1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Dairy and Dairy-Farming

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

DAIRY and DAIRY-FARMING (from the Mid. Eng. deieris, from dey, a maid-servant, particularly one about a farm; cf. Norw. deia, as in bu-deia, a maid in charge of live-stock, and in other compounds; thus “dairy” means that part of the farm buildings where the “dey” works). Milk, either in its natural state, or in the form of butter and cheese, is an article of diet so useful, wholesome and palatable, that dairy management, which includes all that concerns its production and treatment, constitutes a most important branch of husbandry. The physical conditions of the different countries of the world have determined in each case the most suitable animal for dairy purposes. The Laplander obtains his supplies of milk from his rein-deer, the roving Tatar from his mares, and the Bedouin of the desert from his camels. In the temperate regions of the earth many pastoral tribes subsist mainly upon the milk of the sheep. In some rocky regions the goat is invaluable as a milk-yielder; and the buffalo is equally so amid the swamps and jungles of tropical climates. The milking of ewes was once a common practice in Great Britain; but it has fallen into disuse because of its hurtful effects upon the flock. A few milch asses and goats are here and there kept for the benefit of infants or invalids; but with these exceptions the cow is the only animal now used for dairy purposes.

No branch of agriculture underwent greater changes during the closing quarter of the 19th century than dairy-farming; within the period named, indeed, the dairying industry may be said to have been revolutionized. The two great factors in this modification were the introduction about the year 1880 of the centrifugal cream-separator, whereby the old slow system of raising cream in pans was dispensed with, and the invention some ten years later of a quick and easy method of ascertaining the fat content of samples of milk without having to resort to the tedious processes of chemical analysis. About the year 1875 the agriculturists of the United Kingdom, influenced by various economic causes, began to turn their thoughts more intently in the direction of dairy-farming, and to the increased production of milk and cream, butter and cheese. On the 24th of October 1876 was held the first London dairy show, under the auspices of a committee of agriculturists, and it has been followed by a similar show in every subsequent year. The official report of the pioneer show stated that “there was a much larger attendance and a greater amount of enthusiasm in the movement than even the most sanguine of its promoters anticipated.” On the day named Professor J. Prince Sheldon read at the show a paper on the dairying industry, and proposed the formation of a society to be called the British Dairy Farmers’ Association. This was unanimously agreed to, and thus was founded an organization which has since been closely identified with the development of the dairying industry of the United Kingdom. In its earlier publications the Association was wont to reproduce from Household Words the following tribute to the cow:—

“If civilized people were ever to lapse into the worship of animals, the Cow would certainly be their chief goddess. What a fountain of blessings is the Cow! She is the mother of beef, the source of butter, the original cause of cheese, to say nothing of shoe-horns, hair-combs and upper leather. A gentle, amiable, ever-yielding creature, who has no joy in her family affairs which she does not share with man. We rob her of her children that we may rob her of her milk, and we only care for her when the robbing may be perpetrated.”

The association has, directly or indirectly, brought about many valuable reforms and improvements in dairying. Its London shows have provided, year after year, a variety of object-lessons in cheese, in butter and in dairy equipment. In order to demonstrate to producers what is the ideal to aim at, there is nothing more effective than a competitive exhibition of products, and the approach to uniform excellence of character in cheese and butter of whatever kinds is most obvious to those who remember what these products were like at the first two or three dairy shows. Simultaneously there has been a no less marked advance in the mechanical aids to dairying, including, in particular, the centrifugal cream-separator, the crude germ of which was first brought before the public at the international dairy show held at Hamburg in the spring of 1877. The association in good time set the example, now beneficially followed in many parts of Great Britain, of providing means for technical instruction in the making of cheese and butter, by the establishment of a dairy school in the Vale of Aylesbury, subsequently removing it to new and excellent premises at Reading, where it is known as the British Dairy Institute. The initiation of butter-making contests at the annual dairy shows stimulated the competitive instinct of dairy workers, and afforded the public useful object-lessons; in more recent years milking competitions have been added. Milking trials and butter tests of cows conducted at the dairy shows have afforded results of much practical value. Many of the larger agricultural societies have found it expedient to include in their annual shows a working dairy, wherein butter-making contests are held and public demonstrations are given.

What are regarded as the dairy breeds of cattle is illustrated by the prize schedule of the annual London dairy show, in which sections are provided for cows and heifers of the Shorthorn, Jersey, Guernsey, Red Polled, Ayrshire, Kerry and Dexter breeds (see Cattle). A miscellaneous class is also provided, the entries in which are mostly cross-breds. There are likewise classes for Shorthorn bulls, Jersey bulls, and bulls of any other pure breed, but it is stipulated that all bulls must be of proved descent from dams that have won prizes in the milking trials or butter tests of the British Dairy Farmers’ Association or other high-class agricultural society. The importance of securing dairy characters in the sire is thus recognized, and it is notified that, as the object of the bull classes is to encourage the breeding of bulls for dairy purposes, the prizes are to be given solely to animals exhibited in good stock-getting condition.

Milk and Butter Tests

The award of prizes in connexion with milking trials cannot be determined simply by the quantity of milk yielded in a given period, say twenty-four hours. Other matters must obviously be taken into consideration, such as the quality of the milk and the time that has elapsed since the birth of the last calf. With regard to the former point, for example, it is quite possible for one cow to give more milk than another, but for the milk of the second cow to include the larger quantity of butter-fat. The awards are therefore determined by the total number of points obtained according to the following scheme:—

One point for every ten days since calving (deducting the first forty days), with a maximum of fourteen points.
One point for every pound of milk, taking the average of two days’ yield.
Twenty points for every pound of butter-fat produced.
Four points for every pound of “solids other than fat.”
Deductions.—Ten points each time the fat is below 3%.
  Ten points each time the solids other than fat fall below 8.5%.

Table I.Prize Shorthorn and Jersey Cows in the Milking Trials,
London Dairy Show, 1900.
Cow. Age. In
 Fat.  Other
   Years.   Days.  % % No.
Shorthorns eligible for Herd-Book            
   Heroine III. 6 61 52.4 3.7 8.3 91.5 
   Musical 7 16 45.2 3.2 9.3 90.8 
   Lady Rosedale 8 48 47.8 3.5 9.0 88.7 
Shorthorns not eligible for Herd-Book—       
   Granny 9 33 70.2 3.5 8.9 144.1 
   Cherry 9 103 55.5 4.0 8.9 127.1 
   Chance 6 23 60.0 3.6 8.9 124.6 
   Sultane 14th 12 256 41.7 4.9 9.4  112  
   Queen Bess 71/2 136 39.4 4.8 9.0 101  
   Gloaming IV. 7 156 30.5 6.7 9.5 94.9 

This method of award is at present the best that can be devised, but it is possible that, as experience accumulates, some rearrangement of the points may be found to be desirable. Omitting many of the details, Table I. shows some of the results in the case of Shorthorn and Jersey prize cows. The days “in milk” denote in each case the number of days that have elapsed since calving; and if the one day’s yield of milk is desired in gallons, it can be obtained approximately[1] by dividing the weight in pounds by 10: thus, the Shorthorn cow Heroine III. gave 52.4 ℔, or 5.24 gallons, of milk per day. The table is incidentally of interest as showing how superior as milch kine are the unregistered or non-pedigree Shorthorns—which are typical of the great majority of dairy cows in the United Kingdom—as compared with the pedigree animals entered, or eligible for entry, in Coates’s Herd-Book. The evening’s milk, it should be added, is nearly always richer in fat than the morning’s, but the percentages in the table relate to the entire day’s milk.

The milking trials are based upon a chemical test, as it is necessary to determine the percentage of fat and of solids other than fat in each sample of milk. The butter test, on the other hand, is a churn test, as the cream has to be separated from the milk and churned. The following is the scale of points used at the London dairy show in making awards in butter tests:—

One point for every ounce of butter; one point for every completed ten days since calving, deducting the first forty days. Maximum allowance for period of lactation, 12 points.

Fractions of ounces of butter, and incomplete periods of less than ten days, to be worked out in decimals and added to the total points.

In the case of cows obtaining the same number of points, the prize to be awarded to the cow that has been the longest time in milk.

No prize or certificate to be given in the case of:—

(a) Cows under five years old failing to obtain 28 points.
(b) Cows five years old and over failing to obtain 32 points.
Table II.Prize Shorthorn and Jersey Cows in the Butter Tests, London Dairy Show, 1900.
Cows. Age. In
Butter. Milk to
1 ℔
   Years.   Days.  ℔   oz. ℔   oz. No. No. No.
   1st 9 104  55  2 2   51/4 23.67 37.25 6.40 43.65
   2nd 9 34  72  7 2 103/4 27.11 42.75 .. 42.75
   3rd 7 33  58  5 2   73/4 23.47 39.75 .. 39.75
   1st 7 157   29   10  2   21/4 13.83 34.25 11.70 45.95
   2nd 4 103  33   10 2   3 15.37 35.00 6.30 41.30
  3rd 12  257  40   13 1 12 23.32 28.00 12.00 40.00

The manner in which butter tests are decided will be rendered clear by a study of Table II. It is seen that whilst the much larger Shorthorn cows—having a bigger frame to maintain and consuming more food—gave both more milk and more butter in the day of twenty-four hours, the Jersey milk was much the richer in fat. In the case of the first-prize Jersey the “butter ratio,” as it is termed, was excellent, as only 13.83 ℔ of milk were required to yield 1 ℔ of butter; in the case of the second-prize Shorthorn, practically twice this quantity (or 27.11 lb) was needed. Moreover, if the days in milk are taken into account, the difference in favour of the Jersey is seen to be 123 days.

Table III.Summary of the English Jersey Cattle Society’s
Butter Tests, Fourteen Years, 1886–1899.
 Cows’ Ages.  Cows
Time in
Milk to
1 ℔
 Years. No. Days ℔   oz. ℔   oz.
 1 to  2 . . 2  34 15   2 0   13 18.43
 2  ”  3 . . 57  73 24 151/4 1    51/4 18.74
 3  ”  4 . . 108  77 29 143/4 1   10 18.42
 4  ”  5 . . 165  72 32   51/2 1   111/4 19.01
 5  ”  6 . . 188  80 32 151/4 1   12 18.76
 6  ”  7 . . 189  89 34   73/4 1   13 18.92
 7  ”  8 . . 139  84 33 111/4 1   131/4 18.40
 8  ”  9 . . 71  82 33   61/2 1   12 19.03
 9  ” 10 . . 42  92 32   61/2 1   111/4 18.95
 10  ” 11 . . 31  88 35   4 1   141/4 18.60
 11  ” 12 . . 15  89 37   1 1   133/4 19.96
 12  ” 13 . . 13  95 34   11/4 1   101/2 20.56
 13  ” 14 . . 3  54 42   11/4 2    13/4 19.85

The butter-yielding capacity of the choicest class of butter cows, the Jerseys, is amply illustrated in the results of the butter tests conducted by the English Jersey Cattle Society over the period of fourteen years 1886 to 1899 inclusive. These tests were carried out year after year at half a dozen different shows, and the results are classified in Table III. according to the age of the animals. The average time in milk is measured by the number of days since calving, and the milk and butter yields are those for the day of twenty-four hours. The last column shows the “butter ratio.” This number is lower in the case of the Jerseys than in that of the general run of dairy cows. The average results from the total of 1023 cows of the various ages are:—One day’s milk, 32 ℔ 21/4 oz., equal to about 3 gallons or 12 quarts; one day’s butter, 1 ℔ 103/4 oz.; butter ratio, 19.13 or about 16 pints of milk to 1 ℔ of butter. Individual yields are sometimes extraordinarily high. Thus at the Tring show in 1899 the three leading Jersey cows gave the following results:—

Cow. Age. Live-
 In Milk.   Butter.  Butter 
   Years.  Days. ℔   oz.
 Sundew 4th 8 929  77 3   63/4 15.10
 Madeira 5th  7 1060  107 2   151/2 16.14
 Em 7 864  44 3   43/4 13.32

The eight prize-winning Jerseys on this occasion, with an average weight of 916 ℔ and an average of 117 days in milk, yielded an average of 2 ℔ 9 oz. of butter per cow in the twenty-four hours, the butter ratio working out at 16.69. At the Tring show of 1900 a Shorthorn cow Cherry gave as much as 4 ℔ 41/2 oz. of butter in twenty-four hours; she had been in milk 41 days, and her butter ratio worked out at 15.79, which is unusually good for a big cow.

In the six years 1895 to 1900 inclusive 285 cows of the Shorthorn, Jersey, Guernsey and Red Polled breeds were subjected to butter tests at the London dairy show, and the general results are summarized in Table IV.

Although cows in the showyard may perhaps be somewhat upset by their unusual surroundings, and thus not yield so well as at home, yet the average results of these butter-test trials over a number of years are borne out by the private trials that have taken place in various herds. The trials have, moreover, brought into prominence the peculiarities of different breeds, such as: (a) that the Shorthorns, Red Polls and Kerries, being cattle whose milk contains small fat globules, are better for milk than the Jerseys and Guernseys, whose milk is richer, containing larger-sized fat globules, and is therefore more profitable for converting into butter; (b) that the weights of the animals, and consequently the proportionate food, must be taken into account in estimating the cost of the dairy produce; (c) that the influence of the stage reached in the period of lactation is much more marked in some breeds than in others.

Table IV.Average Butter Yields and Butter Ratios at the London
Dairy Show, Six Years, 1895–1900.
Breed. No. of
Butter.  Milk to 1 ℔ 
      Days.  ℔   oz.
 Shorthorn 106 50  1   11 28.81
 Jersey 126 99  1   101/4 19.15
 Guernsey 23 72  1   91/2 21.86
 Red Polled  30 60  1   43/4 30.29

An instructive example of the milk-yielding capacity of Jersey cows is afforded in the carefully kept records of Lord Rothschild’s herd at Tring Park, Herts. Overleaf are given the figures for four years, the gallons being calculated at the rate of 10 ℔ of milk to the gallon.

In 1897, 30 cows averaged  6396 ℔, or  640 gallons per cow.
In 1898, 29  ”    ”  6209  ”621   ”    ”
In 1899, 37  ”    ”  6430  ”643   ”    ”
In 1900, 39  ”    ”  6136  ”614   ”    ”

The average over the four years works out at about 630 gallons per cow per annum.

Cows of larger type will give more milk than the Jerseys, but it is less rich in fat. The milk record for the year 1900 of the herd of Red Polled cattle belonging to Mr Garrett Taylor, Whitlingham, Norfolk, affords a good example. The cows in the herd, which had before 1900 produced one or more calves, and in 1900 added another to the list, being in full profit the greater part of the year, numbered 82. Their total yield was 521,950 ℔ of milk, or an average of 6365 ℔—equivalent to about 636 gallons—per cow. In 1899 the average yield of 96 cows was 6283 ℔ or 628 gallons; in 1898 the average yield of 75 cows was 6473 ℔ or 647 gallons. Of cows which dropped a first calf in the autumn of 1899, one of them—Lemon—milked continuously for 462 days, yielding a total of 7166 ℔ of milk, being still in milk when the herd year closed on the 27th of December. Similar cases were those of Nora, which gave 9066 ℔ of milk in 455 days; Doris, 8138 ℔ in 462 days; Brisk, 9248 ℔ in 469 days; Della, 8806 ℔ in 434 days, drying 28 days before the year ended; and Lottie, 6327 ℔ in 394 days, also drying 28 days before the year ended; these were all cows with their first calf. Eight cows in the herd gave milk on every day of the 52 weeks, and 30 others had their milk recorded on 300 days or more. Three heifers which produced a first calf before the 11th of April 1900, averaged in the year 4569 ℔ of milk, or about 456 gallons. In 1900 three cows, Eyke Jessie, Kathleen and Doss, each gave over 10,000 ℔, or 1000 gallons of milk; four cows gave from 9000 ℔ to 10,000 ℔, two from 8000 ℔ to 9000 ℔, 17 from 7000 ℔ to 8000 ℔, 19 from 6000 ℔ to 7000 ℔, 30 from 5000 ℔ to 6000 ℔, and 16 from 4000 ℔ to 5000 ℔. The practice, long followed at Whitlingham, of developing the milk-yielding habit by milking a young cow so long as she gives even a small quantity of milk daily, is well supported by the figures denoting the results.

Though milking trials and butter tests are not usually available to the ordinary dairy farmer in the management of his herd, it is, on the other hand, a simple matter for him to keep what is known as a milk register. By a milk register is meant a record of the quantity of milk yielded by a cow. In other words, it is a quantitative estimation of the milk the cow gives. It affords no information as to the quality of the milk or as to its butter-yielding or cheese-yielding capacity. Nevertheless, by its aid the milk-producing capacity of a cow can be ascertained exactly, and her character in this respect can be expressed by means of figures about which there need be no equivocation. A greater or less degree of exactness can be secured, according to the greater or less frequency with which the register is taken. Even a weekly register would give a fair idea as to the milk yields of a cow, and would be extremely valuable as compared with no register at all.

The practice of taking the milk register, as followed in a well-known dairy, may be briefly described. The cows are always milked in the stalls, and during summer they are brought in twice a day for this purpose. After each cow is milked, the pail containing the whole of her milk is hung on a spring balance suspended in a convenient position, and from the gross weight indicated there is deducted the already known weight of the pail.[2] The difference, which represents the weight of milk, is recorded in a book suitably ruled. This book when open presents a view of one week’s records. In the left-hand column are the names of the cows; on the right of this are fourteen columns, two of which receive the morning and evening record of each cow. In a final column on the right appears the week’s total yield for each cow; and space is also allowed for any remarks. Fractions of a pound are not entered, but 18 ℔ 12 oz. would be recorded as 19 ℔, whereas 21 ℔ 5 oz. would appear as 21 ℔, so that a fraction of over half a pound is considered as a whole pound, and a fraction of under half a pound is ignored. By dividing the pounds by 10 the yield in gallons is readily ascertained.

Every dairy farmer has some idea, as to each of his cows, whether she is a good, a bad or an indifferent milker, but such knowledge is at best only vague. By the simple means indicated the character of each cow as a milk-producer is slowly but surely recorded in a manner which is at once exact and definite. Such a record is particularly valuable to the farmer, in that it shows to him the relative milk-yielding capacities of his cows, and thus enables him gradually to weed out the naturally poor milkers and replace them by better ones. It also guides him in regulating the supply of food according to the yield of milk. The register will, in fact, indicate unerringly which are the best milk-yielding cows in the dairy, and which therefore are, with the milking capacity in view, the best to breed from.

The simplicity and inexpensiveness of the milk register must not be overlooked. These are features which should commend it especially to the notice of small dairy farmers, for with a moderate number of cows it is particularly easy to introduce the register. But even with a large dairy it will be found that, as soon as the system has got fairly established, the additional time and trouble involved will sink into insignificance when compared with the benefits which accrue.

The importance of ascertaining not only the quantity, but also the quality of milk is aptly illustrated in the case of two cows at the Tring show, 1900. The one cow gave in 24 hours 41/2 gallons of milk, which at 7d. per gallon would work out at about 2s. 7d.; she made 2 ℔ 12 oz. of butter, which at 1s. 4d. per ℔ would bring in 3s. 8d.; consequently by selling the milk the owner lost about 1s. 1d. per day. The second cow gave 51/3 gallons of milk, which would work out at 3s. 1d.; she made 1 ℔ 12 oz. of butter, which would only be worth 2s. 4d., so that by converting the milk into butter the owner lost 9d. per day.

The colour of milk is to some extent an indication of its quality—the deeper the colour the better the quality. The colour depends upon the size of the fat globules, a deep yellowish colour indicating large globules of fat. When the globules are of large size the milk will churn more readily, and the butter is better both in quality and in colour.

