 14.76 per cent. total solids. This comes pretty well up to
our standard (only 6-100ths of 1 per cent. short), and the record would
undoubtedly have been higher but for the fact that a full half of the
herd were heifers with their first calves. In passing, it may be well to
notice that this record shows what always proves true, that the lowest
per cent. of solids in a year is at the flush of June pasturage and
during the heat and flies of July and August, and the best milk is
from good Winter feed. Mr. Lippincott’s monthly averages were as
follows: June, 14.10; July, 13.83; August, 14.03; December, 15.21 ;
January, 15.46; February, 15.19. There isa still better record for
a whole year. The dealer who handles Mr. Lippincott’s milk also
has the product of Mr.. John P. Hutchinson’s herd of registered Jer-
seys, at Georgetown, N. J., and has made similar tests of that milk.
Although the details are not given, this dealer, Mr. George Abbott,
Jr., of Philadelphia, informs me by letter that for the entire year of
1886, the milk from Mr. Hutchinson’s herd averaged 15.45 per cent.
solids. ‘This is morethan one-half per cent. above the standard of the
table. Headds, as further examples, the following averages of solids,
for the year 1886, in the milk of certain herds handled by him, and
says, ‘‘ These are first class representative herds of the breeds named,
and the averages are for the entire year”: Registered Jerseys, 14.3%,
14.49, 14.77, 14.80, and 14.93; registered Guernseys, 14.61, 14.68,
and 15.14 percent. The average of the ten herds examined by Mr.
Abbott is 14.80, which isa practical endorsement of the table, or the
average as fixed by science.

During a long period of close observation at the New York Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, where the milk from several unregistered
Jersey cows was tested daily, the total solids averaged 14.45, ranging
from 13.70 to 15.90. During the triala great variety of food was used,

17

sometimes being intentionally poor. Unfortunately, the percentage of
fat, as distinct from the other solids, was not taken; but one may
always be certain that where the total solids run above 13} per cent.
the milk is rich in fats, for instances of “solids not fat,” above 10
per cent., are very rare. While at Houghton Farm, I had the milk
of Jersey cows not regularly but repeatedly examined. The solids
ranged from 13.72 to 15.96 per cent. and the fat was never found
below 4.30 in the milk of the herd, while it sometimes reached 6.61
per cent. and averaged 4.93 per cent. So much for the quality of
the average milk of good business herds of dairy cows.

The impression prevails in some places, that while the milk of
Jerseys is of high quality, it is always in small quantity per cow.
This is rather outside the bounds of my present subject, but I will
venture to briefly notice this point. The criticism is not sustained
by the facts. The habit of an even and long continued flow of
milk, which is one of the most valuable characteristics of this
breed, and of great importance to the producer of milk for sale,
results in much larger annual records of milk product in good dairy
herds of Jerseys than they are generally credited with. One year
while I was at Houghton Farm a herd of fifteen, including two
aged cows and three undeveloped heifers, produced an average of
5,844 pounds 3 ounces, or 2,718} quarts per head. It is very well
known that dairy herds, kept for the quantity of milk produced,
but with little regard to quality, and maintained by frequent
culling and purchases of fresh cows, are considered as doing well
to average 2,800 quarts per cow, or 6,000 pounds. Herds capable
of an annual yield of 3,500 quarts, or 7,500 pounds a year, to
every cow fed for the year, and which in quality reaches the New
York standard, are exceedingly rare. Yet Jersey herds, main-
tained by their own increase, are by no means uncommon, which
average over 6,000 pounds of milk a year, and that of the highest
quality. Mr. A. B. Smith, of Eagle, Mich., in the year 1885,
had a herd of six pure Jersey cows and three high-grade Jerseys,
which averaged 7,100 pounds of milk each. The large herd of
registered Jerseys at Deerfoot Farm, Massachusetts, where the
daily record of every cow has been kept for fifteen years, shows a
total average of about 1,500 quarts or 5,400 pounds per head for
this long period. Single cows in this herd averaged 2,933, 2,941,
and 3,371 quarts a year, for seven successive years, being from
6,200°to 7,250 pounds. ‘The Echo Farm at Litchfield, Conn.,
have published a list of the names and numbers of a dozen of
their registered Jerseys, several of them ten or twelve years old,

