Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1916-06-16
USELESS EXPENSES.


making of picric acid.
USELESS EXPENSES.
Effort was made to see what could be
done in the way Of producing good milk in
poor barn by just plain. ordinary, COM
mons sense cleanliness and the steaming
and scalding of the milk utensils such
care as every decent dairyman should be
willing to take.
They used three barns. Barn A was
quite well cared for. but with dust in
the air at the time of the tests c0ndi-
tons were made bad during three of the
tests in his barn by throwing down hay
and by feeding Barn B was poorly cared
for the cows were covered with dust and
not groomed. and some of them had dried
manure clinging to their TANKS. Barn C
was one Of the most poorly constructed
and poorly kept stables to be found-in
the basement of the barn badly lighted
and ventilated; with all the managers and
fittings of the barn of wood dirt floor
pulverized into fine dust the walls back
of the cows spattered with dry manure.
and plenty Of dust and cobwebs. Some
analyses we're made with the barn empty.
some with calves and chickens about the
barn. some with men removing manure
and fodder; and generally every sort of
test to get as much dust into the milk out
of the air as possible.
Now. no decent man would ask to have
milk received in any inspected market IL
condition in which at least two OF these
barns were kept. No self-respecting man
would care to work round such barn
| The experiment station men would not
have done il IL it had not been for the
purpose OF finding out just how many
bacteria are washed out Of the air into the
milk pail under filthy. dusty, dirty condi-
tons.
And how many do you suppose got into
| the milk from the dust and dirt Answer
| None at all say none al all, but | am
afraid some milk authority welded to
prevalent error will reprove me for that
statement | will then adopt the language
OF the New York Experiment Station:
THE conclusions drawn from the COM
pleted work may be briefly stated by say
ing that the number Of bacteria in milk
derived from the dust Of the air of ordi-
nary stables is too small TO be measured
even by the most refined methods OF
counting bacteria in milk.
know one dairy in Maryland in which
milk has been produced over long periods Of
time. having bacterial count Of less than
2000-that is. less than one-fifth OF what
it might carry and still be certified milk
Yet it IS produced in a barn that vii
scarcely pass inspection under the city
score-card system.
The ordinary score card has no relation
whatever to the qualities of the barn ant
OF the dairy management which tend Il
produce a low bacterial count. That Il
the scandalous truth.
d. s. Burch. in his little book. The Whit
Whirlpool. mentions a dairyman In Wis
consin who was prosecuted because Of thu
insanitary condition Of his barn. although
it had been scored seventy-four -mucl
higher than the average. Ivan c. Weld
an expert Of Washington. told Mr.. Burcl
Of dairy owned by a millionaire whicl
in his opinion no inspector would scor
less than ninety on the Government SCOT
card. Following change in manager
the milk from that dairy became so poo
that it could not be used, and had to b
returned"
Thousands Of instances Of this sorI
where splendid milk is produced in poo
barns and rotten milk in hleh-class barn.
might be cited. The whole score-card sys
TEN is a delusion and snare. II focuse
the attention Of the inspectors upon sill,
foolish and useless factors in barn man
sgement. and diverts their attention fror
the essentials. II watches the barn an
forgets the milk. II makes dairy inspec
ton nightmare and scouree to the dairy