The united opinion. [volume] (Bradford, Vt.) 1881-1970, 1889-03-08
The Hanover Tests.
THE CHEMICAL ANALYsIS-THE BEST
CREAM RAISER AND SEPARATOR.

MIR. EDrrOR:-We have noticed In most
OF the accounts given In the papers of the
so-called test made at the New Hampshire
Experiment Station at the time of the Farm
ers' Institute at Hanover, Jan. 9Th, 9th and
10th, that only partial accounts have been
given, The analysis of the skinned milk
from the different apparatus has been omit
ted. This analysis shows that the Cooley
did Its work more thoroughly than any of
the other apparatus, having less fat left
therin, the StOddard having II IA per cent,
the Centrifugal Separator 81 IA per cent,
the shallow pans 40 10 per cent, and the
johnson 81 10 per cent. more fat left in the
SKINNED milk than the Cooley.
Every experienced person knows that the
analysis of the skinned milk is the crucial
test OF cream raiser or separator The
apparatus that gets the most fat out of the
milk must necessarily make the most but
ter, provided 1t is handled with equal skill
with the others.
The question has been asked why the
Cooley Creamer was not represented by the
manufacturers at this sO-caled test. We
reply, because we were debarred by the
printed rules issued by Prof. Whitcher,
the Director of this Station. The rules
prohibited it. Again, these printed rules
We're SO framed as to put the Cooley at a
made for the purpose of defeating the
Cooley, because, at the meeting the year
previous, when Prof. Whitcher attempted
to force through similar test but failed
we gave our reasons at the meeting why
tests under his rules handicapped the
Cooley and supported our reasons by the
best authorities in this country and Europe,
and offered to have tests any time, using
each apparatus as 1t is used in every day
practice. ThereupOn an agreement was
made and announced at the meeting that
the tests would be made at Mr.. l.. r.
HaZen'S Creamery among his patrons, be-
ginning when the patrons began to bring
in the milk. We notified Mr. Hazen and
the officers OF the Association four different
times in writing that we were ready to car
ry out our agreement. Excuse after ex-
cuSe was made and we were unable to get
the tests as agreed. The reason is plain;
the friends of other apparatus did not pro-
pose TO nave fair tests with the apparatus
used as in daily practice, but to have tests
under arbitrary rules, handicapping the
Cooley.
Then again this year, Prof. Whitcher
issued printed rules still more arbitrary
than last season. We entered protest and
kept out OF the contest, as we knew the
Cooley could not do it's best under such
rules. The Professor had Cooley Cream
er, but he did not use it. He took out four
Of the cans and had them set in a box with
the johnson cans, which johnson cans
came out OF the test the poorest of all.
While Prof. Whitcher would not allow us
to run the Cooley, he did allow the expert
OF StOddard Creamery to operate that appar-
atus, allowed him to ice his Creamery two
hours before the milk was divided or before
the Cooley was iced, and allowed the StOd-
dard to take al OF his portion Of the milk
Tor the first setting from the top of largn
can in which the milk was stored. 1t was
stirred with aStick about an inch in dame
ter around andarOund but not from the bot
tom. Atthesecond setting the Separator was
allowed to take the top of the milk and was
run by the Professor and his expert assist
ant. Every experienced person knows that
the top is richer in cream than below, and
SURFING around and around will not over
come it. There is abundance of authority
on this point. Did any one ever know fair
test to be made in this way? Each appara-
tus 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 evened up on the
scales
His method was unscientific and unfair.
but bear in mind that, notwithstanding the
Professors arbitrary rules and unfair meth
OdS, 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 called test? The answer
is, because the cream was not properly handled 1t
was not rpened and went off in the butter milk, as the
3ae per cent Of fat left therein This analysis has also
thus far been omitted from the publications.
The analysis Of the whole milk before setting showed
only 800 per cent Of fat SO it will be that the but
ter milk from the Cooley had almost large proper
ton of fat as the whole milk and proves that the
not properly handled and that large part of the
butter went off in the butter milk, which was no fault Of
the Cooley Creamer The Cooley got the cream out Of
the milk but The Professors unscienc handling of the
cream did not get what butter there in the cream
Had he handled properly the Cooley Creamer must
necessarily have made the most butter because got
the cream out of the milk the thoroughly. There
can be no doubt of this point
We do not claim the Cooley Dreamer is churn or a
butter worker We claim is the most thorough cream
riser or separator, and not only this but all public
tests sustain claims.
The Chairman Of the committee at the time he gave
mis- repor: stated to the meeting that the was not
ripe and fit for the best results and also stated in
at er the meeting adjourned that he told
Prof. Whitcher when making the tests that the cream
would not yield its full amount of butter in the unrpe
state.
1t must be borne in mind that the committee were 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 keeps the cream in absolutely
1pe and perfect condition. by submerging the atmos
,herc effect, which prevents full yield of cream is en-
irely overcome Being water sealed chemical
change take place in the milk to destroy the cond
lions necessary to perfect work. and therefore the
equres more time for ripening and will not yield the
ull amount of butter unless has sufficient time 10
ipen.
1t is impossible to rpen the Cooley cream in the time
allowed under the printed rules of Prof Whitcher for
he tests without STARTER"
In all non-submerged apparatus the cream is under
.ong the process Of rlpening while the cream is rising
he cream on open pans practically ripe when ready
C skim, and can be churned and yie the full
amount of butter This proved by the tests we are
discussing The pans made butter than cold deep
citing and yet the analysis of its SKINNED milk showed
hat there was more cream fat left in than by the
thers. The Separator whips and thrashes the cream
the operation Of separating from the milk and par
tally churns it. 1t will rpen faster and consequently
is cream will yield its full amount Of butter in short
est while cream that rpens slower will not and is there
ore not fit for churning because it has not had time to
ipen. The efficiency of a riser or separator,
efore remasted, is shown by the thoroughness with
which it removes the from the milk This test is
he analysis Of the SKINNED milk The Cooley shows
he best in the tests discussing, it has in all
'ublic tests ever held.
The analysis of the butter from the Cooley showed
I25 per cent pure fat and that from the Separator
o44 cent the Cooley being nearly per better
han the Separator The analysis also showed that the
ooley butter had the least curd of any, proving that it
makes the purest butter.
Let us examine and see why Prof Whitcher is so Bit
erly opposed to the Cooley Process.
In 1887 when the Hanover Creamery contemplate
d a maiortv the would he pafrone were in favor If