1 ¥en, 1900.] QUEENSLAND AGRICULTURAL JOURNAL. 93 
FOOD PRESERVATIVES. 
ne Departmental Committee on Preservatives and Colouring Matters in Food 
Mae mn November last, at St. Stephen’s House, Westminster, Sir Herbert 
* pee M.P., in the chair, Mr. J, Kellitt, of Liverpool, speaking on behalf 
ed Grocers Federation, said that it was now absolutely necessary to use 
a a boracie acid for ham, bacon, and butter, on account of the great 
ete for a mild-cured article. Borax, in his experience, was the most 
“ Ive preservative he had known, especially for stopping fly-blow. Quite 75 
ramet of the hams and bacon sold in this country were treated with the 
oreatve. After the bacon or ham had been prepared for cooking by the 
cane most, if not all, of the borax had disappeared, so that in actual 
Pee on the percentage of boracie acid present at the time the article was 
< aaa must be small. Captain iD W. Sandes, who had started a creamery 
ae aa Kerry for the benelit of his tenants, said that he used generally to 
with england butter that they called saltless—that is, butter that was cured 
ee . of preservative to 1 ewt. of butter. The preservative he used was 
mea acid. ‘The saltless, but preserved butter was bound to be good butter 
Wee pape could be so easily detected in it, whereas the heavy salted 
Mi heed not be, as the salt more or less covered a few of the “sins” in the 
himnh Mr. J. Wheeler Bennett, who appeared on behalf of the London 
‘tia ne of Commerce, said that the trade in Canadian hams had increased 
amie 89 from something like 300,000 dollars to 1,800,000 dollars in 1898, 
ae Is he attributed to the use of preservatives. — If the treatment of hams by 
ton eee prohibited, the whole of this gigantic trade from Canada would 
tte anend. There was a very large and increasing trade in Australian 
ie t, and that trade hinged upon the use of borax, the butter being washed 
* solution of the preservative. The committee then adjourned.—Times. 
PIGS AND THEIR MANAGEMENT.—No. 3. 
MILKING QUALITIES OF A BROOD SOW. 
Tin value of a brood sow depends, to as great an extent, or even greater, than 
sina one thing upon her milking qualities. The sow that is a poor 
oe . 18 never profitable as a breeding sow. She has usually small litters, and 
ath Ate to thrive for the simple reason that they are not fed. On the other 
ange nite sow that is a good milker—or, as we say, a good suckler—has usually 
Sake ie ps takes care of them so well that they make rapid advancement and 
nae strip the rest of the herd. They grow from start to finish, and prices 
ie e low and feed high if they do not pay a profit. A good brood sow that 
the ag suckler is worth two that are poor sucklers, and even more. Whether 
Ibs ms €partment of the farm in any year gives a profit or a loss depends 
8ely upon the milking qualities of the brood sows. 
MILKING QUALITIES OVERLOOKED. 
ay Singular as it may seem, this point has been largely overlooked by farmers 
king Pees breeders of improved pigs. The present ideals of beauty in any 
effects lve stock are against the development of milking qualities, and the 
rede are seen not merely in pigs, but in. cattle as well. Tn fact, on many 
thé « rs’ farms the working herd of any kind of stock is of different type from 
uae herd. The one is selected with an idea of beauty of form and colour, 
one ing to catch the eye of the buyer ; the other with the idea of utility and 
Lot Be eee: The farmer who buys brood sows at an agricultural show is 
as it aL ikely to secure good milkers. _ Where fat covers a multitude of sins, 
Most fro 0es, one of the most prominent of these sins, as well as one of the 
€quent, will be barrenness, or at least shy breeding and poor milking. |‘ 
80 
