REPORT OF CREAMERIES AND CHEESE FACTORIES. [ Bulletin No. 16. ] During three months, beginning July 1, 1896, fifty-five cheese factories and sixty-two creameries were inspected by E. A. Haven, appointed temporarily, and John I. Breck, one of the regular inspectors of this office. The cheese factories inspected report two thousand three hundred and fourteen patrons, ten thousand three hundred and ninety cows, furnishing two hundred and three thousand pounds of milk daily. The number purchasing milk by the Babcock test, thirteen; not using, forty-two. The number using Rennet test, eight; not using, forty-seven. Number using State cheese brand, twenty-five; not using, thirty. The condition of factories is reported as follows: good, twenty-five; fair, twenty-seven; bad, three. Number of creameries visited, sixty-two; number of patrons, six thousand one hundred and seventeen; number of cows, nine thousand one hundred and eighty; pounds of milk daily, two hundred ninety-six thousand five hundred and fifty. Number using Babcock test, thirty-nine; not using, twenty-three. Forty-six are reported in good condition; nine, fair; seven, bad. E. A. Haven has submitted the report of his work as inspector, which I insert in this bulletin, as it is not only valuable in itself, but as proving by actual examination by a practical dairyman the statement in the last annual report of this department, of the condition of the dairy industry in the State, and the need of proper legislation for its advancement. C. E. STORRS, Dairy and Food Commissioner. Lansing, December 31. 1896. Hon. C. E. Storrs, Dairy and Food Commissioner: SIR-I herewith submit a report of the work done by me as dairy inspector from June 20, to October 1, 1896: Work was done in the counties of Allegan, Clinton, Genesee, Hillsdale, Kalamazoo, Lenawee, Monroe, Shiawassee, Saginaw, Tuscola and Van Buren. The object in taking up factory inspection was chiefly to learn their condition and needs, and find the method by which the Dairy and Food Commissioner could be of the greatest assistance in elevating the standard of Michigan dairy products. Three months was too short a time to take up any definite plan of work, but it gave an opportunity to do a little missionary labor and show the factory men that the State had not forgotten them. The Michigan dairy industry today needs care, thought, energy, and good judgment. Of all the faults observed none are so great as lack of care and neglect of the things seemingly small, which tend to make the finished product what it should be. We invariably find that the factories which have a good reputation are those where manager and patrons work together for mutual benefit with confidence in each other, not a feeling of distrust and envy. The product of creameries, being sold mostly in the cities, comes in competition with that from other states. It is therefore gauged by a definite standard to which it must attain. That gives the butter maker a guide and quickly does he hear of any departure therefrom. The manufacture of cheddar cheese is definite enough to be called a system, and the method of handling the curd after it is removed from the whey is such that a competent maker can, to quite an extent, remedy the effects of previous imperfections. But Michigan cheese, the genuine Michigan, found nowhere else on earth; soft, mild, porous, good in twenty days or safe for sixty. The cheese that pleases the eye of the maker, and tickles the palate of the consumer, cannot be made without the use of two articles; one supplied by the cow-pure milk-the other by the man who handles the product, gumption. An error of many factory men is to follow the same method every day, without regard to the weather or the condition of the milk. The same amount of color, rennet and salt, the same temperature in cooling, and same amount of airing in the drainer, holding the cream a certain number of hours before churning, running the churn a given length of time and salting and working the same way day after day. While it is true that certain principles govern dairy products, it is equally true that the successful factory manager must have a strong undercurrent of judgment to guide those principles. He must keep in mind the object to be attained, and vary methods to meet varying conditions. Nothing else so enlarges the horizon of the dairyman's vision as to study why certain causes produce different effects, to investigate the reason for the plan he practices, to realize that he is producing an article of food and aim to make each day's product excel that of the previous day. Our most successful cheese and butter makers are those who carefully look after the minor points which, in the aggregate, cause success or failure. One chief fault with our cheese product is lack of uniformity. It is said that in Wisconsin or Canada one can purchase a car or ship load of cheese and have them of about the same quality. Not so in Michigan. In my judgment factories never have but one day's cheese alike and even those vary in size. The word "Michigan" on a cheese box conveys no information as to its contents, except that it was made within the limits of the State. It may be sweet, sour, hard, soft, wet or dry; in flavor from clover to ragweed; in color from white to red; in strength mild or strong to suit any taste. I do not wish to convey the idea that such a variety can be found in each factory, far from it. We have factories that make first-class cheese thirty days each month. We have others, I regret to say, over whose product we must draw the veil of charity. There is need of a better understanding between manufacturers and wholesale dealers in relation to the market. Each factory caters to the trade as much as possible and sells the surplus to the jobber. In that way each become competitors on the market. Everyone for himself and the retail dealer gets the benefit. The jobbing houses are a great help to the factory men and if we would place our product in their hands, furnish such an article as the consumer wants, stop the pernicious habit some makers have of putting in cheese they know are poor in order to get rid of them, stop cutting on prices to get customers away from some one else; in short, make a cheese that will sell on its own merits; be honest, fair business men, and practice business methods, we will be far more successful in building up a sound, healthy market and give Michigan cheese a reputation as a pure, wholesome article of food, than if we worked on the theory that every other cheese man is our enemy. I am confident that a combination of inspection and instruction will get the poorer makers in line; aid them to comprehend the importance of following the methods that have proven successful; assist honest dairymen in making improvement and prevent dishonest practices by fear of detection. Every movement made toward improving the dairy interests of our State is a benefit to each individual engaged in that industry. One of the most successful factory men in our State said to me, "I am glad you were sent out, it is a move in the right direction. Every poor cheese made takes the place of two or three good ones. You cannot do much this season except preliminary work, but in another year much good can be done." There is no state better adapted to dairying than Michigan. Providence has done grandly by us. If we do our part all things will work together for our mutual benefit. Respectfully, E. A. HAVEN, Inspector. Bloomingdale, Mich., Dec ́mber 31, 1896. STATEMENT OF PROSECUTIONS For the year beginning July 1, 1896, ending July 1, 1897. CASE NO. 12. THE PEOPLE VS. BLUMENAU, WHITTEMORE, MICH. Before Robert Havenden, J. P., East Tawas. Complaint filed December 1, 1896, by John I. Breck, Inspector. Charge: Selling adulterated vinegar. December 16, 1896, trial by jury. Verdict, guilty. Fined fifty dollars and costs. CASE NO. 13. THE PEOPLE VS. SNOWBERGER, MONROE, MICH. Before John Davis, J. P., Monroe. Complaint filed by Elliot O. Grosvenor, Commissioner. Charge: Selling adulterated mustard. Plea, not guilty. Examination waived and defendant held to Circuit Court, bonds $200. Case submitted on facts admitted, but contended that they constituted no crime. Jury waived. Circuit judge found defendant guilty. Appeal to Supreme Court. Judgment of the lower court sustained. |