From whom





681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697 698

Frank Bell.. Saukville..
J. Kronenburg. Saukville.
John Dries Saukville.
John Schuh Sauk ville.
D. Wilchen Saukville
John Kurtz Saukville
Joseph Nickel. Saukville.
John Turck.. Saukville,
John Boodle.. Saukville
Sam. Johnson. Saukville
A. Jacobson Saukville
N. Jacobson. Saukville
J. W. Lutfring. Saukville..
J. Nierren

Saukville. John Reiter Saukville. J. Bartschigar. Saukville. Wm. Lubahn.. Saukville. Mrs. M.

3.75 745
3.75 746
3.99 747
3.17 748

3.87 750
3.64 751
3.75 752
3.52 753
3.28 751
4.11 755
3.64 756
3.69 757
3.871 758
3.90 759
3.05 760


From whom



Butter fat.

699 700 701 702 703 704 705 706 707 708

709 710 711 712 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 136 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 7744

Schwartz. Saukville..
N. Brauschalt., Saukville.
W. Schrader. Saukville.
N. Gottland Saukville..
C. H. Nierren. Saukville,
H. Whalen. Saukville
H. Opitz

Geo. Geiss Saukville.
B. F. Dewey. Spring Green.
E. B. Evans Spring Green.
A. Frederick-

Spring Green.
John Davis Spring Greeu.
Dan Morgan.

Spring Greeu.
Jacob Witzel.. Spring Green.
Jaines Lins Spring Green.
Geo. Dewey.

Spring Green.
John Lins.. Spring Green.
Martin Nelson. Spring Green.
Jacob Seiders. Spring Green.
Chas Sherwood Spring' Green.
W. H. Harris.. Spring Green.
Thos. Loverse. Spring Green.
Geo. Dillwig.. Branch
C. Clemme. Branch..
F. Schmatz Branch..
K. Rollson.. Branch.
Geo. Misenest Branch.
W. Brunnig.. Brauch
F. Rank

H. Larenzen. Brauch

Springstube. Branch
J. Squirol..

D. Sheldon. Branch
Geo. Needle. Branch
J. A. Stepek. Branch
A. Veolker Branch
J. Zepperer Branch
N. Z-pperer Branch
G. Zepperer

A. Bry

M. Baumman. Branch
F. Jana..


762 3.52

703 4.11 761 4.11 765 3.64 766 3.65 767 4.11 768 4. 769 3.9

770 3.58 771 3.52 772

773 3.63 774 3.61 775 3.75 776 4.00 777 3.75 778 3.87 779 3.87 780 4.32 781 4.31 782 3.41 783 3.93 784 3.41 785 4.20 786 3.40 787 3.80

788 3.60 789 4.20 700 4.40 791 4.80

792 3.85 793 3.40 794 4.60 795 4.20 796 3.80 797 4.60 798 5.20 799 4.00

800 4.00 #01 4.60 802 3.80 803 8.85

804 3.40 805

Niespodiany Branch

3.00 F. Merthens Branch

4.60 J. Merthens. Branch

4.40 R. Halverson. Branch

3.80 W. Brunnor.. Branch

3.60 Larson. Branch

3.40 M. Albrechet..Branch

4.00 S. Olson.. Branch

3.60 K. Johnson Branch

4.40 J. Scheisel. Branch

4.20 H. Plockelman. Branch

3.40 J. Simmet. Branch

4.60 A. Kerner.. Branch

4.80 G. Wellaer Brahch

1.20 J. Bauman Branch

4.40 H. Halverson. Branch

3 40 Geo. Slatky Francis Creek 2.60 J. Harkley. Francis Creek 3.60 J. Fakora.. Francis Creek 3.90 J. L. Fakora. Francis Creek

3.00 M. Swetlek. Francis Creek

3.60 J. Cicek.. Francis Creek

4.00 J. Kelner

Francis Creekl 3.60 P. Rade

Francis Creek 3.00 P. Warel

Francis Creek 3.00 W. Popelars.. Francis Creek 3.20 J. Swetlek. Francis Creek 3.20 N. Suetlek Francis Creek 3 90 J. Cisler.

