NOV. 29 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
820 
FAIRNESS IN BUTTER TESTS FOR ALL BREEDS. 
j. N. MUNCEY. 
Some uniform system of testing cows and weighing the 
butter should be adopted by the State fairs' and the several 
breeders’ associations. At present owners of well bred 
dairy cows of the same and different breeds differ as to 
the t>est system of testing and as to the proper time when 
the butter should be weighed. 
The Jersey breeders publish “official tests;” the Hol¬ 
stein Friesian breeders publish in a special volume affi¬ 
davits of owners and the results of the inspectors woik , 
the Ayrshire and other associations publish in newspapers 
from time to time the tests of different cows. The readers 
of these reports of butter tests compare them and 
decide that, according to the figures, Mr. Jones’s cow is 
better than Mr. Brown’s. Assuming that the figures are 
actually true, no such conclusiou can be drawn. Mr. 
Jones weighed the butter unsalted and immediately after¬ 
wards washed it with water. Mr. Brown weighed the un¬ 
salted butter after it had remained m the churn and the 
water had been allowed to dra'n away. Now, suppose 
Jones had five pounds of butter and Brown 4}^ pounds, 
the probabilities are that Brown’s cow was the better. 
Now, in my opinion, neither of these supposed tests is 
correct. 
One breeder advocates that the butter as weighed 
and reported should be “merchantable.” The question 
here arises, what is “ merchantable butter.” Probably 
85 per cent of the Western product is bought by the dealers 
as unsalted butter. Some of this is dry and some contains 
a considerable percentage of water. A great variation in 
shrinkage is actually sustained by the purchaser. But 
the seller says: “If my cow makes 12 pounds of butter 
per week and I can sell it for 12 pounds, it is immaterial to 
me how much it shrinks.” Very true, but that cow can¬ 
not really be said to have given 12 pounds of merchantable 
butter in one week. It shrinks in salting and working, 
say, to illustrate, seven per cent, or nearly one pound, and 
another shrinkage occurs before the retailer has sold it to 
the consumer, and the consumer sustains a shrinkage, so 
that a fair comparison cannot be made on “ merchantable 
unsalted butter.” Let me give actual figures from my 
sales a year ago. 
I was selling unsalted butter to a reliable and honest 
firm. They were keeping records of their shrinkages. 
One of the proprietors said to me: “ Muncey, your last lot 
of 62 pounds shrank 11 pounds after the first working and 
salting, and now I want you to stay here in the room and 
watch me salt and weigh this lot.” I did so. The unsalted 
butter this time weighed 85 pounds. He added six pounds 
of salt, worked and colored the butter and reweighed, and 
it weighed exactly 84 pounds. He was surprised, for he 
felt certain that he would be able to demonstrate his 
veracity as to the shrinkage in the previous lot. Here was 
a shrinkage of only one pound on eighty-four after the 
salting and first working. Of course it would again shrink 
when reworked the next day. Now you ask how do I ex¬ 
plain this anomaly. The explanation is easy. Butter 
churned at different temperatures and washed with water 
of different temperatures, and churned to granules from 
the size of a pin head to that of buckshot, will vary greatly 
in weight. This I have found to be the case. The heavy 
shrinkage of 11 pounds on 62 pounds of the unsalted butter 
was due to the fact that It had been churned into an ex¬ 
ceedingly fine granular condition and had been washed 
with water almost freezingly cold. The result was that it 
acted like a fine sponge and the water was held between 
the small, fatty particles. The next lot had been churned 
into a considerably coarser state and the weather was 
warmer. I say, therefore, that no fair comparison can be 
made between cows in cases where the butter is weighed 
unworked and unsalted, though it may be allowed to drain 
in the churn for six hours or more. It is very doubtful if 
even an experienced dairyman on different days can churn 
cream that will yield like quantities of pure butter and 
make the unsaited butter weigh exactly the same. 
