The Owosso times. (Owosso, Mich.) 1897-1926, 1902-05-30
A Discussion of the Hand Separator
as Applied to the Creamery sys.

tenn In Pennsyksaria. ~.
The handsepsTator is. discussed ina
recent issue of Hoard's Dairynl6n'in re-
spouse to an inquiry as foliowssssx~'S
will you kindly inform me through
your columns concerning the following?
In my neighborhood there are 200
cows or more, and good ones too. Their
owners are firmly in favor of separating
their milk at home, which, by reading,
we are led to believe is the best way
Now, and at this time we want to put
in practice that which we have been
reading. The creameries in this part. of
pennsylvania are opposed to hand sepa-
| rators. They want us to take whole
milk to the creamery and buy back the
skim milk and haul it home again. The
| question is, can we run a creamery on
the hand separator plan, and make first
| class butter and receive for same bet
ter prices than where the old plan is
| followed? Can you refer us to any
creamery run on the farm separator
plan?-H. s., Bucks Co., Pa"
To the foregoing we answer as fol-
lows
1t is not true that any finer butter can
be made at the creamery from farm
separated cream, and better prices
obtained than from the whole milk
when the separating is done at the
the creamery Indeed, the chances in
that line are slightly in favor of the
product where the separating is done at
the creamery.
But that is not the real gist of the
matter. The movement in favor of the
farm separator, the keeping of the skim
milk at home and feeding it fresh and
warm to the calves and pigs twice a
day, and taxing the cream instead of
the whole milk to the creamery, is based
on the following economic considera-
tions:
1. The value of the skim milk in the
returns it makes to the patron is just
about double when the separating is
uOne Oh the IdrLn.
2. The cost of transportation to the
creamery is reduced just in proportion
as the cream weighs less than the whole
milk
The creamery system which prevails
in that part of Pennsylvania where our
inquirer lives, is evidently different
from that which governs, in the main,
in the west. Here the patron delivers
the milk, receives Babcock test of its
butterfat content, and takes back, each
day, his pro rata share of the skim milk,
twenty-four to thirt y-six hours old. and
thus rendered less valuable food to
young animals. He owns the butter
and pays stated price for making,
packing and selling it.
The fact remains, and is undisputable,
that the skim milk is, or may be made,
very important part of the yearly
earnings of the cow. If the farmers
part with it he robs the farms of a fer
tilizer, to the value of &c per 100 pounds
oiA' hC 10 plCNChVCu lIOIu otiCCtSSl VI Idlo-
ing of young stock.
1t is just in this business of raising
calves and pigs. securing the profit there
is in their growth, turning much of the
coarser product of the farm over into
cash, that marks the difference between
the western and such of the eastern
creamery systems.
The western system builds up the
farm and the farmer; the eastern sys-
tenn here alluded to, where it has been
followed for any length of time, has i'm
poverished both farm and farmer.
Some of the largest creamery systems
in the west are changing over to the
farm separator plan simply because the
patrons are determined that the system
shall conduce to their best profit all
around
There is no reason, if sound rules are
adhered to, why farm cream gathered
every day should not make fine butter.
The patron must be taught how to
cool and care for the cream until it is
delivered. The greater profit of the
patron is going to be more largely con-
sidered in this creamery business here
after.
TTsa Mrs Austip's Ouick Tuncb