Francis Creek 4.00 J. Slalky.

Francis Creek 3.20 T. Kurkle

Francis Creek 4.60 W. Slatky Francis Creek 3.00 W. Buric

Francis Creek 3.60 C. Pilger.

Francis Creek 3.60 A. Ccek

Francis Creek 3.20 M. Qurava Francis Creek 3.40 F. Wid

Francis Creek 3.60 J. Pich.

Francis Creek 3.00 M. Pich

Francis Creek 3.60
F. Stiber.

Francis Creek 3.40
A. Hayer.

3.20 J. Brodka. Cato..

4.00 A. Tritsch Cato.

3.80 J. Munhall. Cato.

4.00 J. Piper. Cato.

4.00 J Mayerl. Cato..

3.80 G. Rigling Cato

3.80 F. Maney Cato..

3.80 J. Red den Cato..

3.40 M. Redden Cato.

4.20 C. Stroehfeld.. Cato..

2.80 W. Menneek Cato..

3.00 C. McCourt Cato

3.80 F. Brandice Cato.

4.20 O. S. Piper Cato.

4.00 W Brier. Cato.

3.60 P. Laughlan.. Cato.

3.80 S. French Cato.

4.00 M. Colbeck Cato.

4.00 C. Krohm.. Cato:

4.20 H. Neoman. Cato..



[ocr errors]

408 samples of milk tested. 384 samples contained more than 3 per cent. of butter fat.

235 samples contained more than 3.5 per cent. of butter fat.

107 samples contained more than 4 per cent. of butter fat. 24 samples contained less than 3 per cent. of butter fat.

These samples represent very fairly the quality of milk supplied to creameries and cheese factories, as well as that sold to individuals in the larger cities of the state.

Although these 408 samples represent a very small portion of the milk supply of Wisconsin, yet, the wide distribution of the samples, and the varying conditions under which they were taken, enable us to form some idea as to the quality of Wisconsin milk, and likewise to judge if the standard required by law is a just one from the producers' standpoint. The present standard in Wisconsin requires at least three per cent. of butter fat to be present in all milk offered for sale. This standard is adopted from a careful consideration of the composition of milk produced under all conditions of age, breed, and feed. The standard represents not the average composition of milk but is intended to represent the quality of milk produced by the poorest animals under normal conditions of feed and health. The milk standard is a very important question to both the milk producer and consumer. Too high a standard would be injurious to the producer, as it would require him to keep a particular breed of cows that his product should meet the requirements of the law. Too low a standard would be unjust to the consumer, as it would be an incentive to the breeding of animals giving large quantities of low grade milk. The reason for the existence of low grade and adulterated milk lies in the fact that milk is one of the few articles of food of whose quality the consumer cannot judge by examination. The presence or absence of cream is the only test possessed by the consumer, and that is of but little value when applied to milk which has been transported any distance.

If milk has been diluted in any way and it still contains there per cent. of butter fat, the person who dilutes and delivers it to a custoner or a factors has violated the law.


The use of baking powders as a substitute for seast in the arration of bread is comparatively modern. These powders are composed of bicarbonate of soda with the addition of one or more of the following chemicals: Cream of tartar, tartaric acid, alum, and acid phosphate of lime, the object being the production of carbonic acid gas. When this powder is mixed with the flour and water added to make dough, the chemicals are dissolved and the carbonic acid set free. The salt resulting from the chemical action remains in the bread and is eaten with it. This process is an imitation of the method of making bread with sour milk and saleratus, only in place of the lactic acid of the sour milk, cream of tartar, alum, or acid phosphate is used. The use of these bread preparations has given rise to a large and growing industry. The amount consumed in the United States is estimated at from fifty to seventy-five million pounds per year, having a value of from twenty to twenty-five million dollars.

