ILLINOIS STATE DAIRYMEN’S ASSOCIATION. 89 
sweet, and was used for making a good skimmed cheese, which was worth 
seven cents per pound. This process utilized the entire milk. The same 
quantity of milk treated by Mr. Arnold, by heating, yielded but forty-eight 
pounds of butter, leaving the milk sour and worthless.” [See report in The 
Prairie Farmer— under title “ New Departure of August 7. ] 
The other experiment was in New York, u where a vat of 450 gallons of 
milk, heated to 130 degrees, kept sweet for thirty-six hours, when the weather 
was so warm that it only fell to ninety degrees in twenty-four hours, from 
which was made more butter and better cheese than from an equal quantity 
of milk cooled to sixty degrees. ” [See Mr. Arnold’s letter in The Prairie 
Farmer , of August 28, 1875.] 
If these experiments prove anything, they would seem to prove that 
Western milk was sound, for the reason that it produced the best results 
when let alone, when it was not tampered with by heating; and that Eastern 
milk was unsound, for the reason that it produced the best results by being 
tampered with—by heating. 
But your committee do not adopt any such views. They believe that 
both Western and Eastern milk is entirely “sound,” and that when treated 
on well-established principles of curing and handling, the butter and cheese 
made from it will be of a quality that can not be excelled. 
Mr. Arnold states, in his article, that a failure, if it results in a search 
after the cause of the perishable nature of milk, will be more valuable than 
a success, and here your committee have to notice the microscopic examina¬ 
tion of milk referred to by him. Dr. Tefft furnished the microscope, and 
ten or twelve different samples of milk were subjected to the scrutiny. Mr. 
Arnold states that he found “ three distinct species of fungoid plants 
which were easily recognized as the products of stagnant water, and had 
evidently come from the cows drinking from sloughs or pond holes, or stag¬ 
nant eddies.” This, if we understand Mr. Arnold, accounts for the failure 
in his experiment. 
In leply to this, it may be stated that the milk examined was from the 
well-known dairies of Frank W. Wright, Dr. Joseph Tefft and I. IL. Wanzer, 
and all of these gentlemen assert that there are not “ ponds, sloughs, or 
other stagnant water” in their pastures. Mr. Wright says his cows drink 
water that is daily pumped from a pure well, and Dr. Tefft and Mr. Wanzer 
state that their cows drink water from a pure spring brook. 
It seems to your committee hardly possible for Mr. Arnold to have dis¬ 
covered, with the aid of the microscope, the true cause of the failure of his 
experiment, as it could not have come from stagnant water drank by the 
cows that furnished the milk for the investigation. Dr. Tefft, who has long 
been familiar with the microscope, did not at the time agree with Mr. Arnold 
in regard to the things seen by the microscope. His view was that it was the 
formation of caseine or curd in the milk, and its wonderful growth in so 
short a time, “ across the whole field of vision,” did not much surprise Dr. 
Tefft, for he knew that that occupied a space scarcely larger than the point 
of a pin; and that therefore a very minute particle of curd would cover the 
field of vision. 
Your committee are of the opinion that Mr. Arnold did not, with the aid 