The following fifty dairy rules relating to the milking and general management of cows, and to the care of milk and dairy utensils, were drawn up on behalf of, and published by, the United States department of agriculture at Washington. They are given here with a few merely verbal alterations:—

The Owner and his Helpers

 1. Read current dairy literature and keep posted on new ideas.
 2. Observe and enforce the utmost cleanliness about the cattle, their attendants, the cow-house, the dairy and all utensils.
 3. A person suffering from any disease, or who has been exposed to a contagious disease, must remain away from the cows and the milk.

The Cow-House

 4. Keep dairy cattle in a shed or building by themselves. It is preferable to have no cellar below and no storage loft above.
 5. Cow-houses should be well ventilated, lighted and drained; should have tight floors and walls, and be plainly constructed.
 6. Never use musty or dirty litter.
 7. Allow no strong-smelling material in the cow-house for any length of time. Store the manure under cover outside the cow-house, and remove it to a distance as often as practicable.
 8. Whitewash the cow-house once or twice a year; use gypsum in the manure gutters daily.
 9. Use no dry, dusty feed just previous to milking; if fodder is dusty, sprinkle it before it is fed.
10. Clean and thoroughly air the cow-house before milking; in hot weather sprinkle the floor.
11. Keep the cow-house and dairy room in good condition, and then insist that the dairy, factory or place where the milk goes be kept equally well.

The Cows

12. Have the herd examined at least twice a year by a skilled veterinarian.
13. Promptly remove from the herd any animal suspected of being in bad health, and reject her milk. Never add an animal to the herd until it is ascertained to be free from disease, especially tuberculosis.
14. Do not move cows faster than a comfortable walk while on the way to the place of milking or feeding.
15. Never allow the cows to be excited by hard driving, abuse, loud talking or unnecessary disturbance; do not expose them to cold or storms.
16. Do not change the feed suddenly.
17. Feed liberally, and use only fresh, palatable feed-stuffs; in no case should decomposed or mouldy material be used.
18. Provide water in abundance, easy of access, and always pure; fresh, but not too cold.
19. Salt should always be accessible to the cows.
20. Do not allow any strong-flavoured food, like garlic, cabbages and turnips, to be eaten, except immediately after milking.
21. Clean the entire skin of the cow daily. If hair in the region of the udder is not easily kept clean, it should be clipped.
22. Do not use the milk within twenty days before calving, nor for three to five days afterwards.


23. The milker should be clean in all respects; he should not use tobacco while milking; he should wash and dry his hands just before milking.
24. The milker should wear a clean outer garment, used only when milking and kept in a clean place at other times.
25. Brush the udder and surrounding parts just before milking and wipe them with a clean damp cloth or sponge.
26. Milk quietly, quickly, cleanly and thoroughly. Cows do not like unnecessary noise or delay. Commence milking at exactly the same hour every morning and evening, and milk the cows in the same order.
27. Throw away (but not on the floor—better in the gutter) the first two or three streams from each teat; this milk is very watery and of little value, but it may injure the rest.
28. If in any milking a part of the milk is bloody or stringy or unnatural in appearance, the whole should be rejected.
29. Milk with dry hands; never let the hands come in contact with the milk.
30. Do not allow dogs, cats or loafers to be around at milking time.
31. If any accident occurs by which a pail, full or partly full, of milk becomes dirty, do not try to remedy this by straining, but reject all this milk and rinse the pail.
32. Weigh and record the milk given by each cow, and take a sample morning and night, at least once a week, for testing by the fat test.

Care of Milk

33. Remove the milk of every cow at once from the cow-house to a clean dry room, where the air is pure and sweet. Do not allow cans to remain in the cow-house while they are being filled with milk.
34. Strain the milk through a metal gauze and a flannel cloth or layer of cotton as soon as it is drawn.
35. Cool the milk as soon as strained—to 45° F. if the milk is for shipment, or to 60° if for home use or delivery to a factory.
36. Never close a can containing warm milk.
37. If the cover is left off the can, a piece of cloth or mosquito netting should be used to keep out insects.
38. If milk is stored, it should be kept in tanks of fresh cold water (renewed as often as the temperature increases to any material extent), in a clean, dry, cold room. Unless it is desired to remove cream, it should be stirred with a tin stirrer often enough to prevent the forming of a thick cream layer.
39. Keep the night milk under shelter so that rain cannot get into the cans. In warm weather keep it in a tank of fresh cold water.
40. Never mix fresh warm milk with that which has been cooled.
41. Do not allow the milk to freeze.
42. In no circumstances should anything be added to milk to prevent its souring. Cleanliness and cold are the only preventives needed.
43. All milk should be in good condition when delivered at a creamery or a cheesery. This may make it necessary to deliver twice a day during the hottest weather.
44. When cans are hauled far they should be full, and carried in a spring waggon.
45. In hot weather cover the cans, when moved in a waggon, with a clean wet blanket or canvas.

The Utensils

46. Milk utensils for farm use should be made of metal and have all joints smoothly soldered. Never allow them to become rusty or rough inside.
47. Do not haul waste products back to the farm in the cans used for delivering milk. When this is unavoidable, insist that the skim milk or whey tank be kept clean.
48. Cans used for the return of skim milk or whey should be emptied, scalded and cleaned as soon as they arrive at the farm.
49. Clean all dairy utensils by first thoroughly rinsing them in warm water; next clean inside and out with a brush and hot water in which a cleaning material is dissolved; then rinse and, lastly, sterilize by boiling water or steam. Use pure water only.
50. After cleaning, keep utensils inverted in pure air, and sun if possible, until wanted for use.

Food and Milk Production

In their comprehensive paper relating to the feeding of animals published in 1895, Lawes and Gilbert discussed amongst other questions that of milk production, and directed attention to the great difference in the demands made on the food—on the one hand for the production of meat (that is, of animal increase), and on the other for the production of milk. Not only, however, do cows of different breeds yield different quantities of milk, and milk of characteristically different composition, but individual animals of the same breed have very different milk-yielding capacity; and whatever the capacity of a cow may be, she has a maximum yield at one period of her lactation, which is followed by a gradual decline. Hence, in comparing the amounts of constituents stored up in the fattening increase of an ox with the amounts of the same constituents removed in the milk of a cow, it is necessary to assume a wide range of difference in the yield of milk. Accordingly, Table V. shows the amounts of nitrogenous substance, of fat, of non-nitrogenous substance not fat, of mineral matter, and of total solid matter, carried off in the weekly yield of milk of a cow, on the alternative assumptions of a production of 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18 or 20 quarts per head per day. For comparison, there are given at the foot of the table the amounts of nitrogenous substance, of fat, of mineral matter, and of total solid matter, in the weekly increase in live-weight of a fattening ox of an average weight of 1000 ℔—on the assumption of a weekly increase, first, of 10 ℔, and, secondly, of 15 ℔. The estimates of the amounts of constituents in the milk are based on the assumption that it will contain 12.5% of total solids—consisting of 3.65 albuminoids, 3.50 butter-fat, 4.60 sugar and 0.75 of mineral matter. The estimates of the constituents in the fattening increase of oxen are founded on determinations made at Rothamsted.

Table V.Comparison of the Constituents of Food carried off in
Milk, and in the Fattening Increase of Oxen.
[1 Gallon = 10.33 ℔]  Nitrogenous 
Fat. Non-
not Fat
In Milk per Week.
 4 quarts per head per day 2.64 2.53 3.33 0.54  9.04
 6  ”    ”    ” 3.96 3.80 4.99 0.81 13.56
 8  ”    ”    ” 5.28 5.06 6.66 1.08 18.08
10  ”    ”    ” 6.60 6.33 8.32 1.35 22.60
12  ”    ”    ” 7.92 7.59 9.99 1.62 27.12
14  ”    ”    ” 9.24 8.86 11.65 1.89 31.64
16  ”    ”    ” 10.56 10.12 13.32 2.16 36.16
18  ”    ”    ” 11.88 11.39 14.98 2.43 40.68
20  ”    ”    ” 13.20 12.65 16.65 2.70 45.20
In Increase in Live-Weight per Week.—Oxen.
If 10 ℔ increase 0.75 6.35 .. 0.15  7.25
If 15 ℔ increase 1.13 9.53 .. 0.22 10.88

With regard to the very wide range of yield of milk per head per day which the figures in the following table assume, it may be remarked that it is by no means impossible that the same animal might yield the largest amount, namely, 20 quarts, or 5 gallons, per day near the beginning, and only 4 quarts, or 1 gallon, or even less, towards the end of her period of lactation. At the same time, an entire herd of, for example, Shorthorns or Ayrshires, of fairly average quality, well fed, and including animals at various periods of lactation, should not yield an average of less than 8 quarts, or 2 gallons, and would seldom exceed 10 quarts, or 21/2 gallons, per head per day the year round.

For the sake of illustration, an average yield of milk of 10 quarts, equal 21/2 gallons, or between 25 and 26 ℔ per head per day, may be assumed, and the amount of constituents in the weekly yield at this rate may be compared with that in the weekly increase of the fattening ox at the higher rate assumed in the table, namely, 15 ℔ per 1000 ℔ live-weight, or 1.5% per week. It is seen that whilst of the nitrogenous substance of the food the amount stored up in the fattening increase of an ox would be only 1.13 ℔, the amount carried off as such in the milk would be 6.6 ℔, or nearly six times as much. Of mineral matter, again, whilst the fattening increase would only require about 0.22 ℔, the milk would carry off 1.35 ℔, or again about six times as much. Of fat, however, whilst the fattening increase would contain 9.53 ℔, the milk would contain only 6.33 ℔, or only about two-thirds as much. On the other hand, whilst the fattening increase contains no other non-nitrogenous substance than fat, the milk would carry off 8.32 ℔ in the form of milk-sugar. This amount of milk-sugar, reckoned as fat, would correspond approximately to the difference between the fat in the milk and that in the fattening increase.

It is evident, then, that the drain upon the food is very much greater for the production of milk than for that of meat. This is especially the case in the important item of nitrogenous substance; and if, as is frequently assumed, the butter-fat of the milk is at any rate largely derived from the nitrogenous substance of the food, so far as it is so at least about two parts of such substance would be required to produce one of fat. On such an assumption, therefore, the drain upon the nitrogenous substance of the food would be very much greater than that indicated in the table as existing as nitrogenous substance in the milk. To this point further reference will be made presently.

Table VI.Constituents consumed per 1000Live-Weight per Day,
for Sustenance and for Milk-Production. The Rothamsted Herd
of 30 Cows, Spring 1884.
(as Starch).
and Non-
3.1 ℔ Cotton cake 2.76 1.07 1.50 2.57
2.7 ℔ Bran 2.33 0.33 1.09 1.42
2.8 ℔ Hay-chaff 2.34 0.15 1.18 1.33
5.6 ℔ Oat-straw-chaff 4.64 0.08 2.21 2.29
62.8 ℔ Mangel 7.85 1.01 5.73 6.74
  Total 19.92 2.64* 11.71* 14.35 
Required for sustenance   0.57 7.40 7.97
Available for milk   2.07 4.31 6.38
In 23.3 ℔ milk   0.85 3.02 3.87
  Excess in food   1.22 1.29 2.51
Per 1000Live-Weight.
Wolff 24 2.5 12.5†  15.4

 * Albuminoid ratio, 1-4.4.
† Exclusive of 0.4 fat; albuminoid ratio, 1-5.4.

Attention may next be directed to the amounts of food, and of certain of its constituents, consumed for the production of a given amount of milk. This point is illustrated in Table VI., which shows the constituents consumed per 1000 ℔ live-weight per day in the case of the Rothamsted herd of 30 cows in the spring of 1884. On the left hand are shown the actual amounts of the different foods consumed per 1000 ℔ live-weight per day; and in the respective columns are recorded—first the amounts of total dry substance which the foods contained, and then the amounts of digestible nitrogenous, digestible non-nitrogenous (reckoned as starch), and digestible total organic substance which the different foods would supply; these being calculated according to Lawes and Gilbert’s own estimates of the percentage composition of the foods, and to Wolff’s estimates of the proportion of the several constituents which would be digestible.

The first column shows that the amount of total dry substance of food actually consumed by the herd, per 1000 ℔ live-weight per day, was scarcely 20 ℔ whilst Wolff’s[3] estimated requirement, as stated at the foot of the table, is 24 ℔. But his ration would doubtless consist to a greater extent of hay and straw-chaff, containing a larger proportion of indigestible and effete woody fibre. The figures show, indeed that the Rothamsted ration supplied, though nearly the same, even a somewhat less amount of total digestible constituents than Wolff’s.

Of digestible nitrogen substance the food supplied 2.64 ℔ per day, whilst the amount estimated to be required for sustenance merely is 0.57 ℔; leaving, therefore, 2.07 ℔ available for milk production. The 23.3 ℔ of milk yielded per 1000 ℔ live-weight per day would, however, contain only 0.85 ℔; and there would thus remain an apparent excess of 1.22 ℔ of digestible nitrogenous substance in the food supplied. But against the amount of 2.64 ℔ actually consumed, Wolff’s estimate of the amount required for sustenance and for milk-production is 2.5 ℔, or but little less than the amount actually consumed at Rothamsted. On the assumption that the expenditure of nitrogenous substance in the production of milk is only in the formation of the nitrogenous substances of the milk, there would appear to have been a considerable excess given in the food. But Wolff’s estimate assumes no excess of supply, and that the whole is utilized; the fact being that he supposes the butter-fat of the milk to have been derived largely, if not wholly, from the albuminoids of the food.

It has been shown that although it is possible that some of the fat of a fattening animal may be produced from the albuminoids of the food, certainly the greater part of it, if not the whole, is derived from the carbohydrates. But the physiological conditions of the production of milk are so different from those for the production of fattening increase, that it is not admissible to judge of the sources of the fat of the one from what may be established in regard to the other. It has been assumed, however, by those who maintain that the fat of the fattening animal is formed from albuminoids, that the fat of milk must be formed in the same way. Disallowing the legitimacy of such a deduction, there do, nevertheless, seem to be reasons for supposing that the fat of milk may, at any rate in large proportion, be derived from albuminoids.

Thus, as compared with fattening increase, which may in a sense be said to be little more than an accumulation of reserve material from excess of food, milk is a special product, of a special gland, for a special normal exigency of the animal. Further, whilst common experience shows that the herbivorous animal becomes the more fat the more, within certain limits, its food is rich in carbohydrates, it points to the conclusion that both the yield of milk and its richness in butter are more connected with a liberal supply of the nitrogenous constituents in the food. Obviously, so far as this is the case, it may be only that thereby more active change in the system, and therefore greater activity of the special function, is maintained. The evidence at command is, at any rate, not inconsistent with the supposition that a good deal of the fat of milk may have its source in the breaking up of albuminoids, but direct evidence on the point is still wanting; and supposing such breaking up to take place in the gland, the question arises—What becomes of the by-products? Assuming, however, that such change does take place, the amount of nitrogenous substance supplied to the Rothamsted cows would be less in excess of the direct requirement for milk-production than the figures in the table would indicate, if, indeed, in excess at all.

The figures in the column of Table VI. relating to the estimated amount of digestible non-nitrogenous substance reckoned as starch show that the quantity actually consumed was 11.71 ℔, whilst the amount estimated by Wolff to be required was 12.5 ℔, besides 0.4 ℔ of fat. The figures further show that, deducting 7.4 ℔ for sustenance from the quantity actually consumed, there would remain 4.31 ℔ available for milk-production, whilst only about 3.02 ℔ would be required supposing that both the fat of the milk and the sugar had been derived from the carbohydrates of the food; and, according to this calculation, there would still be an excess in the daily food of 1.29 ℔. It is to be borne in mind, however, that estimates of the requirement for mere sustenance are mainly founded on the results of experiments in which the animals are allowed only such a limited amount of food as will maintain them without either loss or gain when at rest. But physiological considerations point to the conclusion that the expenditure, independently of loss or gain, will be the greater the more liberal the ration, and hence it is probable that the real excess, if any, over that required for sustenance and milk-production would be less than that indicated in the table, which is calculated on the assumption of a fixed requirement for sustenance for a given live-weight of the animal. Supposing that there really was any material excess of either the nitrogenous or the non-nitrogenous constituents supplied over the requirement for sustenance and milk-production, the question arises—Whether, or to what extent, it conduced to increase in live-weight of the animals, or whether it was in part, or wholly, voided, and so wasted.

Table VII.—Percentage Composition of Milk each Month of the Year; also Average Yield of Milk,
and of Constituents, per Head per Day each Month, according to Rothamsted Dairy Records.

  Average Composition of Milk each
Month, 1884.
(Dr Vieth—14,235 analyses.)
Rothamsted Diary.
of Milk
per Head
per Day,
6 Years.
Estimated Quantity
of Constituents in
Milk per Head per
Day each Month.
    % % %
January 1.0325 3.55 9.34 12.89  20.31* 0.72 1.90 2.62
February 1.0325 3.53 9.24 12.77 22.81 0.80 2.11 2.91
March 1.0323 3.50 9.22 12.72 24.19 0.85 2.23 3.08
April 1.0323 3.43 9.22 12.65 26.50 0.91 2.44 3.35
May 1.0324 3.34 9.30 12.64 31.31 1.05 2.91 3.96
June 1.0323 3.31 9.19 12.50 30.81 1.02 2.83 3.85
July 1.0319 3.47 9.13 12.60 28.00 0.97 2.56 3.53
August 1.0318 3.87 9.08 12.95 25.00 0.97 2.27 3.24
September 1.0321 4.11 9.17 13.28 22.94 0.94 2.11 3.05
October 1.0324 4.26 9.27 13.53 21.00 0.89 1.95 2.84
November 1.0324 4.36 9.29 13.65 19.19 0.84 1.78 2.62
December 1.0326 4.10 9.29 13.39 19.31 0.79 1.79 2.58
Mean 1.0323 3.74 9.22 12.96 24.28 0.90 2.24 3.14
* Average over five years only, as the records did not commence until February 1884.

As regards the influence of the period of the year, with its characteristic changes of food, on the quantity and composition of the milk, the first column of the second division of Table VII. shows the average yield of milk per head per day of the Rothamsted herd, averaging about 42 cows, almost exclusively Shorthorns, in each month of the year, over six years, 1884 to 1889 inclusive; and the succeeding columns show that amounts of butter-fat, of solids not fat, and of total solids in the average yield per head per day in each month of the year, calculated, not according to direct analytical determinations made at Rothamsted, but according to the results of more than 14,000 analyses made, under the superintendence of Dr Vieth, in the laboratory of the Aylesbury Dairy Company in 1884;[4] the samples analysed representing the milk from a great many different farms in each month.

It should be stated that the Rothamsted cows had cake throughout the year; at first 4 ℔ per head per day, but afterwards graduated according to the yield of milk, on the basis of 4 ℔ for a yield of 28 ℔ of milk, the result being that then the amount given averaged more per head per day during the grazing period, but less earlier and later in the year. Bran, hay and straw-chaff, and roots (generally mangel), were also given when the animals were not turned out to grass. The general plan was, therefore, to give cake alone in addition when the cows were turned out to grass, but some other dry food, and roots, when entirely in the shed during the winter and early spring months.

Referring to the column showing the average yield of milk per head per day each month over the six years, it will be seen that during the six months January, February, September, October, November and December the average yield was sometimes below 20 ℔ and on the average only about 21 ℔ of milk per head per day; whilst over the other six months it averaged 27.63 ℔, and over May and June more than 31 ℔ per head per day. That is to say, the quantity of milk yielded was considerably greater during the grazing period than when the animals had more dry food, and roots instead of grass.

