'J 
1 
h 
UI 
APRIL 42 
IVSO0BE 5 S RURAL NEW-VORKER 
235 
J;iit[ir gitJibitiulrir, 
CHURNING THE WHOLE MILK. 
The question of how to get the most and 
best butter out of a given quantity of milk, 
does not appear to bo fully settled. There 
are advocates of different systems. Some 
insist that it. is bettor to churn only the cream, 
others the “ whole milk.’’ Again, some ad¬ 
vocate churning the cream when it is sweet, 
others when it is sour or slightly acid, and 
the samo difference of opinion is held among 
those who advocate churning the whole milk, 
as to whether it. should go to the churn sweet 
or sour. All these different methods have 
been tested and compared one with another, 
from time to time, and it. would not be diffi¬ 
cult to find a record of experiments that 
would show favorably for either method. 
Which way, then, is the best way ? How is 
the butter-dairyman, without long and care¬ 
fully conducted experiments, to choose from 
a mass of conflicting testimony as to the best 
practice ? It is evident lie cannot take a few 
isolated cases and adapt his practice thereby. 
He will do well, then, to scrutinize the various 
records of experiments, and see on which 
side the mass of testimony preponderates; 
or, what is better, he will teat the different 
methods and satisfy himself by actual prac¬ 
tice as to what is best in Ids own particular 
case. A record of all well-conducted experi¬ 
ments is in some way useful because it offers 
suggestions and facts by which one’s own 
practice may be compared and a way pointed 
out perhaps for improvement. But experi¬ 
ments arc often worthless ou account of the 
loose way in which they are conducted, or 
on account of the wrong inferences and false 
conclusions which are not imfrequeiit.ly made 
from any experiment. These do harm by 
inducing people to accept this or that prac¬ 
tice as a matter of fact and without testing 
its true value. 
In regard to churning whole milk, we have 
some interesting statements presented in a 
recent number of the Utica Herald, from 
which wo give extracts; though we may re¬ 
mark here, that the statistics as given do not 
prove to our mind that churning whole milk 
is the best practice. The Herald says : 
“The advantage of churning the whole 
milk is illustrated by an experiment made 
by Mr. Rensselaer Day of ()t«gp. Sept. 
12, Mr. Day churned 322 pounds of whole 
milk, which made 21 pounds of butter tak¬ 
ing only 15 1 pounds of milk to make a pound 
of butter. Tin's is a most remarkable yield 
for a dairy. The quantity of milk required 
for a pound of butter at our butter factories 
ranges from 24 to do pounds. The best bloods 
and crosses of Durham, Holstein and Ayr¬ 
shire require from 21) to 22 pounds of milk to 
make a pound of butter. 
‘‘ Wept. 13he skimmed the milk and ehuruud 
the cream. He had 31)5 pounds of milk, and 
got 22 pounds of butter—taking about 10- 
pounds of milk to make a pound of butter, 
or lk' more pounds of milk than it did when 
he churned the whole milk. In both those 
experiments the milk was allowed to lopper.” 
We learn from the llcrald that the cows of 
Mr. Day are grade Devons and one Jersey in 
the herd to give color to the butter. Had the 
number of cows in the herd been given, or 
the quantity of milk yielded by each cow 
stated, we could have better judged as to 
whether the yield of butter was remarkable.. 
The 12th of September is at a time of the 
year when milk is generally much richer hi 
butter than earlier in the season, and it is 
hardly fair to compare a pound of milk 
from Devon and Alderney cows, with a pound 
of milk from other breeds, as above stated, 
to show the advantage of churning whole 
milk. 
