300 REPORT OF THE CHEMIST OF THE 
happily, still so old-fashioned in their ideas as to advocate the op- 
posite process, viz., increasing the yield of fat in milk without. pay- 
ing any attention to its skim-milk constituent, casein. This is 
simply raising the old question that used to be discussed so much 
20 years and more ago regarding the “ butter cow ” and the “ cheese 
cow.” Thus, in the 1892 report of the Vermont experiment station 
(pp. 122, 123) this whole question is ably discussed, the article 
closing as follows: “ The logical conclusion, then, is that the so- 
called “cheese cow,’ that is, the cow which is especially good for 
cheese rather than for butter, does not exist, and that whenever a 
cow is found that is good for cheese-making purposes, the milk of 
that cow is equally good for the manufacture of butter.” The fol- 
lowing statement is found on page 471 of the 1895 Year-book of 
the United States Department of Agriculture in an article by the 
late Henry E. Alvord: “Cumulative evidence is unnecessary. 
These important truths are established, namely: The best milk 
makes the best cheese, and the most of it; the milk which is most 
profitable for butter is also the most profitable for cheese; the best 
butter cow is the best cheese cow.” In a discussion of the same 
subject, Bulletin No. 9 of the New Hampshire station contains the 
following statements: ‘“ We are told that cows which are giving milk 
poor in fat and are therefore poor butter cows are great cheese 
cows. . . . A milk rich in fat is not only a good milk for butter 
but also a good milk for cheese, while the reverse is also true.” 
In harmony with the general tenor of the preceding statements, 
the investigation carried on with different breeds of cows at this 
Station appears to demonstrate clearly that a pound of cheese-solids 
ean be produced at less cost in case of milk rich in fat than in case 
of milk poor in fat. 
(7) Another highly important question has been raised in connec- 
tion with the use of a casein-test in paying for milk at cheese- 
factories — Is it worth the time and trouble expended on it? It is 
not worth the time, if, with Dr. Robertson, Dr. Babcock and others, 
we believe that casein is not equal in value to fat for cheese pro- 
duction in relation to composition and quality of cheese. If, on the 
other hand, we believe that yield of cheese alone should be con- 
sidered and that fat and casein are of equal value, pound for pound, 
in cheese production, even then we can ask the question — Are the 
differences caused by variation in casein worth the trouble and ex- 
pense involved in making a casein-test in addition to fat? To what 
extent will dividends be readjusted among patrons and in what 
