THE DAIRY INDUSTRY.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 63, 28 October 1911, Page 2

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY.

MACHINE V. HAND-MILKING. In Now South Wales at the present time there is still a very considerable prejudice against mechanical milkers .not only among those who have no acquaintance with the new methods, but likewise by those who have tried them with bad results, and of course casting the whole blame u p (hi the machines. At the recent factory managers’ conference in Sydney Mr J. G. McMillan, late dairy instructor at the Hawkosbury College for three years, and now manager of the Wollongbar Experiment Farm, contributing a paper on “Machine v. liand-milking, which is considered to form the best statement of the case that has yet been placed before the dairy farmers of that State, even though Mr McMillan’s experience forced him to argue the case almost entirely for tne machine. At the same time, he voiced his opinion that many improvements could be made before the machine could be said to be perfect.It was unfair, he argued, to condemn mechanical milkers on account of failures by certain dairymen on certain cows. The . cow herself was a factor to bo considered. Some would not give down their milk properly to the machine, as often happened with a change of hand-milkers. On the other hand, he had found that cows gave down their milk to the machines as freely as, and even more so than, they did to the hand-milkers. Mr McMillan struck tiie keynote when no said, “to obtain success with the machine, it is necessary for the 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 first few days they were placed on the machines; but in most instances they soon returned to the normal. In some cases there was no difference in yield, and in many cases the cows would milk not only more quickly, but bettor, bj machine than by hand once they become accustomed to i it. The cows suffered no pain or inconvenience. The shape of the udder was of but slight importance. The best results were obuiined when tiie teats were of normal size.'' With cows with small teats the machine surpassed hand-milking, as it was not only quicker and easier, but probably more efficient. Ayrsliires, with small teats, always milked more perfectly witn machines. Tne best results were- obtained by commencing lieifers with the machines, instead of first milking for some time by hand. certain allegations were made against machines that if kept on too tong blood would be drawn. Mr McMillan 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 very important question was tiie effect of the continued use of; the machine on milk secretion. A great many dairymen alleged that alter an extended period ot machine-milking the secretion was adversely affected. One user of the machine in Victoria, after a period of live years, had had cows milk down to it for three seasons, and then have to he hand-milk-ed for a season before they would settle down to machine-milking again. At the Hawkesbury College, uoweyer, there were 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 their peculiar temperament, were unsatisfactory. It was not found at tiie college, where the machines had been in use for near;ljh. nine -years ■ ’Continuously, that tholength of the lactation period was shortened; in fact, the machine-milk-ed cows continued longer in milk than the others, and. were generally more difficult to dry off. This was also the experience of other dairymen. Tiie percentage of fats and other solids in the milk drawn by the machines ■was as high as that drawn by hand, as shown by weekly analysis. From experience at the college, they were satisfied that the action of the machine had no ill effect upon the health of the cow; nor was the form, texture, or quality of the udder altered. Allegations had been made against the machine that it was a transmitter of disease peculiar to tho mammary glands. At the college, they had fewer cows suffering from mammitis that were milked by machines than of those milked by hand. For example, at one period there were thirty-five 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. The greatest care was also taken, the: udders of the hand-milked cows being washed with water containing lysol, as also were the hands of the milkers. Probably, if machines wore kept in a dirty state, disease would ho conveyed. Another great advantage of the machine was that cows ixad seldom been found suffering from sore teats. The machine had been condemned on the ground that the milk was of worse flavour and keeping quality than that obtained by hand."' Tf properly cleaned, however, •there was absolutely no comparison between the keeping qualities of machine and hand-drawn milk, obtained under the cleanest conditions. The : machine milk had been proved tp be v.ery much cleaner. There was every reason to- believe that where thorough cleanliness was practised a first-rate dairy product could be obtained. Mr McMillan went so far as to say that an even better product was. obtainable than with hand-milking under allied conditions. The chief cause of failure in mechanical milking was improper 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 luke-warm water , was ..ucked through tho tubes by -means of the vaciupn, 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 lime in fairly hot water containing soda, and after a thorough scrubbing with specially-constructed spiral brushes the parts were boiled for about ten minutes in water containing about 1 per cent washing soda. ’They were 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-double milking machine a good man was capable of doing sixteen to eighteen cows per hour in full milk, md 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 the cows, prepare them for the machines, and do the stripping. In this way there was nothing 10 hinder a man and a boy from doing at least 60 to 70 cows in two hours. Even as many as 80 cows were milked by two operators. To do the same number of cows in the same time by hand would require 4 men, averaging about 8 or 9 cows per hour. The cost of a two-machine plant, including a vacuum pump, boiler, engine, etc., would he from £l7O to £IBO. An 011 engine plant, in addition to a small

boiler for generating steam for cleansing purposes, would cost somewhere about the, same. hiking these costs into account, together with depreciation and interest on capital, it could oc estimated that there was a saving of 10s to Ids as a minimum in the cost of milking a cow; in a season in favour of machine-milking as compared with mind. _ . i\s a final word of advice air McMillan strongly urged that in working milking niacnines' die owner ot the dairy or some interested person should us i'ii control, otherwise the best results would not be obtained.