The granular condition of unsalted butter at the time it 
is weighed causes it to hold a greater or less quantity of 
water and buttermilk. I have no doubt that some of the 
phenomenal performances of cows in recent years have 
been due to their owners’ ignorance of this fact. [Couldn’t 
it have been due to their owners’ knowledge of it, also ?— 
EDS.] Butter may be churned so as to hold 25 per cent of 
water, if weighed as soon as washed. The average salted 
butter, as marketed nowadays, contains an average of 
about 11 per cent of water. This is about the condition in 
which the butter should be when weighed when tests are 
made of cows of the different breeds. 
Another question arises among owners of fine dairy 
cows: “Will the yields of butter from different cows of the 
same and different breeds be proportionate to the results 
of chemical analysis ?” They may or may not. A chem¬ 
ical analysis of the milk, whether made by Short’s, Pat¬ 
rick’s or the Ether Extract method, shows only the fat in 
the milk. It does not show “ butter fat,” as one professor 
chooses to call it. It is true that the oil of butter is fat; 
but not all the oil in milk will make butter. While the fat 
determined by analysis is butter fat, it is that and more. 
Some of it is fat that will not make butter. Has it not 
been often demonstrated that no process of churning or 
separating cream from milk will recover all the fat In 
milk? One half to three fourths of one per cent of the fat 
in milk is not churnable. Will you call it “butter fat” 
then ? No, certainly. One might as well call a mixture of 
SO parts of Japan Tea and 10 parts of Gunpowder Tea, 
Japan Tea. A specific name for this mixture cannot be 
properly used. Tea is the proper name in one case and fat 
in the other. Suppose, for example, that the milk from a 
cow called Betsy analyzes five per cent of fat, and that of 
Topsy five per cent, each cow giving, say, 50 pounds of 
milk per day. Betsy may give more than five pounds of 
butter per one hundred of milk, and Topsy less. I have 
two cases in my own herd where one cow’s milk yielded 
only 76 per cent of the fat actually in it, while that of the 
other gave 104 per cent of the fat in it. [ ?—Eds ] In the 
supposed case then, Betsey would give 5 per cent of 104 per 
cent of 50, or 2 pounds 9% ounces of butter, and Topsy 5 per 
cent of 76 per cent, or 1 pound US ounces. Here there is a 
difference of 11 ounces of butter per day in favor of Betsy, 
while at any fair in recent years the premium would have 
been equally divided. I could cite many other actual tests 
made by myself and at experiment stations to prove the 
same point. The milk from the same cow will greatly 
vary from day to day in the amount of butter that can be 
obtained from it. Dr. Sturtevant’s cow Gem gave on* day 
5 9 10 per cent of fat, which yielded 99 per cent as butter, 
and at another time 8% per cent, yielding 139 per cent of 
butter. [As the entire amount of butter in it couldn’t 
have been more than 100 per cent, how could anybody get 
139 per cent out of it ?— Eds.] If, therefore, a breeder and 
seller of cattle had told you of the performance of some 
cow on a certain day, and invited you to see her tested, and 
the result you witnessed varied as much as the above, you 
would doubt his honesty, whereas the fact is that you 
would have no reason to do so. 
If I were to tabulate a set of rules giving awards of 
milk and butter tests at fairs or anywhere else—rules that 
would enable any one to make a fair comparison of a cow 
in Maine with one in California—I would say: 
1. Feed the cow as liberally as you desire with any avail 
able feed. 
2. Do not give drugs or appetizers of any sort. 
3. Set the milk in ice water at 45 degrees or below as 
'soon as drawn, and do not let the temperature rise above 
that point for 12 hours. 
4. Skim from the top in 10 or 12 hours and do not get 
any more skim milk in with the cream than you possibly 
can avoid. 
5. Churn the cream at 58 degrees from two or three 
days’ milk after it has properly acidified. By properly 
acidified cream I mean thin, sour cream. This sourness 
ought to develop in 10 hours by setting the cream in water 
at 70 degrees in winter and, say, 64 in summer. 
6. Churn to granules smaller than a pin head so that it 
can be well washed with water at 48 degrees two or 
three times or until the water is clear. Do not shake the 
churn so that the particles of butter will adhere. 
7. Do not weigh this unsalted butter until well rolled 
on a butter worker, or if there is only a small quantity— 
say five pounds—use a rolling pin. A butter-bowl does not 
allow the water to escape so freely. Weigh the unsalted 
butter after no more water comes out. Work it again and 
reweigh. These two weights should agree very closely. If 
not, work it again. 
