446 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
JUNE i3 
The Churn Is Still The Best Test. 
1. No; the per cent of caseous matter varies as well as 
the per cent of fat. but not to the same extent. The rela¬ 
tive per cent of the two varies with d’fferent animals and 
with the same animal under different conditions. A very 
little observation confirms this. A large per cent of fat is 
often accompanied by a small per cent of casein and vice 
versa. Prof. Jordan of the Maine Experiment Station, 
has shown the injustice of the fat basis for determining 
the value of milk for cheese making. This is conceded by 
the advocates of rating milk by its fat contents; but they 
rave about two-per cent casein, and put in the plea of the 
comparative worthlessness of the casein in a commercial 
point of view. Yet we can’t make cheese without casein, 
and it is the most nutritive portion of the cheese. The 
churn is still the best test for the butter value of milk; for 
to know the fat contents is not to know how much of the 
fat can be recovered by the churn. 
2. Yes; and this is not all. While both the fat and the 
casein vary in per cent and in relative proportion, the fat, 
more than the casein, there is the important element of 
sugar varying from two or three to 5.5 per cent, which is 
of no known value or use in making either butter or 
cheese. It makes the milk more palatable and adds to its 
heat and force-producing value, but is apparently in the 
way, and is retained only to a limited and unavoidable ex¬ 
tent in making butter and cheese, in which it turns to acid 
and is an element of decay. 
3. Certainly—if you want to be exact and do strict jus¬ 
tice. Valuation on the fat basis is only an approximation 
to the true value, however close it may be, but perhaps it 
is more nearly correct than any indicated by any other yet 
known test, except that of the churn for butter—and this, 
owing to the variableness of milk, really requires a deter¬ 
mination of every milking. Why cannot some simple 
method be devised for eliminating the sugar and giving the 
per cent of casein as well as that of fat? Nature has fur¬ 
nished no standard of valuation, and we cannot have one 
that is exact, if based alone on the fat content, which is 
the most variable element of all—up to-day and down to¬ 
morrow, like the thermometer. T. D. curtjS. 
“The Gross Injustice of Pooling.” 
Being a butter maker and not a cheese maker, I have no 
way of knowing, nor have I any desire to know what 
amount of casein there is in the milk brought to our 
creamery, yet I know that it is important that a cheese 
maker should know that he is receiving the proper 
amount of butter fat in milk to make good cheese. Since 
introducing Dr. Babcock’s milk tester in our creamery 
and paying each patron his proportion as shown by the 
test, I can see the gross injustice of paying by the 100 
pounds regardless of quality. And in every instance that 
I am familiar with the way in which the herds are housed 
and fed during the winter is shown by the quality of the 
milk. I do not say that every herd that gives poor milk 
is poorly wintered ; but I do say that every herd that has 
been poorly wintered will give poor milk in the spring. 
While writing this, I have been visited by a patron whose 
milk tested very low, and who could not believe the tester 
was a good thing. He was sure that his cows gave good 
milk. Of course these are the men that will not be satis¬ 
fied with the test. The difference in the milk from 20 herds 
varied from 3 to 3 6 per cent, quite an important difference 
per 100 pounds with butter at 30 cents per pound. 
Erie County, Pa. A. L. wales. 
Will Work Substantial Justice. 
1. In my estimation, the per cent of fat in milk is an 
equitable divisor for buying or pooling milk at the factory. 
I see no reason why the fat test alone would not secure 
justice among patrons. It certainly will in butter fac¬ 
tories ; for if there is any surplus of butter over the per¬ 
centage of fat, it can be divided by the fat ratio. In cheese 
factories I see no reason why it will not work substantial 
justice. The low value of casein, separated from the fat, 
leaves the situation clear for the operation of the fat test. 
The fat in the milk is the great desideratum of commercial 
value, whether it goes into cheese or butter. Being there¬ 
fore the ruling factor in value, each patron will receive 
his just due. 
2. This is a question that I fear I do not clearly under¬ 
stand. Milk is to be accepted commercially in four dis¬ 
tinct ways : first, by the consumer ; second, by the con¬ 
densing factory; third, by the butter factory; fourth, by 
the cheese factory. If the question means that the milk is 
to be accepted on the basis of its solids in cheese or butter 
pooling, then I would answer that I believe that the fats 
and casein do not vary in average milk enough to decide 
against the basis of solids. Of course, if milk is to be 
accepted for family consumption, it is the solids that we 
desire, certainly not the water. The milk-condensing 
establishment is after the solids, and evaporates the water. 
The cheese factory is after two of the solids—casein and 
fat. The butter factory desires but one, the fat. In all of 
these four determinations of the milk, individual cows are 
not reckoned; hence we have to deal with herd milk, 
which gives an average excellence. The natural relation 
between fats and casein does vary in different cows, and 
different dairies, and different seasons; but the Babcock 
test will detect that variation, and honest administration 
will provide for it. 