Most people will admit that a given quan¬ 
tity of milk from Devons and Alderaeys is 
richer in butter than that for the Durham, 
Holsteiu and Ayrshire. It could hardly 
be expected that us much butter would 
be made from a given quantity of milk 
at the butter factories, as at a farm dairy 
devoted to butter making alone, because 
at the butter factories skim cheese is made, 
and at most of these factories at least 
it is thought more profitable to leave some 
Cream back in the milk in order to improve 
the quality of the skim cheese. And yet we 
have a report from the Keeler Factory of 
Franklin Co., N. V., where the average for 
the whole season was 20 5-7 pounds of milk 
to one of butter. Again the average of live 
factories for the whole season in Franklin 
Co., in 1871, was 22 6-10 pounds of milk to a 
pound of butter. The cows delivering milk 
at these factories are the common cows of 
the country, and the butter was made by 
churning the cream only. We have not the 
statistics showing the quantity of butter 
made at the Iveeler Factory from a given 
quantity of milk in September ; but if the 
average of the season was a poimd of butter 
from 20 5-7 pounds of milk, it doubtless was 
much better than this in September. 
In 1862, Hon, Z vnoo Pratt of Greene Co, 
reports his average make of butter for the 
season from a herd of 80 cows—native or 
common cows of the country—and when the 
cream of the milk only was churned. ITis 
average for the season, as reported by him, 
was a pound of butter from Iff 7 10 pounds 
of milk. How much better will Mr. Day’s 
smaller herd of Devons and Jerseys average 
than this—and if any better, is the fact to be 
attributed to t he churning of the whole milk 
or to the breed of the cows ■ Any one knows 
that a single test of one day’s churning by 
one method and another day’s churning by 
another method, is not conclusive evidence 
as to which is the best ; since the experiment, 
repeated, might show entirely different re¬ 
sults. It. is these single t ests and hasty ex¬ 
periments that often load to harm, because, 
if accepted at once, without repeated verifi¬ 
cation, wrong conclusions may result. In¬ 
deed, the experiment given above is of very 
little account as showing any advantage in 
churning whole milk over churning cream 
alone, because, as will be seen in r.ho table 
below, which is taken from the Herald, the 
variations in churning whole milk is quite as 
largo as the churnings in September. Take, 
for instance, the record for June 17 and 18, 
and we find that the difference iu the weight 
of milk for tho two days is 45 1 j pounds, 
whereas the difference in butter made is only 
one pound. If the milk of the herd had been 
all put into one vat and intimately mingled, 
and then divided in two equal parts by weight 
the cream from one churned and the butter 
compared with Unit from the whole milk 
churning—the experiment would have been 
morn satisfactory. We quote again from the 
Herald, as follows : 
“On the l ttli, Mr. Day skimmed tho milk 
sweet. 1 ie had 355 pounds of milk and made 
17 pounds of butter—taking a little over 20" . 
pounds of milk to make a pound of butter. 
This is 5 ! ; pounds more than it took when 
the milk was kippered, and four pounds niorfyl 
than it took when he churned ! lie cream of 
kippered milk. This shows a. very marked 
advantage in favor of souring—tit least so 
fur as quantity is concerned. But our im¬ 
pression is that, if the whole milk had been 
churned just before it lonpered -or when it 
began to thicken on the bottom of the pails 
his-vield would have been quit© as large 
and a little finer in quality. 
The following table shows the results of 
seven days’ churning, Mr, Day allowing ids 
milk to lopper, as is his custom : 
Juno 16.... 
111.. . 
17.. .. 
18 ... 
19.. . 
20 .. . 
21 . 
libs. milk. 
...4ioq 
...43-1 
...430'/, 
...470 
...441 
. ..429't 
....439', 
libs, butter. 
23 
27 
27 
28 
28 
20 
184 
Total.3,001 
The average number of pounds of milk for 
a pound of butter is 1(5,61, which is an extra¬ 
ordinary yield. Tho cows are grade Devons, 
Otic Jersey cow being used in the herd to give 
color to the butter. 
*• It will lie seen that the yield of different 
days is quite irregular — the largest day’s 
yield of milk producing no more butter than 
others. Probably variations in the weather 
account for the discrepancies.” 
The table of the quantity of milk and yield 
of butter from June 15 to June 21, Inclusive, 
is valuable, as showing the difference in the 
quulity of the milk of the same cows in Sep¬ 
tember and .Juno, and also as showing a va¬ 
riation in quantity of butte)’ from day to 
day under the same process of butter making. 