18

with their yearly milk yield, which averages for the lot 8,385
pounds or 3,900 quarts. Messrs. Miller & Sibley of Franklin,
Penn., have taken pains to purchase and to breed Jersey cows
of large milking habits, and, as showing their success, they pub-
lish the records of twelve cows which averaged for a year 8,700
pounds or over 4,000 quarts of milk each. One heifer with first
calf gave 10,101 pounds in twelve months, before three years
old; another young cow gave 10,329 pounds on ordinary feed ;
and an older one, 16,153 pounds, or an average of 20 quarts
a day for the whole year. That this last yield was milk of good
quality is sufficiently proven by its making over 927 pounds of
butter, or a pound of butter to every 8 quarts of milk. ‘These
facts show that there is no trouble in getting Jersey cows whose
product is large in quantity as well as high in quality.

A letter recently received by me from Mr. Edward Austen, of
Filston Farm, Glencoe, Md., is appropriate in this place. I
requested this gentleman to send me the annual yield of his cows,
and what he knew of its quality. Mr. Austen is a man of accurate,
systematic habits, who, after some years in business life, now
owns and manages in person a dairy farm in Maryland, producing
milk for sale in the city of Baltimore. He once said to me that
he found the only safe milk business was making the best milk,
and he would not keep a cow in his herd that did not prove profit-
able as a dairy animal. But his letter tells the story: ‘‘ Twenty
cows in my herd of A. J. C. C. Jerseys, being all the cows I had
that had dropped more than one calf, yielded 119,495 pounds 14
ounces of milk in twelve months, being an average of 5,974? pounds
for each cow, and every one of these cows bore a calf during the
year. The milk of every cow was weighed separately, morning
and night, every day except Sunday, when the yield was assumed
to be the same as that of the previous day. Calves were allowed
to suck their dams for three days and no estimate made of the
milk so used. Kight of these cows were imported and the others
home-bred. The lowest record for the year was that of an im-
ported cow, over twelve years old, 4,181 pounds 6 ounces; and
the highest was a home-bred cow, 8,383 pounds. I have only
made two butter tests for seven days, among these cows. One
gave 16 pounds 12 ounces, and the other over 14 pounds of butter,
both on a trifle more than the regular dairy rations. I made quite
a number of tests of one to three days, on the regular feed, and
was quite satisfied that there was only one cow in the twenty that
would not make over 10 pounds of butter per week on their reg-

1)

ular daily food, and that a majority of them would go over 11
pounds. I have no other means of ascertaining the quality of
the milk produced except the cream glass, which, used daily,
showed from 19 to 31 per cent. of cream,—whatever that may
prove. If we had an Agricultural Experiment Station in this
State, I would know the per cent. of fat and total solids. I have
always, since my boyhood, been a lover of cows, and began
with Devons,—then tried Ayrshires, and finally Jerseys. For all
dairy purposes | shall stand by the latter. |The Guernseys stand
high in my estimation, but I have reason to think that they are
not such persistent milkers as the Jerseys. You did not ask my
opinion of Jersey cows, or the respective merits of the various
breeds, but I throw this in.”

Good cheese is made from whole milk, or that from which no part of
the cream has been taken. In old times little else was thought of.
Now so many inferior kinds are made that the designation ‘¢ full
cream cheese” is given to the standard product of first quality.
The differences in this class of dairy products, to which I shall
briefly refer, are not those incident to the processes which result in
“skims” and ‘filled ” cheese (lard or oil substituted for fat re-
moved in cream) but relate to the variations occurring in the
quantity and quality of full cream cheese made from an equal weight
of whole milk from different breeds of cows.

One would not at first think that milk of extreme richness of fat
or cream, and specially adapted to butter making, would be desirable
for cheese. But in well made cheese, a very large share of the total
solids of the milk are secured in the product, nearly all the caseine
and the fat, although most of the sugar escapes in the whey. Con-
sequently, that which is richest in total solids will make the most
cheese per hundredweight of miik; and the general statement is true,
that milk best suited to butter is most profitable for cheese. The
data regarding cheese made from the milk of pure bred cows of
different breeds is meager, but the principle stated is borne out by
experience with Jersey milk. The general average in good cheese
making districts is ten pounds of cheese to every hundredweight of
milk ; with milk from pure Jerseys, in large number, on the com-
mon factory plan, it has been found that the same weight of milk
will give over twelve pounds of cheese, a gain of more than 25 per
cent. in quantity of product. At several public exhibitions in Canada
during recent years, and also at the Ontario Experiment Farm, the
milk from selected cows of different breeds has been tested in various
ways, and among the rest with reference to the available curd or

