Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1918-02-06

the dairy business really was. Many
farmers we're very much surprised at
the showing, not having taken all the
items involved into the cost of milk.
In this case all labor was accounted
for, even if performed by the hired
man, the owner, the son or even the
wife of the owner. Horse labor. tax
es. interest on Investments deprecia-
ton of stock and equipment, pasture
costs. building costs and miscellaneous
costs, were all taken into considera-
ton.
The period covered by this survey
was one year, and was completed be-
fore prices reached their maximum.
Thirteen counties were included in
this survey and from seven to 43
herds taken in each county, according
to the importance Of the dairy busi-
ness in that county. The report was
made from records from 1858 COWS on
230 farms, the average number Of
cows, in each herd being II. This
survey represents conditions on the
larger farms, as II cows is consider
ably above the average on all the
farms of Maine. This survey also
shows the average production to have
been 5,244 pounds of milk; and it cost
to produce this milk .05S cents. while
the average price received was .0466
cents, or a loss of Ola cents on every
quart. or an average loss Of $27.96 per
cow These figures should be carefully
considered by not only the producer.
but by the dealer and consumer.
Variations Of the 6abcoek Test
During the spring and summer,
there developed among the dairymen
of the Sta-e a great deal of disSatiS-
faction over the butter fat test on milk
and cream. as returned BY the various
creameries in the State. So many
complaints came to this Office that we
decided, if possible. to determine how
far these Complaints were justified
| ON July /. Brooks Brown, State
Dairy Inspector. took on 10 patrons of
one of our large creamery companies.
going either to their farm or place of
shipment each day their milk was
shipped and carefully poured several
times each can Of milk or cream and
, then took a sample with a small dip
per. Pre- sarvatiyes were used in each
bottle and 4 complete sample thus OBJ
tanned was sent t. the Maine Expert
ment Station for analysis for butter
fat. This vas done for the full la-r,ay
period. This shows 4 wide variation
between the creamery test and the
Experiment station test-so mach so
that it caused wide spread comment
At that time it was Impossible for M
Brown TO leave his regular inspection
wOrl; and continue taking these sam
pies, for it required ones whole time
Cor the entire half-m NTH period.
| "On October /. ] secured the services
of a competent man who was recon-
mended by the University If Maine
He worked month and a half. taking
three sections among patrons Of three
different creamery companies. These
later samples show much less raria
ton thHD those taken last July. and
in many instances. do not show a
greater variation than we would
naturally expect \ few samples
however. still show Il considerable
difference between the creamery and
the Experiment station test We be
lieve chr work along this line has been
Of great benefit. since it has furnished
q comparison that could not be cues
toned We believe the creamery men
Is. LIT in the rush Of receiving at the
stations, cal olesSrcss is often reported
and believe il viii be a good idea i'll
, the future for this department to con
tinu" this work ocCa ;ionally.'