Taking all the items herein stated, we see no 
clear proof that churning the whole milk on 
Mr. Day’s plan is of any more advantage 
than to have churned tho cream only, while 
on the other hand, the labor of churning the 
whole milk must be considerably root’©. We 
do not refer to these statements out of any 
captious spirit, but rather as a caution to 
dairymen in regard to the manner of making 
experiments, and over-liaste in drawing eon- 
elusions. We should be glad to see this matter 
of churning definitely settled. Jf Mr. Day has 
a plan Of making more butter and better but¬ 
ter than is made by churning the cream, and if 
liu can make more money from a given quan¬ 
tity of milk of the same quality than can be 
realized on tho butter factory system, it will 
be a great gain to dairymen to have a knowl¬ 
edge of the method, if any of our readers 
have facts proving this theory, we shall be 
very glad to print them. 
-♦ ■■ ■ . 
SUNDAY CHEESE MAKING. 
present. At the recent meeting of tho Mich¬ 
igan State Dairymen’s Association, at Adrian, 
there was a decided expression against the 
practice. Mr. Quick strongly opposed it, on 
the ground of its violation of law, religion 
and sound morality. He advocated keeping 
Saturday night’s and Sunday morning’smilk 
at the farm, for butter making, Mr. Moore 
urged that the question lie thoroughly dis¬ 
cussed by members of the Association, and 
an experience given as t o the course each was 
willing to adopt iu practice. IIo would like 
to see a way by which Sunday cheese mak¬ 
ing could be don© away with. It might be 
easy for those keeping a dozen cows, but how 
was it to be done with men ha ving a dairy of 
seventy or eighty cows t Will not the aban¬ 
donment of Sunday cheese making entail 
more Sunday work at the farm, thus com¬ 
pelling more people, iu the aggregate, to la 
hor on Sunday than wili result from the pres¬ 
ent practice 'll How can the milk be cared 
for with the least labor? He was in favor 
of having it eared for at tho factory. To 
this it was replied that large pans are now 
constructed to hold the entire moss of milk 
of the dairy at, one milking. With two such 
pans, the two messes of milk could bo act at 
the farm, to remain until Monday, when the 
Cream may beskinuned and churned. There 
would be no extra work, t herefore, on Sun¬ 
day, and the hauling of Sunday morning’s 
milk to the footory would be avoided. With 
proper appliance of cold water, the milk re¬ 
tained at the farm would be sweet, on Mon¬ 
day, and Could bo taken to the factory, and 
either mingled with the morning's milk or 
made up separately. Mr. Stock we i l thought 
nearly every dairyman in Lenawee Co. could 
keep one day’s milk at home, Tho butter 
could bo easily made. If it was ouly a ques¬ 
tion of dollars and Cents, was it best to sacri¬ 
fice the interests of the community, to disre¬ 
gard Iho Sabbath, for money ? M r. Vanhlyke 
urged the abandonment of the practice, and 
believed (hat, simply as a matter of profit, a 
discontinuance of Sunday cheese making 
would pay belter than the present practice. 
He read an account of the practice of certain 
•on manufacturers to prove thathis position 
was correct. 
Several other speakers participated in the 
discussion, which resulted iu the passage of 
the following: 
Resolved, That the best interests of society 
demand the discontinuance of Sunday cheese 
making. 
Chore were several other topics brought 
before the Convention, and the discussions 
were of interest, and conducted with ability. 
Prof. Beat, of the Michigan State Agrieul 
tural Collogo gave a valuable address upon 
grasses, to which we shall refer hereafter. 
The annual address was delivered by X. A 
Willard of the Rural New-Yorker. Tho 
officers of the Association elected lor the 
current year ace M. 1’. Stogkwell, Presi¬ 
dent. : A. B. Tin.iMrsox and II. 11. Uooowm 
Vice-Presidents ; '1'. F. Moore, Secretory, and 
Jay Hoag, Treasurer. 
--■ 
DAIRYING IN MICHIGAN. 
SHALL WE WASH OUR SHEEP? 