Next, referring to the particulars of composition, according to Dr Vieth’s results, which may well be considered as typical for the different periods of the year, it is seen that the specific gravity of the milk was only average, or lower than average, during the grazing period, but rather higher in the earlier and later months of the year. The percentage of total solids was rather lower than the average at the beginning of the year, lowest during the chief grazing months, but considerably higher in the later months of the year, when the animals were kept in the shed and received more dry food. The percentage of butter-fat follows very closely that of the total solids, being the lowest during the best grazing months, but considerably higher than the average during the last four or five months of the year, when more dry food was given. The percentage of solids not fat was considerably the lowest during the later months of the grazing period, but average, or higher than average, during the earlier and later months of the year. It may be observed that, according to the average percentages given in the table, a gallon of milk will contain more of both total solids and of butter-fat in the later months of the year; that is, when there is less grass and more dry food given.

Turning to the last three columns of the table, it is seen that although, as has been shown, the percentage of the several constituents in the milk is lower during the grazing months, the actual amounts contained in the quantity of milk yielded per head are distinctly greater during those months. Thus, the amount of butter-fat yielded per head per day is above the average of the year from April to September inclusive; the amounts of solids not fat are over average from April to August inclusive; and the amounts of total solids yielded are average, or over average, from April to August inclusive.

From the foregoing results it is evident that the quantity of milk yielded per head is very much the greater during the grazing months of the year, but that the percentage composition of the milk is lower during that period of higher yield, and considerably higher during the months of more exclusively dry-food feeding. Nevertheless, owing to the much greater quantity of milk yielded during the grazing months, the actual quantity of constituents yielded per Cow is greater during those months than during the months of higher percentage composition but lower yield of milk per head. It may be added that a careful consideration of the number of newly-calved cows brought into the herd each month shows that the results as above stated were perfectly distinct, independently of any influence of the period of lactation of the different individuals of the herd.

The few results which have been brought forward in relation to milk-production are admittedly quite insufficient adequately to illustrate the influence of variation in the quantity and composition of the food on the quantity and composition of the milk yielded. Indeed, owing to the intrinsic difficulties of experimenting on such a subject, involving so many elements of variation, any results obtained have to be interpreted with much care and reservation. Nevertheless, it may be taken as clearly indicated that, within certain limits, high feeding, and especially high nitrogenous feeding, does increase both the yield and the richness of the milk.[5] But it is evident that when high feeding is pushed beyond a comparatively limited range, the tendency is to increase the weight of the animal—that is, to favour the development of the individual, rather than to enhance the activity of the functions connected with the reproductive system. This is, of course, a disadvantage when the object is to maintain the milk-yielding condition of the animal; but when a cow is to be fattened off it will be otherwise.

It has been stated that, early in the period of six years in which the Rothamsted results that have been quoted were obtained, the amount of oil-cake given was graduated according to the yield of milk of each individual cow; as it seemed unreasonable that an animal yielding, say, only 4 quarts per day, should receive, beside the home foods, as much cake as one yielding several times the quantity. The obvious inference is, that any excess of food beyond that required for sustenance and milk-production would tend to increase the weight of the animal, which, according to the circumstances, may or may not be desirable.

It may be observed that direct experiments at Rothamsted confirm the view, arrived at by common experience, that roots, and especially mangel, have a favourable effect on the flow of milk. Further, the Rothamsted experiments have shown that a higher percentage of butter-fat, of other solids, and of total solids, was obtained with mangel than with silage as the succulent food. The yield of milk was, however, in a much greater degree increased by grazing than by any other change in the food; and at Rothamsted the influence of roots comes next in order to that of grass, though far behind it, in this respect. But with grazing, as has been shown, the percentage composition of the milk is considerably reduced; though, owing to the greatly increased quantity yielded, the amount of soil-constituents removed in the milk when cows are grazing may nevertheless be greater per head per day than under any other conditions. Lastly, it has been clearly illustrated how very much greater is the demand upon the food, especially for nitrogenous and for mineral constituents, in the production of milk than in that of fattening increase.

Manurial Value of Food consumed in the Production of Milk

In any attempt to estimate the average value of the manure derived from the consumption of food for the production of milk, the difficulty arising from the very wide variation in the amount of milk yielded by different cows, or by the same cow at different periods of her lactation, is increased by the inadequate character of information concerning the difference in the amount of the food actually consumed by the animal coincidently with the production of such different amounts of milk. But although information is lacking for correlating, with numerical accuracy, the great difference in milk-yield of individual cows with the coincident differences in consumption to produce it, it may be considered as satisfactorily established that more food is consumed by a herd of cows to produce a fair yield of milk, of say 10 or 12 quarts per head per day, than by an equal live-weight of oxen fed to produce fattening increase. In the cases supposed it may, for practical purposes, be assumed that the cows would consume about one-fourth more food than the oxen. Accordingly, in the Rothamsted estimates of the value of the manure obtained on the consumption of food for the production of milk, it is assumed that one-fourth more will be consumed by 1000 ℔ live-weight of cows than by the same weight of oxen; but the estimates of the amounts of the constituents of the food removed in the milk, or remaining for manure, are nevertheless reckoned per ton of each kind of food consumed, as in the case of those relating to feeding for the production of fattening increase. It may be added that the calculations of the amounts of the constituents in the milk are based on the same average composition of milk as is adopted in the construction of Table V. Thus the nitrogen is taken at 0.579 (= 3.65 nitrogenous substance)%, the phosphoric acid at 0.2175%, and the potash at 0.1875% in the milk.

Table VIII. shows in detail the estimate of the amount of nitrogen in one ton of each food, and in the milk produced from its consumption, on the assumption of an average yield of 10 quarts per head per day; also the amount remaining for manure, the amount of ammonia corresponding to the nitrogen, and the value of the ammonia at 4d. per ℔. Similar particulars are also given in relation to the phosphoric acid and the potash consumed in the food, removed in the milk, and remaining for manure, &c. This table will serve as a sufficient illustration of the mode of estimating the total or original value of the manure, derived from the consumption of the different foods for the production of milk in the case supposed; that is, assuming an average yield of a herd of 10 quarts per head per day.

In Table IX. are given the results of similar detailed calculations of the total or original manure-value (as in Table VIII. for 10 quarts), on the alternative assumptions of a yield of 6, 8, 12 or 14 quarts per head per day. For comparison there is also given, in the first column, the estimate of the total or original manure-value when the foods are consumed for the production of fattening increase.

So much for the plan and results of the estimations of total or original manure-value of the different foods, that is, deducting only the constituents removed in the milk, and reckoning the remainder at the prices at which they can be purchased in artificial manures. With a view to direct application to practice, however, it is necessary to estimate the unexhausted manure-value of the different foods, or what may be called their compensation-value, after they have been used for a series of years by the outgoing tenant and he has realized a certain portion of the manure-value in his increased crops. In the calculations for this purpose the rule is to deduct one-half of the original manure-value of the food used the last year, and one-third of the remainder each year to the eighth, in the case of all the more concentrated foods and of the roots—in fact, of all the foods in the list excepting the hays and the straws. For these, which contain larger amounts of indigestible matter, and the constituents of which will be more slowly available to crops, two-thirds of the original manure-value is deducted for the last year, and only one-fifth from year to year to the eighth year back. The results of the estimates of compensation-value so made are given for the five yields of 6, 8, 10, 12 and 14 quarts of milk per head per day respectively in Lawes and Gilbert’s paper[6] on the valuation of the manures obtained by the consumption of foods for the production of milk, which may be consulted for fuller details. It must, however, be borne in mind that when cows are fed in sheds or yards the manure is generally liable to greater losses than is the case with fattening oxen. The manure of the cow contains much more water in proportion to solid matter than that of the ox. Water will, besides, frequently be used for washing, and it may be that a good deal of the manure is washed into drains and lost. In the event, therefore, of a claim for compensation, the management and disposal of the manure requires the attention of the valuer. Indeed, the varying circumstances that will arise in practice must be carefully considered. Bearing these in mind, the estimates may be accepted as at any rate the best approximation to the truth that existing knowledge provides; and they should be found sufficient for the requirements of practical use. Obviously they will be more directly applicable in the case of cows feeding entirely on the foods enumerated in the list, and not depending largely on grass; but, even when the animals are partially grass-fed, the value of the manure derived from the additional dry food or roots may be estimated according to the scale given.

Table VIII.Estimates of the Total or Original Manure-Value of Cattle Foods after Consumption by Cows for the Production of Milk.
Valuation on the assumption of an average production by a herd of 10 quarts of milk per head per day.
 Nos.  Description
of Food.
Nitrogen. Phosphoric Acid. Potash. Total or
per Ton
of Food
1 Ton
1 Ton
In Manure. In
1 Ton
1 Ton
In Manure. In
1 Ton
1 Ton
In Manure.
ing for
Value of
at 4 d.
per ℔.
ing for
at 2 d.
per ℔.
ing for
at 11/2 d.
per ℔.
   £ s. d. s. d. s. d. £ s. d. 
 Linseed 80.64  25.04 55.60 67.52 1 2 6 34.50 9.34 25.16 4 2 30.69 8.02 22.67 2 10 1 9 6
 Linseed cake 106.40 20.86 85.54 103.87 1 14 7 44.80 7.79 37.01 6 2 31.36 6.71 24.65 3 1 2 3 10
 cotton cake
 147.84 19.27 128.57 156.13 2 12 1 69.44 7.18 62.26 10 5 44.80 6.22 38.58 4 10 3 7 4
 Palm-nut cake 56.00 17.86 38.14 46.31 0 15 5 26.88 6.68 20.20 3 4 11.20 5.73 5.47 0 8 0 19 5
 cotton cake
84.00 15.66 68.34 82.99 1 7 8 44.80 5.85 38.95 6 6 44.80 5.07 39.73 5 0 1 19 2
 Cocoanut cake 76.16 15.66 60.50 73.47 1 4 6 31.36 5.85 25.51 4 3 44.80 5.07 39.73 5 0 1 13 9
 Rape cake 109.76 12.50 97.26 118.11 1 19 4 56.00 4.69 51.31 8 7 33.60 4.09 29.51 3 8 2 11 7
 Peas 80.64 17.86 62.78 76.24 1 5 5 19.04 6.68 12.36 2 1 21.50 5.73 15.77 2 0 1 9 6
 Beans 89.60 17.86 71.74 87.12 1 9 0 24.64 6.68 17.96 3 0 29.12 5.73 23.39 2 11 1 14 11
10   Lentils 94.08 17.86 76.22 92.56 1 10 10 16.80 6.68 10.12 1 8 15.68 5.73 9.95 1 3 1 13 9
11   Tares (seed) 94.08 17.86 76.22 92.56 1 10 10 17.92 6.68 11.24 1 10 17.92 5.73 12.19 1 6 1 14 2
12   Maize 38.08 17.38 20.70 25.14 0 8 5 13.44 6.50 6.94 1 2 8.29 5.56 2.73 0 4 0 9 11
13   Wheat 40.32 17.38 22.94 27.86 0 9 3 19.04 6.50 12.54 2 1 11.87 5.56 6.31 0 9 0 12 1
14   Malt 38.08 17.86 20.22 24.55 0 8 2 17.92 6.68 11.24 1 10 11.20 5.73 5.47 0 8 0 10 8
15   Barley 36.96 17.38 19.58 23.78 0 7 11 16.80 6.50 10.30 1 9 12.32 5.56 6.76 0 10 0 10 6
16   Oats 44.80 16.68 28.12 34.15 0 11 5 13.44 6.24 7.20 1 2 11.20 5.40 5.80 0 9 0 13 4
17   Rice meal 42.56 16.68 25.88 31.43 0 10 6 (13.44) 6.24 7.20 1 2 (8.29) 5.40 2.89 0 4 0 12 0
18   Locust beans 26.88 13.90 12.98 15.76 0 5 3 .. 5.19 .. .. .. 4.42 .. .. ..
19   Malt coombs 87.36 15.66 71.70 87.07 1 9 0 44.80 5.85 38.95 6 6 44.80 5.07 39.73 5 0 2 0 6
20   Fine pollard 54.88 16.68 38.20 46.39 0 15 6 64.96 6.24 58.72 9 9 32.70 5.40 27.30 3 5 1 8 8
21   Coarse pollard 56.00 15.66 40.34 48.99 0 16 4 78.40 5.85 72.55 12 1 33.60 5.07 28.53 3 7 1 12 0
22   Bran 56.00 13.90 42.10 51.12 0 17 0 80.64 5.19 75.45 12 7 32.48 4.42 28.06 3 6 1 13 1
23   Clover hay 53.76 8.94 44.82 54.43 0 18 2 12.77 3.35 9.42 1 7 33.60 2.94 30.66 3 10 1 3 7
24   Meadow hay 33.60 8.36 25.24 30.65 0 10 3 8.96 3.10 5.86 1 0 35.84 2.62 33.22 4 2 0 15 5
25   Pea straw 22.40 7.83 14.57 17.69 0 5 11 7.84 2.91 4.93 0 10 22.40 2.46 19.94 2 6 0 9 3
26   Oat straw 11.20 6.95 4.25 5.16 0 1 9 5.38 2.60 2.78 0 6 22.40 2.29 20.11 2 6 0 4 9
27   Wheat straw 10.08 5.98 4.10 4.98 0 1 8 5.38 2.23 3.15 0 6 17.92 1.96 15.96 2 0 0 4 2
28   Barley straw 8.96 5.46 3.50 4.25 0 1 5 4.03 2.04 1.99 0 4 22.40 1.80 20.60 2 7 0 4 4
29   Bean straw 20.16 5.68 14.48 17.58 0 5 10 6.72 2.14 4.58 0 9 22.40 1.80 20.60 2 7 0 9 2
30   Potatoes 5.60 2.07 3.53 4.29 0 1 5 3.36 0.78 2.58 0 5 12.32 0.66 11.66 1 5 0 3 3
31   Carrots 4.48 1.46 3.02 3.67 0 1 3 2.02 0.54 1.48 0 3 6.27 0.49 5.78 0 9 0 2 3
32   Parsnips 4.93 1.67 3.26 3.96 0 1 4 4.26 0.63 3.63 0 7 8.06 0.49 7.57 0 11 0 2 10
33   Mangel wurzels 4.93 1.32 3.61 4.38 0 1 6 1.57 0.49 1.08 0 2 8.96 0.49 8.47 1 1 0 2 9
34   Swedish turnips  5.60 1.14 4.46 5.42 0 1 10 1.34 0.44 0.90 0 2 4.93 0.33 4.60 0 7 0 2 7
35   Yellow turnips 4.48 0.93 3.55 4.31 0 1 5 1.34 0.34 1.00 0 2 4.93 0.33 (4.60)  0 7 0 2 2
36   White turnips 4.03 0.84 3.19 3.87 0 1 3 1.12 0.31 0.81 0 2 6.72 0.33 6.39 0 10 0 2 3

Cheese and Cheese-Making

For generations, perhaps for centuries, the question has been discussed as to why there should be so large a proportion of bad and inferior cheese and so small a proportion of really good cheese made in farmhouses throughout the land. That the result is not wholly due to skill and care or to the absence of these qualities on the part of the dairymaid may now be taken for granted. Instances might be quoted in which the most painstaking of dairymaids, in the cleanest of dairies, have failed to produce cheese of even second-rate quality and character, and yet others in which excellent cheese has been made under commonplace conditions as to skill and equipment, and with not much regard to cleanliness in the dairy. The explanation of what was so long a mystery has been found in the domain of ferments. It is now known that whilst various micro-organisms, which in many dairies have free access to the milk, have ruined an incalculable quantity of cheese—and of butter also—neither cheese nor butter of first-rate quality can be made without the aid of lactic acid bacilli. As an illustrative case, mention may be made of that of two most painstaking dairymaids who had tried in vain to make good cheese from the freshest of milk in the cleanest of dairies in North Lancashire. Advice to resort to the use of the ferment was acted upon, and the result was a revelation and a transformation, excellent prize-winning cheese being made from that time forward. By the addition of a “starter,” in the form of a small quantity of sour milk, whey or buttermilk, in an advanced stage of fermentation, the development of acidity in the main body of milk is accelerated. It has been ascertained that the starter is practically a culture of bacteria, which, if desired, may be obtained as a pure culture. Professor J. R. Campbell, as the result of experiments on pure cultures for Cheddar cheese-making, states[7] that (1) first-class Cheddar cheese can be made by using pure cultures of a lactic organism; (2) this organism abounds in all samples of sour milk and sour whey; (3) the use of a whey starter is attended with results equal in every respect to those obtained from a milk-starter. It is well within the power of any dairyman to prepare what is practically a pure culture of the same bacterium as is supplied from the laboratory. Moreover, the sour-whey starter used by some of the successful cheese-makers before the introduction of the American system is in effect a pure culture, from which it follows that these men had, by empirical methods, attained the same end as that to which bacteriological research subsequently led. Wherever a starter is necessary, the use of a culture practically pure is imperative, whether such culture be obtained from the laboratory or prepared by what may be called the “home-made starter.” Pure cultures may be bought for a few shillings in the open market.

Table IX.Comparison of the Estimates of Total or Original Manure-Value when Foods are
consumed for the Production of Fattening Increase, with those when the Food is consumed
by Cows giving different Yields of Milk.
 Nos.  Description
of Food.
Total or Original Manure-Value per Ton of Food
consumed—that is, only deducting the Constituents
in Fattening Increase or in Milk.
For the
For the Production of Milk, supposing
the Yield per Head per Day to be as under—
6 qts. 8 qts. 10 qts. 12 qts. 14 qts.
    £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d. £ s. d.
1   Linseed  1 19 2  1 14 7  1 12 0  1 9 6  1 7 1  1 4 5
2   Linseed cake 2 11 11 2 8 1 2 6 0 2 3 10 2 1 9 1 19 8
3   Decorticated cotton cake 3 14 9 3 11 2 3 9 2 3 7 4 3 5 4 3 3 4
4   Palm-nut cake 1 6 4 1 3 2 1 1 4 0 19 5 0 17 9 0 15 11
5   Undecorticated cotton cake  2 5 3 2 2 4 2 0 8 1 19 2 1 17 6 1 15 11
6   Cocoa-nut cake 1 19 10 1 16 11 1 15 3 1 13 9 1 12 3 1 10 6
7   Rape cake 2 16 5 1 14 2 2 12 11 2 11 7 2 10 4 2 9 1
8   Peas 1 16 5 1 13 1 1 11 2 1 9 6 1 7 8 1 5 9
9   Beans 2 1 11 1 18 7 1 16 10 1 14 11 1 13 1 1 11 4
10   Lentils 2 0 8 1 17 5 1 15 7 1 13 9 1 12 2 1 10 1
11   Tares (seed) 2 1 1 1 17 11 1 16 0 1 14 2 1 12 6 1 10 7
12   Maize 0 16 7 0 13 4 0 11 7 0 9 11 0 8 1 0 6 5
13   Wheat 0 18 11 0 15 8 0 13 11 0 12 1 0 10 5 0 8 8
14   Malt 0 17 7 0 14 5 0 12 7 0 10 8 0 9 0 0 7 1
15   Barley 0 17 2 0 14 0 0 12 3 0 10 6 0 8 8 0 6 11
16   Oats 0 19 9 0 16 8 0 15 0 0 13 4 0 11 7 0 9 10
17   Rice meal (0 18 6) 0 15 5 0 13 9 0 12 0 0 10 5 0 8 7
18   Locust beans .. .. .. .. .. ..
19   Malt coombs 2 6 7 2 3 9 2 2 0 2 0 6 1 18 11 1 17 4
20   Fine pollard 1 15 2 1 12 0 1 10 5 1 8 8 1 6 11 1 5 3
21   Coarse pollard 1 18 1 1 15 2 1 13 6 1 12 0 1 10 5 1 8 9
22   Bran 1 18 6 1 15 11 1 14 6 1 13 1 1 11 8 1 10 3
23   Clover hay 1 7 0 1 5 5 1 4 5 1 3 7 1 2 8 1 1 8
24   Meadow hay 0 18 7 0 17 0 0 16 3 0 15 5 0 14 5 0 13 7
25   Pea straw 0 12 2 0 10 9 0 10 0 0 9 3 0 8 5 0 7 8
26   Oat straw 0 7 5 0 6 2 0 5 5 0 4 9 0 4 0 0 3 3
27   Wheat straw 0 6 6 0 5 5 0 4 10 0 4 2 0 3 6 0 3 0
28   Barley straw 0 6 5 0 5 6 0 4 10 0 4 4 0 3 9 0 3 2
29   Bean straw 0 11 5 0 10 4 0 9 9 0 9 2 0 8 7 0 8 0
30   Potatoes 0 4 1 0 3 9 0 3 6 0 3 3 0 3 1 0 2 11
31   Carrots 0 2 9 0 2 6 0 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 1 0 1 11
32   Parsnips 0 3 6 0 3 3 0 3 1 0 2 10 0 2 8 0 2 7
33   Mangel wurzels 0 3 2 0 3 0 0 2 10 0 2 9 0 2 7 0 2 5
34   Swedish turnips 0 2 11 0 2 9 0 2 8 0 2 7 0 2 5 0 2 3
35   Yellow turnips (0 2 6) 0 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 2 0 2 1 0 2 0
36   White turnips 0 2 7 0 2 5 0 2 4 0 2 3 0 2 2 0 2 0

The factory-made cheese of Canada, the United States and Australasia, which is so largely imported into the United Kingdom, is all of the Cheddar type. The factory system has made no headway in the original home of the Cheddar cheese in the west of England. The system was thus described in the Journal of the British Dairy Farmers’ Association in 1889 by Mr R. J. Drummond:—

“In the year 1885 I was engaged as cheese instructor by the Ayrshire Dairy Association, to teach the Canadian system of Cheddar cheese-making. I commenced operations under many difficulties, being a total stranger to both the people and the country, and with this, the quantities of milk were very much less than I had been in the habit of handling. Instead of having the milk from 500 to 1000 cows, we had to operate with the milk from 25 to not over 60 cows.

