Courier Democrat. (Langdon, N.D.) 1891-1920, 1899-06-22
Dairy Notes.

The question of salt is a live one in
the large creameries, but receives far
too little attention with the individual
farmer. Much of the salt is purchased
OF the corner grocery, and has been ex-
posed to no one knows what conditions.
1t has been demonstrated that salt does
absorb bat. flavors and afterwards
transmit it tc the butter into which it
Is worked. This should be kept in the
mind of the man that is trying to make
good butter. At his home he should
have the salt securely protected from
odors that would prove deleterious to
the butter. That is not all; he must as
certain that the salt has been thus pro-
tected before it came into his hands. A
LITTLE care in this direction may prove
of value. 1t is wise to get the salt from
houses that make speciality of han
ding it for dairy purposes. In such
cases it is about sure to have been pro-
tected against unfavorable influences.
The pure food law recently passed
by the Illinois legislature is likely to
be the subject of good deal of con-
tention when it gets into actual work
ing order. Some of the readings in the
law are very ambiguous and indefinite.
Take, for instance, clause sixth, which
is one of those defining adulterated
goods, which reads eff it contain any
added substance or ingredient that is
poisonous or injurious to health I'm
der the law as expressed in this clause
the question of preservatives will GER
tainly come up. 1t must not be forgot
ten that some of the best workers for
the passage OF the pure food law are
either men that use preservatives in
their manufactured products or adyer-
tise the preservatives in their papers.
In other words the men that fought for
the law are themselves helping to send
out goods that are adulterated under
the reading of the clause mentioned
Perhaps their hope is to prove that the
different chemical preservatives are
harmless, that the stomach of man is a
sort of chemical laboratory, or should
be made so, according to the course fol-
lowed by Mithridates.
There seems to be no doubt that
renovated butter is a perfectly lawful
product, in it's simple state. Certainly
no one can question the right of a
farmer to make over his butter If 1t
has too much color or salt or too much
water in it. The line cannot be drawn
against the renovating process on a
larger scale, for what is moral on a
small scale is moral on large scale.
But when to the simple renovation
is added adulteration by forma-
line or borax or any other chemical
the question assumes seriousness that
makes it the duty of the law to see
that the product is at least branded
with a name that shall identity it to
the buyer. Massachusetts has just
passed law defining process butter
as renovated butter. A delegation of
the process butter men recently waited
sign the bill till this name had been
eliminated or changed. They suggested
"sterilized" butter as an acceptable
substitute. Happy thought! They
would legally disguise the true charac-
ter of the renovated product by name
that has obtained great honor and pop
ularity. They would set it on high, far
above mere first-class creamery but
ter. Call it "sterilized" butter, and the
sick would at once imagine that of all
products of the dairy it had the best
right TO be considered as part of their
bill of fare. What revenue the proc
ess men would reap, from the army OF
invalids and still greater army of mag
mary invalids! However, it is likely
that renovated is the term that the diff
ferent states will give it, as that is the
.erm exactly describing its character.
This term simple justice would die
tate.