11)01.] PUBLIC DOCUMENT — No. 33. 29 



from each ration were reported as having a "tainted oil" 

 llavor," and were marked down. The last five lots were re- 

 ported as l)eing "good," "clean Havor," etc., and scored 38 

 and 39 out of a possible 45. The body of each of the two 

 lots was reported a "trifle short," " brittle," "breaks easily," 

 etc., and Avere marked down one point. The score is not 

 very high, due to rather poor flavor. This is attri))uted, 

 partly at least, to rather poor facilities in ripening and 

 handlino; and not to feed. The corn gluten in this case does 

 not ap})ear to have had any l)ad influence on the l)ody of the 

 butter. It is held by many that gluten products produce a 

 soft, salvy butter. This we are inclined to attribute to the 

 influence of the corn oil, which is now largely removed l)e- 

 fore the gluten products are put upon the market. Bartlctt's 

 recent experiments support this view.* 



Both lots of butter were tested for firmness of body by the 

 usual method of allowing a plunge of given weight to drop 

 from a certain height, noting the degree of penetration in 

 millimeters. The average figures were 6.9 millimeters for 

 the standard ration, and 6.7 millimeters for the Chicago 

 gluten meal ration, showing practically no diflerence. 



Experiment VI. 1899-1900. 



[Period I., standard ration, both herds; Period II., standard ration v. King gluten 

 meal ration ; Period III., standard ration r. cotton-seed meal ration.] 



During the winter of 1899-1900 another experiment was 

 instituted, to note the effect of King gluten meal, with 14 

 per cent, corn oil, and normal cotton-seed meal, with 12.6 

 l)er cent, oil, on the 1)utter fat and butter. Ten cows were 

 divided as evenly as possible into herds of five each. In the 

 first period, lasting two weeks, j both licrds were fed the 

 standard ration. In the second })eriod of five weeks f Herd 

 I. received the standard ration and Herd II. the King gluten 

 meal ration. In the third period of five weeks f Herd I. re- 

 ceived the standard ration and Herd II. the cotton-seed meal 

 ration. It will thus be seen that ])<)tli Herds received the 

 same ration in the first period, then Herd II. was changed 



* Maine Experiment Station report, 1898, pp. 97-113. 

 t Preliminary period of two weeks not included. 



