DAIRY PROBLEMS.

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 21 April 1925, Page 4

DAIRY PROBLEMS.

A HIGH TEST, OR A LOW? VIEWS OF CORRESPONDENTS. That rich milk makes more cheese than poor milk, but not sufficiently more to compensate for the higher price which is paid for it on test, is the opinion of some practical dairymen who have responded to the Star’s invitation to help in solving several of the problems of production and manufacture raised in recent articles on the subject. Other correspondents put forward other views in the letters printed below. All are welcome, as will be any further correspondence on similar topics, for the object of the Star is to foster full and frank discussion, in order that something of value to the district and the industry may be the outcome.

MILK FOR CHEESEMAKING.

SYSTEAI OF PAY-OUT.

BUTTER-FAT V, CASEIN. (To the Editor).

•Sir; —Like, .many other .fanners, I am interested in tlie articles written by Mr. Buckeridge and the criticism thereon. As vou have asked for enlightment on the matter of casein or butter-fat content of milk as the standard of payment, I am making a comparison from the figures as submitted Dv vour correspondent Air. Schweiters. * ALr. Schweiters says, inter alia, that one herd tested ,3.0 per 100 lbs niilk, and the nei'centage of cheese manufactured was 2.75 lbs per lb butter-fat, or 8.25 lbs per 100 lbs milk. We will call this No. 1. No. 2 tested 4.0, and from this sample 2.60 lbs of cheese was manufactured or in all, 10.40 lbs pm 100 lbs of milk supplied. We will now take these tests to a marketable conclusion, bor the sake of unitv we will say that it was a month’s* supply of 30,000 lbs of milk to each sample, or supplier as we will now call them. We find that this gave supplier No. 1 900 lbs of actual butteifat supplied, and upon which he will be paid. This fat produced 2475. lbs f commercial cheese or 22 1-10 cvts. At the market price of 100 s per cwt. this returns in gross £llO 10s to the factorv Take supplier No. 2. His 30,000' lbs of milk nroduced 1200 lbs of fat, and, like No.* 1 his payout is based upon it We find that his fat produced 3120 lbs of commercial cheese, or 2< 6-7 cwts to the factory, returning at same price as No. 1 in gross £139 10s. * . However as only 3.6 of fat can be incorporated into cheese, and as No. 1 is minus, we can only credit No - with whey butter, lor this it will he safe to allow .5, or 5 lbs per 1000 lbs milk or 150 lbs .butter for the period. This’ returns to the factory, at say 168 s. per cwt, in gross £ll os. We will take off £1 os. as extra expense for manufacture, leaving a further £.IU to be credited to No. 2, making a grand return of £149 10s. ■ At the monthly payout No. 1 receives Is ' 6d. per lb butter-fat ' supplied. £67-10s being his gross cheque. Xo. 2 on the same ratio, gets £yo. \Ye will now work out the proportions bv what was returned in gross to the factory. No 1 gets £6xi over 110 a, or 12s. 3d . in every £ gross received bv the factory from his milk. No. 2 gets £9O over 149 J, or 12s in the £ crross returned to the factory. " From these deductions it becomes very clear that butter-fat is a very fair basis for computing the payout value of milk. The late Air. N. J. Brennan once went exhaustively into this matter and came to the conclusion it was as nearly equitable as any system known. These are always, sir, I* know, compensating factors, such as a milk with a high fat content, if not secured in separation, gives a better quality of whey, so I personally think that, on . a butter-fat standard, the payout, is the test we have to date. L do not pose as an expert, and write only to express what to me appeal s obvious—to. get high butter-fat returns. .1 am. g TO&LAND. Pihama. April 4.

p.S.—lf ino whev butter were made, No. 2 would get" 12s lOd for every £ and in this case he would proportionately take from. No. 1 according, to the ratio of supply; but in any system a certain amount of give and take will occur.—J.S.T.

IN FA YOUR OF HIGH TESTS

(To the Editor)

Sir, —I have followed with much interest the present correspondence and controversy re the terms “ratio” and “yield” as applied to cheesemaking. While not pretending to know the first thing about either myself, may I, in response to your appeal to correspondents, refer to- Decker, whom I have read’ of as “the world’s authority on cheesemaking.”? Some years ago I remember reading an extract on this very subject. I cannot quote the figures from memory, but I know they were very decidely in favour of the richer, Or high-testing milk. Would it not be interesting if someone looked up the figures and forwarded same to you for publication ? If Decker is really the authoritv I take him to be, his figures should go a long way towards settling the point. Thanking you in anticipaam, etc., „„„ ERNEST I\f. IZETT. Kaponga, April 18.

A SCOTTISH EXPERIMENT.

FIGURES FROM KILMARNOCK. . , (To the Editor). Sir,—ln answer to your question as to whether rich or poor milk produces the greater quantity of cheese, 1 am enclosing an illustration of curd test of Professor Drummond’s (of Kilmarnock College) working. He has taken as hi s illustration five hundred pounds of. milk under different tests. The ratio js not mentioned in this copy, hut starting from a 3 test they read as follows • (in each case for 503 lbs of milk). The progressive weights are: (1) fcurd, at salting; (2) curd after pressing; (3) cheese ten weeks after making:

This, as far as I can see, is a correct working. —I am etc., D. HURLEY, Senr. Hurley ville, April 19.