“The system of cheese-making commonly practised in the county of Ayr at that time was what is commonly known as the Joseph Harding or English Cheddar system, which differs from the Canadian system in many details, and in one particular is essentially different, namely, the manner in which the necessary acidity in the milk is produced. In the old method a certain quantity of sour whey was added to the milk each day before adding the rennet, and I have no doubt in my own mind that this whey was often added when the milk was already acid enough, and the consequence was a spoiled cheese.

“Another objection to this system of adding sour whey was, should the stuff be out of condition one day, the same trouble was inoculated with the milk from day to day, and the result was sure to be great unevenness in the quality of the cheese. The utensils commonly in use were very different to anything I had ever seen before; instead of the oblong cheese vat with double casings, as is used by the best makers at the present time, a tub, sometimes of tin and sometimes of wood, from 4 to 7 ft. in diameter by about 30 in. deep, was universally in use. Instead of being able to heat the milk with warm water or steam, as is commonly done now, a large can of a capacity of from 20 to 30 gallons was filled with cold milk and placed in a common hot-water boiler, and heated sufficiently to bring the whole body of the milk in the tub to the desired temperature for adding the rennet. I found that many mistakes were made in the quantity of rennet used, as scarcely any two makers used the same quantity to a given quantity of milk. Instead of having a graduated measure for measuring the rennet, a common tea-cup was used for this purpose, and I have found in some dairies as low as 3 oz. of rennet was used to 100 gallons of milk, where in others as high as 6½ oz. was used to the same quantity. This of itself would cause a difference in the quality of the cheese.

“Coagulation and breaking completed, the second heating was effected by dipping the whey from the curd into the can already mentioned, and heated to a temperature of 140° F., and returned to the curd, and thus the process was carried on till the desired temperature was reached. This mode of heating I considered very laborious and at the same time very unsatisfactory, as it is impossible to distribute the heat as evenly through the curd in this way as by heating either with hot water or steam. The other general features of the method do not differ from our own very materially, with the exception that in the old method the curd was allowed to mature in the bottom of the tub, where at the same stage we remove the curd from the vat to what we call a curd-cooler, made with a sparred bottom, so as to allow the whey to separate from the curd during the maturing or ripening process. In regard to the quality of cheese on the one method compared with the other, I think that there was some cheese just as fine made in the old way as anything we can possibly make in the new, with one exception, and that is, that the cheese made according to the old method will not toast—instead of the casein melting down with the butter-fat, the two become separated, which is very much objected to by the consumer—and, with this, want of uniformity through the whole dairy. This is a very short and imperfect description of how the cheese was made at the time I came into Ayrshire; and I will now give a short description of the system that has been taught by myself for the past four years, and has been the means of bringing this county so prominently to the front as one of the best cheese-making counties in Britain.

“Our duty in this system of cheese-making begins the night before, in having the milk properly set and cooled according to the temperature of the atmosphere, so as to arrive at a given heat the next morning. Our object in this is to secure, at the time we wish to begin work in the morning, that degree of acidity or ripeness essential to the success of the whole operation. We cannot give any definite guide to makers how, or in what quantities, to set their milk, as the whole thing depends on the good judgment of the operator. If he finds that his milk works best at a temperature of 68° F. in the morning, his study the night before should tend toward such a result, and he will soon learn by experience how best to manage the milk in his own individual dairy. I have found in some dairies that the milk worked quite fast enough at a temperature of 64° in the morning, where in others the milk set in the same way would be very much out of condition by being too sweet, causing hours of delay before matured enough to add the rennet. Great care should be taken at this point, making sure that the milk is properly matured before the rennet is added, as impatience at this stage often causes hours of delay in the making of a cheese. I advise taking about six hours from the time the rennet is added till the curd is ready for salting, which means a six-hours’ process; if much longer than this, I have found by experience that it is impossible to obtain the best results. The cream should always be removed from the night’s milk in the morning and heated to a temperature of about 84° before returning it to the vat. To do this properly and with safety, the cream should be heated by adding about two-thirds of warm milk as it comes from the cow to one-third of cream, and passed through the ordinary milk-strainers. If colouring matter is used, it should be added fifteen to twenty minutes before the rennet, so as to become thoroughly mingled with the milk before coagulation takes place.

“We use from 4 to 41/2 oz. of Hansen’s rennet extract to each 100 gallons of milk, at a temperature of 86° in spring and 84° in summer, or sufficient to coagulate milk firm enough to cut in about forty minutes when in a proper condition. In cutting, great care should be taken not to bruise the curd. I cut lengthwise, then across with perpendicular knife, then with horizontal knife the same way of the perpendicular, leaving the curd in small cubes about the size of ordinary peas. Stirring with the hands should begin immediately after cutting, and continue for ten to fifteen minutes prior to the application of heat. At this stage we use a rake instead of the hands for stirring the curd during the heating process, which lasts about one hour from the time of beginning until the desired temperature of 100° or 102° is reached. After heating, the curd should be stirred another twenty minutes, so as to become properly firm before allowing it to settle. We like the curd to lie in the whey fully one hour after allowing it to settle before it is ready for drawing the whey, which is regulated altogether by the condition of the milk at the time the rennet is added. At the first indication of acid, the whey should be removed as quickly as possible. I think at this point lies the greatest secret of cheese-making—to know when to draw the whey.

“I depend entirely on the hot-iron test at this stage, as I consider it the most accurate and reliable guide known to determine when the proper acidity has been developed. To apply this test, take a piece of steel bar about 18 in. long by 1 in. wide and 1/4 in. thick, and heat to a black heat; if the iron is too hot, it will burn the curd; if too cold, it will not stick; consequently it is a very simple matter to determine the proper heat. Take a small quantity of the curd from the vat and compress it tightly in the hand, so as to expel all the whey; press the curd against the iron, and when acid enough it will draw fine silky threads 1/4 in. long. At this stage the curd should be removed to the curd-cooler as quickly as possible, and stirred till dry enough to allow it to mat, which generally takes from five to eight minutes. The curd is now allowed to stand in one end of the cooler for thirty minutes, when it is cut into pieces from 6 to 8 in. square and turned, and so on every half-hour until it is fit for milling. After removing the whey, a new acid makes its appearance in the body of the curd, which seems to depend for its development upon the action of the air, and the presence of which experience has shown to be an essential element in the making of a cheese. This acid should be allowed to develop properly before the addition of salt. To determine when the curd is ready for salting, the hot-iron test is again resorted to; and when the curd will draw fine silky threads 11/2 in. long, and at the same time have a soft velvety feel when pressed in the hand, the butter-fat will not separate with the whey from the curd. I generally advise using 1 ℔ of salt to 50 ℔ of curd, more or less, according to the condition of the curd. After salting, we let the curd lie fifteen minutes, so as to allow the salt to be thoroughly dissolved before pressing.

“In the pressing, care should be taken not to press the curd too severely at first, as you are apt to lose some of the butter-fat, and with this I do not think that the whey will come away so freely by heavy pressing at first. We advise three days’ pressing before cheese is taken to the curing-room. All cheese should have a bath in water at a temperature of 120° next morning after being made, so as to form a good skin to prevent cracking or chipping. The temperature of the curing-room should be kept as near 60° as possible at all seasons of the year, and I think it a good plan to ventilate while heating.”

With regard to the hot-iron test for acidity, Mr F. J. Lloyd, in describing his investigations on behalf of the Bath and West of England Society, states that cheese-makers have long known that in both the manufacture and the ripening of cheese the acidity produced—known to the chemist as “lactic acid”—materially influences the results obtained, and that amongst other drawbacks to the test referred to is the uncertainty of the temperature of the iron itself. He gives an account,[8] however, of a chemical method involving the use of a standard solution of an alkali (soda), and of a substance termed an “indicator” (phenolphthalein), which changes colour according to whether a solution is acid or alkaline. The apparatus used with these reagents is called the acidimeter. The two stages in the manufacture of a Cheddar cheese most difficult to determine empirically are—(1) when to stop stirring and to draw the whey, and (2) when to grind the curd. The introduction of the acidimeter has done away with these difficulties; and though the use of this apparatus is not actually a condition essential to the manufacture of a good cheese, it is to many makers a necessity and to all an advantage. By its use the cheese-maker can determine the acidity of the whey, and so decide when to draw the latter off, and will thus secure not only the proper development of acidity in the subsequent changes of cheese-making, but also materially diminish the time which the cheese takes to make. Furthermore, it has been proved that the acidity of the whey which drains from the curd when in the cooler is a sufficiently accurate guide to the condition of the curd before grinding; and by securing uniformity in this acidity the maker will also ensure uniformity in the quality and ripening properties of the cheese. Speaking generally, the acidity of the liquid from the press should never fall below 0.80% nor rise above 1.20%, and, the nearer it can be kept to 1.00% the better. Simultaneously, of course, strict attention must be paid to temperature, time and every other factor which can be accurately determined. Analyses of large numbers of Cheddar cheeses manufactured in every month of the cheese-making season show the average composition of ripe specimens to be—water, 35.58%; fat, 31.33; casein, 29.12; mineral matter or ash, 3.97. It has been maintained that in the ripening of Cheddar cheese fat is formed out of the curd, but a comparison of analyses of ripe cheeses with analyses of the curd from which the cheeses were made affords no evidence that this is the case.

The quantity of milk required to make 1 ℔ of Cheddar cheese may be learnt from Table X., which shows the results obtained at the cheese school of the Bath and West of England Society in the two seasons of 1899 and 1900. The cheese was sold at an average age of ten to twelve weeks. In 1899 a total of 21,220 gallons of milk yielded 20,537 ℔ of saleable cheese, and in 1900, 31,808 gallons yielded 29,631 ℔. In the two years together 53,028 gallons yielded 50,168 ℔, which is equivalent to 1.05 gallon of milk to 1 ℔ of cheese. For practical purposes it may be taken that one gallon, or slightly over 10 ℔ of milk, yields 1 ℔ of pressed cheese. The prices obtained are added as a matter of interest.

Cheshire cheese is largely made in the county from which it takes its name, and in adjoining districts. It is extensively consumed in Manchester and Liverpool, and other parts of the densely populated county of Lancaster.

Table X.Quantities of Milk employed and of Cheese produced in the
Manufacture of Cheddar Cheese.
When Made. Milk. Green
Shrinkage. Price.
  galls.   per cwt.
April 1899 3077 3100 2924 6 per cent. 60s.
May 4462 4502 4257 61/2 ℔ per cwt. 63s.
June 4316 4434 4141 7 ℔ 6 oz. per cwt. 70s.
July 3699 3785 3545 7 ℔ 2 oz. per cwt. 74s.
August 2495 2539 2353 8 ℔ 3 oz. per cwt. 74s.
Sept. and Oct. 3171 3583 3317 8 ℔ 5 oz. per cwt. 74s.
April 1900 3651 3505 3292 6 per cent. 63s.
May 6027 6048 5577 73/4 per cent. 64s.
June 5960 5889 5466 71/4 per cent. 68s.
July and Aug. 7227 7177 6630 71/2 per cent. 66s.
Sept. and Oct. 8943 9635 8666 10 per cent. 66s.

The following is a description of the making of Cheshire cheese:—

The evening’s milk is set apart until the following morning, when the cream is skimmed off. The latter is poured into a pan which has been heated by being placed in the boiling water of a boiler. The new milk obtained early in the morning is poured into the vessel containing the previous evening’s milk with the warmed cream, and the temperature of the mixture is brought to about 75° F. Into the vessel is introduced a piece of rennet, which has been kept in warm water since the preceding evening, and in which a little Spanish annatto (1/4 oz. is enough for a cheese of 60 ℔) is dissolved. (Marigolds, boiled in milk, are occasionally used for colouring cheese, to which they likewise impart a pleasant flavour. In winter, carrots scraped and boiled in milk, and afterwards strained, will produce a richer colour; but they should be used with moderation, on account of their taste.) The whole is now stirred together, and covered up warm for about an hour, or until it becomes curdled; it is then turned over with a bowl and broken very small. After standing a little time, the whey is drawn from it, and as soon as the curd becomes somewhat more solid it is cut into slices and turned over repeatedly, the better to press out the whey.

The curd is then removed from the tub, broken by hand or cut by a curd-breaker into small pieces, and put into a cheese vat, where it is strongly pressed both by hand and with weights, in order to extract the remaining whey. After this it is transferred to another vat, or into the same if it has in the meantime been well scalded, where a similar process of breaking and expressing is repeated, until all the whey is forced from it. The cheese is now turned into a third vat, previously warmed, with a cloth beneath it, and a thin loop of binder put round the upper edge of the cheese and within the sides of the vat, the cheese itself being previously enclosed in a clean cloth, and its edges placed within the vat, before transfer to the cheese-oven. These various processes occupy about six hours, and eight more are requisite for pressing the cheese, under a weight of 14 or 15 cwt. The cheese during that time should be twice turned in the vat. Holes are bored in the vat which contains the cheese, and also in the cover of it, to facilitate the extraction of every drop of whey. The pressure being continued, the cheese is at length taken from the vat as a firm and solid mass.

On the following morning and evening it must be again turned and pressed; and also on the third day, about the middle of which it should be removed to the salting-chamber, where the outside is well rubbed with salt, and a cloth binder passed round it which is not turned over the upper surface. The cheese is then placed in brine extending half-way up in a salting-tub, and the upper surface is thickly covered with salt. Here it remains for nearly a week, being turned twice in the day. It is then left to dry for two or three days, during which period it is turned once—being well salted at each turning—and cleaned every day. When taken from the brine it is put on the salting benches, with a wooden girth round it of nearly the thickness of the cheese, where it stands a few days, during which time it is again salted and turned every day. It is next washed and dried; and after remaining on the drying benches about seven days, it is once more washed in warm water with a brush, and wiped dry. In a couple of hours after this it is rubbed all over with sweet whey butter, which operation is afterwards frequently repeated; and, lastly, it is deposited in the cheese- or store-room—which should be moderately warm and sheltered from the access of air, lest the cheese should crack—and turned every day, until it has become sufficiently hard and firm. These cheeses require to be kept a considerable time.

As a matter of fact, there are three different modes of cheese-making followed in Cheshire, known as the early ripening, the medium ripening and the late ripening processes. There is also a method which produces a cheese that is permeated with “green mould” when ripe, called “Stilton Cheshire”; this, however, is confined to limited districts in the county. The early ripening method is generally followed in the spring of the year, until the middle or end of April; the medium process, from that time till late autumn, or until early in June, when the late ripening process is adopted and followed until the end of September, changing again to the medium process as the season advances. The late ripening process is not found to be suitable for spring or late autumn make. There is a decided difference between these several methods of making. In the early ripening system a larger quantity of rennet is used, more acidity is developed, and less pressure employed than in the other processes. In the medium ripening process a moderate amount of acidity is developed, to cause the natural drainage of the whey from the curd when under press. In the late ripening system, on the other hand, the development of acidity is prevented as far as possible, and the whey is got out of the curd by breaking down finer, using more heat, and skewering when under press. In the Stilton Cheshire process a larger quantity of rennet is used, and less pressure is employed, than in the medium or late ripening systems.

It is hardly possible to enunciate any general rules for the making of Stilton cheese, which differs from Cheddar and Cheshire in that it is not subjected to pressure. Mr J. Marshall Dugdale, in 1899, made a visit of inspection to the chief Leicestershire dairies where this cheese is produced, but in his report[9] he stated that every Stilton cheese-maker worked on his own lines, and that at no two dairies did he find the details all carried out in the same manner. There is a fair degree of uniformity up to the point when the curd is ladled into the straining-cloths, but at this stage, and in the treatment of the curd before salting, diversity sets in, several different methods being in successful use. Most of the cheese is made from two curds, the highly acid curd from the morning’s milk being mixed with the comparatively sweet curd from the evening’s milk. Opinion varies widely as to the degree of tightening of the straining-cloths. No test for acidity appears to be used, the amount of acidity being judged by the taste, feel and smell of the curd. When the desired degree of acidity has developed, the curd is broken by hand to pieces the size of small walnuts, and salt is added at the rate of about 1 oz. to 4 ℔ of dry curd, or 1 oz. to 31/2 ℔ of wet curd, care being taken not to get the curd pasty. If a maker has learnt how to rennet the milk properly, and how to secure the right amount of acidity at the time of hooping—that is, when the broken and salted curd is put into the wooden hoops which give the cheese its shape—he has acquired probably two of the most important details necessary to success. It was formerly the custom to add cream to the milk used for making Stilton cheese, but the more general practice now is to employ new milk alone, which yields a product apparently as excellent and mellow as that from enriched milk.

As a cheese matures or becomes fit for consumption, not only is there produced the characteristic flavour peculiar to the type of cheese concerned, but with all varieties, independently of the quality of flavours developed, a profound physical transformation of the casein occurs. In the course of this change the firm elastic curd “breaks down”—that is, becomes plastic, whilst chemically the insoluble casein is converted into various soluble decomposition products. These ripening phenomena—the production of flavour and the breaking down of the casein (that is, the formation of proper texture)—used to be regarded as different phases of the same process. As subsequently shown, however, these changes are not necessarily so closely correlated. The theories formerly advanced as explanatory of the ripening changes in cheese were suggestive rather than based upon experimental data, and it is only since 1896 that careful scientific studies of the problem have been made. Of the two existing theories, the one, which is essentially European, ascribes the ripening changes wholly to the action of living organisms—the bacteria present in the cheese. The other, which had its origin in the United States, asserts that there are digestive enzymes—that is, unorganized or soluble ferments—inherent in the milk itself that render the casein soluble. The supporters of the bacterial theory are ranged in two classes. The one, led by Duclaux, regards the breaking down of the casein as due to the action of liquefying bacteria (Tyrothrix forms). On the other hand, von Freudenreich has ascribed these changes to the lactic-acid type of bacteria, which develop so luxuriantly in hard cheese like Cheddar.

