DAIRY SCIENCE.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVIII, 18 April 1925, Page 4

DAIRY SCIENCE.

PROBLEMS FOR SOLUTION.' FAULTS IN MILK. WORK AWAITING LABORATORY. (All Rights Reserved.) The rapidity with, which the action of bacteria may alter the entire character of milk, and the consequent need for fresh samples for analysis when faults develop, are the main points stressed by Mr G-. H. Buckeridge, of Hawera, in this, the fourth of his articles advocating the establishment of a dairy research laboratory in South Taranaki. The next article of the series will appear next Wednesday.

The correspondence which has taken place since these articles were commenced has convinced the writer that nothing but a thorough exploration of the whole field will be of. any utility. It was his original intention to make them as complete and thorough aS possible, and to conch them in such language as to easily understood by anyone who eared to follow them, and not to make them in any way an abstruse treatise callable of being followed by the academician alone. This plan still seems to be the one that will reach by far the greatest number of readers, who will probab'y be mostly farmers, and many of whom will not have enjoyed the advantage of an academic course of learning. ' Most of these readers, no doubt, have now reached the stage where they can Jeel how really little they do laiow and what an infinite amount there is still to learn ; and some feel that for lack of means they are powerless to attain this knowledge, yet, nevertheless, continue grop. ing for light upon the subject. Amongst these the writer would like humbly to class himself, well knowing that many other similar seekers for light will sympathise with him in his efforts to .obtain a clearer vision of the subject, and will readily and willingly lend their aid to secure for him, and for others like him, the means to attain the light necessary to enable him to a further advancement. The Bacteria of Milk.

Having made this, let us hope, pardonable digression, let us return to the subject under discussion. The last article left off with a promise to explain the functions of the various constituents of milk and their effect upon the yield of cheese. Of those constituents mentioned, one only is a living organism, and as living agents can always accomplish either more good or more "harm, according to their disposition, than dead ones, let use deal first with these living organisms of bacteria. Of these bacteria, Thom and Fisk say (“The Book- of Cheese,” page 14), “There are , a great many different groups of bacteria; and some are beneficial, and some are harmful. As they are so small, it is difficult to differentiate between the beneficial and harmful kinds, except by the result produced, or by a careful study in an especially equipped laboratory. The bacteria multiply very rapidly.” If 'the writer were asked what, in his opinion, was the principal function of these bacteria, he would unhesitatingly say “multiplication,” for they increase with such extraordinary rapidity that the most phenomenal “lightning calculator” we have any knowledge of would be absolutely lost trying, even for a short time, to* keep pace with them. To give some idea of their ability to multiply: Walker Tisdale, in “Practical’ Cheesemaking” (page 24) says, “It has been estimated that it is possible under ideal conditions for a single germ to increase to 16 millions in 24 hours.” We have it on authoritative statement that it has been decided by the Government to establish a “Central Research Laboratory” at Wallaeeville. Fancy sending a sample of milk from Hawera, containing not one, but probably many millions of these germs on a “joyride” to Wallaeeville, and expecting even our fast trains to keep ahead of these extremely busy little bodies, and to enable us to obtain analyses, the results of which w r ould be worth anything at all. Rapidity of Action.

As already stated, these are excessively busy little bodies, and like their prototypes, “busy bodies” amongst humans, can accomplish, when so minded, irreparable harm in a very short space of time. The only chance we could possibly have with these “lightning , multipliers” would be to catch them early (viz: in a laboratory in Hawera), before they have worked their sweet will and totally altered, as they undoubtedly would, the characteristics of any milk sample sent to Wallaeeville.

These little gentlemen, while they cannot add one jot to the weight of milk, can so alter its constituents in an incredibly short space of time, as to make it impossible to make any marketable cheese at all from it. Hence it is most essential that milk containing these bacteria should be treated with the utmost rapidity; and to think of haying to send samples to Wallaceville, there to await their turn to be examined with probably many other similar samples from all parts of Now Zealand would be, if it were r.ot so serious a matter, a- really firstclass joke.

