Full text of "Bulletin"

See other formats

Hgnrnltitrc^

litbcx-al H^is

Mptethttologg

EXPERIMENT STATION LIBRARY

Bulletin 291 March, 1936

MAINTENANCE OF
GRADE A MILK

By E. H. RINEAR and H. C. MOORE

A Study of the Factors Affecting Quality,
Returns and Premium Losses

"*"'*\.,M«*

Vr»\e«

New Hampshire Agricultural Experiment Station

University of New Hampshire

Durham, N. H.

SUMMARY

1. A study was made of the factors which affect the quality of Grade A
milk and the premiums paid to producers of Pattee Station at West Canaan,
N. H.

2. In summer fewer Grade A producers keep their bacteria counts under
10,000 than at any other time of year. Premium rates are the highest during
the summer months. ( See Figure 1 and Table 1 . )

3. The amount of milk on which premiums were paid declined from
5,412,877 pounds in 1931 to 5,178,157 pounds in 1932. and to 3.683.U7
pounds in 1933. The premiums paid totaled $18,478.50 in 1931, $19,199.23
in 1932, and $13,780.56 in 1933. These premiums represented from 12 to
14 per cent of the gross milk receipts. The average premium paid Grade A
producers ranged from $196.58 in 1931 to $142.07 in 1933. (See Table 3.)

4. Very little correlation was found between the dairy scores made by
the milk inspector for the Boston Board of Health and the bacteria counts of
the same Grade A producers. (See Figure 2.)

5. Loss of premiums was traced to lack of sterilizing the equipment for
38 per cent of those having high bacteria counts. The other principal factors
were: poor cooling, 20 per cent; gargety milk, 21 per cent; and labor prob-
lems, 13 per cent. (See Table 4.)

6. The above-mentioned factors caused bacteria counts ranging from
25,000 to 810,000 during the three-year period. (See Table 5.)

7. Considerable improvement was made in the control of these factors.
Less than half as many reported trouble from improper sterilizing in 1933
as in 1931. There was a steady decline in the number having cooling trouble,
chiefly because they had installed cork-insulated tanks. On the other hand,
there was a definite increase during the three-year period in the number hav-
ing trouble with gargety milk. (See Table 4.)

8. The most important single factors in the total lost premium account
for the three-year period were: sterilizing, $1,542.18; cooling, $331.74;
and gargety milk, $290.86. On a combination basis, sterilizing, unreliable
hired help and milking too soon after freshening were the most costly,
amounting to $1,380.22. (See Table 6.)

9. When the Grade A producers are compared with Grade B produc-
ers, the most important differences are found in the milking practices, the
washing and sterilizing of equipment, the amount of ice used, and the time
used by Grade A producers in sterilizing. So far as the extra costs are
concerned between the two groups they are not important. As a class the
Grade A producers look after the details regularly, morning and evening,
which will insure milk of high quality. (See Tables 7, 8, 9 and 10.)

MAINTENANCE OF GRADE A MILK

A Study of the Factors Affecting Quality, Returns and

Premium Losses*

By E. H. RINEAR, Research Specialist in Marketing, and
H. C. MOORE, Assistant Dairy Husbandman

Grade A milk is being produced and sold quite generally throughout the
State. There are four wholesale Grade A receiving stations and eight local
markets where Grade A milk is sold in New Hampshire. The factors which
cause the loss of Grade A premiums are, therefore, of considerable impor-
tance to the dairymen.

The quality of the milk supply is dependent to a large extent upon the
care it receives before it leaves the farm. In this study the milk marketing
functions are considered from the time the milk is drawn until it is deliv-
ered to the receiving station. The effectiveness of the dairyman's methods
in handling and caring for Grade A milk determines whether or not first
premiums are paid.

There is a definite trend toward more uniform regulation and standard-
ization of all milk shipped into consuming centers. Under these conditions,
all dairymen are interested in controlling the factors which affect the quality
of milk, whether Grade A or B.

Method and Procedure

Survey records were obtained through personal interviews with 82 Grade
A and 20 Grade B producers shipping milk to Boston through the Pattee
receiving station at West Canaan, N. H. Detailed information regarding
stable, milkhouse, milking and cooling practices, sterilizing equipment, cur-
rent expense and labor was collected through these contacts. Comparative
analysis of these records showed few differences existing in the majority
of cases between the A and B shippers at this station. The influence of the
quality program and resulting premiums paid had caused the B producers
to exercise about the same care in handling milk. Also, most of the B pro-
ducers were anxious to be shifted over to A grade. It was, therefore, neces-
sary to survey some other section which was not subjected so strongly to
the Grade A influence, and which might be used as a basis of comparison.
Consequently records were obtained from 24 producers in Monroe, N. H.,
as only B Grade milk was being shipped from this area.

Many producers were unable to understand why they had low counts
one day and high counts on another. The Experiment Station endeavored
to solve this problem by working with them, observing the milking prac-
tices, the cooling of the milk, and the washing and sterilizing of the equip-
ment. Samples of milk were taken from the cows, milking pails and milk
cans during evening and morning milkings, just before the cans were loaded
onto the truck and when they were emptied at the station. The condition
of the equipment and cans was checked by using sterile water and taking
samples before each milking period. All samples were identified by num-

* The writers wish to express their appreciation of the cooperation given by the dairymen, by the
officials of H. P. Hood and Company, and by Mr. Ralph C. Downie, former manager of the Grade A
Station at West Canaan, N. H.

4 N. H. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 291

bers, packed in an iced container and sent to the dairy laboratory in Durham
for the bacterial analysis. Carbon copies of the bacteria counts obtained
from the samples were given to each producer. The results of the checking
were carefully reviewed with him. In this way many of the factors were
eliminated which had caused the loss of premiums in the past. This check-
ing of individual producers was made during fall and winter monthsas
well as during the summer. An effort was made to obtain the cooperation
of the best producers who seldom had trouble in producing high quality
milk for comparison with those who had experienced difficulty. Through
the cooperation of officials of H. P. Hood and Company, records were made
available for each Grade A producer showing on a 15-day basis during the
years 1931, 1932, and 1933, the pounds of milk shipped, price and premiums
paid per cwt. and deductions and net amount paid the producer. They sup-
plied copies of the scores of the Boston Board of Health for the Grade A
producers at Pattee as well as other statistical information showing the per-
centage of the producers who received first, second, and third premiums in
comparison with their three other Grade A stations.

I
History of Region and Station

The Pattee receiving station, which was selected for the basis of this ,
study, was built in 1924 and given Grade A rating soon afterwards. Milk \
was shipped in cans to Boston until 1929. Since then a tank car equipped
with A and B tanks has been used.

The principal reason given by the authorities for selecting Pattee as
a Grade A station is that milk of high quality had always been shipped from
this area. This statement was also verified by the producers. Many stated
that they were following about the same practices in caring for the milk now
that they did before they were paid Grade A premiums.

Capacity of the station with present equipment is 40,000 pounds daily,
which is considerably less than the total capacity of a tank car. About the
same amount of milk is received now as ten years ago. The daily average
of milk shipped during the year is over 18,000 pounds of Grade A and about
10,000 pounds of Grade B.

Milk is trucked to' the Pattee Station from approximately 40 miles.
There are five large trucks carrying it from the more distant sections. The
longest route extends as far west as Strafford, Vermont. The majority of
the producers living within one or two miles of the station do their own
trucking. In a few instances neighbors take turns carrying the milk.