8. Do not weigh it directly from the churn, salt one 
ounce per pound, and reweigh after the second working. 
The reason for this is as follows : Suppose A’s butter from 
the churn weighs five pounds and contains 25 per cent of 
water, and B’s butter weighs five pounds and contains 15 
per cent of water, and they both salt one ounce per pound 
at the first weighing, then A’s butter after it has been re¬ 
worked contains less salt per pound than B’s, owing to 
the fact that it contained more water which dissolved 
more of the salt, and this dissolved salt was washed out. 
The error in weighing unsalted butter or salted butter 
thus prepared would be small and there would be justice 
for all breeds and for different cows of the same breed. 
A churn in the expert’s hands tells you how much 
obtainable butter your cow gives. A graduated bottle 
and a jug of acid tell you how much fat your cow gives. 
These quantities may or may not agree. It would be well 
to test the milk chemically in connection with the churn 
test, and base the value of the skim-milk and buttermilk 
on this test 
STRAWBERRIES FOR GENERAL PLANTING. 
E. P. POWELL. 
My article on grapes included a list of strongly advertised 
sorts that for general cultivation, should never be recom¬ 
mended. If one were to make a list of the strawberries 
flatteringly offered to the public, he would fill a column, 
while not over a dozen sorts could be honestly indorsed. I 
have aimed for years to keep thoroughly posted as to the 
behavior of the best sorts in the general range of the 
Northern States, relying on my own test garden in part and 
much also on the reports of such men as Matthew Craw¬ 
ford, T. T. Lyon, M. T. Thompson and others. As the 
only kinds among the older varieties that have endured a 
general test, I put down in order of their merits in my 
estimation the following: Cumberland does well almost 
everywhere. The vine is prolific and the berry of fine form, 
size and flavor. Sharpless is in some localities condemned, 
though, as a rule, it proves to be a superb affair. Ontario 
does not differ from it essentially in any point. It has the 
fault of green tips. Some one must give us a Sharpless 
that does not have them. Perhaps the Ontario is less af¬ 
flicted in that way. Manchester is a late berry, rather 
sour, but a capital cropper nearly everywhere, and an ex¬ 
cellent sort to grow with others that fail to self-fertilize. 
Among the sorts more recently introduced Bubach No. 5 
is a grand berry in every way and everywhere. I believe I 
never saw it condemned, which is a marvel. The berry is 
very large and rich. The vine is a good grower and a 
superb cropper. It endures drought well. The color of 
the foliage is a bluish green. Haverland is a very stout 
plant, with enormous roots. The beiry is of the lady- 
finger sort, not quite highest in flavor, but.good, and it 
lies in heaps. It needs mulching to keep it off‘the soil. 
Jessie is with me a good berry but not a heavy cropper. 
Logan is good. Summit is superb in quality and beauty, 
but a very poor grower. Bomba is not handsome or worth 
planting. It ranks higher in other localities. Lida will 
rank close after the best almost anywhere; in some local¬ 
ities it is best. Jewell is too sour and not remarkable. 
Belmont is generally a failure; though in some localities it 
is very successful. Itaska is pretty nearly a humbug. 
Vick is an over-bearing, sour nuisance. Hoffman is re¬ 
ported good in spots. Indiana is not of any good. Prince 
of Berries is not only large but delicious. The plant is 
dwarfish, and, all in all, it is suited only for special uses. 
Crystal City is a week earlier than all the others I have 
named, otherwise it is not fit to plant. 
Of the later sorts Pearl gets general commendation. 
Eureka is highly spoken of at nearly all points. Warfield 
No. 2 is evidently of the Wilson style. With us Mrs. 
Cleveland grows fairly, but has not fruited yet. The 
same is thecase with Eureka, Lady Rusk, Viola, Crawford, 
Thompson’s No. 4. Gypsy and Warfield are good growers. 
Luella [?] is a poor grower. I cannot report further on 
them from my own tests, but am confident we shall have 
about two really good, staying berries out of the whole 
crowd sent out during the last two years. 