20

cheese making qualities. (The animals being few in number, I do
not regard these results as alone settling any points of comparison,
but they may serve in corroboration of other statements made.) The
details have been widely published, so it is sufficient, for present.
purposes, to state the general results. The order of merit as cheese-
makers indicated was as follows: 1st trial, Jerseys, Shorthorns, Ayr-
shires, Guernseys, Devons, Galloways, Holsteins, Polled Aberdeens ;
2d trial, Jerseys, Ayrshires, Shorthorns, Holsteins; 3d trial, Jerseys,
Ayrshires, Devons. In the second trial, the Ayrshires led on quantity
of curd without fat, but with curd and fat took second place. With
this exception, the Jerseys stood first in quantity of curd as well as
of fat. In regard to quantity of caseine alone, in the milk of differ-
ent breeds, the table previously referred to shows their relation with
approximate accuracy, in the column headed “ Protein.”

The same table gives the differences in chemical composition and
computed value, between average full-cream cheese, the same made
from pure Jersey milk, half skim cheese, and that made from skim-
milkand from whey. There is very little light here as to the merits of
different breeds of cattle, as respects the quality of checse made from
their milk, although the surprising fact is shown that Jersey made
cheese is so much richer in both caseine (proteids) and fat, that it is
worth a cent more a pound than the average full cream cheese of
America, as an article of nutritious food. Upon this point, Prof.
Arnold says in his American Dairying: ‘‘'The business of the Jersey
cow is emphatically that of butter making. Her milk, however, is
rich in cream matter, and, contrary to the general belief, is capable
of making as fine cheese as it does butter. It is a new feature,
worthy of note in the uses of this breed of cattle, that their milk
can, without the waste of its buttery matter, be converted into a
strictly fancy cheese, as rich as English Stilton. Analyses of cheese
from pure Jersey milk, made at Cornell University, have shown over
40 per cent. fat.

The table upon which we have been depending gives so little in
regard to differences in cheese, that I append another, with consider-
ably more data in this cornection :

21
Table of Analyses of Different Kinds of Cheese.
ee ee ee eee

DESCRIPTION OF CHEESE—100 Pounps. wae it aa vCard. Fe
|
1. Average of 83 samples Full-cream
Lo SCE S I cg 39.79 30.43 27.16 4.13
2. Average of 21 do., N. Y. State
Dairy Commissioner’s Report... 27.82 28.61 38.10 | 4.39
3d. Full-cream, premium at N. Y. State
Fair. (Flint’s Dairy Farming’; of
pMTe etsey wails). 3 ooo ore 38.46 31.86 25.87 | 8.81
4, Full-cream, premium at N. Y. State
[DG Tig ogh it SOS ok aio aie ale ap Ree ee 28.37 31.28 30.52 | 3.83
5. Full-cream, premium at N. Y. State
JESDULE es) 2 segs ye ee ee ee 28.62 29.90 37.66 3.82
6. Full-cream, premium at N. Y. State
TREO ©, LE a rie eee ea 33.75 28.95 33.70 | 3.60
7. Full-cream, premium at N. Y. State
iaiberepe ees Sle itt tee 28.11 41.03 28.18 | 2.68
8. English average, by Sir Lyon Play- .
(GL an SR ot in eR lr 38.78 25.30 31.02 | 4.90
9. English Cheddar, two years old,
Pret wlohnspone 3 5.5.) b oe ae 36.04 30.40 28.98 4.58
10. English Double Gloucester, one year
Gide Prot, Jolnston:* > 9.0 20 35.81 21.97 37.96 4.25
11. English North Wilts, one year old,
Phony POMMSLOMe 5200 Sob eee 36.34 28.09 31.12 4.41
12. Half-skim, average of 8 English
SiMe net L Pine te ge shisha oe 46.82 20.54 27.62 3.05
fool sham Noy. Stabe 22/2. nj. 38.25 19.93 38.48 3.24
14. Skim-milk, average of 9 English
Bab plesi etc at da wale So ee 48.02 8.41 32.65 4.12
15. Skim-milk, English, one year old__- 43.82 5.98 45.04 5.18
16. Whey Cheese, average 6 samples___ 23.57 16.26 | 8.88 4.76

