Herald and news. [volume] (West Randolph, Vt.) 1878-1943, 1889-02-21
THE HANOVER TESTS.
THE CHEMICAL ANALYSIS THE BEsl
CREAM RAISER AND SEPARATOR.

! ( NIX
Wehave noticed in most of the accounts
given in the papers of the so. called tesi
made at the New Hampshire Experiment
Station nc the time of the Farmers In
stitute at Hanover Jan 8, 0, and 10, 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 therein. the StOddard having IL II
per cent, the Centrifugal Separator 30 4
per cent. the shallow pans 1913 per cent.
and the johnson 81 ~ per cent more fat
left in the skinned milk than the Cooley.
Every experienced person knows that
the analysis of the skinned milk IL the
crucial test of a cream raiser or separa-
tor. Theapparatus that gets the most
fat out Of the milk must necessarily
make the most butter, provided II Is han
died with equal skill with the others.
The question has been asked why the
Cooley Creamer was not represented by
the manufacturers of this so-called test.
We reply because we were debarred by
the printed rules issued by Prof. Witch
err, the director Of this station. The rules
prohibited it. Again, these printed rules
were so framed as to put the Cooley at
disadvantage. and, as we believe, were
made for the purpose Of defeating the
Cooley, because at the meeting the year
previous, when Prof. Whitcher attempt
ed 10 force through similar test but
failed, we gave our reasons at that meet
ing why tests under his rules handicap
ped the Cooley and supported our rea-
sons by the best authorities in this coun-
try and Europe and offered to have tests
any time, using each apparatus as it is
used in every day practice. Thereupon
an agreement was made and announced
TO the meeting that the tests would be
made at Mr.. l.. 4. Hazen's creamery
among his patrons, beginning when the
patrons began TO bring in the milk. We
notified Mr.. Hazen and the officers of the
association at four different times in writ
ing that we were ready TO carry out our
agreement. Excuse after excuse was
made and we were unable 10 get the tests
as agreed. The reason Is plain; the
friends Of other apparatus did not pro-
pose to have 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
aud kept out OF the contest, as we knew
the Cooley could not do its best under
such rules. The Prof had Cooley
Creamer. but did not use 1t. He took out
four OF the cans and had them set in a
box with the johnson cans. which John
son cans came out OF the test the poor
est of all. While Prof. Whitcher would
or oil -. IS h. ii
allow the expert of the Stoddard Cream
cry TO operate that apparatus, allowed
him to Ice bis creamery two hours before
the milk was divided or before the Cool
ey was iced. and allowed the Stoddard
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. Ii
was stirred with a stick about an inch il
diameter around and around but not from
the bottom. At the second setting the
Separator was allowed to take the top off
the milk ana was run by the professor
and his expert assistant. Every expert
enced person knows that the top Is rich
er in cream than beloA, and stirring a
round and around will not overcome It.
There is abundance Of authority on this
point. Did any one ever know fair
test to be made in this wayY Each APP
paratus should have been allowed to take
out q small measure full at a time, alter
mating with all in the test until the full
amount of milk was divided and eyened
up on the scales.
His method was unscientific aud I'M
fair, but bear in mind that. notwithstand-
ing the Professors arbitrary rules and
unfair methods, the Cooley did raise and
separate the cream the most thoroughly
aud would have been still further ahead |
il il had been run according to its pub |
lished rules
The question arises why then did not |
the Cooley make the most butter at the |
so called testY The answer is, because
the cream was not properly handled. 1t 1
was not rip med and went offln the but
termilk, as the analysis OF the butter
milk plainly shows, there being 3.29 per
cent of fat left therein This analysis has l
also thus far been omitted from the pub
LEGATIONS.
The analysis of the whole milk before
setting showed only 1896 per cent of fat
so it will be seen that the buttermillS
from the Cooley had almost as large a
of fat as the whole milk and
proves that the cream was not properly
handled and that large part of the but
ter 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 unscientific handling of
the cream did not get what butter there
was in the cream. Had he handled it
the Cooley Creamer must have
have made the most butter
because it got the cream out of the milk
the most thoroughly. There can be no
doubt on this point
We do not claim the Cooley Creamer is
a churn or a butter worker We claim it /
is the most thorough cream raiser or sep
arator, and not only this test but all pub ;
lie tests sustain our claims. ,
The chairman of the committee at the Z
time he gave his report stated to the !
meeting that the cream was not ripe and Z
not fit for the best results, and also stat +
I'd in conversation after the meeting adj
burned, that he told Prof. Whifcher
when making the tests that the cream |
would not yield its full amount of butter /
n the unripe state. i