With regard to the American theory, and in view of the important practical results obtained by Babcock and Russell at the Wisconsin experiment station, the following account[10] of their work is of interest, especially as the subject is of high practical importance. In 1897 they announced the discovery of an inherent enzyme in milk, which they named galactase, and which has the power of digesting the casein of milk, and producing chemical decomposition products similar to those that normally occur in ripened cheese. The theory has been advanced by them that this enzyme is an important factor in the ripening changes; and as in their experiments bacterial action was excluded by the use of anaesthetic agents, they conclude that, so far as the breaking down of the casein is concerned, bacteria are not essential to this process. In formulating a theory of cheese-ripening, they have further pointed out the necessity of considering the action of rennet extract as a factor concerned in the curing changes. They have shown that the addition of increased quantities of rennet extract materially hastens the rate of ripening, and that this is due to the pepsin which is present in all commercial rennet extracts. They find it easily possible to differentiate between the proteolytic action—that is, the decomposing of proteids—of pepsin and galactase, in that the first-named enzyme is incapable of producing decomposition products lower than the peptones precipitated by tannin. They have shown that the increased solubility—the ripening changes—of the casein in cheese made with rennet is attributable solely to the products peculiar to peptic digestion. The addition of rennet extract or pepsin to fresh milk does not produce this change, unless the acidity of the milk is allowed to develop to a point which experience has shown to be the best adapted to the making of Cheddar cheese. The rationale of the empirical process of ripening the milk before the addition of the rennet is thus explained. In studying the properties of galactase it was further found that this enzyme, as well as those present in rennet extract, is operative at very low temperatures, even below freezing-point. When cheese made in the normal manner was kept at temperatures ranging from 25° to 45° F. for periods averaging from eight to eighteen months, it was found that the texture of the product simulated that of a perfectly ripened cheese, but that such cheese developed a very mild flavour in comparison with the normally-cured product. Subsequent storage at somewhat higher temperatures gives to such cheese a flavour the intensity of which is determined by the duration of storage. This indicates that the breaking down of the casein and the production of the flavour peculiar to cheese are in a way independent of each other, and may be independently controlled—a point of great economic importance in commercial practice. Although it is generally believed that cheese ripened at low temperatures is apt to develop a more or less bitter flavour, the flavours in the cases described were found to be practically perfect. Under these conditions of curing, bacterial activity is inoperative, and these experiments are held to furnish an independent proof of the enzyme theory.

Not only are these investigations of interest from the scientific standpoint, as throwing light on the obscure processes of cheese-curing, but from a practical point of view they open up a new field for commercial exploitation. The inability to control the temperature in the ordinary factory curing-room results in serious losses, on account of the poor and uneven quality of the product, and the consumption of cheese has been greatly lessened thereby. These conditions may all be avoided by this low-temperature curing process, and it is not improbable that the cheese industry may undergo important changes in methods of treatment. With the introduction of cold-storage curing, and the necessity of constructing centralized plant for this purpose, the cheese industry may perhaps come to be differentiated into the manufacture of the product in factories of relatively cheap construction, and the curing or ripening of the cheese in central curing stations. In this way not only would the losses which occur under present practices be obviated, but the improvement in the quality of the cured product would be more than sufficient to cover the cost of cold-storage curing.

The characteristics of typical specimens of the different kinds of English cheese may be briefly described. Cheddar cheese possesses the aroma and flavour of a nut—the so-called “nutty” flavour. It should melt in the mouth, and taste neither sweet nor acid. It is of flaky texture, neither hard nor crumbly, and is firm to the touch. It is early-ripening and, if not too much acid is developed in the making, long-keeping. Before all others it is a cosmopolitan cheese. Some cheeses are “plain,” that is, they possess the natural paleness of the curd, but many are coloured with annatto—a practice that might be dispensed with. The average weight of a Cheddar cheese is about 70 ℔. Stilton cheese is popularly but erroneously supposed to be commonly made from morning’s whole milk with evening’s cream added, and to be a “double-cream” cheese. The texture is waxy, and a blue-green mould permeates the mass if well ripened; the flavour is suggestive of decay. The average weight of a Stilton is 15 ℔. Cheshire cheese has a fairly firm and uniform texture, neither flaky on the one hand nor waxy on the other; is of somewhat sharp and piquant flavour when fully ripe; and is often—at eighteen months old, when a well-made Cheshire cheese is at its best—permeated with a blue-green mould, which, as in the case of Stilton cheese, contributes a characteristic flavour which is much appreciated. Cheshire cheese is, like Cheddar, sometimes highly-coloured, but the practice is quite unnecessary; the weight is about 55 ℔. Gloucester cheese has a firm, somewhat soapy, texture and sweet flavour. Double Gloucester differs from single Gloucester only in size, the former usually weighing 26 to 30 ℔, and the latter 13 to 15 ℔. Leicester cheese is somewhat loose in texture, and mellow and moist when nicely ripened. Its flavour is “clean,” sweet and mild, and its aroma pleasant. To those who prefer a mild flavour in cheese, a perfect Leicester is perhaps the most attractive of all the so-called “hard” cheese; the average weight of such a cheese is about 35 ℔. Derby cheese in its best forms is much like Leicester, being “clean” in flavour and mellow. It is sometimes rather flaky in texture, and is slow-ripening and long-keeping if made on the old lines; the average weight is 25 ℔. Lancashire cheese, when well made and ripe, is loose in texture and is mellow; it has a piquant flavour. As a rule it ripens early and does not keep long. Dorset cheese—sometimes called “blue vinny” (or veiny)—is of firm texture, blue-moulded, and rather sharp-flavoured when fully ripe; it has local popularity and the best makes are rather like Stilton. Wensleydale cheese, a local product in North Yorkshire, is of fairly firm texture and mild flavour, and may almost be spread with a knife when ripe; the finest makes are equal to the best Stilton. Cotherstone cheese, also a Yorkshire product, is very much like Stilton and commonly preferable to it. The blue-green mould develops, and the cheese is fairly mellow and moist, whereas many Stiltons are hard and dry. Wiltshire cheese, in the form of “Wilts truckles,” may be described as small Cheddars, the weight being usually about 16 ℔. Caerphilly cheese is a thin, flat product, having the appearance of an undersized single Gloucester and weighing about 8 ℔; it has no very marked characteristics, but enters largely into local consumption amongst the mining population of Glamorganshire and Monmouthshire. Soft cheese of various kinds is made in many localities, beyond which its reputation scarcely extends. One of the oldest and best, somewhat resembling Camembert when well ripened, is the little “Slipcote,” made on a small scale in the county of Rutland; it is a soft, mellow, moist cheese, its coat slipping off readily when the cheese is at its best for eating—hence the name. Cream cheese is likewise made in many districts, but nowhere to a great extent. A good cream cheese is fairly firm but mellow, with a slightly acid yet very attractive flavour. It is the simplest of all cheese to make—cream poured into a perforated box lined with loose muslin practically makes itself into cheese in a few days’ time, and is usually ripe in a week.

In France the pressed varieties of cheese with hard rinds include Gruyère, Cantal, Roquefort and Port Salut. The first-named, a pale-yellow cheese full of holes of varying size, is made in Switzerland and in the Jura Mountains district in the east of France; whilst Cantal cheese, which is of lower quality, is a product of the midland districts and is made barrel-shape. Roquefort cheese is made from the milk of ewes, which are kept chiefly as dairy animals in the department of Aveyron, and the cheese is cured in the natural mountain caves at the village of Roquefort. It is a small, rather soft, white cheese, abundantly veined with a greenish-blue mould and weighs between 4 and 5 ℔. The Port Salut is quite a modern cheese, which originated in the abbey of that name in Mayenne; it is a thin, flat cheese of characteristic, and not unattractive odour and flavour. The best known of the soft unpressed cheeses are Brie, Camembert and Coulommiers, whilst Pont l’Evêque, Livarot and other varieties are also made. After being shaped in moulds of various forms, these cheeses are laid on straw mats to cure, and when fit to eat they possess about the same consistency as butter. The Neufchâtel, Gervais and Bondon cheeses are soft varieties intended to be eaten quite fresh, like cream cheese.

Of the varieties of cheese made in Switzerland, the best known is the Emmenthaler, which is about the size of a cart-wheel, and has a weight varying from 150 to 300 ℔. It is full of small holes of almost uniform size and very regularly distributed. In colour and flavour it is the same as Gruyère. The Edam and Gouda are the common cheeses of Holland. The Edam is spherical in shape, weighs from 3 to 4 ℔, and is usually dyed crimson on the outside. The Gouda is a flat cheese with convex edges and is of any weight up to 20 ℔. Of the two, the Edam has the finer flavour. Limburger is the leading German cheese, whilst other varieties are the Backstein and Munster; all are strong-smelling. Parmesan cheese is an Italian product, round and flat, about 5 in. thick, weighing from 60 to 80 ℔ and possessed of fine flavour. Gorgonzola cheese, so called from the Italian town of that name near Milan, is made in the Cheddar shape and weighs from 20 to 40 ℔. When ripe it is permeated by a blue mould, and resembles in flavour, appearance and consistency a rich old Stilton.

For descriptions of all the named varieties of cheese, see Bulletin 105 of the Bureau of Animal Industry (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington), issued 27th of June 1908, compiled by C. F. Doane and H. W. Lawson.

Butter and Butter-Making

As with cheese, so with butter, large quantities of the latter have been inferior not because the cream was poor in quality, but because the wrong kinds of bacteria had taken possession of the atmosphere in hundreds of dairies. The greatest if not the latest novelty in dairying in the last decade of the 19th century was the isolation of lactic acid bacilli, their cultivation in a suitable medium, and their employment in cream preparatory to churning. Used thus in butter-making, an excellent product results, provided cleanliness be scrupulously maintained. The culture repeats itself in the buttermilk, which in turn may be used again with marked success. Much fine butter, indeed, was made long before the bearing of bacteriological science upon the practice of dairying was recognized—made by using acid buttermilk from a previous churning.

In Denmark, which is, for its size, the greatest butter-producing country in the world, most of the butter is made with the aid of “starters,” or artificial cultures which are employed in ripening the cream. Though the butter made by such cultures shows little if any superiority over a good sample made from cream ripened in the ordinary way—that is, by keeping the cream at a fairly high temperature until it is ready for churning, when it must be cooled—it is claimed that the use of these cultures enables the butter-makers of Denmark to secure a much greater uniformity in the quality of their produce than would be possible if they depended upon the ripening of the cream through the influence of bacteria taken up in the usual way from the air.

Butter-making is an altogether simpler process than cheese-making, but success demands strict attention to sound principles, the observance of thorough cleanliness in every stage of the work, and the intelligent use of the thermometer. The following rules for butter-making, issued by the Royal Agricultural Society sufficiently indicate the nature of the operation:—

Prepare churn, butter-worker, wooden-hands and sieve as follows:—(1) Rinse with cold water. (2) Scald with boiling water. (3) Rub thoroughly with salt. (4) Rinse with cold water.

Always use a correct thermometer.

The cream, when in the churn, to be at a temperature of 56° to 58° F. in summer and 60° to 62° F. in winter. The churn should never be more than half full. Churn at number of revolutions suggested by maker of churn. If none are given, churn at 40 to 45 revolutions per minute. Always churn slowly at first.

Ventilate the churn freely and frequently during churning, until no air rushes out when the vent is opened.

Stop churning immediately the butter comes. This can be ascertained by the sound; if in doubt, look.

The butter should now be like grains of mustard seed. Pour in a small quantity of cold water (1 pint of water to 2 quarts of cream) to harden the grains, and give a few more turns to the churn gently.

Draw off the buttermilk, giving plenty of time for draining. Use a straining-cloth placed over the hair-sieve, so as to prevent any loss, and wash the butter in the churn with plenty of cold water: then draw off the water, and repeat the process until the water comes off quite clear.

To brine butter, make a strong brine, 2 to 3 ℔ of salt to 1 gallon of water. Place straining-cloth over mouth of churn, pour in brine, put lid on churn, turn sharply half a dozen times, and leave for 10 to 15 minutes. Then lift the butter out of the churn into sieve, turn butter out on worker, leave it a few minutes to drain, and work gently till all superfluous moisture is pressed out.

To drysalt butter, place butter on worker, let it drain 10 to 15 minutes, then work gently till all the butter comes together. Place it on the scales and weigh; then weigh salt, for slight salting, 1/4 oz.; medium, 1/2 oz.; heavy salting, 3/4 oz. to the ℔ of butter. Roll butter out on worker and carefully sprinkle salt over the surface, a little at a time; roll up and repeat till all the salt is used.

Never touch the butter with your hands.

Well-made butter is firm and not greasy. It possesses a characteristic texture or “grain,” in virtue of which it cuts clean with a knife and breaks with a granular fracture, like that of cast-iron. Theoretically, butter should consist of little else than fat, but in practice this degree of perfection is never attained. Usually the fat ranges from 83 to 88%, whilst water is present to the extent of from 10 to 15%.[11] There will also be from 0.2 to 0.8% of milk-sugar, and from 0.5 to 0.8% of casein. It is the casein which is the objectionable ingredient, and the presence of which is usually the cause of rancidity. In badly-washed or badly-worked butter, from which the buttermilk has not been properly removed, the proportion of casein or curd left in the product may be considerable, and such butter has only inferior keeping qualities. At the same time, the mistake may be made of overworking or of overwashing the butter, thereby depriving it of the delicacy of flavour which is one of its chief attractions as an article of consumption if eaten fresh. The object of washing with brine is that the small quantity of salt thus introduced shall act as a preservative and develop the flavour. Streaky butter may be due either to curd left in by imperfect washing, or to an uneven distribution of the salt.

Equipment of the Dairy

Fig. 1.—Milking-Pail. Fig. 2.—Milk Sieve.

Fig. 3.—Rectangular Cheese-Vat.

Fig. 4.—Cheese-Tub.
Fig. 5.—Curd-Knives.

The improved form of milking-pail shown in fig. 1 has rests or brackets, which the milker when seated on his stool places on his knees; he thus bears the weight on his thighs, and is entirely relieved of the strain involved in gripping the can between the knees. The milk sieve or strainer (fig. 2) is used to remove cow-hairs and any other mechanical impurity that may have fallen into the milk. A double straining surface is provided, the second being of very fine gauze placed vertically, so that the pressure of the milk does not force the dirt through; the strainer is easily washed. The cheese tub or vat receives the milk for cheese-making. The rectangular form shown in fig. 3 is a Cheshire cheese-vat, for steam. The inner vat is of tinned steel, and the outer is of iron and is fitted with pipes for steam supply. Round cheese-tubs (fig. 4) are made of strong sheets of steel, double tinned to render them lasting. They are fitted with a strong bottom hoop and bands round the sides, and can be double-jacketed for steam-heating if required. Curd-knives (fig. 5) are used for cutting the coagulated mass into cubes in order to liberate the whey. They are made of fine steel, with sharp edges; there are also wire curd-breakers. The object of the curd-mill (fig. 6) is to grind consolidated curd into small pieces, preparatory to salting and vatting; two spiked rollers work up to spiked breasts. Hoops, into which the curd is placed in order to acquire the shape of the cheese, are of wood or steel, the former being made of well-seasoned oak with iron bands (fig. 7), the latter of tinned steel. The cheese is more easily removed from the steel hoops and they are readily cleaned. The cheese-press (fig. 8) is used only for hard or “pressed” cheese, such as Cheddar. The arrangement is such that the pressure is continuous; in the case of soft cheese the curd is merely placed in moulds (figs. 9 and 10) of the required shape, and then taken cut to ripen, no pressure being applied. The cheese-room is fitted with easily-turned shelves, on which newly-made “pressed” cheeses are laid to ripen.

Fig. 6.—Curd-Mill. Fig. 7.—Hoop for Flat Cheese.
Fig. 8.—Cheese-Press.
Fig. 9.—Cheese-Mould (Gervais).
Fig. 10.—Cheese-Mould
(Pont l’Évêque).
Fig. 11.—Milk-Pan.
Fig. 12.—Skimmer.

In the butter dairy, when the centrifugal separator is not used, milk is “set” for cream-raising in the milk-pan (fig. 11), a shallow vessel of white porcelain, tinned steel or enamelled iron. The skimming-dish or skimmer (fig 12), made of tin, is for collecting the cream from the surface of the milk, whence it is transferred to the cream-crock (fig. 13), in which vessel the cream remains from one to three days, till it is required for churning. Many different kinds of churns are in use, and vary much in size, shape and fittings; the one illustrated in fig. 14 is a very good type of diaphragm churn. The butter-scoop (fig. 15) is of wood and is sometimes perforated; it is used for taking the butter out of the churn. The butter-worker (fig. 16) is employed for consolidating newly-churned butter, pressing out superfluous water and mixing in salt. More extended use, however, is now being made of the “Délaiteuse” butter dryer, a centrifugal machine that rapidly extracts the moisture from the butter, and renders the butter-worker unnecessary, whilst the butter produced has a better grain. Scotch hands (fig. 17), made of boxwood, are used for the lifting, moulding and pressing of butter.

Fig. 13.—Cream-Crock.Fig. 14.—Churn.
Fig. 15.—Butter-Scoop.

In the centrifugal cream-separator the new milk is allowed to flow into a bowl, which is caused to rotate on its own axis several thousand times per minute. The heavier portion which makes up the watery part of the milk flies to the outer circumference of the bowl, whilst the lighter particles of butter-fat are forced to travel in an inner zone. By a simple mechanical arrangement the separated milk is forced out at one tube and the cream at another, and they are collected in distinct vessels. Separators are made of all sizes, from small machines dealing with 10 or 20 up to 100 gallons an hour, and worked by hand (fig. 18), to large machines separating 150 to 440 gallons an hour, and worked by horse, steam or other power (fig. 19). Separation is found to be most effective at temperatures ranging in different machines from 80° to 98° F., though as high a temperature as 150° is sometimes employed. The most efficient separators remove nearly the whole of the butter-fat, the quantity of fat left in the separated milk falling in some cases to as low as 0.1. When cream is raised by the deep-setting method, from 0.2 to 0.4% of fat is left in the skim-milk; by the shallow-setting method from 0.3 to 0.5% of the fat is left behind. As a rule, therefore, “separated” milk is much poorer in fat than ordinary “skim” milk left by the cream-raising method in deep or shallow vessels.

The first continuous working separator was the invention of Dr de Laval. The more recent invention by Baron von Bechtolsheim of what are known as the Alfa discs, which are placed along the centre of the bowl of the separator, has much increased the separating capacity of the machines without adding to the power required. This has been of great assistance to dairy farmers by lessening the cost of the manufacture of butter, and thus enabling a large additional number of factories to be established in different parts of the world, particularly in Ireland, where these disc machines are very extensively used.

Fig. 16.—Butter-Worker.
Fig. 17.—Scotch Hands. Fig. 18.—Hand-Separator.

The pasteurizer—so named after the French chemist Pasteur—affords a means whereby at the outset the milk is maintained at a temperature of 170° to 180° F. for a period of eight or ten minutes. The object of this is to destroy the tubercle bacillus, if it should happen to exist in the milk, whilst incidentally the bacilli associated with several other diseases communicable through the medium of milk would also be killed if they were present. Discordant results have been recorded by experimenters who have attempted to kill tubercle bacilli in milk by heating the latter in open vessels, thereby permitting the formation of a scum or “scalded layer” capable of protecting the tubercle bacilli, and enabling them to resist a higher temperature than otherwise would be fatal to them. At a temperature not much above 150° F. milk begins to acquire the cooked flavour which is objectionable to many palates, whilst its “body” is so modified as to lessen its suitability for creaming purposes. Three factors really enter into effective pasteurization of milk, namely (1) the temperature to which the milk is raised, (2) the length of time it is kept at that temperature, (3) the maintenance of a condition of mechanical agitation to prevent the formation of “scalded layer.” Within limits, what a higher temperature will accomplish if maintained for a very short time may be effected by a lower temperature continued over a longer period. The investigation of the problem forms the subject of a paper[12] in the 17th Annual Report of the Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station, 1900. The following are the results of the experiments:—

1. An exposure of tuberculous milk in a tightly closed commercial pasteurizer for a period of ten minutes destroyed in every case the tubercle bacillus, as determined by the inoculation of such heated milk into susceptible animals like guinea-pigs. 2. Where milk is exposed under conditions that would enable a pellicle or membrane to form on the surface, the tubercle organism is able to resist the action of heat at 140° F. (60° C.) for considerably longer periods of time.