We are glad that Sunday cheese making is 
becoming a subject of earnest discussion at 
the dairy conventions, resulting iu tho pass¬ 
ing of resolutions urging the discontinuation 
of the practice. This is the best way of 
bringing about reform, because both sides of 
the question are presented, aud arguments 
drawn from the practical experience of those 
During our attendance at the Michigan 
State Dairymen’s Convention at Adrian, 
Mich., in February last, w« had opportunity 
to examine samples of cheese from a num¬ 
ber of factories iu that State. Much of it 
waft of very nice cmality—rid) In moat, good 
I favored, and wdl suited to the home trade 
either East or West. In texture tho Michi¬ 
gan cheese resembles that made in Ohio, and 
is not quite so tirin as the “ shipping olieesi 
of Now York. An impression not unfro- 
qaentlv lwevailn among New York dairymen 
that all Michigan or Ohio cheese must neces¬ 
sarily be much inferior to that made in Now 
York. This is a very grave mistake. Much 
of the cheese made in these States is first- 
Class, and can be highly commended for its 
rich, mellow texture and mild, Sweet flavor. 
It is well adapted to the home trade, and cer¬ 
tain brands have become favorites in the 
markets of Boston and Philadelphia. Michi¬ 
gan is a young State in cheese dairying, but 
it may interest some of our reader’s to know 
that even now some of tier cities have be¬ 
come important centers for distributing the 
dairy products of the country. Tims, for in¬ 
stance. there were shipped from Adrian in 
1870, 1,315,445 pounds of cheese and 127,814 
pounds Of butter. During t he year 1871 the 
shipments were, of cheese, 1,873,006 pounds, 
and of butter, 210,277 pound -. The cheese if 
shipped from week to week and month to 
month during the year. Thus in 1871 the 
shipments were as follows :—In January, 
50,V75 pounds ; February, 40.885 lbs.; March, 
30,705 lbs.; April. 2,020 lbs.; May, 100,420 lbs.; 
June, 100 ,Off 0 lbs.; July, 157.000 lbs,; August, 
188,544 his.; Set it ember, 101,150 lbs.; October, 
101,038 lbs.; November, 40,021 lbs.; Decem¬ 
ber, 121,762 lbs.—making a total of 1,273,000 
pounds. The most of tills cheese was made 
ip Lenawee county. At the time of our visit 
to Adrian, in February last, wo wore in¬ 
formed by Mr. Baker, Mr. Clark, and 
others, that tin' stock of cheese in Michigan 
was extremely light, ami below what was re¬ 
quired for the wants of the State. Many 
parte of Michigan arc well adapted to the 
daily, and we shall doubtless, in time, see 
dairying largely extended in the State. 
The Passu msic Farmers’ Club have been 
discussing this question, and what the mem¬ 
bers said, us reported in tho Vermont Farmer, 
is so expressive of general experience, we 
think, that it is well to open the discussion 
among shepherds by publishing it: 
J. P. Foster— I am opposed to washing. 
It injures the sheep and the men who wash 
them ; but as long as buyers offer a premium 
for dirt we shall be tempted to wash, if 
buyers would pay strictly according to clean¬ 
liness aud careful packing, no such tempta¬ 
tion would exist. 1 carried two small lots of 
wool to a buyer, both washed ; one well 
washed and nicely put up, and the other 
washed lightly, and ma nufacturers said them 
was lull live cents per pound difference ; 
st ill ear'll lot. woe sold to (lie sumo man ’and 
at the same price. T believe t hat no farmer 
should Wash his sheep. Wo could shear one 
month earlier without washing with greater 
safety for the sheep. Buyers make oir 
fourth difference, between 'washed and un¬ 
washed wool. Poor sheep arc nearly spoiled 
by driving to washing place aud back, eat re 
big the weight of water iu t he wool. It i- 
mucli better to shear before the sheep lea ve 
t he burn. In shearing late we lose much of 
the wool. I onr-c sheared in June. There 
had been Home very hot weather, but a few 
days after sheafing it cumu on very cold, and 
1 lost two, and a neighbor seven, from the 
colil. Manufacturers prefer to buy unwashed 
wool. 