Samples were usually taken by the company twice a week from one can
as the milk was emptied into the weighing tank. These samples were packed
in ice and shipped to the laboratory in Boston. A report of the bacteria counts
for each producer's samples was sent out from the Boston office at the end
of each 15-day pay period. Each man compared his record with his neigh-
bor's. During the 15-day pay period the manager of the station received
reports on each set of samples a few hours after they were available. If the
shippers had one or more high counts he immediately visited them and helped
to locate and to correct the trouble. In this way the quality of the milk was
maintained, and the farmer did not lose his Grade A premiums.

Sediments tests were run periodically on the milk of all producers. The
disc showing the amount of sediment was graded as "good," "fair" or
"dirty" and was returned to each producer.

March, 1936]

Maintenance of Grade A Milk

The need for insulated tanks to cool milk properly and more efficiently
was so great that the manager obtained cork by the carload and sold it to the
farmers at about cost. Demonstrations of the proper way to build a tank
"; were made throughout the territory.

ih Premium Schedule

"; Premiums were paid Grade A producers according to the quality of the
)i milk as shown principally by bacteria count. Four samples of milk were
f' taken at the station during the 15-day period for each producer. The aver-
' age of these samples determined whether or not first, second, or third premi-
ums were paid. During the years 1931 and 1932. first premiums were paid
when the average bacteria count of these samples was under 10,000 per
ml., second premiums when they averaged between 10,000 and 20,000, and
third premiums when they averaged between 20,000 and 30,000. In 1933
the third premium was dropped entirely because the larger share of the
shippers seldom had counts which averaged over 25,000. The second pre-
mium was accordingly paid when the average count was between 10,000
and 25,000. The premium rates varied on a seasonal basis, as shown in
Table 1.

Table 1

Schedule of premiums paid Grade A producers during the years

1931, 1922, and 1933*

Months

1st Prem.

^- ^

Under

10,000

b. per ml.

Cts. per cwt.

2nd Prem.

10,000 to

20,000

b. per ml.

, A^ .

Cts. per cwt.

3rd Prem.

20,000 to

30,000
b. per ml.

Cts. per cwt.

January 33

February 33

March 33

April 33

May 33

June 53

July 58

August 58

September 53

October 33

November 33

December 33

23
23
23
23
23
43
48
48
43
23
23
23

18
18
18
18
18
38
43
43
38
18
18
18

From Jan. 1, 1931, to Sept. 1, 1932, premiums were paid on 100% of Class I ratings
From Sept. 1, 1932. to Jan. 1, 1933, premiums were paid on 85% of Class I ratings
From Jan. 1, 1933, to Jan. 1, 1934, premiums were paid on 75% of Class I ratings

The primary objective of the study was to find out what factors cause
high and low bacteria counts and also to determine whether or not the pre-
mium rates are high enough to cover the costs to the dairymen in producing
Grade A milk. "*!*;

During the three-year period under discussion, numerous demand and
supply factors caused a decrease in the total premiums returned. Many
consumers could not afford to pay the extra cost of Grade A milk and
shifted from purchasing A to B grade or regular milk.** At the same time

** The Consumption of Milk and Dairy Products in Metropolitan Boston in December, 1930.
England Research Council on Marketing and Food Supply.
* In 1933 the third premium was omitted entirely.

New

N. H. Agr. Experiment Station

[Bulletin 291

producers were improving their methods, and the volume of Grade A milk
was gradually increasing. But the quality of B milk was greatly improved.
Consequently there was not much apparent difiference to the consumer be-
tween the two classes. Because of these conditions and the lessened demand,
the basis of Grade A was cut from 100 per cent of Class I ratings during
the period to 85 per cent and still lower to 75 per cent, as shown in Table 1.

Grade A Standing

A wide seasonal fluctuation occurred in the percentage of producers who
kept their bacteria counts under 10,000. (See Figure 1.) This fluctuation
was in direct correlation with the premium rates paid. For illustration, in
1931 the highest premium rates were paid in June, July, August, and Sep-
tember, when the smallest percentage of the producers was able to keep their
counts under 10,000. In 1932 there was a seasonal drop in June, August,
and September, but not in July and the first part of August. In 1933 the
decline occurs in July, August, and September. Expressed on a percentage
basis for June, Jwly, August, and September, only 41.5 per cent had counts
averaging 10,000 in 1931, 67.1 per cent in 1932, and 60.9 per cent in 1933.
The better showing made in July and August of 1932 was without doubt due
to a better understancHng on the part of the producers of the factors causing
bacterial growth and of better methods of control. The tendency for the
percentage of low counts to taper ofif during the summer months may be
partly due to the lessening of the farm ice supply and the practice of drying
off cows previous to establishing a base rating during the fall months.

PERCENT
100

90 ..
80 ..
70

60 4-
50

40 4.
30
20

10 4.

\ A.'*\ .A

i^fc-^

■^ • > -•

'^ ^-^.^

CODE
a' ^.^^l933,PERCEnT OF PRODUCERS

«...»...• 1932, '

» »» »>

X — X— vl95l,

t> •> »

JAN FEB ri/^R APR mr JUHi Jl/ir AUG SCPT OCT NOV DEC

Figure 1. Comparison of the per cent of Grade A producers whose counts

averaged under 10,000 for each pay period during the years

1931, 1932, and 1933.

March, 1936]

Maintenance of Grade A Milk

The best records in the control of quality in milk were made in Novem-
ber and December. During these months first premiums were obtained by
71 per cent of the producers in 1931, 82 per cent in 1932, and 87 per cent
in 1933.

Attention is called to the fact that the producers made the poorest show-
ing throughout the entire year 1931. In fact, they did about as poorly in
the cold winter month of January as during the summer months. The num-
ber of Grade A producers who received first premiums improved in 1932,
following the testing work done by the Experiment Station. This work
started October 6, 1931, and continued into the winter. It was repeated
during July, August, and September of 1932. In all, 41 fall and winter
dairies were carefully studied and checked ; also 30 summer dairies. An
attempt was made to select producers who had excellent quality records
as well as those who were having trouble. They were well distributed
throughout the whole section. The effect of this work undoubtedly helped
the dairymen to locate their trouble.

The average bacterial counts on the milk samples taken under fall-winter
and spring-summer conditions on the Grade A farms are given in Table 2.
The results on the first and second streams show the value of discarding
these where high quality milk is produced. The bacterial counts on these
streams were much higher when the cows were in the barn than when out-
doors. Some of the cows' samples averaged in this table were proven in the
laboratory to have garget. If the bacterial count of the milk in the cans
is taken as 100%, the P. M. samples under fall- winter conditions increased
only 8% by the next morning, while under spring-summer conditions the
increase was 20%, showing that the cooling job was not done so well during
the warm weather.

Table 2

Difference between the average bacterial counts on the milk samples taken
under FalUWinter and Spring-Summer conditions

Milk Samples Taken

Fall

-Winter

f
Bacteria

Bacteria

per ml.

P. M.

A. M.

2,iA72>

12,552

5,753

4,986

3,197

3,774

3,679

3,994

5,420

6,779

9,144

Spring-Summer
. K^

Bacteria
per ml.
P. M.

Bacteria
per ml.
A. M.

First Streams

Second streams

Pails from cows

Cans in evenings

Cans before leaving farm.
Cans at station

9,145

11,738

4,106

4,792

2,569

2,832

2,547

3,060

4,352

6,868

The average bacterial counts on the P.M. samples were lower when
delivered at the receiving station, under both fall-winter and spring-summer
conditions. This condition was due mainly to the fact that the counts on the
cans when filled were much lower on the P. M. samples than on the A. M.
samples, showing that the utensils were not cleaned and sterilized so thor-
oughly in the evening. The increase in the bacterial count during transpor-
tation was slightly higher under the fall-winter conditions. The main cause
for this was that the milk was on the road longer and in some cases was sev-
eral hours older when delivered. In a few cases the temperature increase
in this milk during transportation was several degrees, but in the majority
of cases this increase was not over 2''F.