Fig. 19.—Power Separator.

3. Efficient pasteurization can be more readily accomplished in a closed receptacle such as is most frequently used in the commercial treatment of milk, than where the milk is heated in open bottles or open vats.

Fig. 20.—Refrigerator and Can.

4. It is recommended, in order thoroughly to pasteurize milk so as to destroy any tubercle bacilli which it may contain, without in any way injuring its creaming properties or consistency, to heat the same in closed pasteurizers for a period of not less than twenty minutes at 140° F.

Under these conditions one may be certain that disease bacteria such as the tubercle bacillus will be destroyed without the milk or cream being injured in any way. For over a year this new standard has been in constant use in the Wisconsin University Creamery, and the results, from a purely practical point of view, reported a year earlier by Farrington and Russell,[13] have been abundantly confirmed.

Fig. 21.—Cyclindrical Cooler or Refrigerator.
Fig. 22.—Butyrometer.

Dairy engineers have solved the problem as to how large bodies of milk may be pasteurized, the difficulty of raising many hundreds or thousands of gallons of milk up to the required temperature, and maintaining it at that heat for a period of twenty minutes, having been successfully dealt with. The plant usually employed provides for the thorough filtration of the milk as it comes in from the farms, its rapid heating in a closed receiver and under mechanical agitation up to the desired temperature, its maintenance thereat for the requisite time, and finally its sudden reduction to the temperature of cold water through the agency of a refrigerator, to be next noticed.

Refrigerators are used for reducing the temperature of milk to that of cold water, whereby its keeping properties are enhanced. The milk flows down the outside of the metal refrigerator (fig. 20), which is corrugated in order to provide a larger cooling surface, whilst cold water circulates through the interior of the refrigerator. The conical vessel into which the milk is represented as flowing from the refrigerator in fig. 20 is absurdly called a “milk-churn,” whereas milk-can is a much more appropriate name. For very large quantities of milk, such as flow from a pasteurizing plant, cylindrical refrigerators (fig. 21), made of tinned copper, are available; the cold water circulates inside, and the milk, flowing down the outside in a very thin sheet, is rapidly cooled from a temperature of 140° F. or higher to 1° above the temperature of the water.

The fat test for milk was originally devised by Dr S. M. Babcock, of the Wisconsin, U.S.A., experiment station. It combines the principle of centrifugal force with simple chemical action. Besides the machine itself and its graduated glass vessels, the only requirements are sulphuric acid of standard strength and warm water. The machines—often termed butyrometers—are commonly made to hold from two up to two dozen testers. After the tubes or testers have been charged, they are put in the apparatus, which is rapidly rotated as shown (fig. 22); in a few minutes the test is complete, and with properly graduated vessels the percentage of fat can be read off at a glance. The butyrometer is extremely useful, alike for measuring periodically the fat-producing capacity of individual cows in a herd, for rapidly ascertaining the percentage of fat in milk delivered to factories and paying for such milk on the basis of quality, and for determining the richness in fat of milk supplied for the urban milk trade. Any intelligent person can soon learn to work the apparatus, but its efficiency is of course dependent upon the accuracy of the measuring vessels. To ensure this the board of agriculture have made arrangements with the National Physical Laboratory, Old Deer Park, Richmond, Surrey, to verify at a small fee the pipettes, measuring-glasses, and test-bottles used in connexion with the centrifugal butyrometer, which in recent years has been improved by Dr N. Gerber of Zürich.

Dairy Factories

In connexion with co-operative cheese-making the merit of having founded the first “cheesery” or cheese factory is generally credited to Jesse Williams, who lived near Rome, Oneida county, N.Y. The system, therefore, was of American origin. Williams was a skilled cheese-maker, and the produce of his dairy sold so freely, at prices over the average, that he increased his output of cheese by adding to his own supply of milk other quantities which he obtained from his neighbours. His example was so widely followed that by the year 1866 there had been established close upon 500 cheese factories in New York state alone. In 1870 two co-operative cheeseries were at work in England, one in the town of Derby and one at Longford in the same county. There are now thousands of cheeseries in the United States and Canada, and also many “creameries,” or butter factories, for the making of high-class butter.

The first creamery was that of Alanson Slaughter, and it was built near Wallkill, Orange county, N.Y., in 1861, or ten years later than the first cheese factory; it dealt daily with the milk of 375 cows. Cheeseries and creameries would almost certainly have become more numerous than they are in England but for the rapidly expanding urban trade in country milk. The development of each, indeed, has been contemporaneous since 1871, and they are found to work well in conjunction one with the other—that is to say, a factory is useful for converting surplus milk into cheese or butter when the milk trade is overstocked, whilst the trade affords a convenient avenue for the sale of milk whenever this may happen to be preferable to the making of cheese or butter. Extensive dealers in milk arrange for its conversion into cheese or butter, as the case may be, at such times as the milk market needs relief, and in this way a cheesery serves as a sort of economic safety-valve to the milk trade. The same cannot always be said of creameries, because the machine-skimmed milk of some of these establishments has been far too much used to the prejudice of the legitimate milk trade in urban districts. Be this as it may, the operations of cheeseries and creameries in conjunction with the milk trade have led to the diminution of home dairying. A rapidly increasing population has maintained, and probably increased, its consumption of milk, which has obviously diminished the farmhouse production of cheese, and also of butter. The foreign competitor has been less successful with cheese than with butter, for he is unable to produce an article qualified to compete with the best that is made in Great Britain. In the case of butter, on the other hand, the imported article, though not ever surpassing the best home-made, is on the average much better, especially as regards uniformity of quality. Colonial and foreign producers, however, send into the British markets as a rule only the best of their butter, as they are aware that their inferior grades would but injure the reputation their products have acquired.

There are no official statistics concerning dairy factories in Great Britain, and such figures relating to Ireland were issued for the first time in 1901. The number of dairy factories in Ireland in 1900 was returned at 506, comprising 333 in Munster, 92 in Ulster, 52 in Leinster and 29 in Connaught. Of the total number of factories, 495 received milk only, 9 milk and cream and 2 cream only. As to ownership, 219 were joint-stock concerns, 190 were maintained by co-operative farmers and 97 were proprietary. In the year ended 30th September 1900 these factories used up nearly 121 million gallons of milk, namely, 94 in Munster, 14 in Ulster, 7 in Leinster and 6 in Connaught. The number of centrifugal cream-separators in the factories was 985, of which 889 were worked by steam, 79 by water, 9 by horse-power and 8 by hand-power. The number of hands permanently employed was 3653, made up of 976 in Munster, 279 in Leinster, 278 in Ulster and 120 in Connaught. The year’s output was returned at 401,490 cwt. of butter, 439 cwt. of cheese (made from whole milk) and 46,253 gallons of cream. In most cases the skim-milk is returned to the farmers. A return of the number of separators used in private establishments gave a total of 899, comprising 693 in Munster, 157 in Leinster, 39 in Ulster and 10 in Connaught. In factories and private establishments together as many as 1884 separators were thus accounted for. Much of the factory butter would be sent into the markets of Great Britain, though some would no doubt be retained for local consumption. A great improvement in the quality of Irish butter has recently been noticeable in the exhibits entered at the London dairy show.

Adulteration of Dairy Produce[14]

The Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, which came into operation on the 1st of January 1900, contains several sections relating to the trade in dairy produce in the United Kingdom. Section 1 imposes penalties in the case of the importation of produce insufficiently marked, such as (a) margarine or margarine-cheese, except in passages conspicuously marked “Margarine” or “Margarine-cheese”; (b) adulterated or impoverished butter (other than margarine) or adulterated or impoverished milk or cream, except in packages or cans conspicuously marked with a name or description indicating that the butter or milk or cream has been so treated; (c) condensed separated or skimmed milk, except in tins or other receptacles which bear a label whereon the words “machine-skimmed milk” or “skimmed milk” are printed in large and legible type. For the purposes of this section an article of food is deemed to be adulterated or impoverished if it has been mixed with any other substance, or if any part of it has been abstracted, so as in either case to affect injuriously its quality, substance, or nature; provided that an article of food shall not be deemed to be adulterated by reason only of the addition of any preservative or colouring matter of such a nature and in such quantity as not to render the article injurious to health. Section 7 provides that every occupier of a manufactory of margarine or margarine-cheese, and every wholesale dealer in such substances, shall keep a register showing the quantity and destination of each consignment of such substances sent out from his manufactory or place of business, and this register shall be open to the inspection of any officer of the board of agriculture. Any such officer shall have power to enter at all reasonable times any such manufactory, and to inspect any process of manufacture therein, and to take samples for analysis. Section 8 is of much practical importance, as it limits the quantity of butter-fat which may be contained in margarine; it states that it shall be unlawful to manufacture, sell, expose for sale or import any margarine the fat of which contains more than 10% of butter-fat, and every person who manufactures, sells, exposes for sale or imports any margarine which contains more than that percentage shall be guilty of an offence under the Margarine Act 1887. For the purposes of the act margarine-cheese is defined as “any substance, whether compound or otherwise, which is prepared in imitation of cheese, and which contains fat not derived from milk”; whilst cheese is defined as “the substance usually known as cheese, containing no fat derived otherwise than from milk.” The so-called “filled” cheese of American origin, in which the butter-fat of the milk is partially or wholly replaced by some other fat, would come under the head of “margarine-cheese.” In making such cheese a cheap form of fat, usually of animal origin, but sometimes vegetable, is added to and incorporated with the skim-milk, and thus takes the place previously occupied by the genuine butter-fat. The act is regarded by some as defective in that it does not prohibit the artificial colouring of margarine to imitate butter.

In connexion with this act a departmental committee was appointed in 1900 “to inquire and report as to what regulations, if any, may with advantage be made by the board of agriculture under section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, for determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of genuine milk or cream, or what addition of extraneous matter or proportion of water, in any sample of milk (including condensed milk) or cream, shall for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the milk or cream is not genuine.” Much evidence of the highest interest to dairy-farmers was taken, and subsequently published as a Blue-Book (Cd. 484). The report of the committee (Cd. 491) included the following “recommendations,” which were signed by all the members excepting one:—

 I. That regulations under section 4 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899 be made by the board of agriculture with respect to milk (including condensed milk) and cream.

II. (a) That in the case of any milk (other than skimmed, separated or condensed milk) the total milk-solids in which on being dried at 100° C. do not amount to 12% a presumption shall be raised, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is deficient in the normal constituents of genuine milk.

 (b) That any milk (other than skimmed, separated or condensed milk) the total milk-solids in which are less than 12%, and in which the amount of milk-fat is less than 3.25%, shall be deemed to be deficient in milk-fat as to raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that it has been mixed with separated milk or water, or that some portion of its normal content of milk-fat has been removed. In calculating the percentage amount of deficiency of fat the analyst shall have regard to the above-named limit of 3.25% of milk-fat.

 (c) That any milk (other than skimmed, separated or condensed milk) the total milk-solids in which are less than 12%, and in which the amount of non-fatty milk-solids is less than 8.5%, shall be deemed to be so deficient in normal constituents as to raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that it has been mixed with water. In calculating the percentage amount of admixed water the analyst shall have regard to the above-named limit of 8.5% of non-fatty milk-solids, and shall further take into account the extent to which the milk-fat may exceed 3.25%.

III. That the artificial thickening of cream by any addition of gelatin or other substance shall raise a presumption that the cream is not genuine.

IV. That any skimmed or separated milk in which the total milk-solids are less than 9% shall be deemed to be so deficient in normal constituents as to raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that it has been mixed with water.

 V. That any condensed milk (other than that labelled “machine-skimmed milk” or “skimmed milk,” in conformity with section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899) in which either the amount of milk-fat is less than 10%, or the amount of non-fatty milk-solids is less than 25%, shall be deemed to be so deficient in some of the normal constituents of milk as to raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that it is not genuine.

The committee further submitted the following expressions of opinion on points raised before them in evidence:—

(a) That it is desirable to call the attention of those engaged in the administration of the Food and Drugs Acts to the necessity of adopting effective measures to prevent any addition of water, separated or condensed milk, or other extraneous matter, for the purpose of reducing the quality of genuine milk to any limits fixed by regulation of the board of agriculture.

(b) That it is desirable that steps should be taken with the view of identifying or “ear-marking” separated milk by the addition of some suitable and innocuous substance, and by the adoption of procedure similar to that provided by section 7 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899, in regard to margarine.

(c) That it is desirable that, so far as may be found practicable, the procedure adopted in collecting, forwarding, and retaining pending examination, samples of milk (including condensed milk) and cream under the Food and Drugs Acts should be uniform.

(d) That it is desirable that, so far as may be found practicable, the methods of analysis used in the examination of samples of milk (including condensed milk) or cream taken under the Food and Drugs Acts should be uniform.

(e) That it is desirable in the case of condensed milk (other than that labelled “machine-skimmed milk” or “skimmed milk,” in conformity with section 11 of the Food and Drugs Act 1899) that the label should state the amount of dilution required to make the proportion of milk-fat equal to that found in uncondensed milk containing not less than 3.25% of milk-fat.

(f) That it is desirable in the case of condensed whole milk to limit, and in the case of condensed machine-skimmed milk to exclude, the addition of sugar.

(g) That the official standardizing of the measuring vessels commercially used in the testing of milk is desirable.

In the minority report, signed by Mr Geo. Barham, the most important clauses are the following:—

(a) That in the case of any milk (other than skimmed, separated or condensed milk) the total milk-solids in which are less than 11.75%, and in which, during the months of July to February inclusive, the amount of milk-fat is less than 3%, and in the case of any milk which during the months of March to June inclusive shall fall below the above-named limit for total solids, and at the same time shall contain less than 2.75% of fat, it shall be deemed that such milk is so deficient in its normal constituent of fat as to raise a presumption, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine.

(b) That any milk (other than skimmed, separated or condensed milk) the total milk-solids in which are less than 11.75%, and in which the amount of non-fatty solids is less than 8.5%, shall be deemed to be so deficient in its normal constituents as to raise a presumption, for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine. In calculating the amount of the deficiency the analyst shall take into account the extent to which the milk-fat exceeds the limits above named.

(c) That any skimmed or separated milk in which the total milk-solids are less than 8.75% shall be deemed to be so deficient in its normal constituents as to raise a presumption, for the purpose of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine.

Much controversy arose out of the publication of these reports, the opinion most freely expressed being that the standard recommended in the majority report was too high. The difficulty of the problem is illustrated by, for example, the diverse legal standards for milk that prevail in the United States, where the prescribed percentage of fat in fresh cows’ milk ranges from 2.5 in Rhode Island to 3.5 in Georgia and Minnesota, and 3.7 (in the winter months) in Massachusetts, and the prescribed total solids range from 12 in several states (11.5 in Ohio during May and June) up to 13 in others. Standards are recognized in twenty-one of the states, but the remaining states have no laws prescribing standards for dairy products. That the public discussion of the reports of the committee was effective is shown by the following regulations which appeared in the London Gazette on the 6th of August 1901, and fixed the limit of fat at 3%:—

The board of agriculture, in exercise of the powers conferred on them by section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, do hereby make the following regulations:—

1. Where a sample of milk (not being milk sold as skimmed, or separated or condensed milk) contains less than 3% of milk-fat, it shall be presumed for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine, by reason of the abstraction therefrom of milk-fat, or the addition thereto of water.

2. Where a sample of milk (not being milk sold as skimmed, or separated or condensed milk) contains less than 8.5% of milk-solids other than milk-fat, it shall be presumed for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine, by reason of the abstraction therefrom of milk-solids other than milk-fat, or the addition thereto of water.

3. Where a sample of skimmed or separated milk (not being condensed milk) contains less than 9% of milk-solids, it shall be presumed for the purposes of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts 1875 to 1899, until the contrary is proved, that the milk is not genuine, by reason of the abstraction therefrom of milk-solids other than milk-fat, or the addition thereto of water.

4. These regulations shall extend to Great Britain.

5. These regulations shall come into operation on the 1st of September 1901.

6. These regulations may be cited as the Sale of Milk Regulations 1901.

In July 1901 another departmental committee was appointed by the board of agriculture to inquire and report as to what regulations, if any, might with advantage be made under section 4 of the Sale of Food and Drugs Act 1899, for determining what deficiency in any of the normal constituents of butter, or what addition of extraneous matter, or proportion of water in any sample of butter should, for the purpose of the Sale of Food and Drugs Acts, raise a presumption, until the contrary is proved, that the butter is not genuine. As bearing upon this point reference may be made to a report of the dairy division of the United States department of agriculture on experimental exports of butter, in the appendix to which are recorded the results of the analyses of many samples of butter of varied origin. First, as to American butters, 19 samples were analysed in Wisconsin, 17 in Iowa, 5 in Minnesota and 2 in Vermont, at the respective experiment stations of the states named. The amount of moisture throughout was low, and the quantity of fat correspondingly high. In no case was there more than 15% of water, and only 4 samples contained more than 14%. On the other hand, 11 samples had less than 10%, the lowest being a pasteurized butter from Ames, Iowa, with only 6.72% of water. The average amount of water in the total 43 samples was 11.24%. The fat varies almost inversely as the water, small quantities of curd and ash having to be allowed for. The largest quantity of fat was 91.23% in the sample containing only 6.72% of water. The lowest proportion of fat was 80.18%, whilst the average of all the samples shows 85.9%, which is regarded as a good market standard. The curd varied from 0.55 to 1.7%, with an average of 0.98. This small amount indicates superior keeping qualities. Theoretically there should be no curd present, but this degree of perfection is never attained in practice. It was desired to have the butter contain about 21/2% of salt, but the quantity of ash in the 43 samples ranged from 0.83 to 4.79%, the average being 1.88. Analyses made at Washington of butters other than American showed a general average of 13.22% of water over 28 samples representing 14 countries. The lowest were 10.25% in a Canadian butter and 10.38 in an Australian sample. The highest was 19.1% in an Irish butter, which also contained the remarkably large quantity of 8.28% of salt. Three samples of Danish butter contained 12.65, 14.27 and 15.14% respectively of water. French and Italian unsalted butter included, the former 15.46 and the latter 14.41% of water, and yet appeared to be unusually dry. In 7 samples of Irish butters the percentages of water ranged from 11.48 to 19.1. Of the 28 foreign butters 15 were found to contain preservatives. All 5 samples from Australia, the 2 from France, the single ones from Italy, New Zealand, Argentina, and England, and 4 out of the 7 from Ireland, contained boric acid.

The Milk Trade

The term “milk trade” has come to signify the great traffic in country milk for the supply of dwellers in urban districts. Prior to 1860 this traffic was comparatively small or in its infancy. Thirty years earlier it could not have been brought into existence, for it is an outcome of the great network of railways which was spread over the face of the country in the latter half of the 19th century. It affords an instructive illustration of the process of commercial evolution which has been fostered by the vast increase of urban population within the period indicated. It is a tribute to the spirit of sanitary reform which—as an example in one special direction—has brought about the disestablishment of urban cow-sheds and the consequent demand for milk produced in the shires. London, in fact, is now being regularly supplied with fresh milk from places anywhere within 150 m., and the milk traffic on the railways, not only to London but to other great centres, is an important item. A factor in the development of the milk trade must no doubt be sought in the outbreak of cattle plague in 1865, for it was then that the dairymen of the metropolis were compelled to seek milk all over England, and the capillary refrigerator being invented soon after, the production of milk has remained ever since in the hands of dairymen living mainly at a distance from the towns supplied.