3. This question involves the preceding one, and I think, 
is partially answered in that. However, I will add that 
for butter or cheese making, even though In the latter 
casein, in weight, is an equal factor, yet, for all intents 
and purposes, it does not need to be determined for the 
distribution of dividends in such instances, because of its 
low value commercially as a separate element. 
Jefferson County, Wis. [ex-gov.] w. d. hoard. 
R. N.-Y.—The following reference to the value of a milk 
test is taken from Hoard’s Dairyman: 
“ This test system is going to prove a mighty eye-opener 
to the dairy world in general. What a few men have seen 
clearly for years, thousands will be obliged to see when 
confronted with poverty stricken results of their own per¬ 
sistent refusal to listen to the truth. It will open the 
eye* of the ‘general-purpose’ men to the fact that spe¬ 
cific dairy farming cannot be carried on to the best profit, 
with their kind of cattle. It will straighten out the tan¬ 
gled ideas of some of those agricultural editors who have 
been advising their readers to go into the dairy business 
with cows that, of necessity, from the way they have been 
bred, cannot give a profitable ratio of fat in their milk. It 
will stop robbing the little ‘ special-purpose ’ cow in or¬ 
der that the half-milk and half-beef cow can have a share 
in the creamery or cheese factory pool. It will put an 
end to the temptation to be dishonest, for what shall it 
profit a man if he waters his milk or skims the night’s 
mess the next morning for a tremendously big cup of coffee, 
just before he joins in family prayers, and then finds that 
his milk must take its place for just what it’s worth ? It 
will make men honest and logical in their breeding ideas, 
The Babcock Milk Tester. Fig. 1 66. 
honest to their cows, honest to their neighbors and honest 
towards their coffee. Who knows but it is the grand pre¬ 
cursor of the millennium!” 
A Chemist’s Opinion. 
1. As a matter of fact, the fat of the milk is the most 
variable element in it. Generally sneaking, the milk rich 
in fat is also proportionately rich in the other solids, and, 
if the fat of the milk from a given cow is increased by 
feeding, etc., the other solids are likewise proportionately 
increased. This is a rule to which there are some excep¬ 
tions, however, for in certain breeds of cows the propor¬ 
tion of fat to casein is in excess, while in the case of other 
breeds the opposite is true. The modern adaptation of 
“butter cows” to butter making and “milk cows” to 
cheese making and producing milk for consumption makes 
the fat test accurate enough for practical purposes. 2. 
If the milk brought to or “ pooled” at the factory is from 
cows whose physical condition, surroundings, feed, care, 
etc., are practically the same, as is usually the case, then 
the relation between the fats and casein would not differ 
Fig. 167. Fig. 168. 
sufficiently to affect the value of milk upon the basis of its 
solids. 3. For the reasons already stated, the value of 
milk based upon the amount of fat is practically accurate 
for all purposes ; yet, with normal milk, a more accurate 
estimate of its commercial value would be obtained upon 
the basis of its solids which include fat, casein, milk- 
sugar and the salts, which constitute all the nourishing 
elements. I say “normal milk” for, if fat was removed, 
the estimation based upon the solids would not be de¬ 
tected as it would be by the fat test. It has been considered 
that milk rich in casein was the most valuable for making 
cheese. If quantity alone were considered, then this 
would hold true; but if one wishes to raise the stand¬ 
ard of cheese and its value as a food (which would raise 
its price) then it should contain a goodly proportion of fat, 
and so again the fat test is practically correct. 
N. Y. State Dairy Com. R. D. clarke, m. d., dep’t chem. 
Figured Down to a Fat Basis. 
1. The per cent of fat in milk determines its ratio far 
more accurately for “ pooling,” than does weight alone. 
The solids of the milk determine its value, and so far as 
the cheese maker and making are concerned, the fats and 
casein are the two solids to be looked after, the sugar prac¬ 
tically all going out in the whey. Taking it one day with 
another for the year, a pound of butter fats has a commer¬ 
cial value of not far from 25 cents. During the same time 
a pound of pure casein is worth in the market, as a white 
oak cheese, about two cents. As it is rare to find the casein 
in the mixed milk of a dairy exceeding the fats in amount, 
and as one is worth 25 cents and the other 2 or 2)4 cents 
per pound, the fats, it is seen, are the most valuable things 
to look after. The fats constitute a solid worth, on the 
average, 12 to 15 times more per pound than the cheese 
element, hence no great injustice is done in any event in 
computing the value of the milk on the basis of the value 
of the butter fat, and then if the milk is for cheese, no in- 
j ustice will be done as not one dairy herd in a thousand will 
give more pounds of casein than of fats. In cases where 
milk is bought by the pound regardless of quality, the in¬ 
justice becomes rank when milk containing 2j^ per cent of 
fat is sold for the same price that is paid for milk contain¬ 
ing 4 to i}4 per cent of fat. 
