MACHINE V. HAND-MILKING.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1286, 15 November 1911, Page 10

MACHINE V. HAND-MILKING.

AX AUSTRALIAN-EXPERT'S VIEWS. The late dairy instructor at the Hawkosbury Agricultural College, Now South Wales, Mr. ,7. G. M'Millan, who is now nianager of the Wollougbar Experiment Farm, is reported as having made some interesting remarks on machine v. handmilking at the recent factory managers' Conference in Sydney. While Mr. M'Millun's experience forced him to argue the case almost entirely for the machine, at (he same.time he voiced his opinion that many improvements' could he made before tho machine could bo said to be perfect.

The Cow Factor. It was unfair, ho argued, to condemn mechanical milkers on account of failures by certain dairymen on certain cows. The cow herself was a factor to be considered. Some would not give down their milk properly to tho machine, as often happened with a change of hand-milkers. On tho other hand, ho had found that-cows gavo. down their milk. to the machines as freely as, and even more so than, they did to "the hand-milkers. Jlr. M'Millan. struck the keynote when he said, "To obtain success with the machine, it is necessary for tho operator to use intelligence and to study the individuality of the cow as regards temper and ease of milking.''' Some cows did not come up to their usual yield during the hrtt few days they were placed on the machines; but in.most instance; thoy soon returned to tho normal. In some cases thero was no difference in yield, au<! in many cases tho cows would milk not only mo'ro quickly, but better, by machiuo than by hand once they become accustomed to it. The cows suffered ino pain or inconvenience. Tho shape of tho udder was of but slight, importance. Tho best results were obtained when the teats vero of normal size. With cows with small teats the machine surpassed luiml-milklng, as it was not only, quicker and easier, hut probably more efficient. ■Aj-fsKiros, with small teats, always milked more perfectly with machines. The best results wero obtained by. commencing, heifers with the machines, instead of first milking for some time by hand. _ Certain allegations were made against machines that if kept on too long blood, would be drawn. Mr. M'Millan said he had seen no bad effects.from the machines in this respect, and there was no record at the college of such when kept on an abnormal length of time A ver> important question was tho effect of the continued use of the machine on milk secretion. A" great many dairymen alleged that after an' extended period of machine-milking the secretion was adversely affected. One user of the machine in Victoria, after a period of five years, had had cows milk down to it for three seasons, and then have to bo handniilked for a season before they _ would sett!© down to machine-milking again. At tho Hawkesbury College, however, there wero cows .that had been, milked continuously for five years by machines without any noticeable effect on the-quantity of milk from year to year. There were, individual cows, however, that, owing to thc-ir neciiliar .temperament, were unsatisfactory. ' It was not found at the college, where" the machines had been in use for nearlv nino years continuously, that the length of tho'lactation-period was shortened; in fact, the machine-milked cows continued longer in milk than the-others, and were generally more'difficult; to dry off. This was also tho experience of other dairymen. , The porccntago of fats and other solids in the' milk drawn by the machines was as high ,as that drawn by fraud, as shown by weekly analysis.

No 111-Effects on Health. From experience at., the college, they -wer'e satisfied that the a'ctiou of the machine had no ill-effect upon the health of the cow; nor was tho form, texturo, or quality of the udder-altered. Allegations had been made against' the machine that it was a transmitter o£ disease peculiar to tlie mammary g-lands. At tho college they had fewer cows, suffering from me.mmitis that were milked by machines than of those milked bv hand. For example, at one period there were .thh'tyfive simultaneous cases of mammitis, and only one cow that was milked by machine contracted the disease, although as. soon as a case was noticed the animal was isolated. Tho greatest care was also taken, the udders of the hand-milked cows being, washed with water containing lysol. as also w-ere the bands of the milkers. Probably, if machines were kept iu a dirty state, disease would be conveyed. Ano'thnr great advantage of tho machine, was that cows had seldom been found suffering from'sore teats. The machine had been condemned on the ground that tho milk was of worse flavour and keeping quality than that obtained by band. If" properly cleaned, however, there was absolutely' no comparison between the keeping qualities of machine and handdrawn milk, obtained under the cleanest conditions. Tho machine milk had- been proved to bo very much cleaner. There was every reason to believe that where thorough "cleanliness was practised a firstrate dairy product could be obtained. Jlr If'jlillan went so far as to say that an even better product was obtainable than with hand-milking under ' allied conditions. <■ ■■

Necessity for Proper Cleaning. Tlw c.hieif causa of failure in mechanical milking was important cleansing of the machines. Undoubtedly the cleaning of the machines entailed a considerable amount of Work. The college method was'that immediately after use cold or hike-warm water was sucked through the tubes by means of the vacuum, to remove any milk that, might adhere, to the rubber, etc. Then the parts, with which the milk came in contact were soaked for some time in fairly hot water containing soda, and after a thorough scrubbing with specially-constructed spiral brushes the parts, were bailed for. about ten- minutes in water containing abou,t 1 per cent, washing soda. They Wero,then placed in a solution of lime water until the following milking, and just previous to being used, boiling water was run through them. In regard to the economy of labour, with a doublo milking machine a good man was capable of doing sixteen to eighteen cows per hsur in full milk, and in the later stages of lactation, from 20 to 22 per hour. The usual method practised with a two-machine plant was to allow one man to attend to the machines and another man' or boy. to bail up tho cows, prepare them for the machines, and do tho stripping. In this way there was nothing to hinder a man and a boy from doing at least CO to 70 cows in two hours. Even as many as 80 cows were milked by two operators. To do the same nuiubor of cows in tho same time by hand would require four men, averaging about 8 or 9 cows per hour. The cost of a two-machine plant, including a vacuum pump, boiler, engine, etc., would bo from .£l7O to X'lßo. An oil engine plant, in addition to a small boiler for generating steam, for cleansing purposes, would cost somewhere about tho same. Taking these costs into account, together < with depreciation and interest on capital, it could bo estimated that thero was a saving of 10s. to 12s. as a minimum in the cost of milking a cow in a season in favour of machine-milking as compared with hand. As a final word of advice Mr. M'Millan strongly urged that in working milking machines the owner of the' dairy or some interested person should bo in control, otherwise tho best results would not be obtained. '