8 N. H. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 291

The checking of milk cans showed that they were not being sterilized
sufficiently at the receiving station. The steam pressure at the station was
immediately increased from around 40 pounds to 60 pounds maximum. A
drop in the number of can counts followed at once ; the steam pressure was
then increased to 80 pounds maximum on January 1, 1932, and to 100
pounds maximum pressure April 1, 1932. On June 15, 1933, a new 20 h.p,
boiler replaced the old 15 h.p. boiler, and the steam pressure was run con-
tinuously at 100 pounds maximum. It was further found that when the can
washer was run in fast speed and the steam pressure was low the milk cans
were not sterilized enough. Eventually the machine was set in low speed
so that it required three minutes for a can to pass through. This longer per-
iod of sterilizing combined with twice the amount of steam pressure reduced
the number of bacteria found thereafter in milk cans to a negligible amount.
In fact, several cans were checked and found to be completely sterile.

When Pattee station is compared with three other Grade A stations,
namely, those at North Haverhill, N. H., Lancaster, N. H., and Shelburne
Falls. Mass., the improvement in the quality program made by the producers
of this station is most striking. In 1931 the producers of Pattee were in first
place only five times compared with 19 times in 1932 out of a possible 24
times. The average percentage of Pattee producers under 10.000 bacteria
counts during the 24-pay periods was only 54.7 per cent in 1931. In 1932
this average percentage had increased to 73.4 per cent. On the other hand,
the average percentage of producers with counts under 10,000 at Lancaster,
North Haverhill, and Shelburne Falls in 1931 was 62.1 per cent, 56.9 per
cent, and 50.4 per cent respectively, and in 1932, it was 62.9 per cent, 58.5
per cent, and 63.4 per cent respectively. Pattee producers improved their
counts about 19 per cent, Shelburne Falls producers about 13 per cent, and
Lancaster and North Haverhill stations remained practically the same.

During the three-year period the amount of milk on which premiums
were paid to the Pattee producers declined from 5.412,877 pounds in 1931, to
5,178.157 pounds in 19232, and to 3,683.447 pounds in 1933. (See Table 3.)
The average premium rate per cwt. was 34 cents in 1931, 38 cents in 1932,
and 37 cents in 1933. The total premiums paid in 1931 represented over 12
per cent of the gross milk receipts, in 1932 over 14 per cent, and in 1933
over 12 per cent of the gross milk receipts.

There were about the same number of Grade A shippers during the
three years. According to the records, the number ranged from 88 to 100
and averaged 94 in 1931, from 93 to 107 with an average of 98 in 1932, and
from 88 to 118 with an average of 98 in 1933. On this basis the averaee
amount of premium paid producers was $196.58 in 1931, $195.91 in 1932,
and $142.07 in 1933.

Boston Board of Health Scores

About 31 of the Grade A dairies at Pattee were inspected by the repre-
sentative of the Boston Board of Health during 1932. Each dairy was
scored by the inspector according to recognized standards so as to insure
the qualitv of the milk supply. One dairy was scored at 54.3, three from
60 to 70, 19 from 70 to 75, and eight from 75 to 80. The one which scored
below 60 was temporarily disquahfied until certain conditions were cor-
rected as outlined by the health inspector. These inspections were made
during 1932 — the majority of them during the fall months.

When a scatter diagram (see Figure 2) is made of all the bacteria

March, 1936J

Maintenance of Grade A Milk

Table 3

Total premiums paid Grade A producers at Pattce on a monthly

and yearly basis

Milk

Year basis

and month for premiums

1931 (pounds)

January ...... 501,061

February .... 468,253

March 502,566

.\pril 472,215

May 444,990

June 398,819

July 365,257

.^.ugust 413,731

September . . . 437,972

October 432,924

November . . . 479,325

December . . . 495,764

Total 5,412,877

.^v. for 94

producers 57,583

Total
premiums paid

Average
premium

rate
per cwt.

Gross value
milk and
premiums

Per cent of
gross value
represented
by premiums

(dollars)

(cents)

(dollars)

(per cent)

1,312.93

15,941.14

8.2

1,285.26

12,212.45

10.5

1,390.15

12,912.29

10.8

1,324.52

11,975.75

11.1

1,230.80

11,351.57

10.8

1,859.07

10,893.55

17.1

1,845.45

9,630.81

19.2

2,111.59

12,820.85

16.5

2,027.33

14,184.98

14.3

1,254.71

14,179.97

8.9

1,392.41

14,209.29

9.8

1,444.28

11,608.79

12.4

18,478.50

151,921.44

12.2

196.58

2.81

1,455.05

10,523.16

13.8

1,413.62

9,703.70

14.6

1,376.90

9,733.75

14.1

1,278.75

9,026.41

14.2

1,370.06

10,192.08

13.4

2,270.73

10,264.03

22.1

2,259.65

10,512.02

21.5

2,262.20

11,743.63

19.3

1,879.69

12,438.32

15.1

1,210.76

12,639.64

9.6

1,164.55

12,042.45

9.7

1,257.27

12,954.42

9.7

1932

January 497,355

F"ebruar) 463,383

March 470,574

April 432,030

May 444,359

June 458,001

July 415,316

August 419,081

September ... 381,045

October 401,358

November ... 388,985

December . . . 406,670

Total 5,178,157

.\v. for 98

producers 52,838

19,199.23

195.91

131,773.61
2.65

14.6

1933

January 356,645

February .... 314,982

March 348,008

April 313,074

May 312,076

June 297,993

July 267,418

August 248,339

September . . . 268,094

October 312,176

November . . . 329,329

December ... 315,313

Total 3,683,447

(pounds 32% less)
Av. for 97

producers 37,974

1,074.76

10,994.61

9.8

960.03

7,639.20

12.6

1,084.02

8,315.99

13.0

965.43

7,426.35

13.0

976.14

7,652.88

12.8

1,539.92

9,095.48

16.9

1,486.21

8,139.76

18.3

1,352.07

8,643.78

15.6

1,326.17

9,192.75

14.4

962.58

10,058.44

9.6

1,054.22

11,628.34

9.1

999.01

32
37

10,698.33

8.5

13,780.56

109,485.91

12.6

(paid 27>^% less)

142.07

2.97

N. H. Agr. Experiment Station

[Bulletin 291

B^CTE-fclA
COUHT

\jOOo ,000
000,000 -
800, cao
loo, 000

400,000-
56 0,00 0

Hoc y 000

300,000

tt>o,t>oo

foo ,000
ee.eoo
er>,ceo
70,000
60,000
JO^ooo

2o,ooo

10,000
9, 000
6, ooo

6,0 CO

•S^jOoO

4.ee>o

■5,000

t.eeo

I. 000

^00 ,
Too

6cDO

£00

HbO

5eo

Zoo

lOo

•

•
•

•

• •

•

.•

>•• r -

•

• ••

•

•V"

•

«<

"•

••

..-i j

V •

jM-

-•

#•-•

"•vr*

;; •••

! t

••

..;i

• •..".s'.V-VyV

• •

.V'*

■ *

m^sn

i*^-L3

■^Tr**^

^t 7 v^

•"1

'Uy

XV. »

'. r

■ •

."/.

nt\*i''\\

..,.-

€•

•I

•.'.y.V.

11^

■ ' 1')*:

*^'

:•;.>;'■

.!,-'u-i

•

•'•

• •

■ .

JIK.-.'

• - i

STT^

itvT^

Sftl^

• (ijl

I^Vll-'T

•

«•

■ ••

flvV,.r.