One product of the dairy only remains to be considered. This is
butter,—the culmination of the dairyman’s art. This great delicacy
consists of the natural fat of the milk, with some water, and should
contain nothing else, except as we choose to flavor it with salt. The
perfection of butter making is to secure these fats, separated from
the serum or fluid of the milk, and gathered in a mass, with as little
chemical and physical change as possible. So it may be said that we
get the butter from the milk, rather than ‘‘ make” it. Unfortunately,
perfection has not been reached in this art, and there is always pres-
ent in butter, mingled with the fats and mainly dissolved in the
water, more or less of the protein or curd and of the sugar of milk.
It is these constituents which play the mischief with butter, by start-
ing the chemical changes leading to rancidity and decomposition, and
which we consequently endeavor to reduce to the minimum.

22

While, therefore, in nearly all other food products, the presence of
protein (because of its high nutrient quality) adds to the value of the
article,—if we place butter at all in the list of foods, that which has
the highest nutrient value is the poorest in those qualities which go
to make fine butter. We buy butter for its fat, and the more fat
and the less water and protein, the better it is, as butter. In our
table comparing foods, there are averages given of butter of different
kinds, and, for the reasons stated, the best butter is designated by
the highest figures in the column of carbo-hydrates, and not in the
“‘ Value ” column.

Examining butter in-detail, it is found to be composed of very
complex fats, the chemist naming eight or ten, which number he di-
vides about equally into insoluble fatty acids and volatile fatty acids;
also, in their combination with glycerine, into solid fats and fluid
fats. It isnot my purpose, however, to go into these details, but to
call attention to the differences in butter, as it usually exists.
Among the many writings upon the composition of butter none has
seemed to me so ingenious and painstaking in method, or practical in
conclusion, as the work of Dr. S. M. Babcock, chemist of the New
York Agricultural Experiment Station at Geneva. At the annual
fat stock and dairy shows in Chicago, in 1885 and 1886, and at the
Bay State Agricultural Society’s fair at Boston, in October, 1886, I
was able to secure for this gentleman samples of the premium butters
of known origin,—the certificate of the maker, as to the method and
breed of the cows giving the milk, accompanying every exhibit.
Upon these Dr. Babcock pursued his investigations, and he personally
obtained another set of samples of butter, with the history of each,
at the New York Dairy and Cattle Show, May, 1887. Based upon
his examinations of this last lot, Dr. Babcock prepared his report
upon ‘‘ Variations in the Composition of American Butters,” which I
have already mentioned, and to some parts of which I now wish to
refer. The butters upon which he worked, and which gave the re-
sults presented in his tables (see Proceedings of Society for the Pro-
motion of Agricultural Science, eighth meeting, New York City,
August, 1887, page 17), were twenty-six in number, seven being
from Jersey cows, seven from pure Holstein-Friesians, two from pure
Guernseys, one from Ayrshire, and nine of premium butter from
mixed milk, no special breed predominating.

These samples were examined to determine the variation lable to
occur in the best grades of American butters, and especially to note
how far these variations might be attributed to breed and to the
individuality of the cow. (Some of the samples representing each

23

breed were from the milk of a single registered cow.) The general
determinations were noted as a matter of some interest, but attention
was mainly devoted to the composition of the butter fats. 'The fol-
lowing are the average extreme figures for these prize butters, and

probably fairly represent the average composition of first-class butter
in this country:

eS

Water. Fat. Ash. | Curd.
LENG a as ae a a t “18.16 87.87 4,23 1.02
eRe meaner ee 8 | 10.82 86.44 2.14 0.60
Howestilpes4 258 1.2 LL hed Fector! Gouy ena | 9.26 83.19 0.96 | 0.34

It may be noted that these butters averaged better than those in
the food table, the average here being about equal to the Ayrshire
butter in that table, and the poorest here being rather better than
the poorest there. (It should also be stated that none of the
milk and butter of these and other recent examinations by Dr.
Babcock are included in the averages of the food tables previously
noticed.)

