ALLEGED MILK WATERING.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXV, Issue 57, 8 March 1913, Page 3

ALLEGED MILK WATERING.

CLAIM FOR LIBEL. A caso of considerable interest to farmers and all interested in the dairy industry was heard the Supreme Court (New Plymouth) on Thursday afternoon, before Mr Justice Denniston and a special jury. Arthur Howard Playle claimed from the Riverdale Co-operative 'Dairy Factor/ Company £5Ol damages for alleged libel. Mr M. Myers (of Wellington) and Mr D. G. Smart (Hawera) appeared for plaintiff, and Tvlr C. B. Morison K.C., and Mr P. O’Dea (Hawera) for defendant company. Dr. M'Laurin, Dominion analyst, stated that there was a method of obtaining beyond doubt the amount of added water, if any, in milk—the cryoscopic or freezing test, which he proceeded to explain in detail. He die not know of any other method by which the same question could bo acurately determined. He knew, thal the standard required finder the Foot and Drugs Act was that milk should, not contain less than 12 per cent, oi solids, including fat. Ho had found samples of milk showing deficiency from the 8.5 per cent, regulation requirements in solids not fat, and yet showing on the fre izesngtetßLOOl showing on a freezing test that no water iiad been added to them. The lowest record he had with him was 7.87. This particular milk was taker, under Government inspection in Auckland. Some of the samples taken in Taranaki were almost as low. He hac had samples showing substantial de ficiency from the standard which were genuine samples of milk. The early spring—September and October —were the worst months for testing. It was then that the lowest results of test, were obtained. Some years ago f per cent, of the total number of tests made with samples of mornings’ milk taken during the month of September were below thft standard, and 14 per cent, of the samples of evenings’ milk. October was very much better, the figures being 3.3 morning and 3.8 in the afternoon. He knew there were considerable variations in tests in the same herd from day to day. Cold weather would make a difference, improper feeding, insufficient food, excitement, and so on would all involve reduction in the quality of the milk. This applied mainly to but-ter-fat —in a lesser degree to solids not fat. The average of solids not fat in Holsteins was 8.6 in England. He had some particulars so far as New Zealand was concerned, but not sufficient to form an average. He knew that they were low. Referring to the Wercroa Experimental Farm, ho said some years ago tests were made, and some of the milk was below the standard set by the regulations. Ho did not know of any other legal standard for solids not fat except that mentioned by Mr Myers. As the result of his experience he could

not safely say that if the Babcock and lactometer test showed afl excess of water over the standard, that excess represented water added after milking. If there was an excess ol 10 per c nero.tflciua chmfwtaoin 10 per cent, or 12 per cent, of water on the basis of a standard of 8.5 solids not fat there would be a presumption that water had been added. He had seen the tests shown in the statement of claim. There was nothing in the lactometer reading to indicate watering of the milk. These readings appeared to have been read to whole degrees only ;they should have been read to half degrees at least. Very few of these lactometers had been sent in for examination, but some of those tested recently had varied from .<8 above to .2 below. It a. lactometer was half a point out it would mean that calculations would be appreciably wrong. It would make a difference of about 1.12 per cent, in solids not fat. There were several well-known formulae for obtaining the excess of water, added or otherwise, after lactometer reading

nnd tho fat and total solid percentages had been obtained. He had applied these formulae to the figures in the statement of claim, based upon the only legal standard he knew of, 8.5, as laid down under the Sale of I Food and Drugs Act. Upon this .standard he could not find any excess of water in tho first case. In No. 2 there was an excess of 7.41 per cent, instead of 12 per cent., as alleged, and in the fifth case, which; was shown at 11 per cent., witness made 2.24 per cent. Without a freezing test it was not possible to say whether these percentages had been added or were due to the poorness of the natural milk. He could have ascertained definitely if samples had been sent to him. In taking lactometer readings, temperature was a matter of importance. They should be taken at a temperature of 60 degrees Fahrenheit. If the lactometer was put into the sample at any other temperature corrections would have to be made. Five degrees in the temperature would make a difference of half a degree in the lactometer. To Mr Morrison: It would be a very poor quality of milk which would be represented by 8.5 in solids not fat. He would expect to find this kind of thing on poor land. If he were a factory manager and decided to use tlitf Babcock method of testing he would think it prudent to ascertain the normal standard in quality of the particular herd’s milk he was going to test. Supposing the average standard oh solids not fat in milk from a herd was 9.1, in applying the test to the formulae in. testing tho milk he would use 9.1 and not 8.5. There was no difficulty in accounting for a sudden drop in quality and quantity, and he did not see why there should not bo a sudden rise. There was in normal milk no relation between fat and solids not fat. Eight-point-nine was the average of solids not fat in milk in English-speaking countries, and ho had made calculations on that basis, with the following results: First 3.8 per centum, second 11.6 per cent., and fifth 6.7 per cent, of added water. Assuming that the average of Mr Wilcocks’ herd was somewhat higher than the general average in solids not fat, he would be justified in taking a higher factor than 8.5. They could not arrive at the amount of added water at all by the Babcock and lactometer method except when they knew absolutely wliat the original solids in the niilk were. Ho disagreed with Barthell’s publication, wherein it was stated that there was no difficulty in proving added water where more than 10 per cent, by means of the formulae Mentioned. Assuming that the original milk ias it left Mr® cows contained 8.9 per cent of solids'not fat, then it had been watered.

hi: k *.• *' ") "i •r» To Mr Myers: He meant the sample from which the milk was taken, not the milk of the day before or a week before. Tho percentage of solids not fat was not ascertainable when tho milk was taken except by the cryoscopic test, or inquiries from the petfsokis who handled'the milk to see whether it was' in the same state as whem it left the cow. He would not in any case adopt the Babcock and lactometer teats as conclusive. Evidence was heard at length in the afternoon, and the case was resumed this morning. The report of the proceedings will be 'continued in Monday’s paper.