This great change in country dairying, involving the continuous export of enormous quantities of milk from the farms, has been accompanied by subsidiary changes in the management of dairy-farms, and has necessitated the extensive purchase of feeding-stuffs for the production of milk, especially in winter-time. It is probable that, in this way, a gradual improvement of the soil on such farms has been effected, and the corn-growing soils of distant countries are adding to the store of fertility of soils in the British Isles. Country roads, exposed to the wear and tear of a comparatively new traffic, are lively at morn and eve with the rattle of vehicles conveying fresh milk from the farms to the railway stations. Most of these changes were brought about within the limits of the last third of the 19th century.

In the case of London the daily supply of a perishable article such as milk, which must be delivered to the consumer within a few hours of its production, to a population of five millions, is an undertaking of very great magnitude, especially when it is considered that only a comparatively minute proportion of the supply is produced in the metropolitan area itself. To meet the demand of the London consumer some 5000 dairies proper exist, as well as a large number of businesses where milk is sold in conjunction with other commodities. It has been computed that some 12,000 traders are engaged in the business of milk-selling in the metropolis, and the number of persons employed in its distribution, &c., cannot be fewer than 25,000. The amount of capital involved is very great, and it may be mentioned that the paid-up capital of six of the principal distributing and retail dairy companies amounts to upwards of one million sterling. The most significant feature in connexion with the milk-supply of the metropolis at the beginning of the 20th century is the gradual extinction of the town “cowkeeper”—the retailer who produces the milk he sells. The facilities afforded by the railway companies, the favourable rates which have been secured for the transport of milk, and the more enlightened methods of its treatment after production, have made it possible for milk produced under more favourable conditions to be brought from considerable distances and delivered to the retailer at a price lower than that at which it has been possible to produce it in the metropolis itself. As a result, the number of milk cows in the county of London diminished from 10,000 in 1889 to 5144 in 1900, the latter, on an estimated production of 700 gallons per cow—the average production of stall-fed town cows—representing a yearly milk yield of 3,600,000 gallons. How small a proportion this is of the total supply will be gathered from the fact that the annual quantity of milk delivered in London on the Great Western line amounts to some 11,000,000 gallons, whilst the London & North-Western railway delivers 9,000,000, and the Midland railway at St Pancras 5,000,000, and at others of its London stations about 1,000,000, making 6,000,000 in all. The London & South-Western railway brings upwards of 8,000,000 gallons to London, a quantity of 7,500,000 gallons is carried by the Great Northern railway, and the Great Eastern railway is responsible for 7,000,000. The London, Brighton & South Coast railway delivers 1,000,000 gallons, and the South-Eastern & Chatham and the London & Tilbury railways carry approximately 1,000,000 gallons between them. A large quantity of milk is also carried in by local lines from farms in the vicinity of London and delivered at the local stations, and a quantity is also brought by the Great Central railway. In addition to this, milk is taken into London by carts from farms in the neighbourhood of the metropolis. A computation of the total milk-supply of the metropolis reveals a quantity approximating to 60,000,000 gallons per annum, or rather more than a million gallons per week, which, taking 500 gallons as the average yearly production of the cows contributing to this supply, represents the yield of at least 120,000 cows. The growth of the supply of country milk to London may be judged from the figures given by Mr George Barham, chairman of the Express Dairy Co. Ltd., in an article on “The Milk Trade” contributed to Professor Sheldon’s work on The Farm and Dairy. The quantities carried by the respective railways in 1889 are therein stated in gallons as:—Great Western, 9,000,000; London & North-Western, 7,000,000; Midland, 7,000,000; London & South-Western, 6,000,000; Great Northern, 3,000,000; Great Eastern, 3,000,000; the southern lines, 2,000,000. The increase, therefore, on these lines amounted to no less than 13,500,000 gallons per annum, or 36%. The diminished production in the metropolis itself amounted approximately only to 3,000,000 gallons, and it follows, therefore, that the consumption largely increased.

Previously to 1864 it was only possible to bring milk into London from short distances, but the introduction of the refrigerator has enabled milk to be brought from places as far removed from the metropolis as North Staffordshire, and it has even been received from Scotland. Practically the whole of the milk supplied to the metropolis is produced in England. Attempts have been made to introduce foreign milk, and in 1898 a company was formed to promote the sale of fresh milk from Normandy, but the enterprise did not succeed. The trade subsequently showed signs of reviving, owing probably to the increased cost of the home produced article, and during the winter season of 1900–1901 the largest quantity received into the kingdom in one week amounted to 10,000 gallons. Of recent years a large demand has sprung up for sterilized milk in bottles, and a considerable trade is also done in humanized milk, which is a milk preparation approximating in its chemical composition to human milk.

Estimating the average yield of milk of each country cow at 500 gallons per annum, and assuming an average of 28 cows to each farm, as many as 4300 farmers are engaged in supplying London with milk; allotting ten cows to each milker, it needs 12 battalions of 1000 men each for this work alone. Some 3500 horses are required to convey the milk from the farms to the country railway stations. The chief sources of supply are in the counties of Derby, Stafford, Leicester, Northampton, Notts, Warwick, Bucks, Oxford, Gloucester, Berks, Wilts, Hants, Dorset, Essex, and Cambridge. It is not entirely owing to the railways that London’s enormous supply of milk has been rendered possible, for the milk must still have been produced in the immediate neighbourhood of the metropolis had not the method of reducing the temperature of the product by means of the refrigerator been devised. There are probably 5700 horses engaged in the delivery of milk in London, and more people are employed in this work than in milking the cows. One of the great difficulties the London dairyman has to contend with, and a cause of frequent anxiety to him, is associated with the rise and fall of the thermometer, for a movement to the extent of ten degrees one way or the other may diminish or increase the supply in an inverse ratio to the demand. Thus, at periods of extreme cold, the cows shrink in their yield of milk, while from the same cause the Londoner is demanding more, in an extra cup of coffee, &c. Again, at periods of extreme heat, which has the same effect on the cow’s production as extreme cold, the customer also demands an increased quantity of milk. Ten degrees fall of temperature in the summer will result in a lessened demand and an enlarged supply—to such an extent, indeed, that a single firm has been known to have had returned by its carriers some 600 gallons in one day. In such cases the cream separator is capable of rendering invaluable assistance. To make cheese in London in large quantities and at uncertain intervals has been found to be impracticable, while to set for cream a great bulk of milk is almost equally so. But now a considerable portion of what would otherwise be lost is saved by passing the milk through separators, and churning the cream into butter.

Previously to the enormous development of the urban trade in country milk, dairy farms were in the main self-sustaining in the matter of manures and feeding-stuffs, and the cropping of arable land was governed by routine. To-day, on the contrary, many dairy farms are run at high pressure by the help of purchased materials,—corn, cake, and manure,—and the land is cropped regardless of routine and independent of courses. Such crops, moreover, are grown—white straw crops, green crops, root crops—as are deemed likely to be most needed at the time when they are ready. Green crops,—“soiling” crops, as they are termed in North America,—consisting largely of vetches or tares (held up by stalks of oat plants grown amongst them), cabbages, and in some districts green maize, are used to supplement the failing grass-lands at the fall of the year, and root crops, especially mangel, are advantageously grown for the same purpose. For winter feeding the farm is made to yield what it will in the shape of meadow and clover hay, and of course root crops of the several kinds. This provision is supplemented by the purchase of, for example, brewers’ grains as a bulky food, and of oilcake and corn of many sorts as concentrated food.

Table XI.Estimated Annual Production of Milk, Butter and Cheese in the United Kingdom for the Ten Years ended
31st December 1899.
Cows and Heifers
in Milk or in
Calf on 4th June.
Cows and
 Heifers giving 
Milk all the
year round;
say 75% of
 Influence of 
above or
below the
Average of
10 Years.
Estimated Total
Quantity of
Milk produced
 in the 52 Weeks, 
by 75% of the
Total Herd, at
49 cwt. or 531
gallons per Cow.
Estimated Total
Quantity of
Butter produced
 in the 52 Weeks, 
taking 32% of
the Total Milk
to yield 80 ℔
of Butter per
Ton of Milk.
Estimated Total
Quantity of
 Cheese produced 
in the 52 Weeks,
taking 20% of
the Total Milk
to yield 220 ℔
of Cheese per
Ton of Milk.
  No. No. No. %. Tons. Tons. Tons.
1890 3,956,220 105.5 2,967,165 +3.0 7,487,640 85,572 147,078
1891 4,117,707 108.9 3,088,281 Average. 7,566,288 86,472 148,624
1892 4,120,451 108.1 3,090,339 −5.6 7,147,337 81,684 140,394
1893 4,014,055 104.4 3,010,542 −9.0 6,712,004 76,709 131,843
1894 3,925,486 101.2 2,944,115 +6.3 7,667,505 87,628 150,611
1895 3,937,590 100.5 2,953,193 −3.5 6,982,087 79,652 137,148
1896 3,958,762 100.0 2,969,387 −4.0 6,983,999 79,817 130,000
1897 3,984,167 99.7 2,988,126 +3.1 7,547,856 86,261 148,260
1898 4,035,501 100.0 3,025,526 +3.2 7,645,105 87,372 150,171
1899 4,133,249 101.9 3,099,937 −3.5 7,329,027 83,760 130,020
10 Years
4,018,318 103.0 3,013,660 −0.7 7,906,874 83,992 141,412

British Output, Imports and Exports of Dairy Produce

Whilst the quantity of imported butter and cheese consumed in the United Kingdom from year to year can be arrived at with a tolerable degree of accuracy, it is more difficult to form an estimate of the amounts of these articles annually produced at home. Various attempts have, however, from time to time been made by competent authorities to arrive approximately at the annual output of milk, butter and cheese in the United Kingdom, and the results are given by Messrs W. Weddel & Co. in their annual Dairy Produce Review. Table XI. shows the estimates for each of the ten years 1890 to 1899, the numbers in the second column of “cows and heifers in milk or in calf” being identical with those officially recorded in the agricultural returns. In thus estimating the quantity of milk, butter and cheese produced within the United Kingdom, the “average milking life” of a cow is taken to be four years, from which it follows that on the average one-fourth of the total herd has to be renewed every year by heifers with their first calf. This leaves 75% of the total herd giving milk throughout the year. Each cow of this 75% is estimated as yielding 49 cwt., or 531 gallons of milk annually. It is assumed that 15% of the total milk yield is used for the calf, 32% utilized for butter-making, 20% for cheese-making, and the remaining 33% consumed in the household as fresh milk. A ton of milk is estimated to produce 80 ℔ of butter or 220 ℔ of cheese. A gallon of milk weighs 10.33 ℔ (101/3 ℔). The probable effects of each season upon the production have been taken into consideration in making these estimates, and it will be noticed that owing to the terrible drought of 1893 a reduction of 9% is made from the average. Accepting these estimates with due reservation,[15] it is seen that the annual production of milk varied in the decade to the extent of nearly a million tons, the exact difference between the maximum of 7,667,505 tons in 1894 and the minimum of 6,712,004 tons in 1893 being 955,501 tons. The decennial averages are 7,906,874 tons of milk, 83,992 tons of butter, and 141,412 tons of cheese.

Table XII. furnishes an estimate of the total consumption of butter in the United Kingdom in each of the years 1891 to 1900. Whilst the estimated home production did not vary greatly from year to year, the imports from colonial and foreign sources underwent almost continuous increase. The ten years’ average indicates 37.6% home-made, 7.3% imported colonial, and 55.1% imported foreign butter. But whereas at the beginning of the decade the proportions were 45.4% home-made, 1.5% colonial, and 53.2% foreign, at the end of the percentages were 32.8, 14.7 and 52.5 respectively. It thus appears that whilst the United Kingdom was able in 1891 to furnish nearly half of its requirements (45.4%), by 1900 it was unable to supply more than one-third (32.8%).

Table XII.Estimated Home Production and Imports of Butter
into the United Kingdom for the Ten Years ended 30th June 1900.
 Year ended 
30th June.
  Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons.
1891 84,961  2,883  99,598 187,442
1892 86,022  6,323 101,796 194,141
1893 84,078  9,408 105,712 199,198
1894 79,196 15,550 107,534 202,280
1895 82,168 17,807 116,730 216,705
1896 83,640 12,949 133,249 229,838
1897 79,734 18,111 138,800 236,645
1898 83,039 17,732 141,426 242,197
1899 87,326 22,443 142,193 251,962
1900 83,760 37,534 133,957 255,251
10 Years
83,392 16,074 122,099  221,565 

The rapid headway which colonial butter has made in British markets is shown by the fact that for the five years ended 30th of June 1900 the import had grown from 12,949 tons to 37,534 tons per annum, or an increase of 24,585 tons. It is during the mid-winter months that the colonial butter from Australasia arrives on the British markets, while that from Canada begins to arrive in July, and virtually ceases in the following January. The bulk of the Canadian butter reaches British markets during August, September and October; the bulk of the Australasian in December, January and February.

It appears to be demonstrated by the experience of the last decade of the 19th century that the United Kingdom is quite unable to turn out sufficient dairy produce to supply its own population. In the year ended 30th of June 1891 the total import of butter was 102,500 tons, and for the year ended 30th of June 1900 it was 170,700 tons, which shows an annual average increase in the decade of 6800 tons. This growth was on the whole very uniform, any disturbance in its regularity being attributable more to the deficient seasons in the colonies and foreign countries than to the bountiful seasons at home. Twice in the decade the import of butter from colonial sources fell off slightly from the previous year, namely, in 1896 and 1898, while only once was there any decrease in the foreign supply, and this occurred in 1900. In 1896 the colonial supply fell off by 5000 tons, principally owing to drought in Australia, but from foreign countries this deficiency was more than made good, as the increased import from these sources exceeded 16,500 tons. In 1900 the position was reversed, for while the foreign import fell away to the extent of over 8000 tons, the supply from the colonies exceeded that of 1899 by 15,000 tons, thus leaving a gain in the quantity of imported butter of nearly 7000 tons on the year. Table XII. shows that over the ten years, 1891–1900, the import of colonial butter was augmented by 34,600 tons, and that of foreign by 33,600 tons, so that the increased import is fairly divided between colonial and foreign sources. If, however, the last five years of the period be taken, it will be seen that the increases in the arrivals of colonial butter have far exceeded those from foreign countries. Between 1891 and 1900 the Australasian colonies increased their quota by 13,400 tons, and Canada by 11,100 tons. Of foreign countries, Denmark showed the greatest development in the supply of imported butter, which increased in the ten years by 28,678 tons. Next came Russia and Holland, with increases respectively of 7207 tons and 6589 tons. Sweden, which made steady progress from 1891 to 1896, subsequently declined, and in 1900 sent 1400 tons less than in 1891. France and Germany are rapidly falling away, and the latter country will soon cease its supply altogether. Up to 1896 it was 6000 tons annually; by 1900 it had fallen to 1850 tons. France, which in 1892 sent to the United Kingdom 29,000 tons, regularly declined, and in 1900 sent only 16,800. Among the countries sending the smaller quantities, Argentina, Belgium and Norway are all gradually increasing their supplies; but their totals are comparatively insignificant, as they together contributed in 1900 only 6400 tons out of a total foreign supply of 134,000 tons. The United States was erratic in its supplies during the decade, and up to 1900 had not made butter specially for export to the United Kingdom, as all the other foreign countries had done. Consequently it is only when supplies from elsewhere fail that American butter is sought for by British buyers. The large amount of salt in this butter, although suitable for the American palate, prevents its becoming popular in the United Kingdom.

Table XIII.Annual Imports of Butter into the United Kingdom,
From 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900.
  Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. Cwt.
Denmark 1,334,726 1,465,030 1,430,052 1,486,342
Australasia 269,432 228,563 366,944 509,910
France 448,128 416,821 353,942 322,048
Holland 278,631 269,631 284,810 282,805
Russia* .. .. .. 209,738
Sweden 299,214 294,962 245,599 196,041
Canada 109,402 156,865 250,083 138,313
United States 154,196 66,712 159,137 56,046
Germany 51,761 41,231 36,953 36,042
Other countries 272,312 269,645 262,331 141,231
Total 3,217,802 3,209,153 3,389,851 3,378,516
  % % % %
Denmark 41.5 45.6 42.2 44.0
Australasia 8.4 7.1 10.8 15.1
France 13.9 13.0 10.5 9.5
Holland 8.7 8.4 8.4 8.4
Russia* .. .. .. 6.2
Sweden 9.3 9.2 7.2 5.8
Canada 3.4 4.9 7.4 4.1
United States 4.8 2.1 4.7 1.6
Germany 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.1
Other countries 8.4 8.4 7.7 4.2
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
* Not shown separately in the Trade and Navigation Returns prior to 1900.

The sources whence the United Kingdom receives butter from abroad are sufficiently indicated in Table XIII., which shows the absolute quantities and the relative proportions sent by the chief contributory countries in each of the four years 1897 to 1900, the order of precedence of the several countries being in accord with the figures for 1900. Denmark, as a result of the efforts made by that little kingdom to supply a sound product of uniform quality, possesses over 40% of the trade, and in the year 1900 received from the United Kingdom upwards of £8,000,000 for butter and over £3,000,000 for bacon, the raising of pigs for the consumption of separated milk being an important adjunct of the dairying industry in Denmark, where butter factories are extensively maintained on the co-operative principle. It is worthy of note that some at least of the butter received in the United Kingdom from Russia is made in Siberia, whence it is sent at the outset on a long land journey in refrigerated railway cars for shipment at a Baltic port, usually Riga. The countries not specially enumerated in Table XIII. from which butter is sent to the United Kingdom are Argentina, Belgium, Norway and Spain—these are included in “other countries.”

In Table XIV., relating to the estimated home production of cheese and the imports of that article, the ten years’ average indicates a home-made supply of 555.3%, imports of colonial cheese 24.2%, and imports of foreign cheese 20.5%. Comparing, however, the first with the last year of the period 1891–1900, it appears that in 1891 the proportions were 58.6% home-made, 17.2% colonial and 24.2% foreign, whereas in 1900 the percentages were 50.3, 28.9 and 20.8 respectively. Hence the colonial contribution (chiefly Canadian) has gained ground at the expense both of the home-made and of the foreign. Again, comparing 1891 with 1900, the import of cheese into the United Kingdom increased to the extent of only 24,500 tons, so that it shows no expansion comparable with that of butter, which increased by about 70,000 tons. Simultaneously the estimated home production diminished by 17,000 tons.

Table XIV.Estimated Home Production and Imports of Cheese
into the United Kingdom for the Ten Years ended 30th June 1900.
Year ended 
30th June.
  Tons. Tons. Tons. Tons.
1891    147,078 43,228 60,816 251,122
1892    148,624 45,781 59,452 253,857
1893    140,394 55,549 56,767 252,710
1894    131,843 57,322 52,498 241,663
1895    150,611 61,622 52,570 264,803
1896    137,148 62,478 44,569 244,195
1897    130,000 67,028 46,317 243,345
1898    148,260 77,620 49,114 274,994
1899    150,000 73,752 46,985 270,737
1900    130,000 74,702 53,903 258,605
10 Years
141,396 61,908 52,299  255,603 

In imported colonial cheese Canada virtually has the field to itself, for the only other colonial cheese which finds its way into the United Kingdom is from New Zealand, but the amount of this kind is comparatively insignificant, having been in 1900 only 4000 tons out of a total import of 128,600 tons. Australia, in several seasons since 1891, sent small quantities, but they are not worth quoting.

From foreign countries the decline in the export of cheese is mainly in the case of the United States, which shipped to British ports 10,000 tons less in 1900 than in 1891. France also is losing its cheese trade in British markets, and is being supplanted by Belgium. In 1891 France supplied over 3000 tons, in 1900 the import was below 2000 tons. Belgium in 1891 supplied less than 1000 tons, but in 1900 contributed 2600 tons. The import trade in Dutch cheese remains almost stationary. In 1891 it amounted to 15,300 tons, in 1899 it was 15,600 tons, whilst in 1900, owing to exceptionally high prices, which stimulated the manufacture, it reached 17,000 tons.