•

•I

•

DAIRY SCORt

r>'

Figure 2. The above scatter diagram of bacteria counts shows the proportional
distribution of these counts according to the scores given thirty-one dairymen by the
inspector for the Boston Board of Health during 1932. Apparently there is very little
correlation between these scores and bacteria counts, for a low or a high count is just
as likely to occur with a low as with a high score.

March, 1936] Maintenance of Grade A Milk 11

counts for these 31 dairies in relation to the inspector's scores, it shows very
little correlation between the bacteria counts and the scores. Apparently a
dairy with a low score was almost as likely to have bacteria counts under
10,000 as one with a high score.

The score-card used by the Boston Board of Health is approved by the
U. S. Bureau of Animal Industry. A perfect score of 40 points is allowed
on equipment and one of 60 points on methods. In fixing the points allowed
under these two principal headings, the inspector is given considerable lee-
way. If the water supply was poor or if there was evidence of the presence
of dangerous disease in animals or attendants, the score would be 0. Fre-
quently an inspector had to score a dairy severely in order to have objection-
able features corrected. Under these various circumstances it is to be ex-
pected that the final scores would vary widely. However, it seems apparent
from this scatter diagram that the factors which may cause high bacteria
counts should be weighted and scored on a different basis.

Principal Factors Causing High Counts

A careful study was made of each Grade A producer's counts during the
three-year period. It frecjuently happened that a high count of 25,000
occurred along with three low ones so that the average for the 15-day period
was under 10,000, thereby allowing first premiums to be paid. Other pro-
ducers might have many high counts continuously for several pay periods
so that they got second or third premiums, or perhaps the average ran over
50,000 for the pay period so that no premiums were paid.

The dairymen were naturally interested in knowing what caused these
high counts and how they could be controlled. Through personal contacts
with them in cooperation with the manager of Pattee Station a long list
of factors and causes was detected regarding the high counts. The fact
that on only six per cent of the farms some reason could not be found shows
how carefully the situation was studied. (See Table 4.)

By far the greatest number of producers were having trouble in steril-
izing their equipment. Fifty-seven did not sterilize properly in 1931, twenty-
five in 1932, and twenty-nine in 1933. The equipment itself was the prin-
cipal factor contributing toward high bacterial growth. Other reasons men-
tioned were milking machine not washed thoroughly previous to steriliz-
ing, lack of the proper equipment to sterilize, old broken and porous rubber
in use on milking machine which was practically impossible to sterilize, the
use of old-fashioned eight-quart cans in coolings, which had rough seams
of solder and exposed wooden plugs, and milk cans which were dirty or
had broken seams. In all 38 per cent of the producers blamed their high
counts on improper sterilizing.

On a seasonal basis, lack of sterilizing caused high counts for more pro-
ducers during the summer months than at any other time of the year. Dur-
ing July, August, and September over 52 per cent of them reported trouble
from this factor. More failed to steriHze properly during September than
any other month. The best record was made in December, when only two
producers experienced high counts from improper sterilizing.

In making the survey of the 82 Grade A producers, information was
obtained as to their methods and practices in caring for the equipment and
handling the milk. After all, it is just as important to report the practices
which have worked out satisfactorily on the farm as it is to point out those
which have failed.

N. H. Agr. Experiment Station

[Bulletin 291

Table 4

Principal factors causing high bacteria counts and distribution of
Grade A producers during 1931, 1932, 1933

Factors causing

high bacteria counts 1931

Sterilizing and Equipment —

Improper methods 57

Milking machine not washed 4

Lack of equipment to sterilize 3

Broken and porous rubber 2

Wooden plugs in 8-qt. cans 1

Milk can, dirty, broken seam

Total 67

Cooling milk —

Too slow in cooling below 60° 12

Tank too small or leaked 5

Lack of ice in tank 4

Milk not strained after each cow 2

Can not in milkhouse during straining. . 2

Water too low on cans 1

Milk held over from previous day 1

Empty icehouse

Too short time allowed

Total 27

Cows —

Garget 7

Drying cows and milking once a day. ... 2

Milking machine injury 4

Not stripped clean after machine 2

Milked too soon after freshening 1

Milked too close before freshening

Udders not washed 2

Wet hand milking 1

Total 19

Labor problems —

Shifting of hired help 9

Proprietor, inconsistent, lazy 4

Learning how 2

Sickness and lack of responsibility 1

Total 16

Miscellaneous —

Building burned

Stable small, contamination 1

Total 1

Not located 3

Grand total 133

No. producers affected

1932

1933

Ave.
per cent

25
2
1
1
1

29
2

1
2

38%

20%

21%

• •

"10

13%

1
2

106

100%

March, 1936] Maintenance of Grade A Milk 13

The lack of a sufficient amount of boiling water and not allowing suffi-
cient time to elapse for each piece of equipment to become thoroughly ster-
ilized were recognized as the most common errors. As a typical case, high
counts usually followed where one teakettle of boiling water was poured
through the strainer into the pail, given a couple of whirls and emptied into
the sink or into the other pails if there happened to be any. The whole opera-
tion seldom required more than a few seconds per piece of equipment. Also
the water cooled down rapidly from the boiling point as it was emptied from
one pail to the other. Even though the equipment had been carefully washed
and the tin was scoured bright, it would not be sterilized sufficiently under
these conditions to prevent serious bacterial growth and loss of Grade A
premiums. Frequently where a milking machine was used, those in charge
of the sterilizing were afraid of spoiling the rubber. However, the older the
rubber, the more porous it becomes and the more likely it is to cause high
counts. The dairymen using milking machines and having low counts not
only did a thorough job of sterilizing but they planned on replacing the rub-
ber parts coming into contact with the milk, at least every three months.

One man used a commercial chemical solution for sterilizing his pails
and strainer and had very satisfactory results as long as he kept his equip-
ment thoroughly washed and scoured. His troubles began just as soon as he
permitted milk stone to collect in the pails. The chemical solution would not
penetrate through the milk stone and kill the bacteria as would the heat from
either boiling water or steam ; consequently counts developed running into
the hundreds of thousands.

The most successful Grade A producers put each piece of equipment
into a tight-covered wash boiler or sterilizer which contained about two
inches of water. The equipment was then boiled and steamed in this nearly
air-tight container for at least three minutes after each milking. In using
this type of sterilizer on the milking machine, the pails and the rubber, tubes
and teat cups, one of large size was required and a wire rack was used so
that the rubber did not come in contact with the bottom and thereby become
overheated. ,

Milk cooling problems caused trouble for one-fifth of the producers with
bacteria counts over 25,000, mostly from May to October. The fact that
more cooling troubles were reported for September (as in sterilizing) than
any other month reflected the general tendency to be short of ice at the end
of the summer. The principal factor in the cooling problem was that the
milk was not cooled below 50° F. soon after milking ; especially the cooling
of the milk after it reached 60° F. was too slow. Among the items that
brought about this condition were : tank too small, lack of ice in tank, and
ice put in tank at milking time instead of keeping tank iced between milking
periods. The last of these conditions was found where non-insulated tanks
were used. Those using insulated tanks had ice in the water continually, and
often a piece of ice would not be entirely melted in three days' time, which
meant that the temperature of the water was 37° F. or lower. Some did not
strain the milk after milking each cow because it was too far to the milk
house. Others set the can just outside the barn during milking instead of
following the approved practice of putting the can into ice water and cooling
the milk as soon as possible so as to stop bacterial growth. One producer
found it necessary to rebuild his tank so as to raise the water level higher
on the necks of the cans. He installed a new cork-insulated tank which re-
quired less ice and also corrected the trouble. In general, those who had

14 N. H. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 291

insulated cooling tanks used about 40 pounds of ice for every 100 pounds
of milk cooled. Many times where non-insulated tanks were found, slow
and unsatisfactory cooling took place even though twice as much ice was
used per 100 pounds of milk.