There is no recognized standard composition of baking powders; provided the manufacturer does not use any substance injurious to health, his choice as to chemicals is not limited. Fortunately the list of chemicals that can be used for that purpose is small. The requirements of cheapness and palatability confine the manufacturers to the following list: Cream of tartar, tartaric acid, alum, acid phosphate of lime. One or more of the above mixed in the proper proportions with bicarbonate of soda and starch constitutes the baking powder found on the market at the present time.

All powders on the market may be classed under one of the following heads:

1st. Tartaric powders, in which the acid is tartaric acid or cream of tartar.

2nd. Phosphate powders, in which the tartaric acid is replaced by acid phosphate of lime.

3rd. Alum powders, in which the acid is sulphuric acid. All powders sɔld come under one of these three heads, but powders are sold containing one or all of the above constituents. The objections which may be made to the use of baking powders are due to the residue left in the bread. Baking powder manufacturers foster the idea that nothing remains in the bread but that everything is driven off during baking. On the contrary there is a residue equal in weight to the baking powder used, and its amount and character determines the healthfulness of the combination used.

In the case of a cream of tartar powder the products are carbonic acid and a double tartrate of potassium and sodium, known as Rochelle salt. This is one of the mildest salts used in medicine. The National Dispensatory says: “In doses of one-half to one ounce (240 to 480 grains) it acts as a gentle and cooling laxative and seldom disagrees with the stomach.” The cream of tartar is a natural constituent of the grape and is open to less objection than any other material except it be the acid phosphates. It is well, however, to consider how much of even this mild salt we consume in a loaf of bread. The directions that accompany the powder usually direct two teaspoonsful to be used for each quart of flour. "If the powder is fresh this is enough, but if an old powder is used, three and even four teaspoonsful must be used if the bread is to be light. In the case of a fresh powder, making allowances for the 20 per cent. of filling, there would remain 165 grains of crystallized Rochelle salt in the bread made from one quart of flour. This residue is of such a mild and neutral character that the most delicate stomach could probably take the amount left in the bread, without harm. But it is well to remember that a loaf of bread made according to directions contains more of Rochelle salts 'than is found in a Sedlitz powder. The acid phosphate of lime is largely used in baking powders, and there would seem to be no objection to its use if the salt is pure. It is made by acting upon ground bones with

. sulphuric acid. The result is insoluble sulphate of lime and acid phosphate of lime. If this latter is carefully purified there is no objection to its use in baking powders; but

6-D. & F.

[ocr errors]


aika sikates of time are to remore, most phos kan en contain itis inity. Also if commercial

bricar:1 is used to decompose the beses notable quantissaland arsenic casteizzoccedir:o be baking 15. If the arit pisskateis pareibere is no objection to its ze in baking powders. Tie result of the decomposiis of a phosphate power is sorable phosphate of soda auditsiibs phospha:e of lime. The t. S. Dispensatory sass: “ Phosphate of soda is mildly purgatire in doses of from she to two gunces. Its physiological action is there fore comparatively slight. Phosphates of calcium are probably neutral so far as their direct action on the stomarh is concerned. The makers of phosphate powders claim that the use of such powders restores the phosphoric acid present in the wheat, which is largely removed in the preparation of flour. It is doubtful if this claim can have any weight, as the supply of phosphates is more than made up in other foods.

Sesqui carbonate of ammonia has been used to some extent, and one of the most widely advertised brands of baking powders contains a small quantity of it. It is a com. pound which should be used with great caution. The ammonia salts are much more irritating than the corresponding potash or soda salts. The National Dispensatory bays of carbonate of ammonia: "It is irritant, and if long continued, even in doses which the stomach will tolerate, it impairs nutrition. In doses of five to ten grains, it increases the fullness and force of the pulse and causes a sense of lightness in the head. It is one of our most powerful medicines, and certainly should not be used in the preparation of foods."


The call for a cheap baking powder has caused the pow. ders made with alum to come into extensive use. The healthfulness of these alum powders is seriously questioned, and several careful investigations have been made, bearing on this point. It is universally conceded that alum itself, when added to bread, is injurious to health, and that the

« ForrigeFortsett »