Mower County transcript. [volume] (Lansing, Minn.) 1868-1915, 1871-09-21
Dutter-Washed or UpWsshed.

81 have been told by an experienced
butter maker that butter washed would
keep longer than unwashed butter. Please
inform me through your columns the
truth of this remark"
You are corr. city Informed according to
our views in this matter. The butter
globules are CT cased in thin pelicle OF Ca
seine. In churning, these pehcles or
skins of caseiue are broken and the butter
liberated. Caseine is a nitrogenized sub
stance, very liable to putretaction, and if
these thin pelicles, which are mingled
with the butter when it comes from the
churn, are not, for the most part separat.
ed from the butter they soon begin to de.
compose and are changed into ferment
which gives rise to the formation of bu-
lyric, capric, caproic, and coprylic acids.
The first three of these acids have an un-
pleasant smell and the last a disagreeable
taste; and it is on account of the presence
of these acids that butter assumes nasty,
bad flavor. How then can we most thor
0ughly get rid of these caseine skins ?
Certainly by not working them over with
the butter without sufficient moisture to
separate them from the oily particles, but
by washing the butter as it comes from the
churn. This is simply common-seuse
view OF the matter to any one who under
stands the philosophy of butter making,
and it Is view sustained by the experience
Of a majority of tho best butter makers.
1t is said that unwashed butter contains
from six to eight per cent of thin caseine
shells, while butter that is washed has only
one per cent. If this be true land we have
no reason to doubt it,, we have very SUBJ
stantial reason why butter should be
washed. 1t is asserted, and perhaps with
some show of reason, that unwashed but
ter, when freshly made, has more delic-
ious aroma than washed butter, as the
washing is liable to carry of those delicate
flavoriDg oils to some degree; but granting
that the unwashed butter, when first made,
may have slight advantage over washed
butter, in this regard, if it soon begins to
lose flavor and deteriorate on account of
its caseineous properties, the slight gains
at first is of no comparative weight with
the disadvantages which follow.
Butter makers should strive to make
butter Of good keeping qualities. Dealers
and customers want something that will
not dctcriorate in their hands. We can't
all get butter the day after it is churned,
nor does any one care to be forced to over
cat of good thing to save it from spoil
ing.
Then there is another strong argument
in favor of washing butter. When the
buttermilk and castineous matter is OK
PEELED simply by working the butter, there
is always danger of ovcrworking it, and
thus spelling the grain. This is especially
the case, except the butter maker posses
ses high skill in his art and is always on
guard to do duty with perfect exactness
for as the rancid taste of butter is due to
one or more of those acids which we have
named, it will be seen that it must in some
way be freed from the caseine which gives
origin to them.
We are aware that there is class of
good butter makers who are opposed to
washing butter Many of this class are
very skillful and manufacture a superior
article; but their SUCCESS is not due to the
fact that the butter is not washed. If by
their superior skill they arc able to work
their butter So as to free it pretty thor
oughly from the caseine, it is no argument
against washing. We have made a good
many experiments, first and last, in the
manufacture Of butter, and have tested a
large number of samples of butter from
the best makers, both in this country anu
in Europe, and from the light OF this
knowledge we arc in favor of the washing
theory.-X. Il. Willard, IN RurM New
! Yorker.