C. B., Barker —I wash clean when I wash. 
I find 1 get no more for well washed wool, 
than those do who but half wash. I think 
we should none of us wash, then the price of 
wool would be more uniform. 
J. G. Lawrence—T here is a great differ¬ 
ence in unwashed wool ; as much as between 
ordinary and well washed. It is very diffi¬ 
cult to make an even thing of this wool 
business. Those who wash and shear late 
lose in wool that the biiBhos in tho pasture 
pull from the sheep. Should we. all adopt 
the plan of not washing, we would get nearer 
the true, value, for our wool than now. 1 
think we should encourage all the fanners to 
dispense with washing. 
J. Morrison— 1 wash my sheep. I get 
more, money to wash than not .to. I wash 
clean, put up well and get a fair price for my 
wool. 1 do not think it hurts sheep very 
much to wash them. Always keep them 
under cover in stormy weather. 
J. Dow—I find I get the most money for 
my wool when 1 half wash, and the least 
when I do not wash at all. The men who 
buy the wool are not judges ; they pay so 
much for washed and so much for unwashed, 
and often buy without looking at the wool 
at all. if w«> get, any advantage of t he manu¬ 
facturer we are smart, that’s ail. 1 believe 
there is nothing to be gained in the long run 
by washing. Wo should all wash or none. 
I think we had better discard washing 
entirely. 
K. 1\ Harvey—D oes It pay to wash sheep ? 
Coarse wool slice]) poorly washed may give 
better returns than unwashed, if wc let them 
run two or three weeks after being washed, 
hum I let them roll in the sand and dirt as t hey 
will when they can find it. The great t re ui 
is in the, entire ignorance of the buy ere. Tl • 
Cannot, toll half of the time whether the wool 
is washed or not. The manufacturer 1 as 
nothing to do wit h tho buying only to make 
the price, and he is careful to make it low 
enough for all the poor washing, mid if Ire; 
buyer find poor washed wool the price is nil 
right, and if he finds well washed wool it, is 
his good luck, and so much in his favor. 1 
sorted wool ten years in u factory and know 
how the wool is bought and handled. 
A. Warden—F or t hree years past I hare 
not washed my sheep ; I got better return:; 
than when 1 washed. 1 shear the last ■ 
April before the sheep leave the barn. By 
shearing early wc get rid of the ticks that are 
often troublesome to (lie sheep. If a lew 
have gone from tho sheep to the lambs a 
little snuff will kill thorn. I believe both 
Sheer) and lambs do better than when 1 
washed and sheared kite. Often the stock 
will lose as much wool as the. discount that B 
made by the buyers between washed and 
unwashed wool. 
■-*-♦-*- 
GRUBS IN THE HEAD. 
In the Rural New-Yorker of January 
was an article on “ Grubs in the Heads 
Sheep,” io which there was some dispute 
to tne effectual remedy. We had, at 
time of seeing tlie article, lost two ewes, ;• 
11 
of 
as 
the 
ml. 
as we t hought , of Some disease of the head, 
but did not like to experiment, on our own 
responsibility, especially about an animal’s 
head : hut after reading your valuable ne per, 
I, like C. Goui.eh, examined the head of one 
of the dead shoe]), to be certain of the dis¬ 
ease, and there found sixteen grubs. 
We then went, immediately to work on the 
rest that showed the same symptoms, with 
butter and turpentine, and cured all (re; 
were ailing—oven olio we had but litt le re ¬ 
ef. We also tried tar, as recommend; by 
F. J. X., on some not so bad ; but had to re¬ 
sort, to the former remedy before a cure v is 
effected. We are of tlie opinion that tar 
would be better as a preventive than as a 
cure. It is thought, from vvliat I can learn, 
that a kind of gad-fly deposits the eggs in the 
sheeps’ nose, during the summer, which 
forms the grub. 
I consider t hat that one item saved us sev¬ 
eral times the yearly subscription of your 
paper this winter. T. Coates, Jr„ 
Collamer, Pa. 
