COMPARATIVE WORTH OF BAKING POWDERS.

ROYAL (Absolutely Pure)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
GRANT’S (Alum Powder)[A]XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
RUMFORD’S (Phosphate), when freshXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
HANFORD’S, when freshXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
REDHEAD’SXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CHARM (Alum Powder)[A]XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
AMAZON (Alum Powder)[A]XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CLEVELAND’S (Short weight, ¾ oz.)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
PIONEER (San Francisco)XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
CZARXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
DR. PRICE’SXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
SNOW FLAKE (Groff’s, St. Paul)XXXXXXXXXXXX
LEWIS’XXXXXXXXXX
CONGRESSXXXXXXXXX
HECKER’SXXXXXXX
GILLET’SXXXXX
HANFORD’S, when not freshXXXXX
C. E. ANDREWS & CO. (Contains alum)
(Milwaukee.) “Regal.” [A]
XXX
BULK (Powder sold loose)XXX
RUMFORD’S, when not freshXX

Reports of Government Chemists as to Purity and Wholesomeness of the Royal Baking Powder.

“I have tested a package of Royal Baking Powder, which I purchased in the open market, and find it composed of pure and wholesome ingredients. It is a cream of tartar powder of a high degree of merit, and does not contain either alum or phosphates, or other injurious substances.

E. G. Love, Ph.D.”

“It is a scientific fact that the Royal Baking Powder is absolutely pure.

H. A. Mott, Ph.D.”

“I have examined a package of Royal Baking Powder, purchased by myself in the market. I find it entirely free from alum, terra alba, or any other injurious substance.

Henry Morton, Ph.D., President of Stevens Institute of Technology.”

“I have analyzed a package of Royal Baking Powder. The materials of which it is composed are pure and wholesome.

S. Dana Hayes, State Assayer, Mass.”

“June 23, 1882.—We have made a careful analytical test of Royal Baking Powder, purchased by ourselves in the open market here, and in the original package. We find it to be a cream of tartar powder of the highest degree of strength, containing nothing but pure, wholesome, and useful ingredients.

Juan H. Wright, M.D.,}  
  Albert Merrell, M.D.,}”
Analytical Chemists, St. Louis.

The Royal Baking Powder received the highest award over all competitors at the Vienna World’s Exposition, 1873; at the Centennial, Philadelphia, 1876; at the American Institute, and at State Fairs throughout the country.

No other article of human food has ever received such high, emphatic, and universal indorsement from eminent chemists, physicians, scientists, and Boards of Health all over the world.

Note.—The above Diagram illustrates the comparative worth of various Baking Powders, as shown by Chemical Analysis and experiments made by Professor Schedler. A one pound can of each powder was taken, the total leavening power or volume in each can calculated, the result being as indicated in the above diagram. This practical test for worth by Professor Schedler only proves what every observant consumer of the Royal Baking Powder knows by experience, that, while it costs a few cents per pound more than the ordinary kinds, it is far more economical, and, besides, affords the advantage of better work.

A single trial of the Royal Baking Powder will convince any fair-minded person of these facts.

[A] While the diagram shows some of the alum powders to be of a higher degree of strength than other powders ranked below them, it is not to be taken as indicating that they have any value. All alum powders, no matter how high their strength, are to be avoided as dangerous.

Atkin & Prout, Printers, 12 Barclay St., New York.


Transcriber’s Notes

Obvious printer’s punctuation errors and omissions silently corrected. Inconsistent hyphenation retained due to the multiplicity of authors. Arithmetic errors in the receipts have been retained as printed.

Ditto marks replaced with the text they represent to facilitate eBook alignment.

Images have been moved outside of paragraphs, resulting in page numbers that are slightly off.

Corrected “neigborhood” to “neighborhood” on page 50. (bought in the neighborhood)

“Tilotson” changed to “Tillotson” in the Guilford entry on page 59.