Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1890-07-25
Sarm Copies.
RAISING CREAM WITH HOT WATER.
Bulletin OF the Experiment Station, Burling-
toni


tiers in this State has prevented many
farmers, who are accustomed to handle
their milk by deep cold setting systems,
from harvesting a full supply of ice, and
tions of deep setting that shall produce
successful Dreaming with the use of lit
tie or no ice. 1t has long been known
that milk in deep setting at 90 o-600
does not cream thoroughly, and that to
attain good results either lower tenn
perature or a lessened depth of milk
| Shallow settng) must be resorted to ;
the former method calls for large guam
titles of ice, the latter for larger tanks
and better and more expensive milk
rooms than are usually to be found on
our farms. 1t is also known that two
factors which favorably affect the cream
ing of milk are thinning with water and
an increased fall in temperature.
The problem presented by the condi-
tions of the present summer is, how can
milk be set in deep cans at 81 o-60o and
as much cream obtained as by similar
setting at 40 o-45o
1t has been proposed that the two con-
ditions of greater fall in temperature and
increased fluidity of milk be obtained bv
warming the milk and by adding water,
or both be attained in one operation by
the addition to the milk fresh from the
cows of one-third its weight of hot wa
ter (135 J, and it has been claimed that
this method has given as satisfactory
results as setting in ice water.
/ The station has been investigating the
matter during the past month and finds
that in general the claim is correct.
The mixed milk of several sets of cows
was set in Cooley cans, submerged. di-
rectly from the cows at :. another
lot from the same animals set at IS : :,
and third lot. again from the same
cows, with one third its weight of hot
water D35@ added to it, raising its
temperature to l07 >, set at IS :. Each
of these tests was repeated several times
and with different sets of cows. All
skimmings took place at twenty-four
hours; each was sampled and all, about
fifty in number. analyzed for fat.
With one set of cows, that calved last
December, the skim milk from 45o set
ting contained on the average 0.G4 per
cent of fat, from the undiluted setting at
d : LIS per cent, and from the setting
AT 5o : after diluting with hot water.
O.49 per cent of fat, which, after allow
ing for dilution and the consequent
greater amount of skimmik, becomes
O.6o per cent of fat for the same amount
OF sklmmilk as in the other two cases
With another lot of COWS that calyed
this spring, the skimmiks contained on
the average 0.27 per cent fat from 45 :
settings. Obj per cent from undiluted
os : settings. and, after adding hot wa
ter, (and correcting analytical results for
this addition) 0.2O per fat from 5So set
tings. The skimmilk from third lot
of spring COWS contained on the average
0.2O per cent fat from II : settings and
OILS per cent corrected from diluted IS :
settings. The averages of the whole
are a follows:
Milk set at 45@, skimmilk OBJ per
cent fat:
Milk set at Is :, undiluted, skimmilk
O.S4 per cent fat:
Milk set at IS : , diluted with ID bulk
water at 13j :, slimmill OBS per cent
fat.
These tests show decided loss of fat.
l. e.. imperfect Dreaming, when milk is
set directly at IS : that this loss may
be largely overcome by the use of ice or
by diluting the milk with hot water, and
that each of these two methods produc-
ed about the same Dreaming. the prefer
ence of one over the other being govern
ed largely by individual and local condi.
tons.
Two practical questions arise in con-
nection with these results, viz: If a
farmer has running water at about IS >
Is there sufficient gain to be expected
from the use of ice or hot water to pay
for the extra cost and trouble? If so.
which method is generally preferable?
The first query admits of but one
answer. In dairy of twenty cows
producing during June, July and Au,
gust, about 800 lbs. of milk per day.
the skimmilk will weigh about 375 lbs.
If these 800 lbs. of milk were set direct
ly at IS :, the loss in fat will approx.
mate 315 K O.S4 - 3.l5 lbs. fat. If, how
ever, it was set at Is :. or diluted with
hot water and set at IS :, the loss would
be in the vicinity of 375 X 0.36 - | 81
lbs. fat. The saving by use of ice OF
hot water would be 3.l5 - lbs - /. sc
lbs. butter fat, or the equivalent of about
two pounds of butter, which would
r much more than repay labor and fuel OIL
ice.
,, As between the use of cold or hot wa
ter, circumstances should decide. 1t il
probable that the quality of the butter