Gargety milk from the cows contributed to 21 per cent of the producers'
troubles. The cause of this was definitely traced to misuse of milking ma-
chines. It was most pronounced in those herds where a twin milking
machine was in use. Also several of the men did not strip the cows out clean
after using the machine. A number encountered high counts when drying
off the cows and milking only once a day. Others milked too close to fresh-
ening or saved the milk too soon after freshening. Not washing the udders
clean before milking was the reason given for a series of high counts by two
dairymen, who blamed the situation on the hired men. Not only have many
of these men corrected the above causes but they have learned the value of
using a strip cup and checking the first streams drawn from each cow for
signs of garget. In one instance, however, only the largest streams drawn
showed such signs.

Although most of the high counts were due to previously named factors,
some of the trouble could be attributed to the lack of human interest. When
a new hired man started in, high counts were almost sure to follow. On the
other hand, there were dairies where the proprietor was not a Grade A man.
He knew how the work should be done, but his nature would not allow him
to follow through consistently so as to produce quality milk regularly.

Only a few traced their high counts to stable conditions. In one instance
the stable was so small and cramped that it was practically impossible to
keep the cows clean and the milk from being contaminated.

In previously discussing the principal factors causing high counts and
the distribution of the producers according to these factors, a producer was
frequently counted under several headings. If these factors are to be evalu-
ated on a bacteria count basis for each producer, it is necessary that they
be combined. However, the producers with a single factor are kept separate
wherever possible.

In Table 5, the principal factors and combinations are arrayed according
to size of bacteria counts in five classes. In all, 1,697 counts ranging from
25,000 to 810,000 are allocated. Any one count appearing in Classes II to
V inclusive would be high enough to prevent a producer from obtaining first
premium during any one pay period.

The importance of thorough sterilizing to prevent high bacteria counts
is again emphasized. Over 38 per cent of the total counts appear under this
heading. When combinations are made of sterilizing and other factors, a
larger percentage of the counts usually are found in the classes representing
higher counts. The highest counts in the series resulted from a combination
of lack of sterilizing, gargety milk, and slow cooling.

Wrong cooling method was the second most important single factor,
closely followed by lax methods of hired men and lazy, inconsistent proprie-
tors. The latter proved hkely to land counts in any of the five classes and
on the whole did not show up as well as the hired help.

Factors and Premium Losses

Carrying the analysis of this problem one step farther, what is the cost
to Grade A producers in premiums lost for each of the above named factors
or combinations? In answering this question the pay periods of each pro-

March, 1936]

Maintenance of Grade A Milk

o _

O "

O u,

3." u

P-l o

I? 3
O

° 5

0,000 to
99,999
per ml.

S^^
.

O On dJ*^

§ -^^

Ron a 1
o o\ .

o c

o o
^5

O OS 1- J

"r- ov 0. ^
'"-^ .

CSl jj

P-l o

5§

.2 M

.5 !»-s
B'S o

OS"

c « 5

'^ O t)

" u S

o s —

+1- "-M

fin

»— «

Tj-

00
CM

t^ ■* vq
^ ^ od

CO T-H lO

NO '^ Cn)

NO .—I CO

ii-> \0 ro ui

t->! o t^I "o

On oo LO On

CO p C\l ro

(NJ C\i On On
ro fO 1^ fN

On •^ t^ t^
ro lO fVl >— I

On
lO

-H CO

(^ 00

f— <

NO LO

C^l

rr>

, — I

U-)

1 — 1

»-H

' — '

^\0

• to

r^i o t->. NO

■ 00 rO--^

ro O fO 00
ro O CM

•LO tN.

•NO

• r^ (^)

C^l

ID -CM ^

o
CO

LO On)

LO On '—'
■>^LO t^

"-I O

■^ f^NO t^t^

-or^NOO
NO o ^o ^o

LOIO

■^ CM CM CMI^

OS Tl" .-<

•a
c

V o

o
C

-13
C

u i- br 1- is

.•a
. c

>-.;::J

o — .

IJ w C

2-3 £■

•o^ o

3 O

u >. :-. _r -

1- i:; >- • P

bfl

• (J

• a

•O

bD
c

u e ;-

b/D o ^- o

3 t- S '-

O u — - O

o "-• n >.
■^ g- - r^ be

oj u, be bc-5
►5 OQ

rt'S

be"^

?: <u

1-.

-o
be=^

s >;

jz; "O _>::

'^ rr, "^

^ > ^
^ > >

• >, •

• N •

• 03 •

O C-^

-G <u 5
~ -M o

U "5 1-.
^ G D

rt !i o
-".G O

^^"^
0) O o

u K

1- -o

Oso

NO -—I

in (^1

Csl

• <N1

•■<i;ONvq

!co

! 00

C^l

;t^ t< CO

f-H

CV)

•OLO.-H

• r— t

Lor^

cooq LO t->.

1 — 1

^ CO

LOCM

T— ^

CO CM r^Lo

CO CM <-H CO

i—t

VO 00

-HO

r—i T-H

MDCO
t>>CM

CO OS
O lo

^ o

o o

^■^

O -H CV)

-H CV) CO -^ LONOI^ Q

16 N. H. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 291

ducer were carefully reviewed to determine whether or not any of the high
counts previously discussed actually did cause him to take second or third
premiums or no premiums at all. The amount over what first premiums
would have been and what he received in second or third premiums or no
premiums at all would be the amount of lost premiums. This amount varied
directly with the volume of milk shipped during a pay period and the rate
paid. As was previously pointed out, more high counts occurred during
the summer and early fall months when the highest rates were in effect.

In the preceding discussion of Table 5 the counts could be considered
separately for many single factors, but it is necessary to combine these fac-
tors still more when considering pay periods and premiums. The bacteria
counts are based on four samples of milk taken for each producer during a
pay period; accordingly, the chances of having more factors in one period
are greatly increased. Furthermore, many encountered a variety of troubles
during the three-year period. This explains why new combinations were
necessary in determining the lost premium for each producer. (See Table 6.)

The most important single factors in total lost premiums for the entire
three-year period are in the following order: steriHzing, $1,542.18; cooling,
$331.74; and gargety milk, $290.86. On a combination basis, sterilizing,
unreliable hired help and milking too soon after freshening were the most
costly, amounting to $1,380.22; sterilizing and not stripping after the milk-
ing machine, totalling $949.35, second ; and sterilizing, dirty milking ma-
chine, porous rubber, and wooden plugs made the third largest lost premium
item, totalling $520.49.

Comparing the factors on a yearly basis, considerable improvement was
made in sterilizing methods between the years 1931 and 1933. Whereas 20
producers lost premiums in 1931, totalling $659.50, only 13 lost premiums
because of poor sterilizing in 1933, amounting to $358.46. The average of
premiums lost on this account showed much improvement between 1931 and
1933. However, some producers learn very slowly. One large shipper lost
$121.24 in 1931, $213.57 in 1932, and $164.29 in 1933, or a total of $499.10
during the three-year period, because his equipment was not sterilized.

About the same yearly losses occurred for cooling. There was little
change in the number of men who lost premiums, but there was a down-
ward trend in the average amount lost. The largest amounts lost by any one
producer due to this factor were $67.69 in 1931, $61.70 in 1932, and $43.87
in 1933, or a total of $173.26 in the three-year period. His losses would
have built several well insulated cooling tanks.

Gargety milk caused producers more trouble and bigger premium losses,
both average and total, with each succeeding year. The largest amounts lost
by one producer for this cause were $30.63 in 1932, and $59.65 in 1933.
Another lost $38.73 in 1932, and $35.80 in 1933.

