Oxford Democrat. [volume] (Paris, Me.) 1833-1933, 1917-06-05
The Babcock Test.
THAT OLD, YET EVER NEW QUESTION.
By H. M. Tucker. Assistant. Bureau of Anima

BY II. ID. Tucker, Assistant, Bureau Of Anima
Industry.
No one process In the evolution of tn,
dairy business has done 90 much Il
standsrdize that business % the Babcocl
test. The writer we'll remembers wheI
crsameries bought cream by the inch
or space, because there was no means o
determining the butter content, excep
by churning and weighing the butter
and this was seldom done, because o.
the bother Of keeping the patrons cream
separate. This method put . premium
on dishonesty, and q person that wal
drawing the skim-milk from under bill
cream, twice a day, must have had 9
pretty stiff backbone, not to yield to the
temptation Of leaving little more skim
milk with the cream than was absolutely
necessary; and It soon developed that
the dishonest farmer was the most pros.
porous dairyman. Then the Babcock
tester came like "Star in the East
and was heralded with joy by every
honest milk and cream producer In the
country. And yet, as I have been
brought In contact with the dairy farm.
ers of New England, al an organizer oil
the N. e. NJ. P. A., and have been In
close touch with the dairy interests oil
Maine for many years, am sorry to say
that this same Bsbcock test is the cause
of more dissatisfaction and argument
than any other phase of the business.
Just why this Is 80 and what the best
remedy is, Is q difficult question to solve,
I think, If every dissstisfied daIrymsn
would procure Babcock tester for bin.
self, learn to run 1t (which is not diff.
cult) and make systematic study of the
variations In the test of his cows milk,
from day to day and month to month,
In many cases, he would find ss great q
variation as that shown by bis creamery.
He will find there are many causes fol
the variations and doubtless he will find
cases where the test shows up things
that he cannot account for.
Several years ago I had cow on q
year test and that called for the taking
of sample from four consecutive milk.
ings, each month. This cow was In the
prime of life, in good flesh, never was
sick day, never refused anything in the
shape of food that was placed before her,
was fed carefully compounded ration
of uniform quantity, was fed aud water
ed regularly, was not nervous animal.
She was q free mixer and gave very
uniform quantity of milk, and yet there
was not q month for the whole year
when there was not variation OF at
least 2.5 per cent in the four samples
and, In some instances, the samples
would range from 3.5 per cent to slight
ly over Z per cent. This was, OF course,
an extreme case. A cows test may vary
from year to year, because OF her physi.
cal condition. II she Is fat, and fed SO
as to retain that fat TO considerable ex.
tent during the year, she will test higher
than IL she were thin in flesh. A change
of food or environment may temporarily
change the butter fat of the milk.
know a COW that evidently slipped In her
stall and threw out her stifle, early in the
night; she could not get up and appear.
ed to be 10 considerable pain. In the
morning, when the stifle had been put In
place and she was on her feet, she gave
nearly her usual quantity of milk; but
the sample of that milk, taken and tested
BY q state official, showed over II per
cent butter fat, while her next milking
showed over 10 per cent, making over
four pounds Of butter fat this COW pro-
duced for the day. Her normal test was
practically per cent.
That there Ia considerable variation,
in some cases, In the test OF milk and
cream BY the creameries and milk con.
tractors of New England, from month to
month, Is very evident and am afraid
there Is q growing suspicion on the part
of producers-msny going so far as to
declare that no matter what increase 10
price Is agreed upon-that, 80 long ai
contractors and creameries do their owl
sampliug and testing, the farmer is pow
erless; that the increase in price is Oh
set by decrease in test and, in most
cases, they have the figures that, to
casual observer, at least, would bear out
their contentious. If such is the case,
the facts should most certainly be
brought to the attention OF the N. Z. NJ
P. A. for investigation, a. that associa
ton was organized solely to look after
the interests of New England dairymen'
1 believe, however, that cases OF pre-
meditated dishonesty on the part OF the
creameries in Maine are very few. But
it may be that employees are not always
as careful as they should be In taking
the sample and of taking it every time
a lot comes In. With so much depend
ing on this little sample, 1t is certainly
up to the creamery manager to see that
their men do their work faithfully In
this matter and that they also cooperate
with the N. E. NJ. P. A. to bring about
better understanding with and greater
confidence of the producer. Public
opinion may be either right or wrong
but In either case 1t must be reckoneo
with and, II wrong, 1t should be se'
right. The interests of the dairy busi
ness can best be served by having tht
confidence of those engaged In 1t.
MAINE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE,
JOHN A. ROBERTS, Commissioner.
May 81, 1917.