980 
ANDREW HYDE. 
himself ; the consequence is the profitless cow is sold. Where 
does she go ? Certainly she is not u hacked ” around among cheese 
factory patrons ; they have no use for that kind. She is per¬ 
haps a well-bred young cow that would very likely pay for her 
feed in the barn of a dairymen who retails his milk to consumers, 
who so often think any kind of milk is all right if the measure 
is long enough, and there is where she gets a home. So it seems 
reasonable to conclude that the poor milk sometimes supplied 
consumers in cities where there is no control of the milk traffic, 
is not due to the fraudulent use of the milk separator, but is 
paitly chargeable to a thin-milk-class of cows indifferently man¬ 
aged. 
_ The following conditions in cities of varying sizes and 
widely separated sections may be taken to indicate what may 
exist in any city. 
In cities in Pennsylvania of 342 samples of milk “tested, for 
fat, sixty-foui (18.7 per cent.) were found to contain less than 
three per cent.; 41 of these were below 2.75 per cent., 22 below 
2.3 per cent., 12 below 2.25, and 7 below 2 per cent. Of 329 
total solids determined, 190 were below 12.9 per cent., 72 less 
than 11.5 per cent., and 37 less than 11 per cent. The specific 
gravity of 329 samples was below 1.029 (which is considered the 
minimum of good milk). The restaurant milk as a class was 
found to be badly adulterated, the average per cent, of total 
solids in all the samples examined from this source (29) being 
only 11.33 P er cent., and 13 of the samples were below 3 per 
cent, of fat and 11.5 per cent, of total solids. Fifteen per cent, 
of the samples examineu were undoubtedly watered or skimmed.” 
Recorded analyses of investigations in Chicago are as fol¬ 
lows : u Of 272 samples examined, and which were sold as 
whole milk, the variation in total solids range from 6.24 to 
1 k* 44 , a difference of 12.2 per cent. Variations in fat range from 
.5 to 10.4, a difference of 9.9 per cent. Solids not fat varied 
fiom 4.2 to 10.6, a difference of 6.4 per cent. The average per¬ 
centage of fat in 272 samples, is 3.17. In 263 samples the aver- 
age percentage of total solids is 11.71, and the average percent- 