About the same situation was found in respect to drying off cows, milk-
ing once a day, milking too close to the freshening period or too soon' after.
Since all of these factors are so closely allied with gargety milk, particularly
in the producer's mind, they could be considered as one group. On this basis
the total premium losses for each year would increase from $33.79 in 1931
to $160.11 in 1932 and to $232.81 in 1933. Apparently these conditions
need to be guarded against more carefully, for 26 producers in the combined
group experienced trouble with them in 1933.

Comparing the most important combinations of factors on a yearly basis,
a marked improvement was made by those who had not sterilized properly,

March, 1936]

Maintenance of Grade A Milk

a.
H

' L, '- ^
ii " rt

o
H

o^<

2; fc

0^«(

>
<

tfl

<4-i

og r^ ^o

; CM M

CM «

-3 CM

o
-a

-ESS

f3 On O

^:; Lo f*^

O vo •— >

■73

cmoo o

00 ON ^D tsl oi 00
in u-i ^ 00

0\ Os^
Tj- .-H in

0\ fr>

fO'-H OJ r-.

o -^
CM

dollars)
32.98
32.51

. ^

■ vd
•in

§1

C3 cu

On^

OnO
to '^

CO 5^

ON "^

0\ f^r-vtn rN.TtM*ojvOON'^r^*o rN.'o

1-H -^ CN -^ 1-H Tj- o U-) CO 00 00 \0 ro CM cq
00 ■^'-' Ol CM rH^CM-^CM

CM 00 r^ "^

O ""^ •-'Cm'
00 CO <^

— < oo-i

00 fO -"^

ro CM O

t^ CM O

\0 y-*0\

t^ 00

0\ CM cvj
0\ SOCM

C?\VOCM<^C^]00CT\"rfVO'-t.-i

■ooOfOOt^r^"^r^*ooo^

00'-*»-^C3\roCMVO'-H\dr^
00\00»-<»-'CMfOOCMVO\0
^CM <NCM

t^roCMOr>.ir)\OOOtO<MO
Tj-'^rHcooroi>.0\r^ON\0

\00'-H-^C<j»-HO\'-HtN^o6ro
fO -^ »-< »-< CM »-H CO r-t

^>.ro^Oo^^."^^OCOu^c^^o^
TJ-^>.^o^oof-^^-*ooc^^o^li^

vO'-'f^'^CM'-'ON'— '*OC0»-^

«Tt-rOT-lrH.-H»-t\OfO'~<VO

ON CD 0\ '^ "^ . \0 o vo *o *o

^0*O0Nl>.^ -OO^OOOCOfO

0\ \D t>. \0 !>.
CM •-»

ON t-^ VO f^ lO
\0 t^ 0\ t>* "O

ONt^ r>^ ^ r^

CM Os'^

t~^ 1-* iTi in \o

T-< \0 »-t

^r)0^ovoTf

00 O] 00 00 ^

f^ coin in 00

CMVOTO

,:j- r-i i-H VO »-i a\ • 1-H ^O O ■-• "-H • «-i CM •-< ^^ VD

in ■^ CM po
in CM r-^ 1-H
1—t »-i ro

I-H Tf in fo

OCM

• r^ '-H c^] T-H

ror^ rom fOOO
-^ OS CQiO O 00

Cvj Tt in cvi c^i c>!

rim ^ CO

ro rN. MD lO ro 00

-^ C3\ SOU^ O 00

CM Tj^ r-H CM CM r>I

1-H 1-1 T^- CO

• i-H I-H CM — I ^ rH

. ^

• 1)

• o

: ^ >.

Wi ba bo

.S.S.S c

(U <U <L)

CA (/I (A U) U) t/]

&Ey

T3 b« >;■ c >,.c
bo be b/3 o bo+j

.S.S.S 5.H ""

N N N ^ N

o oj u X; ij

Vh,

O • >^

2 :t

5^.S

. bo i- .
S.S^ 5f

'~;^ bo'^a
-T.S-

^ (/] OJ w

'55 (u —

i w

Jr,'-' fc"

o. c a-r: c^- ^- ^- -" t-'- "
o o o:^
w u ;« -M

c c c p

r- r- (-1 W>

c c S

3 u ;- V-

, C C C o

; o o o P

U, 1- u, g

c c c 2
E E S

5 p
" ^ i_

.s g-s

i" .
J£ °

bo-::
■|bB

:^.S

bo bo OJ

.S.S "^

'o'o ^
o o o-
o o g

O \o

HI— *t— ( HHHHt— I t— ( S

t- *"■ O 00 o

C . en o

o o>n

u ; bo
^G . C
rt ° bo'c
t3 bo C 1)

cJ.S C-
o-

^?^ So

*" c o i/"j

2 E s c-9

" ^ O.i-

fe i^ o Or

., o "^ ■"

d 8 Jf-STJ

c as ,=5 .i: ^

•bo . E E

"-> C-i, c^

•^ ca '--c o o

S w. o 3

O ■ - 1- T3 O

^0 0^
Tt-'od

t^OO
00 t^

CMO

CM m

r-l'od

':-Ji-m-~-^

«-" tfl

00 On C> o •-H O CM *^ -^ in SO m t>^

m 5S

VO o

CM -H

O —I
CO

f-H

— Oj «4-l

T3
S

o
B

18 N. H. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 291

who had milked too soon after freshening and had experienced trouble with
the hired help. In 1931. five of them lost $707.12 ; in 1932, six lost $399.29 ;
and in 1933, six lost $273.81. The same was true of those producers who in
addition to not sterilizing, had dirty milking machines, porous rubber and
used wooden plugs in old-fashioned eight-quart cans when cooling the milk.
Their losses dropped from $225.76 in 1931 to $156.98 in 1932, and to
$137.75 in 1933. However, one man in the group managed to lose about the
same amount each year. His losses were $85.79 in 1931, $100.43 in 1932,
and $92.88 in 1933. His principal sin was poor sterilizing and old rubber
on the milking machine.

The two producers who had trouble in sterihzing equipment and who
persisted in not stripping the udders clean after using the milking machine
lost $233.06 in 1931, $267.01 in 1932, and $499.28 in 1933. One reason for
their high losses was the large volume of milk shipped.

Totalling the last premium in each year for all factors given in Table 6
shows that $2,541.22 was lost in 1931, $1,926.31 in 1932, and $1,876.93 in
1933. On a percentage basis, the premiums lost in 1931 were 12.1 per cent of
the grand total; 9.1 per cent in 1932, and 12.0 per cent in 1933. Without
doubt if the study had been continued through the years 1934 and 1935, it
would show a smaller percentage of lost premiums during these years, be-
cause recent reports show this station had advanced farther in the quality
program.

Differences between Grade A and B producers: In order to determine
the fundamental differences between the A and B milk producers it was
necessary to compare them in a detailed way regarding the stable, the milk-
house, the type of equipment, general condition and method of caring for
the equipment, handling the milk and the labor and current costs involved.
Although many B producers had identically the same equipment and were
caring for the milk in about the same way as the A producers, this analysis
brought to light a number of practices in which they differed. These gen-
eral differences indicate what the B producers would have to do in order to
equal the Grade A standard if they were to produce milk averaging under
10,000.

Some of the B producers in both the Pattee and Monroe areas were
in the Grade A class. They appreciated the fact that they were handling a
highly perishable food product and they performed conscientiously each
operation which would insure its quality. In the Pattee area many of the
Grade B producers were anxious to be taken on as Grade A, if the opportun-
ity developed. A few of the B producers in the Monroe area had shipped
Grade A milk in the past. Several of them stated that they were following
the same procedure in producing B milk that they had used in producing
the Grade A milk. However, the comparison of the two groups of B pro-
ducers on the volume of milk shipped showed that those in Monroe shipped
much larger quantities daily than those at Pattee. For this reason they had
more to do with, and theiV stables and milkhouses were generally better
equipped than those of the B producers at Pattee. During the year 1933,
the 79 Grade A producers had 1189 cows, the 17 Grade B producers at
Pattee had 243, and the 24 Grade B producers in Monroe had 507.

