News and citizen. [volume] (Morrisville, Vt. ;) 1881-current, 1889-02-28

hours before the milk was divided or before
the Cooley was iced, and allowed the Stod-
dard to take all of his portion of the milk for
the first setting from the top of the large
can in which the milk was stored. 1t was
stirred with stick about an inch in diameter
round and round, but not from the bottom,
At the second setting the Separator was al
lowed to take the top of the milk and was run
by the Professor and his expert assistant.
Every experienced person knows that the top
is richer in cream than below, and stirring
round and round will not overcome it. There
is abundance of authority on this point. Did
any one ever know fair test to be made in
| this way? Each apparatus should have been
allowed to take out a small measure full at a
time, alternating with all in the test until the
| full amount of milk was divided and eyened
up on the scales.
] His method was unscentific and unfair, but
bear in mind that, notwithstanding the Pro-
fessor's arbitrary rules and unfair methods,
the Cooley did raise and separate the cream
the most thoroughly, and would have been
still further ahead if it had been run according
to it's published rules.
The question arises why then did not the
Cooley make the most butter at the so-called
test? The answer is because the cream was
not properly handled. 1t was not ripened,
and went off in the butter-milk, as the analy-
sis of the butter-milk plainly shows, there be-
ing 3 30 per cent of fatlett therein. This an
aIysis has also thus far been omitted from the
publications.
The analysis of the whole milk before set
ting showed only 500 per cent. of fat, so it
will be seen that the butter-mllk from the
Cooley had almost as large a proportion of
fat as the whole milk and proves that the
cream was not properly handled and that q
large part of the butter went off in the butter
milk, which was no fault of the Cooley Cream
err The Cooley got the cream out of the milk
l,,+4 Ia RS fia hon limo of
the cream did not get what butter there was
in the cream. Had he handled it properly
the Cooley Dreamer must necessarily have
made the most butter, because it got the
cream out of the milk the most thoroughly
There can be no doubt of this point
We do not claim the Cooley Dreamer is a
churn or a butter worker. We claim it is the
most thorough cream raiser, or separator
and not only this test, but all public tests sus-
tain our claims.
The chairman of the committee at the time
he gave his report stated to the meeting that
the cream was not ripe and not itfor the best
results, and also stated in conversation after
the meeting adjourned, that he told Professor
Whitcher when making the tests that the
cream would not yield its full amount of but
ter in the unripe state.
1t must be borne in mind that the committee
we're not allowed to use their Judgment but
were compelled to work under the Professors
rules.
One OF the strongest points in favor of the
Cooley process is that it keeps the cream in an
absolutely unripe and perfect condition; by
submerging the atmospheric effect, which pre-
vents a full yield of cream is entirely over
come. Being water sealed no chemical change
can take place in the milk to destroy the con-
ditions necessary to perfect work, and there
fore the cream requires more time for ripening
and will not yield the full amount of butter
unless it has sufficient time to ripen. 1t is i'm
possible to ripen the Cooley cream IN the time
allowed under the printed rules of Professor
Whitcher for the tests without a starter"
In all ''non-submerged" apparatus the
cream is undergoing the process of ripening
while the cream is rising. The cream on open
pans is practically ripe when ready to skim,
and can be churned at once and yield the null
amount of butter This is proved by the
tests we are discussing The pans made more
butter than cold deep setting, and yet the an
alysis of its SKINNED milk showed that there
was more cream or fat left in it than by the
others. The Separator whips and threshes the
cream in the operation of separating it from
the milk and partially churns it 1t will
ripen faster and consequently its cream will
yield its full amount ofbutter in a short test
while cream that ripens slower will not and is
therefore not fit for churning because it has
not had time to ripen. The efficiency OF a
cream raiser orseparator, as before remarked,
is shown by the thoroughness with which it
removes the cream from the milk. This test
is the analysis of the skinned milk. The
Cooley shows the best in the tests we are dis
cussing, as it has in all public tests ever held.
The analysis of the butter from the Cooley
showed S1.25 per cent. pure fat, and that
from the Separator 1914 per cent, the Cool
ey, being nearly 2 per cent. better than the
Separator. The analysis also showed that
the Cooley butter had the least curd of any,
proving that it makes the pqrest butter
Let us examine and see why Prof. Whitcher
is so bitterly opposed to the Cooley process.
In 1887, when the Hanover Creamery was
majority of the would be pat
rons were in favor of the Cooley Cream Gath
ering System, but Prof. Whitcher led the OPP
position in favor of the Separator, and with
the aid of the village stockholders, who were
not patrons, had majority and the Separa-
tor was adopted. 1t ran for about a year
with Prof Whitcher as Superintendent with
Indifferent success; more or less of the pat |
rons became dissatisfied, complaint being
made that good herds had to carry the poor, |
etc, as all were paid the same for milk.
Then tests were made; these were not salts
factory and caused trouble; then portion
got weary of carrying the milk and demand
aud ssat then The faatrons-in anothsr-sii
rection got weary of carrying the milk so'far
and claimed they should have a branch if the
Others were allowed one, and became dissatis-
fed and withdrew and started a factory
among themselves.
In the meantime others of the patrons and
would-be patrons including the President of
Creamers, and found that they made more
butter with the Cooley than when patronizing
the Separator
These things combined have made the Pro |
lessor and eX-superintendent of the creamery
desperate; something must be done to sustain
his position, and so the before mentioned
tests have been resorted to, that no expert
enced or fairly disposed person would for
attempt
The conclusion must inevitably be that
Prof. Whitcher is ignorant of the science of
cream raising and separating, and ripenng
and handling of cream, or he is not honest,
and proposed to prove to the dairymen of
his State the superiority of his favorite ma
chine and sustain his position by methods
that have been proved over and over again
to be untrustworthy. He could hardly have
been ignorant of these things as his attention
and the attention of the association was
called to them at the meeting last year, when
his then advertised tests fizzled.
Again let us examine and see how reliable
he is on other questions in the same line In
November, 1887, he appeared in meeting of
farmers at Lebanon, n. II. and told them the
coil Test Churn" which they used at Hanov-
er was practically correct, correct as any
thing except the chemical test.
Issue was taken with him. and it was shown
by the best authorities in the land that it was
very unreliable. On December 81, less than
so days afterwards, he published statement
in the GAZETTE, weekly paper printed in his
own town of Hanover, as follows:
so far as the Oil Test Churn is concerned.
| am convinced that a person can judge of the
quality of milk just well by seeing it run
out of jug as he can by using this Oil Test
Churn. tits totally unreliable in my opinion
He had grown wise in sixty days. Is it not
possible that after more experience in hand
ling milk and ripening cream, and setting
aside prejudice, he may grow wiser in this
line as he did in regard to the Oil Test Churn
and become more competent to teach others,
even in his own opinion. We trust such will
be his experience if he will be honest and can
did with himself.
VERMONT FARM MACHINE Co.
Bellows Falls Vt