HIGHER TEST, AFORE CHEESE

BUT NOT IN PROPORTION. (To the Editor). Sir, —Being interested in Mr. Buckeridge’s letters, now appearing in your paper, I would like to say I uphold him in his’ aim, as 1 think, if these matters are not given any airing at times, we are not likely to get any further ahead with our industry. Mr. Buckeridge has stated that high-test-ing milk makes more cheese than lowtesting milk. Now, this statement is very misleading if it is not carried further, as it appears wholly in favour of high testing milk. As far as it> goes this statement is correct; hut I would like to know what the varisitiou of solids is in proportion to the rise or fall of butter-fat content, I have been supplied with the following figures, from our learned friend Mr. 'Buckeridge, which will serve to show that high-testing, milk did make more cheese than low-testing milk, hut not in the sanie proportion: 1001 b 3 test milk makes 91'b cheese; 1091 b 4 test milk makes 101 b cheese. You will see from this that there is lib. cheese in favour of 4 test milk, but if you take the figures, with cheese selling at la per lb, and monthly payments Is 6d per lb butter-fat, you will get the follow! ng: From 1001 b milk of 3 test 91b cheese would lie made, the payment for butter-fat would be 4s 6d, and the profit from the sale of the cheese 4s 6d, or 100 per cent.; from 1001 bof milk of 4 test 101 b cheese would be made, the payment for fat being 6s and the profit from the sale of the cheese 4s, or 68 2-5 per cent. If these figures come near the true position, it appears that our basis of payment for cheese factories is all ,wrong, as the supplier With the' higher testing milk is. r'gMting, paid for something he does not make, and the supplier with the lower testing milk is making something he does not get paid for. The low-testing supplier is not only being robbed during the season, hut again when the „ bonus is paid out, as some of the profit his milk makes goes into the pocket of the high-testing supplier. The object of my letter is to show that we should find some other basis of payment for cheese factories, which would be one of the matters for a dairy laboratory to solve (besides finding germs). It is likely that a payment based on solids would be as far out as a payment on butter-fat; the probability is that we would have to base our payments on both solids and butter-fat. I do not intend- to write further on this matter, but will leave that to some more able pen than mine. The Dairyman of April 20, 1920, stated that Government inspectors Archer and Sawers carried out. experiments and proved that the actual value of (and so payment for) milk for cheesemaking should be based on the fat and casein test; but, unfortunately, a section of dairv farmers will not recognise tliis fact. Thanking you for your valuable space, —I am, etc., JOHN D. PIERCY. Alton, April 20.

AYHERE THE DIFFICULTY LIES,

RATIO OF FAT TO CASEIN

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—l have read with interest about cheese yields and ratios in your paper, and note your request at the end of Air. Buckeridge’s letter. I do not want to be mixed up in this controversy; but, if the following is of any use to you, you may use it, and I am prepared to back up my statements with facts. Rich milk WILL PRODUCE AIORE CHEESE than milk with a low fat content. What is exercising the minjl of the producer and cheesemaker is not the yield of cheese from milk, but the ratio of cheese to butter, fat. It has been the custom, and still is. for the cheesemaker to use the term yield when he really means ratio, and this is where the confusion has arisen. What the producer and cheesemaker aim at is to get the maximum amount of cheese for every pound of butter-fat purchased. Milk rich in fat usually contains less casein in proportion to fat than does milk with a low fat content.

To give an instance: Atilk containing 3.5 of fat will show an average of 2.3 of casein, and the pounds' of cheese made from 1001.1> of this milk will be 9.45: Now, the pounds of cheese made for each pound of fat in this milk will lie 2.7. Milk containing an increase of 1 per cent., i.e.,-4.5 of fat, will show an average of 2.7 of casein (an increase of .4), cheese made 11.741 b, and pounds of cheese made from each pound of butter-fat 2.61. To sum it up: The amount of cheese made for a pound of milk-fat decreases as the percentage of fat in milk increases.

AVhat we want for ideal 'cheesemaking is a milk with a normal fat content and a high casein content, and the man who can breed this sort of cow will solve the problem. Trusting the Above .will help in some wav to clear uo the confusion. —I am, etc*., ' A. F. NETLSON. Pihama, April 20.

THE LABORATORY

DEPUTATION TO AIINISTER

In furtherance of the campaign aiming at the establishment of a dairy research laboratory in South Taranaki, a deoutation from the Factories’ Federation left for AYellington this morning to interview the Afinister for Agriculture. (Hon. W. Nosworthy). Mr. Nosworthy, in response to earlier representations from the Federation, asked for further information regarding the need for. a subsidiary laboratory in this district —the Dominion station having been allotted to Wallaceville. Alessrs T. A. Winks, chairman of the Federation, J. E. Cor. rigan, ALP., O. Hawken, M.P., H. D. Forsyth, and G. H. Buckeridge will lay their reasons before the Alinister to-morrow.

Test Salting lbs. Pressing lbs. Cheese lbs. Ratio 3 54 48 46 3 4 56 52} 50 2.5 4.7 59 55} 53 2.25