Stable: In many instances the cows were kept in the stable over night
during the summer because there was not a night pasture close to the barn.
This practice required more labor in keeping the cows and stable clean.

March, 1936] Maintenance of Grade A Milk 19

There was no marked difference between the A and B producers in the num-
ber of times the stable was cleaned during the summer months. During the
winter months the Grade A producers cleaned the stable on an average of
three times daily, compared with two times daily for the B producers at
Pattee and three times for the B producers in Monroe. On a per cow basis
the time spent in cleaning the stable daily by the Grade A producers aver-
aged a little higher during the winter and summer months than either of the
Grade B groups. The amount of sawdust used for bedding per cow in a
month's time by the Grade A producers was almost identical with the B pro-
ducers at Pattee, but about 40 per cent greater than the B producers in
Monroe. (See Table 7.)

Milkhouse: Practically no important differences were noted between
the A and B producers so far as the milkhouse was concerned. Nearly all
had good drainage. The B producers were more careless in preventing dust
accumulations in and around the milkhouse and in screening out the flies
than were the A producers. More B producers in Monroe washed and
cleaned the floors daily than did either the A or B producers at Pattee. One
reason for this was that 87 per cent of them had running water available
in the milkhouse compared with 49 per cent of the Grade A producers.

The Grade A dairymen who were cooling the milk with ice entirely used
it an average of 191 days compared with 175 days for the Grade B dairy-
men at Pattee and with 136 days for those in Monroe. One B producer in
Monroe used up his entire ice supply in two months' time. This man claimed
he spent about three hours daily during the winter months in grooming the
cows. He might better have used most of this time in cutting and putting up
ice so as to have a sufficient supply for the entire summer season. When
the three groups are compared as to the pounds of ice used per cwt. of
milk, there is no apparent difference ; but the longer period of using ice by
the Grade A dairymen over the B dairymen in Monroe represents an addi-
tional cost in caring for Grade A over Grade B milk. On this basis the 66
Grade A dairymen would use over 364 tons of ice more than the B dairymen
in Monroe in cooling the same amount of milk per season. If this extra
amount of ice is figured at $6.50 per ton (the price at which ice was sold and
delivered) , the cost would be $2,366 or 9.3 cents per cwt. for all milk cooled
in the summer season. (See Table 7.)

Current Expense: All Grade A dairymen are supposed to use a small
top pail when milking by hand. Of the group considered in this analysis,
only 8 or 10 per cent of them did not have a small top pail as part of their
equipment; 47 per cent of the B producers at Pattee and 70 per cent of the
B producers at Monroe did not use small top pails.

When the replacements of rubber for milking machines were compared,
the Grade A producers were found to have about twice as much expense
for rubber inflations, as they changed them on an average of every 3.7
months compared with over seven months for the B producers. The short
and long rubbers on the machines of the Grade A producers were changed
about every eight months, or approximately two to four times as often as
those of the B producers. Inflations usually cost 75 cents each, and a set
of short and long rubbers about $2.50. On this basis the approximate cost
of rubber for a single unit machine of a Grade A producer would be $13.35
yearly, $6.05 for the B producer at Pattee, and $6.52 for the B producer
in Monroe. (See Table 7.)

N. H. Agr. Experiment Station

[Bulletin 291

"a
-a

V
■*-»

-M
CJ

s >- a

a u 3

. O.T3

o o

Zt3

g <u

1- 3

<U-t3

0. o

a, ^

O ■*{>>

vO'^t^t^rOCOCVKN

t^oi^o

t^ i~>> t^ t^ vo

5 c

^01

1^ C <U

,, ^ (U o;

8 8i5iS

(n en

^ ^ rt rt

^ 3 <u OJ
'rt "^ «— • 1—1

rt rt *-i (-1

C/2 t/3 .^ ^*-'

I- =^

M-i d;

u
<u

3
i-,

bfi

u-^^

O en t«

C G

cfi

G S"0 O

_^_^ S S-a S E S

C/i C/5 . . • . . .

G3000000

^^GGGGGG

>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<

March, 1936] Maintenance of Grade A Milk 21

Caring for the cows and milking practices: Nearly all of the items
shown in Table 8 do not involve any great amount of expense or time ; but
they are considered important by the Grade A producers in maintaining a
high standard of quality. The clipping of the long hair on flanks and udders
enables them to keep the cow clean more easily and to prevent sediment
from falling into the milk pail. On a percentage basis about twice as many
Grade A producers as the B producers in Monroe were following this prac-
tice. They make it almost a unanimous practice to wipe the udders clean
before milking, and 7Z per cent of them used a damp cloth for this purpose.
Only 16.7 per cent of the B producers in Monroe wiped the cows' udders
clean before milking, and the greater portion of these used a dry cloth. How-
ever, they stated the cows were washed when necessary. It requires from
10 to 15 seconds on the average to wipe the udder clean.

The first streams are discarded by 88.6 per cent of the Grade A pro-
ducers, by 70 per cent of the B producers at Pattee, and only by 29.2 per
cent of the B producers at Monroe. Eighteen of the A producers test the
first streams of each cow with a strip cup and examine it carefully for flecks
of garget. This is not done by any of the B producers in either group. The
cost of a strip cup is about $1.25.

The importance of cooling the milk as soon as possible is realized by
the Grade A men ; for over 78 per cent of them strain it after each cow and
26.6 per cent of them place the can in the ice water before straining the milk
into the can. Over one-third of the B producers in Monroe placed the can
handy in the stable or in a room near the stable during milking time, and
only 8.3 per cent of them placed the can in the ice water.

The jarring of the strainer is perhaps the one worst habit of B producers
Even seven of the A producers persisted in jarring the strainer on the milk
can so as to hurry the passage of the milk through the strainer and pad. One
dairyman said he had given up trying to prevent this bad habit, but he had
remedied the danger of breaking the pad and of getting sediment in the
milk can by using two thicknesses of pads on the strainer at one time. Some
of the quantity milk producers have added an extra strainer to their equip-
ment to save time.

Washing and sterilizing: The Grade A producers outclassed the B pro-
ducers in Monroe on nearly all counts in washing and sterilizing the equip-
ment. (See Table 9.) The B producers in Monroe washed and sterilized
the equipment after the morning milking, but over half of them neglected
to sterilize the equipment after the night milking. The group of B produc-
ers at Pattee were following more nearly the common practices of the Grade
A producers.