In the hands of the introducers are some new sorts of 
great promise which we shall hear about shortly ; but 
there is no reason why a person desirous of making money 
should plant most of the advertised sorts, unless he has 
found them specially suited to his locality. A small test 
gaiden is a good thing; but why rush ahead and plant an 
acre of some half-tested novelty ? A man recently wrote 
to me about his fall work, which Included a large planting 
of the Vick and Jessie. After planting them, he wished 
advice as to their value 1 
No one is liable to go amiss with this list. 1, Bubach; 
2, Cumberland ; 3, Haverland and, 4, Sharpless. Parker 
Earle, Eureka, Crawford, Gypsy, Warfield and others are 
merely worth testing. Of very late sorts Manchester and 
Kentucky are the best with me. Ohio is worthless. 
Summit would be the best late and one of the wonders if 
it would grow. The fruit is as solid and ripens as slowly 
as a pear. Jennig’s White is the most delicious of all, but 
will not bear a decent crop. 
My ground is a strong clay with a south-east exposure. 
I would not plant strawberries at all if I could command 
only low land liable to excessive dampness. There is no 
profit in growing small berries. I have for this reason left 
out of my list several varieties that bear immense crops 
like the Crescent, and when of good size are very hand¬ 
some. I can pick three baskets of the Bubach or Haver¬ 
land to one of the Crescent or Wilson, and sell them at a 
higher figure. 
Oneida County, N. Y. 
NEW FEATURES AT OUR NEXT FAIRS. 
Fair managers will soon be making up their premium 
lists for the coming year. Every live fair organization will 
seek for new features to make its next fair more attractive 
and valuable than any yet held. The following topics are 
offered for consideration, as being either new, or contain¬ 
ing new features that have received but little attention: 
1. Exhibit of any valuable variety of fruit or vegetables 
never before shown, together with a written history of its 
production or discovery, and a statement of its merits. 
2. Exhibit of any fruit or vegetables produced by cross¬ 
ing or hybridizing. 
3. Display of wild fruits in greatest number and variety. 
4. Exhibit showing the greatest diversity in size and ap¬ 
pearance found in any wild fruit. 
5. Sample of any wild fruit, showing Improvement due 
to cultivation. 
6. Samples of grapes grown under ordinary conditions, 
together with other samples showing the result of some 
method of treatment for black-rot. 
7. Exhibit showing the results of some method of treat¬ 
ment for the apple scab. 
8. Exhibit showing different methods of grafting and 
budding. 
9. Collection of native evergreens of the county or State, 
properly named. 
10. Collection, properly named, of living branches of 10 
well known deciduous trees, by a boy or girl under 20. 
11. Collection of 10 common weeds, properly named, the 
collection to be exhibited in the growing condition. 
12. Exhibit showing samples of the least valuable va¬ 
riety of apple named in the adopted list of the State horti¬ 
cultural society. There must be at least three exhibitors, 
the award to go to the best specimens of the poorest va¬ 
riety entered. 
13. Exhibit of best variety of market apple. 
14. Exhibit of best variety of dessert apple. 
15. Exhibit of greatest number of products obtained 
from any given kind of fruit. 
16. Best essay on some branch of horticulture by a boy 
or girl under 16. 
17. Largest collection of named varieties of apples, classi¬ 
fied and arranged in the order of merit. 
18. Exhibit showing the modifications of fruits or vege¬ 
tables by soil or climate. A. A. crozier. 
Washington, D. C. 
How to Plant Potatoes on a Hillside. — I have 
raised potatoes on hill sides and have always run the 
rows across or around the hill, never up and down. 
Two years ago I planted a hill top and part of one side; 
one end of the top sloped with the rows and after a heavy 
rain in July a gully three feet deep was washed out, and in 
each row a deep furrow was washed out. On the side 
where the rows crossed the hill at the lowest point, the 
water broke and cut channels through the rows; but as 
they were numerous none were large, and no permanent 
damage was done. All corn rows on hill-sides here run 
with the hill and not up and down. A narrow strip of sod 
left along a hill-side will sometimes prevent deep washing. 
Mifiiin County, Pa. V. D. STONEROAD. 