We have more milk used for cheese making, probably, concentrated within an hour’s run in a motor-car from Hawera than in any other part in New Zealand, if not in the world. Why then, in the name of commonsense, not establish a laboratory here —even if only as a feeder to the central laboratory —in the midst of the milk supply, where, unquestionably, it ! could accomplish the most good? Problems Unsolved. Let us take just two instances that have come under the writer’s direct knowledge, to show how utterly futile have proved attempts that have been made in this district to locate trouble caused by bacteria without the aid of such a laboratory as proposed by the Factories’ Federation. One factory had trouble with “gassy curd,” and, though every possible effort was made to locate the cause of the trouble for weeks, and hundreds of crates (the whole of the output for several weeks) of second grade cheese were made because of it, the real cause was never located, simply disappearing as it came. This condition of affairs might occur again next year, and the next year, and so on ad infinitum, resulting, every year, in losses ten times as great as the annual subscription of the factory to the support of• the laboratory would he likely to be. In another case the trouble experienced was that the milk would not coagulate, which trouble went on for some time and then disappeared without the cause being located. With a laboratory in Hawera, these milks could have been examined for bacteria, the cause, most probably, ascertained, proper treatment pre-

scribed to overcome the trouble, and the companies concerned saved considerable losses, with the added benefit of knowing just what to do should the same trouble be experienced another year, either at these factories or anv others in the district. These are only two of the instances that have come under the writer’s notice during the last season, and no doubt there are many others of which he has no knowledge. This alone, however, should be sufficient to demonstrate, beyond all question of doubt, the advantage the establishment of the proposed laboratory would be to this district, and should warrant every faimCi —and every business man too-agitat-ing and ever agitating until it is an accomplished fact. Get in and do your share, therefore, 'o help bring this thing about. MOISTURE. IN CHEESE.

. (To the Editor). Sir,—l have read with considerable interest the epist.es of Mr G. Buckeridge to the hea — 1 , I mean to the poor ignorant cow cookies. Being one of these poor unfortunates, 1 hope .Mr Buckeridge will assist me a step or two towards the light; particularly regarding his own statements at our last annual meeting. At that meeting Mr Buckeridge appeared greatly concerned about our welfare (1 can assure him that mine has still net improved much), and as, since reading the statements emanating from him-, I am niore than ever in a quandary, I am sure that Mr Buckeridge will assist me out of it. At our annual meeting Mr Buckeridge to’d us that we had manufactured one oi the driest kinds of cheese in Taranaki, and although the grade had been high, the product was not suited to the palates of the people at Home. Also., by manufacturing such il dry cheese, the suppliers had lost nearly if cl pez- lb butter-fat. Now, sir, there appeared in the Dairyman lor the month "of Decernbei' (the same figures were published in the Star), in the report of the conference of factory managers held at Patea in November, the fo'lowing figures. issued by the Director of the Dairv Division :

I may say that No. 4 is Kakaramea factory. To compare Mr Buckeridge’s statement with these official figures is something to engage the. attention of your renders. Here you have the results of four factories —two in North Taranaki and two in South Taranaki. There is very little difference in the percentage oi moisture in the- four—.4l per cent, between the highest and lowest —and this is a. fair indication of the moisture content of 99 per cent, of cheese manufactured in Taranaki. That fact, Mr Editor, is easily substantiated. The moisture content of matured cheese is 35.73 per cent., and of green cheese 38.41 per cent. Now, sir, the point I want explained is: Our factory turned out over 500 tons of cheese with an average grade of 92.88 points. The moisture content of the cheese was 38.41 in green cheese. According to Mr Buckeridge the siippliers lost jfd per lb butter-fat hv reason of the cheese being too hard, dry, and brittle. For the sake of his reputation as a cheese expert, will Mr Buckeridge kindly submit figures showing the moisture content of the produce of other factories, and let yis poor unfortunate Kakaramea coclries see for ourselves how we lost 2d pier lb butterfat ?