There was very little difference between the Grade A producers and the
Grade B producers in Monroe in respect to using an alkali washing powder.
About half of them used it regularly in the washing water. On the other
hand, over 88 per cent of the B producers at Pattee were using soap or soap
flakes when washing the equipment. The use of soap tends to increase milk
stone deposits on the surface of the equipment, whereas an alkali powder
will destroy it. Therefore, those using soap scoured the equipment more
frequently. It was impossible to obtain accurate information as to the
cost of powder or soap used yearly because it was part of the regular house-
hold supplies. Those producing Grade A milk scoured the equipment on an
average of everv 11 days, whereas the B producers at Pattee found it neces-

N. H. Agr. Experiment Station

[Bulletin 291

w
►J
n
<

<-5

• »*

■S

o
s

t-!

tSj
to
S

^
li)

13
O

■a
o aJ

•a

fL,

3
13
O

13
u
O

fL,

E
o
U

O 00 t^ iM_ trj rvi fvi CNj

CVl CNJ ^ r-H CM

toi-O'^'— iro-— I"— <t^

• r^ r^roooioLooo

■to

to 00 to CM CM lO
O CN] ^H r-l -rt"

to CM lO ro ro •— I

o p cv] r>. U-) -^ 00 to

rv!rOo6TfrO(3\'-<tO
Tj-LOCO^CMCM'— 11^

OOOMO^HT^iOCMCM

•to
ltd

•CM

CM lO CT\ 0\ 0\ lO
CO ro in u-i i/S ro
00 <M CM

ITi T^ 1 — I T— t ^-H Tj"

\o\qcM■■^oq■^c^tooq"^

u^o^d^OCM■<:}^c^ico'CMod
TrmONt^CMu^^OOOCMt^

totOtOOOOOfOOiOOOCM

ro-^r^m>— iTfCMi^'— ito

irj o CO CO --; ON

t~>.' to ^ ^ "S oc5

CsCM

t^ ^ .— I ,-c^ t-^

r^cM

c c

o o

E E

c c c

^ Id

a, " c

Oj U fTj

rt a! ^

a; oj
13 i-

ii .-M 4-> -4-1

C
O

Oi3
-0 13 g.

^ ^^

OJ <U u,

a- a, t)

-a 13
(J t«

bo 1^

uT3 2

nj nsi3

a-'.

t-t-H

o-.S

fe te rt
^ ^ &
u u,

T3 13k?^.- «; —

13 c-

OJ (U 03 ^

U (/) -tJ (LI

'- -^ ^ -" O t« u

013

u C
O

-b rt?9 9

13^

^ o ;i o 3 i;

'-O

March, 1936] Maintenance of Grade A Milk 23

sary to scour on an average of every six days, principally because over 88
per cent of them were using soap in the washing water.

In sterilizing the equipment the Grade A dairymen, with few exceptions,
used boiling water before each milking period. The exceptions were one
who used steam regularly and two who used a chemical solution. Of the
Grade B producers in Monroe, 10 sterilized with boiling water after the
night milking, 23 after the morning milking, and one used a chemical solu-
tion once a day.

Only two Grade B producers used boiling water in a container with a
tight cover on the stove when sterilizing the equipment. The others used
a dishpan or the pails in the sink and poured the boiling water over the
equipment. Over 27 per cent of the Grade A producers boiled the equip-
ment in a container on the stove.* The others followed the practice of pour-
ing the boiling water over the equipment in the sink.

The amount of boihng water used in sterilizing was almost identical
for the Grade A producers morning and evening. It was slightly less for
the B producers at Pattee in the evening; but about one-third as much
boiling water was used in sterilizing at night by the Grade B producers in
Monroe. (See Table 10.)

There was very little difference in the amount of boihng water used per
piece of equipment by any producer in the three groups.

A decided difference was found between the average time that a pail or
strainer was kept in the boiling water. The pails and strainers of the Grade
A producers were kept in the boiling water an average of 2.4 minutes at
night and 2.5 minutes in the morning; those of the Grade B producers at
Pattee 1.5 minutes night and morning, and those of the Grade B producers
at Monroe were given a "ducking" lasting from 6 to 12 seconds. The milk-
ing machine pails and rubber fared a trifle better.

The total time utilized by the producers in all three groups in washing
and sterilizing the equipment night and morning was in about the same pro-
portion as the amount of water used ; that is, the Grade A and B producers
at Pattee used the same amount of time morning and evening because they
were doing almost identically the same job. The B producers at Monroe
got through the job in one-fourth the time at night as in the morning.

It is impossible to place an accurate figure on the value of the time used
by the Grade A men, and not used by the Grade B men. One thing is cer-
tain: none of the Grade A men would recommend using less boiling water
or doing the job in less time. A loss in premiums would follow immediately.

In analyzing the essential differences between Grade A and Grade B
dairymen, we find certain practices which are followed regularly, morning
and evening, in the care of Grade A milk which are not followed regularly
in the care of Grade B milk. There are extra costs for ice and also for
equipment, but when these costs are compared with the total premiums
paid they are of little importance. Extra time is the principal factor of cost
in caring for Grade A milk ; more time is used in washing and sterilizing the
equipment and in washing the udders. As a class the Grade A dairymen
have developed a higher standard of technique. They give everlasting
attention to the details which are necessary if they are to receive first pre-
miums.

* At the date of this writing, January 7, 1936, the per cent of Grade A dairymen at Pattee using
containers with tight fitting covers and boiling water on the stove when sterilizing the equipment had
increased to about 78.

N. H. Agr. Experiment Station

[Bulletin 291

-0

*->

r-i.

•^

PL|

•^

-o

-s;

■*-»

-IT*

■♦->

^^-^

•S

■0

-«

'*.

■S

-S

■>?

w V

J ^

« ^

< s

H-?

■<».

-Q

"to

"■

■+^

-0

>
■J

•^

>te)

•»^

10 ro 00 00 -^ t~v. 00
t->; ro i-O uS 00 >-< 10
fO 00 Tf -rl- -rj- 0\

o\ o '—''-' 0^1 o fo ■•—I

CS) ,— ( ^^ r-i CM •

•CM •

• ro CO CM r^

i'^ ;

; 00 0 o\ 0

CM CM 0

00^^

• CV) ^

■ OS

CD 0 t^ CN]

0 0 >— 1 00

:o6^

.ooo\

.•J^

t^ t^ ro •^ ■ i-O \0 ••—I

■ CM lOl^ VO

• o\ r^ 00 >J^ IT)

■ u-i Tt CO fO CO

; 010 CM cvi

I .— I o "^ Tl-

rooO"— <r^CMCMu-)I>.rv.'— <'^0\0\0t^

r-^Tj^c3do'-o\dj^t^r>IO'-<c4cNico\d

OOOOTtO^^ONON^^'— i'-*'-<<^<^<^fO

o\r^oo<7sCM\ot^'^"*ooo\~oooo

"OVOCOCM'— H^r^i— i»-H CMCM^OCM

C^ < (1h' < Ph" < Oh' < P-I <

g3
O

>
o

>
O

c-5

& -i->

^ o-S S bo

O
en t«

? ? ,..S

-a
c

S T) h

^ en

O C

1-.

C
O
O

4J
>

G
O
u

C
o

ScS

U-- -G

C G

^ Oh S
O O -t->

cfl

qj
-a

- OJ "

^ en G
a G;:3

a o< 55 y J3

OJ <U _ O)
en en O e/1

<u
c>!

be
.C

<U
en

G -S

.-•. en

C G

rS --^

-a

c«

.■§.
5-

.•a

e-v

e^
e^
eo

P en

fe >-

. o

O 3

2; -3

d a

o
P c

2«

^■5

ta
c

S
o
U

CM Tf t-H CM CM 10

Tf i-O vo SO

SO 00

O ^

ocoTj-t^Tj-r^sosooco

>— I CM "—I '— ' »— 1 Cs)

10 0\ >— t '— 1 10 10

< OMOso .— I

< CO

1 — I 1 — I T-H O t-H
f IT)

CM CM

u^soCMrOCMfO^fOiOso

sq r^ -rf 10 CO CM

CMTM<t<CMCMsdiOu-)S0

'— I >— I O OS

sOt^msomsO'— I"— isot^

f^t^sosososoi-<,—(rxt^

p; <■ Oh' < 0^' < Oh' <■ fLJ <■

G l-

en
li

<u
u

-a
o

-a

(t3

bfl

•'~',

CI,

•a
c

bfl

j-i

-4-»

-4-*

G G ^
<u <u .1=:

<L»
>

oep/

~.4W,385 306

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Books

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Bulletin"

See other formats