Table XV.Annual Imports of Cheese into the United Kingdom,

From 1897. 1898. 1899. 1900.
  Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. Cwt.
Canada 1,526,664 1,432,181 1,337,198 1,511,872
United States 631,616 485,995 590,737 680,583
Holland 297,604 292,925 328,541 327,817
Australasia 68,615 44,608 32,294 86,513
France 36,358 33,086 34,307 35,110
Other countries 42,321 50,657 60,992 69,910
Total 2,603,178 2,339,452 2,384,069 2,711,805
  % % % %
Canada 58.6 61.2 56.1 55.8
United States 24.3 20.8 24.8 25.1
Holland 11.4 12.5 13.8 12.0
Australasia 2.7 1.9 1.3 3.2
France 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3
Other countries 1.6 2.2 2.6 2.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Over 80% of the cheese imported into the United Kingdom is derived from North America, but the bulk of the trade belongs to Canada, which supplies nearly 60% of the entire import. The value of the cheese exported from Canada to the United Kingdom in the calendar year 1900 was close upon £3,800,000. As is shown in Table XV. below, Holland, Australasia and France participate in this trade, whilst amongst the “other countries” are Germany, Italy and Russia. The cheese sent from North America and Australasia is mostly of the substantial Cheddar type, whereas soft or “fancy” cheese is the dominant feature of the French shipments. Thus, in the calendar year 1900 the average price of the cheese imported into the United Kingdom from France was 61s. per cwt., whilst the average value of the cheese from all other sources was 50s. per cwt., there being a difference of 11s. in favour of the “soft” cheese of France.

The imports of butter and margarine into the United Kingdom were not separately distinguished before the year 1886. Previous to that date they amounted, at five-year intervals, to the following aggregate quantities:—

  1870. 1875. 1880. 1885.
Cwt.  1,159,210   1,467,870   2,326,305   2,401,373 

For the same years the imports of cheese registered the subjoined totals:—

  1870. 1875. 1880. 1885.
Cwt.  1,041,281   1,627,748   1,775,997   1,833,832 

The imports of butter and margarine, both separately and together, and also the imports of cheese in each year from 1886 to 1900 inclusive, are set out in Table XVI., the most significant feature of which is the rapid expansion it shows in the imports of butter. In the space of nine years, between 1887 and 1896, the quantity was doubled. On the other hand, the general tendency of the imports of margarine, which have been much more uniform than those of butter, has been in the direction of decline since 1892. It is necessary, however, to point out that there has been an increase in the number of margarine factories in the United Kingdom, and in the quantity of margarine manufactured in them, during the last few years. Taking the imports of butter and margarine together, the aggregate in 1889 and also in 1900 was practically three times as large as a quarter of a century earlier, in 1875. The imports of cheese have increased at a less rapid rate than those of butter, and the quantity imported in 1900, which was a maximum, fell considerably short of twice the quantity in 1875. In 1886, 1887, 1888, 1890 and 1892 the imports of cheese exceeded those of butter, but since the last-named year those of butter have always been the larger, and 1899 were fully a million cwt. more than the cheese imports. The cheapness of imported fresh meat has probably had the effect of checking the growth of the demand for cheese amongst the industrial classes.

Table XVI.Imports of Butter, Margarine and Cheese into the
United Kingdom
, 1886–1900.

 Year.  Butter. Margarine.  Total Butter 
  Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. Cwt.
1886 1,543,566 887,974 2,431,540 1,734,890
1887 1,513,134 1,276,140 2,789,274 1,836,789
1888 1,671,433 1,139,743 2,811,176 1,917,616
1899 1,927,842 1,241,690 3,169,532 1,907,999
1890 2,027,717 1,079,856 3,107,573 2,144,074
1891 2,135,607 1,235,430 3,371,037 2,041,325
1892 2,183,009 1,305,350 3,488,359 2,232,817
1893 2,327,474 1,299,970 3,627,444 2,077,462
1894 2,574,835 1,109,325 3,684,160 2,266,145
1895 2,825,662 940,168 3,765,830 2,133,819
1896 3,037,718 925,934 3,963,652 2,244,525
1897 3,217,802 936,543 4,154,345 2,603,178
1898 3,209,153 900,615 4,343,026 2,384,069
1999 3,389,851 953,175 4,343,026 2,384,069
1900  3,378,516  920,416 4,298,932  2,711,805 

The imports of condensed milk into the United Kingdom were not separately distinguished before 1888. In that year they amounted to 352,332 cwt. The quantities imported in subsequent years were the following:—

Year. Cwt. Year. Cwt. Year. Cwt.
 1889   389,892  1893   501,005  1897   756,243
 1890   407,426  1894   529,465  1898   817,274
 1891   444,666  1895   545,394  1899   824,599
 1892    481,374   1896    611,335   1900    986,741 

The quantity thus increased continuously in each year after 1889, with the result that in 1900 the imports had grown to nearly three times the amount of those in 1889. Simultaneously, over the period 1889–1900 the annual value of the imports steadily advanced from £704,849 to £1,405,033. Thus, while the imports of condensed milk trebled in quantity, they doubled in value. A fair proportion is, however, exported, as is shown in the following statement of exports of imported condensed milk for the four years 1897 to 1900:—

  1897. 1898. 1899. 1900.
Quantity,   cwt.   143,932  133,596  118,394  164,602
Value £274,578  £256,525  £228,446  £309,460

There is also an export trade in condensed milk made in the United Kingdom. Thus, in 1892 the exports of home-made condensed milk amounted to 61,442 cwt., valued at £133,556. By 1896 the quantity had almost doubled, and reached 111,959 cwt., of the value of £224,831. In subsequent years the exports were:—

  1897. 1898. 1899. 1900.
Quantity,   cwt.   154,901  178,055  185,749  209,447
Value £302,748  £343,070  £353,819  £390,559

Milk and cream (fresh or preserved other than condensed) received no separate classification in the imports until 1894, in which year the quantity imported was 161,633 gallons, followed by 126,995 gallons in 1895, and 22,776 gallons in 1896. The quantities have since been returned by weight—10,006 cwt. in 1897, 10,691 cwt. in 1898, 7859 cwt. in 1899, and 15,638 cwt. in 1900. The values of these imports in the successive years 1894 to 1900 were £21,371, £19,991, £5489, £9848, £11,293, £16,068 and £26,837.

The total values of the imports of dairy produce of all kinds—butter, margarine, cheese, &c.—into the United Kingdom were, at five-year intervals between 1875 and 1890, the following:—

  1875. 1880. 1885. 1890.
Value £13,211,592 £17,232,548 £15,632,852 £19,505,798

Table XVII.Values of Dairy Products imported into the United
Kingdom from 1891 to 1900, in Thousands of Pounds Sterling.

Year. Butter. Margarine. Cheese. Condensed
  £1000. £1000. £1000. £1000. £1000.
1891 11,591 3558 4813  900 20,863
1892 11,965 3713 5417  930 22,025
1893 12,754 3655 5161 1010 22,580
1894 13,457 3045 5475 1079 23,077
1895 14,245 2557 4675 1084 22,581
1896 15,344 2498 4900 1170 23,920
1897 15,917 2485 5886 1398 25,715
1898 15,962 2384 4970 1436 24,779
1899 17,214 2549 5503 1455 26,747
1900 17,450 2465 6838 1743 28,544

The values in each year of the closing decade of the 19th century are set forth in Table XVII., where the totals in the last column include small sums for margarine-cheese and, since 1893, for fresh milk and cream. The aggregate value more than doubled during the last quarter of the century. The earliest year for which the value of imported butter is separately available is 1886, when it amounted to £8,141,438. Thirteen years later this sum had more than doubled, and it is an impressive fact that in the closing year of the century the United Kingdom should have expended on imported butter alone a sum closely approximating to 171/2 million pounds sterling, equivalent to about three-fourths of the total amount disbursed on imported wheat grain.[16]

The imports of margarine—that is, of margarine specifically declared to be such—into the United Kingdom are derived almost entirely from Holland. Out of a total of 920,416 cwt. imported in 1900 Holland supplied 862,154 cwt., and out of £2,464,839 expended on imported margarine in the same year Holland received £2,295,174. To the imports in the year named Holland contributed 93.7%; France, 2.9; Norway, 0.9; all other countries, 2.5; so that Holland possesses almost a monopoly of this trade. The quantities of imported butter, margarine and cheese that are again exported from the United Kingdom are trivial when compared with the imports, as will be seen from the following quantities and values in the three years 1898 to 1900:—

  1898. 1899. 1900. 1898. 1899. 1900.
  Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. £ £ £
Butter 63,491 50,453 51,583 319,806 257,999 258,931
Margarine 10,023 13,139 11,326 24,721 33,319 27,882
Cheese 56,694 56,390 55,982 159,210 163,991 168,369

There is also a very small export trade in butter and cheese made in the United Kingdom, but its insignificant character is evident from the subjoined details as to quantities and values for the years named:—

  1898. 1899. 1900. 1898. 1899. 1900.
  Cwt. Cwt. Cwt. £ £ £
Butter 11,359 9,936 10,127  59,731   53,195   53,701 
Cheese 10,126 9,758  9,356 36,803 35,890 36,691

American Dairying

The development of the dairying industry in the vast region of the United States of America has been described in the official Year-Book by Major Henry E. Alvord, chief of the dairy division of the bureau of animal industry in the department of agriculture at Washington. The beginning of the 20th century found the industry upon an altogether higher level than seemed possible a few decades earlier. The milch cow herself, upon which the whole business rests, has become almost as much a machine as a natural product, and a very different creature from the average animal of bygone days. The few homely and inconvenient implements for use in the laborious duties of the dairy have been replaced by perfected appliances, skilfully devised to accomplish their object and to lighten labour. Long rows of shining metal pans no longer adorn rural dooryards. The factory system of co-operative or concentrated manufacture has so far taken the place of home dairying that in entire states the cheese vat or press is as rare as the handloom, and in many counties it is as difficult to find a farm churn as a spinning-wheel. An illustration of the nature of the changes is afforded in the butter-making district of northern Vermont, at St Albans, the business centre of Franklin county. In 1880 the first creamery was built in this county; ten years later there were 15. Now a creamery company at St Albans has upwards of 50 skimming or separating stations distributed through Franklin and adjoining counties. To these is carried the milk from more than 30,000 cows. Farmers who possess separators at home may deliver cream which, after being inspected and tested, is accepted and credited at its actual butter value, just as other raw material is sold to mills and factories. The separated cream is conveyed by rail and waggon to the central factory, where in one room from 10 to 12 tons of butter are made every working day—a single churning place for a whole county! The butter is all of standard quality, “extra creamery,” and is sold on its reputation upon orders received in advance of its manufacture. The price is relatively higher than the average for the product of the same farms fifty years earlier. This is mainly due to better average quality and greater uniformity—two important advantages of the creamery system.

In one important detail dairy labour is the same as a century ago. Cows still have to be milked by hand. Although many attempts have been made, and patent after patent has been issued, no mechanical contrivance has yet proved a practical success as a substitute for the human hand in milking. Consequently, twice (or thrice) daily every day in the year, the dairy cows must be milked by manual labour. This is one of the main items of labour in dairying, and is a delicate and important duty. Assuming 10 cows per hour to a milker, which implies quick work, it requires the continuous service of an army of 300,000 men, working 10 or 12 hours a day throughout the year, to milk the cows kept in the United States.

The business of producing milk for urban consumption, with the accompanying agencies for transportation and distribution, has grown to immense proportions. In many places the milk trade is regulated and supervised by excellent municipal ordinances, which have done much to prevent adulteration and to improve the average quality of the supply. Quite as much is, however, being done by private enterprise through large milk companies, well organized and equipped, and establishments which make a speciality of serving milk and cream of fixed quality and exceptional purity. Such efforts to furnish “certified” and “guaranteed” milk, together with general competition for the best class of trade, are doing more to raise the standard of quality and improve the service than all the legal measures. The buildings and equipment of some of these modern dairies are beyond precedent. This branch of dairying is advancing fast, upon the safe basis of care, cleanliness and better sanitary conditions.

Cheese-making has been transferred bodily from the domain of domestic arts to that of manufactures. In the middle of the 19th century about 100,000,000 ℔ of cheese was made yearly in the United States, and all of it in farm dairies. At the beginning of the 20th century the annual production was about 300,000,000 ℔, and 96 or 97% of this was made in factories. Of these there are nearly 3000, but they vary greatly in capacity, and some are very small. New York and Wisconsin possess a thousand each, but the former state makes nearly twice as much cheese as the latter, whilst the two together produce three-fourths of the entire output of the country. A change is taking place in the direction of bringing a number of factories previously independent into a “combination” or under the same management. This tends to improve the quality and secure greater uniformity in the product, and often reduces cost of manufacture. More than nine-tenths of all the cheese made is of the familiar standard type, copied after the English Cheddar, but new kinds and imitations of foreign varieties are increasing. The annual export of cheese from the United States ranges between 30,000,000 and 50,000,000 ℔. The consumption per capita does not exceed 3½ ℔ per annum, which is much less than in most European countries.

Butter differs from cheese in that it is still made much more largely on farms in the United States than in creameries. Creamery butter controls all the large markets, but this represents little more than one-third of the entire business. Estimating the annual butter product of the entire country at 1,400,000,000 ℔ not much over 500,000,000 ℔ of this is made at the 7500 or 8000 creameries in operation. Iowa is the greatest butter-producing state, and the one in which the greater proportion is made on the factory plan. The total output of butter in this state is one-tenth of all made in the Union. The average quality of butter has materially improved since the introduction of the creamery system and the use of modern appliances. Nevertheless, a vast quantity of poor butter is made—enough to afford a large and profitable business in collecting it at country stores at grease prices or a little more, and then rendering or renovating it by patent processes. This renovated butter has been fraudulently sold to a considerable extent as the true creamery article, of which it is a fair imitation while fresh, and several states have made laws for the identification of the product and to prevent buyers from being imposed upon. No butter is imported, and the quantity exported is insignificant, although there is beginning to be a foreign demand for American butter. The home consumption is estimated at the yearly rate of 20 ℔ per person, which, if correct, would indicate Americans to be the greatest butter-eating people in the world. The people of the United States also consume millions of pounds every year of butter substitutes and imitations, such as oleomargarine and butterine. Most of this is believed to be butter by those who use it, and the state dairy commissioners are busily employed in carrying out the laws intended to protect purchasers from these butter frauds.

The by-products of dairying have, within recent years, been put to economical uses, in an increasing degree. For every pound of butter made there are 15 to 20 ℔ of skim-milk and about 3 ℔ of butter-milk, and for every pound of cheese nearly 9 ℔ of whey. Up to 1889 or 1890 enormous quantities of skim-milk and butter-milk from the creameries and of whey from the cheese factories were entirely wasted. At farm dairies these by-products are generally used to advantage in feeding animals, but at the factories—especially at the seasons of greatest milk supply—this most desirable method of utilization is to a great extent impracticable. In many places new branches have been instituted for the making of sugar-of-milk and other commercial products from whey, and for the utilization of skim-milk in various ways. The albumin of the latter is extracted for use with food products and in the arts. The casein is desiccated and prepared as a substitute for eggs in baking, as the basis of an enamel paint, and as a substitute for glue in paper-sizing. It has also been proposed to solidify it to make buttons, combs, brush-backs, electrical insulators and similar articles.

No census of cows in the United States was taken until the year 1840, but they have been enumerated in each subsequent decennial census. From 23 to 27 cows to every 100 of the population were required to keep the country supplied with milk, butter and cheese, and provide for the export of dairy products. The export trade, though it has fluctuated considerably, has never exceeded the produce of 500,000 cows. At the close of the 19th century it was estimated that there was one milch cow in the United States for every four persons, making the number of cows about 17,500,000. They are, however, very unevenly distributed, being largely concentrated in the great dairy states, Iowa leading with 1,500,000 cows, and being followed closely by New York. In the middle and eastern states the milk product goes very largely to the supply of the numerous large towns and cities. In the central, west and north-west butter is the leading dairy product.

Table XVIII.Estimated Number of Cows and Quantity and Value of Dairy
Products in the United States in 1899.
Cows.  Product.  Rate of
 per Cow. 
Total Product. Rate of
Total Value.
        Cents. Dollars.
 11,000,000 Butter 130 ℔ 1,430,000,000 ℔ 18 257,400,000
1,000,000 Cheese 300 ℔ 300,000,000 ℔  9 27,000,000
5,500,000 Milk 380 gals. 2,090,000,000 gals.  8 167,200,000

Table XVIII. shows approximately the quantity and value of the dairy products of the United States for a typical year, the grand total representing a value of $451,600,000. Adding to this the skim-milk, butter-milk and whey, at their proper feeding value, and the calves dropped yearly, the annual aggregate value of the produce of the dairy cows exceeds $500,000,000, or is more than one hundred million pounds sterling. Accepting these estimates as conservative, they show that the commercial importance of the dairy industry of the United States is such as to justify all reasonable provisions for guarding its interests.  (W. Fr.) 

  1. A gallon of milk weighs 10.3 ℔, so that very little error is involved in converting pounds to gallons by dividing the number of pounds by 10.
  2. A portable milk-weighing appliance is made in which the weight of the pail is included, and an indicator shows on a dial the exact weight in pounds and ounces, and likewise the volume in gallons and pints, of the milk in the pail. When the pail is empty the indicator of course points to zero.
  3. Landw. Futterungslehre, 5te Aufl., 1888, p. 249.
  4. The Analyst, April 1885, vol. x. p. 67.
  5. The evidence on this point taken by the Committee on Milk and Cream Regulations in 1900 is somewhat conflicting. The report states that an impression commonly prevails that the quality of milk is more or less determined by the nature and composition of the food which the cow receives. One witness said that farmers who produce milk for sale feed differently from what they do if they are producing for butter. Another stated that most of the statistics which go to show that food has no effect on milk fail, because the experiments are not carried far enough to counterbalance that peculiarity of the animal first to utilize the food for itself before utilizing it for the milk. A witness who kept a herd of 100 milking cows expressed the opinion that improvement in the quality of milk can be effected by feeding, though not to any large extent. On the other hand, it was maintained that the fat percentage in the milk of a cow cannot be raised by any manner or method of feeding. It is possible that in the case of cows very poorly fed the addition of rich food would alter the composition of their milk, but if the cows are well-fed to begin with, this would not be so. The proprietor of a herd of 500 milking cows did not think that feeding affected the quality of milk from ordinarily well-kept animals. An experimenter found that the result of resorting to rather poor feeding was that the first effect was produced upon the weight of the cow and not upon the milk; the animal began to get thin, losing its weight, though there was not very much effect upon the quality of the milk.
  6. Journ. Roy. Agric. Soc., 1898.
  7. Trans. Highl. and Agric. Soc. Scot., 1899.
  8. Report on Cheddar Cheese-Making, London, 1899.
  9. “The Practice of Stilton Cheese-Making,” Journ. Roy. Agric. Soc., 1899.
  10. Experiment Station Record, xii. 9 (Washington, 1901).
  11. Market butter is sometimes deliberately over-weighted with water, and a fraudulent profit is obtained by selling this extra moisture at the price of butter.
  12. “Thermal Death-Point of Tubercle Bacilli, and Relation of same to Commercial Pasteurization of Milk,” by H. L. Russell and E. G. Hastings.
  13. 16th Rept. Wis. Agric. Expt. Station, 1899, p. 129.
  14. See also the article Adulteration.
  15. A special committee appointed by the council of the Royal Statistical Society commenced in 1901 an inquiry into the home production of milk and meat in the United Kingdom.
  16. In 1901 the United Kingdom imported 3,702,810 cwt. of butter, valued at £19,297,005, both totals being the largest on record.