The further examinations comprised determinations of the rela-
tive quantity of volatile fatty acids; of insoluble acids, by what is
called the “Iodine Number”; of the melting point ; and a test de-
vised by Dr. Babcock of the viscosity of soap solutions made from
butter. The technology of the chemical processes it is hardly
desirable to describe here, but they are necessarily referred to by
their peculiar names in the following abstract from Dr. Babcock’s
table and his deductions from it:

Comparisons of Butters from Different Breeds of Cows.
SSS eee

—

dine felting i i
BREED. eabed | ner wee
Per cent.

LG TS a ge OR lene aa ane 31.2 34.0 7
Grwemniseys Wie 329.0) Plate bd 5! hd, 39.9 110
salty |. 1S egies a Sem ea Oe Ne 37.8 33.5 66
EOI SRE at Sane neal es, uh. 40.0 33.4 237
A oben thle i VO! Vole) 35.6 33.8 93

Meverameok all i.e gee dik 30.6 33.7 127

The volatile fatty acids are not included in the table, because it
was found that while the individual variations within all the breeds

24

was very great, the influence of breed did not appear in this par-
ticular.

The insoluble fatty acids were found quite constant in amount,
but very variable in composition. The ‘Iodine Number ” indicates
the relative proportion of oleic acid and the absolute quantity of this
soft fat in the total fats of the butter. ‘The influence of breed
upon this factor is very great; one of the most marked characteris-
tics of Holstein butter, when compared with that of the Jersey or
other breeds, being shown in its high per cent. of olein. This ren-
ders butter less firm in warm weather, although it does not materially
lower the true melting point.” (The quotations are from Dr. Bab-
cock’s article. He preferred to compare Holstein and Jersey butter
because they showed the greatest contrast, and also because, having
several samples of each, equal in number, the averages were deemed
more reliable than those of the other breeds of which he had only one
or two samples. )

The melting point is expressed in degrees of the Centigrade ther-
mometer, and the record illustrates the observed fact that it requires
a higher degree of temperature to melt Jersey butter than the
average.

From a test not shown by the above abstract from his table, Dr.
Babcock determined ‘‘ that the proportion of palmitic and other fatty
acids of less molecular weight than oleic and stearic, is considerably
greater in Jersey than in Holstein butter.”

The viscosity test indicated breed peculiarities very clearly, as
well, in the composition of butter from single cows not shown by
other methods. This is a very clever method of testing, and espe-
cially applicable to the detection of adulterants in butter; it is
fully explained in the Report of the N. Y. Agricultural Experi-
ment Station for 1886. In this instance, the pure Holstein butters
had an average viscosity of 237, ranging from 112 to 461; the
pure Jersey butters averaged 74, and ranged from 50 to 103. ‘These
numbers are relative only, but representative of a marked con-
trast. Dr. Babcock says, ‘‘ The other conclusions in regard to the
differences which exist between Jersey and Holstein butters are con-
firmed by the viscosities of their soap solutions,” (i. e., by his viscos-
ity test).

Although these fine analytical tests may not be well understood by
these brief technical references, it seemed proper to adhere closely to
the conclusions of the original report, before stating the practical
deductions. Now, as to the latter: ‘‘The influence of breed of the
cow upon the composition of the butter fat is no less marked than it

25

is upon the composition of the milk, and, contrary to general accep-
tation (this statement is based upon other investigations), that does
not appear to be materially affected by the character of the food.”
(Dr. Babcock.) Among the effects of breed thus noted, are those
differences in butter which relate to its firmness, resistance to heat,
texture or “‘ grain,” flavor and general high quality, by reason of a
larger proportion of the more delicate fats. In all these particulars,
butter from pure Jersey milk excels, while that from other breeds fol-
lows in the order given in the last table.

In conelusion, it is hoped that facts of a reliable character have
been herein presented in sufficient number and with such reasonable
distinctness as to show the great differences which occur in dairy
products,—milk, cheese and butter,—the influence of breeds of cattle
in causing these differences, and the consequent practical value of a
study of this subject when selecting stock for the profitable conduct
of any branch of dairying.

/
ah fe]
7 A )
i

CREE

; é i} ~! ‘ye rs bs
A [ td Taco 5 hy 4 %

f ‘io ei aes

baht tal

ek.

*
ur
.
¥
i
iL
7
rt
i
i >
= Ty
‘
vw Z
7% '
4

.
"

dl
:
i

bet
7)

ay

IBRARY OF CONGRESS

iii,