SOLIDS IN MILK

Press, Volume LXXXIX, Issue 27091, 14 July 1953, Page 11

SOLIDS IN MILK

DEPARTMENTAL STUDY URGED SAMPLING OFFICER’S REPORT “If a number of producers can maintain a reasonably high standard of solids in their winter production why cannot more do so?” said the milk sampling officer, Mr R. G. Thomson, in a report received by the annual meeting of the Christchurch Metropolitan Milk Board yesterday afternoon.

The record of solids not fat for the period between April, 1952, and June, 1953, showed cleanly the effect of climatic conditions upon milk quality, he said, but there were fortunately quite a number of producers whose production during the colder months did not fall below the 8.50 per cent, standard.

“The intention is that the ‘low solid’ question must be taken up more seriously in the future than it has been in the past,” continued Mr Thomson, “and it is suggested that the Department of Agriculture investigate the difference in the type of feeding, the breed of cow, and farm conditions between the herds that produce ‘high solid’ production and those that produce ‘low solid’ production.”

Importance of Feed In the Journal of Agriculture in June, 1950, the Principal District Inspector, Mr T. A. Coulter, of Palmerston North, had said: “An impressive pedigree is useless without feed. On far too many farms all over the country cows are fed a one-sidjed, unbalanced ration, and pasture means a poor run-out grass paddock which is scarcely more than an exercise ground with little or nothing to graze. Strong, healthy, vigorous animals are essential in maintaining and developing high production and are the product of proper feeding from calfhood ” Mr Thomson said that this year the principals of Massey Agricultural College had offered to supply a quantity of concentrates of a certain type to any producer free of cost to allow an experiment to be conducted to prove that the “low solid” content of Christchurch milk could be improved. This offer, he had been informed, had not so far been accepted by any producer. “Mark you,” said Mr Thomson, “the consumer is paying a higher price a pint for his milk at a time when the quality and food value are lower. “The Health Department has been a strong advocate in directing public attention to the food value of milk. It is respectfully suggested that they should do more than the mere formality of sending a non-compliance notice to a vendor when an analysis proves that he is selling bottled milk lower than the standard required. This is useless and a futile method to obtain an improvement. What is required is an earnest and concentrated effort on the part of the Health Department, Agricultural Department, and the Marketing Department to see what practical means can be instituted to improve the food value of winter milk.”

The record of milk fat tests proved that milk fat content of milk delivered to consumers was, with very few exceptions, very satisfactory. The understandard tests were in the main found to be due to human error through faulty agitation. Of reductase tests, Mr Thomson said that a small number—only four—were below the standard of four hours. The majority of these were traced to in-sufficiently-cooled milk from producers and the rest to the inclusion in the supply of “once a day milk” from cows at production ebb.