I have tested the milk of dairies that showed a differ¬ 
ence of over two per cent of fat. While the fats of milk 
fluctuate more one day with another than does the casein, 
the fluctuation of the fat is rarely enough to carry it below 
the total of the casein element, so that to find the milk 
fat is, after all, to closely arrive at the amount of the casein. 
A mistake is often made in assuming that the total solids— 
not fat—are all needed in cheese making, and therefore 
that a cow giving a low percentage of fat, yet yielding 8}4 
per cent of other solids, is extremely valuable for cheese 
making, when the fact is that the other solids not fat or 
casein, do not enter into the coagulation of milk, and so 
go out in the whey and are lost, leaving the smaller per 
cent of cheese to unite with the fats and water to make 
the weight of the cheese, as good cheese is fat, casein and 
water, one-third each. 
Before me is a table carefully compiled from the chem • 
ists’ reports of milk analyze! for all solids, and from 
the four leading dairy breeds. In no instance does the 
casein show above the fats in amount. Where the milk 
contains about four per cent of fats, the casein shows about 
3 75 to 3.85 per cent. Even the showing for some famous 
cheese cows is rated at fats 3.51 per cent, casein 3 28 per 
cent, so that in 100 pounds of this milk the casein would 
in weight fall almost a quarter of a pound below the fats. 
In a case of five per cent milk, the casein fell 1.10 per cent 
below the fats. If this milk had been sold for butter 
making purposes, the seller would have received pay for 
5 }£ pounds of butter, but had he gold it as “pooled 
milk,” he would have received pay for 8% pounds, and be 
“pooled” out of pound of fat, and the man who brought 
the 2)4 per cent milk would have been paid for 3% pounds—a 
pound and one-fourth more than his milk contained. The 
New Jersey Station reports, after a year’s test of all dairy 
breeds, that the casein element rises and falls with the 
butter content, so that milk especially rich in casein at 
any time of the year is a myth. Nor doe3 the time of 
shrinking in the fall change the proportions of the solids, 
as the water of the milk dries up faster than its solids de¬ 
crease, so that the milk is richer because it contains a less 
per cent of water, but there is mors fat than casein. The 
whole argument is that the fats at any season of the year 
are the best index of milk values, and that estimating the 
value of the milk on the basis of the value of its fat con¬ 
tents does no injustice to the patron. 
2. This is answered in the above The season does not 
change the relation of the fats and casein enough to make 
it worth one’s while to look after the difference. 
3. No. for reasons given in No. 1. JOHN GOULD. 
Butter Fats The Basis For Testing Milk. 
If our dairymen could only see the need of a deeper in¬ 
terest in the building up and improvement of the dairy, 
and show as much enthusiasm in their calling as is shown 
by the manufacturers in their various industries, there 
would be less reason for complaint about the unprofitable¬ 
ness of dairying. 
1. I have been making this subject a study for some 
time, and since last December have been using a Babcock 
tester as an aid in obtaining light and information. In a 
dairy of 42 cows I have found and disposed of 10 that did 
no more than pay for their keep. Since commencing my in¬ 
vestigations I have made a large number of tests and found 
a range of from two to ten per cent of butter fat in indi¬ 
vidual cows, and from three to five per cent of butter fat 
in dairies has been sufficient to convince me that the prac¬ 
tice of pooling milk at the factory is all wrong and I can¬ 
not see where there is any justice in selling milk by weight 
regardless of its butter fats. The value of milk is in its 
solids and not in the water, and the valuable solid is the 
butter fat. The milk from the two extreme dairies men¬ 
tioned above is being delivered at a cheese factory under 
the pooling system. One man is furnishing three pounds 
of butter fat with every 100 pounds of milk, while his 
neighbor is furnishing five pounds of fat with every 100 
pounds or two-fifths more, and still on dividend day the 
ratio of pay for the two lots of milk Is the same. Take the 
two extremes of the individual cows mentioned above, and 
what justice would there be in selling the milk containing 
10 per cent of fat at the same price the two per cent milk 
brings ? The principle is wrong to start with. It is ask¬ 
ing too much of a man who has taken pains to breed or 
buy a choice dairy and who gives his cows good care and 
suitable environment and who feeds judiciously and know¬ 
ingly, and is producing milk that will show five per cent 
of butter fat, to pool or sell that milk at the same price 
his neighbor gets for milk that shows only three per cent 
of butter fat. He ought to kick and is a fool if he does 
not. No man is capable of running a dairy successfully 
unless he knows just what each individual cow is doing, 
and is capable of doing. I realize the fact that the intro¬ 
duction of the Babcock tester is bound to meet with strong 
