CHEESE MAKING.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 18047, 16 June 1930, Page 4

CHEESE MAKING.

GRADING OF MILK. REPLV 4 to recent criticism. STATEMENT BY MR VEALE. In pursuance of its policy of bringing the utmost possible light to bear upon questions of importance in the dairy industry the Hawera Star approached Mr Veale in regard to certain criticisms levelled against his microscopic method of grading milk for cheese-maldng. The points at issue were, firstly, the statement by one manager that the standard seemed hardly strict enough, especially in warm weather; and, secondly, the statement by another manager that milk which to him was second grade in flavour on the stage was frequently given finest grade at the laboratory. In reply Mr Veale gave for publication the statement which follows: — “Standards which are set for the three grades of ‘finest,’ ‘first’ and ‘second’ must naturally vary according to circumstances if justice is to be ‘ done and if the maximum good is to I be derived from any examination. For example, samples coming from a disi tance naturally ‘go off’ during transit, I and I have frequently received batches of milk samples on the afternoon of a Warm day which would all be classed as ‘second grade’ by a hard, unyielding standard, yet which could not all; have been ‘second grade’ when received over the factory stage. Under sucji circumstances we must ‘ease up’ and admit to the higher grades the samples which are best in the circumstances, otherwise no differences are established and no information gained from the test. When samples are preservatised the difficulty is less, but it still exists and may be just as troublesome when delays or hitches in transport occur. In endeavouring to make allowances for the deterioration oaused ■ by warm weather and delays in transport a few samples 'may easily be classed the same because they are the same at the time of examination, yet some may have been that way for a number of hours, indicating a poor quality initially, while others may have only just arrived at that condition and were certainly much better when received at the factory. These occasional anomalies are faults of transport and are not weaknesses in the system of examination. Merely the Forerunner. # “However, I regard the present system of collection and examination of samples at a central laboratory as merely the forerunner of the days when each manager will grade his own samples in the factory, and when anomalies such as above mentioned ; will automatically disappear. “Regarding the possibility that the general standard set for ‘‘finest grade’ is not ‘stiff enough, I am of the opinion that one should not endeavour to make it ‘too hot’ when introducing a new system; especially when that system has been voluntarily undertaken by a group of farmers. There would be too much discouragement of a progressive spirit if such" a severe standard were set that few or none could qualify for the highest grade. Moreover, there would be a tendency to abandon all effort if men who took some care, at least, were rewarded with an unlucky ‘good second grade’ ? ]

while others who threw care and cleanliness to the wind's also got ‘second grade,’ however bad, and received the same payment. "The first benefit of the introduction of milk-grading will be the-elimi-nation of the very bad eases, and a gradual raising of the average standard, This, I claim, lias already been done at every factory which 'has undertaken grading. As the quality rises the standard for finest can be stiffened up as high as desired, but this will take a number of years, and I consider that suppliers would hardly thank me for trying to impose it upon them in their first season of trial. Flavours and Grading. “The criticism that the microscopic examination of milk does not detect ‘flavours’ is of course correct, provided that these flavours are ‘feed flavours’ or have been acquired by absorption from poor surroundings. If, however, the objectionable taint is the result of bacterial action developing in the milk it will be accompanied by the myriads of germs which have given rise to it, and thus will infallibly be detected by the microscope and the sample be relegated to the ‘second’ grade. “Common sense would indicate that a smell in the milk derived from turnips, land cress or what-not, would necessarily be invisible and be undetected by the microscope, and this I has always been admitted. These ‘feed j flavours’ and other outside flavours i absorbed by milk, if not driven off by pasteurisation, may taint the cheese for a time, but they gradually pass ! off, and by the time the cheese is I ready for consumption are usually un- j detectable.

“On the other hand, a bacterial flavour which is detected by test invariably gets worse, because it is ‘working’ in the cheese, and will be a cause of lowering the quality and price right up to the time of consumption. Therefore, I consider it perfectly fair that feed flavours or absorbed flavours should - not be penalised unduly, whereas bacterial flavours should. On the stage, however, a manager may, except in. the case of a few very distinctive feed odours, confuse a feed or absorbed flavour with a bacterial one. In fact, the statement that a milk was considered ‘second grade’ in flavour yet was found ‘finest grade’ under the microscope is a proof that this has been done. It emphasises the fairness of the microscopic test and the unfairness of any process of milk gradingbased on taste or smell alone. The micrbscope cannot lie. It merely shows the scientist plainly what is ‘alive and kicking’ in the milk, and I think we are all inclined to the doctrine that ‘seeing is believing.’

Remedy In Own Hands,

“However, any manager who is troubled with feed flavours has the remedy in his own hands. He can observe and note any objectionable taints, and if later these samples are found perfectly clean, by their freedom from germs, they can be debarred from the finest grade If in the opinion of the manager the flavour is bad enough to warrant it. Such a course would naturally be taken if every factory manager wore doing his own grading; and here again we have a criticism which will automatically die when this advance comes into existence. “Whlie on this subject of flavours I would like to speak further in explanation of the discrepancy which is

sometimes found between the results of grading and preconceived notions derived from an inspection of the cowshed. “The belief is common, and is fostered by farm dairy instructors, that good cowsheds with good surroundings and plenty of concrete mean good milk, while' bad sheds and bad surI roundings must mean bad milk. While this is true in many cases it is -not true in all. Good surroundings are I certainly an aid to cleanliness and a shortening of labour. To this end j they are desirable, but they do not prove that the milk produced therein must be good, otherwise the millennium would dawn for the cheesemaker, and milk-grading, cheesegrading and farm-inspection would be quite superfluous. Bad milk is frequently produced from good sheds, and most persons are prepared to admit that this can easily occur. Few, however, are prepared to admit that good milk can ever come from bad sheds and bad surroundings, and it is here that milk grading by the microscope has come in for its severest criticism. Scouted as Preposterous. “Some managers and most farm instructors scout as preposterous the idea that,..good milk can come from dark, badly-lit sheds, with rough floors, a perpetual .manurial smell in I the atmosphere, a sea of mud sur- | rounding a large heap of manure and shed sweepings near the milk stand, can washings and accumulated filth beneath the stand, and numerous other defects on every side. An appeal to the milk itself will reveal a bad flavour absorbed from its surroundings, and seems a ready proof that the milk is bacteriologically bad; but this flavour, as already explained, is a dead thing, which can be driven from the milk, and does, eventually, disappear from ‘ the cheese. Smells in themselves do not convey germs, and such a milk, although repellent to the fastidious as an article of diet, can eventually become quite a good cheese. From numerous sources, and even from a clean milking machine, flavours may be absorbed which may give the impression of bad milk, but if the milk is free from bacteria it should not be classed at once in the lowest grade. Bacteria are the arch-enemies of the cheese-maker. They slow down his vats, blow up his cheese, create per- : manent bad flavours, mottle the colour, break down the body, and do inflinte mischief that no simple absorbed flavour can do. The microscope is the only instrument to reveal their presence, and is therefore the final criterion of what constitutes good or bad milk from the cheesemaker’s point of viey,’. “These facts therefore show that milk from * poor sheds and bad suralthough frequently bad, need not necessarily, be so,'provided that the actual entry and multiplication of germs have been prevented. A proper understanding of the distinction between an absorbed flavour and a true bacterial flavour would eliminate all that uneasiness of mind which suspects -unreliability in the test which occasionally, or even with moderate frequency, awards a good grade to milk from bad surroundings.”