A bother statement made by Mr Buckeridge at out annual meeting was: “Seeing Kakaramea cheese was graded as 'high as 95 points, I have asked the firm which I represent to give me a report on the marketing value of the cheese at Home.” He had expected that the report would be highly flattering, but it turned out just the opposite. The reply he received was that the cheese .was not suitable for the market at Home. It was too hard, dry and brittle, and hard in texture and, he added, the report of the Government grader at Home was even more drastic. Now, sir, I happen to have seen those reports from the Government grader and, far from being adverse, they are quite what Mr Buckeridge originally expected—“highly flattering.” i can produce copies of them, hut will leavfe that for Mr Buckeridge should he care to do so. With regard to the alleged report from his firm, I have no access to his correspondence, so I will leave it to Mr Buckeridge. Further, I have obtained the opinions of several agents handling dairy produce. and not one has stated that the grading is not a true indication of the quality, and in almost every instance corresponds with the reports received from their principals. Thanking you for your valued space. —I am, etc.. * KAKARAMEA SUPPLIER.

RATIO AND YIELD

(To the Editor.) Six-,—Kindly allow me space to reply to a letter appearing in your issue of last evening, and signed T. Schwieters. I am very pleased to note that my articles are attracting the attenion and promise of support of cheesemakers, and will do my best in the course of the articles to blear up any points that may be raised by correspondents like Mr Schwieters. I shall endeavour, amongst these, to substantiate the statements that 1 have made, that “under similar methods of manufacture a high-testing milk gives a higher yield of cheese than does a low-testing.” I regret that, apparently, I have not made myself clear as to the coiTect meaning of the terms yield and ratio, as applied to the yield of cheese and the ratio of cheese 'to butter-fat, and I am afraid I can see no way in which I can make myself more explicit than I have already attempted to do in the preceding articles. I cannot, however, agree to adopt Mr Schwieters’s suggestion to call in the aid of “some authority in the dairy world to give a ruling” as to the correct meaning of the two terms yield and ratio. Unfortunately perhaps for me, I am old-fashioned enough to consider that the correct authority upon the meanings of words should be our standard dictionaries, one of the best of which I quoted —Webster’s Unabridged—in support of my own understanding of the meaning of the two terms. I would, however, just like to point out to Mr Schwieters that it is what is actually “said” or written that is of importance, and not what is “meant to he said” or written. For instance, if I were to write and publish that, “Mr So-and-so is an infernal scoundrel,” and Mr So-and-so prosecuted me for libel for having done so. I imagine I would have considerable difficulty in proving to the satisfaction of a judge and jury, that it was the same thing as if I had written “Mr So-and-so is a perfect gentleman,” which was what I really had meant to say. So, if a cheesemaker says his “yield” is so and so I, naturally enough, should expect him to mean “yield” and not “ratio,” and I am of opinion many others would also.

I am afraid this is where all the eonfusion has arisen, and consider that it correct terms were used to express what is meant this misunderstanding would very soon disappear, to the benefit, of the* indus'try. Thanking you in anticipation.—l am, etc., GEO. H. BUCKERIDGE. Hawera, April 18.

[Would it not make the issue considerably clearer if both parties to this argument could agree to dispense altogether with the conflicting terms “ratio” and “yield”? The point we all wish to get at is which gives the greater amount of cheese —high-testing or low-testing milk. Can some practical cheesemaker quote us his experience giving, say, the number of cheeses made from two different vats, the milk in one of which tested higher than the other ? Spring tests are lower than autumn tests. Docis one vat give more cheeses in spring than autumn, or vice versa ? If lOOlbs of 3.8 milk produce more cheese than lOOlbs of 4.2 milk, then for cheese factories the aim should he to supply low-testing milk; while our system oi' paying for milk on the basis of the butter-fat content would then be proved quite wrong. “Yield” is the word usually applied to that which is produced. But really it matters little what word we use in this instance —“wheelbarrow” would do. What the farmer wishes to know is •whether, for cheesemaking purposes, he should strive to increase the richness or merely the quantity of his milk supply. We might be nearer the solution of that problem if we dropped the terms “ratio” and “yield.” Can any correspondent say whether rich or poor milk produces the greater quantity of cheese ?—Ed. Star.]

Water Fat Other Factory. content. content. solid. No. ‘ per cent. per cent. COllt. p.c. 1 35.58 37.78 29.69 2 35.99 34.53 29.48 3 35.75 35.39 28.86 4 35.73 34.98 29.29