38 THIRTIETH ANNUAL REPORT OF THE 



and half left untreated; and then the butter was made from 

 the two lots of milk, one part raw and the other part pasteur- 

 ized. The butter was sent to England carefully marked and 

 nobody knew until the returns came to my office, wihch was 

 pasteurized and which was not. The goods were shipped via 

 New York where two boxes of each lot were held back one 

 from the pasteurized and the other from the raw cream. The 

 butter itself was scored by an inspector before leaving the 

 city. The butter was also inspected and scored upon arrival 

 in England and the scores returned to me. The boxes retain- 

 ed in New York were kept side by side and scored eA^ery three 

 or four weeks for, perhaps, six months. At the end of the sea- 

 son I made up my figures and compared them. I found that 

 at certain times one was ahead and sometimes another; and 

 they ended the season about on a level, nothing gained what- 

 ever by pasteurizing; only it had cost about three-fourths of a 

 cent per pound more than the other butter. If milk is sound 

 there is no need of pasteurizing it. 



A Member. Can you tell what causes the variations in the 

 Babcock test? 



Maj. Alvord. I have not used the Babcock test for months, 

 I do not see one used very often except as I go around among 

 creameries. I do not want to answer the question. 



Same Member. But you know there is a variation?' 

 Maj. Alvord. Yes. 



Mr. Wallace. Do you mean in the Babcock test or in the 

 man who manipulates it? 



Maj. Alvord. Both together. A good tester can do noth- 

 ing with a poor testing machine, and the best implements are 

 of no account if the tester does not know his business. 



Mr. Higbee. Are there any that do? 



Maj. Alvord. I think there are. I believe the Babcock 

 test, the method of determining the per cent, of fat. in the 

 milk, is the great butter discovery of the century. I think it 

 is fully equal in its importance to the cream separator. I do 

 not see how one could get along without the other very well. 

 It is not a thing to be played with any more than is the sep- 

 arator. It requires a machine that is right, and a man who 

 knows how to use it. I think the Babcock apparatus is a very 

 rough machine in the hands of a rough operator, but it is 

 better than nothing in that line. It enables the farmer to 

 study his herd and weed out his unprofitable cows in a way 

 that never was possible before For this purpose it is not nec- 

 essary to own an expensive machine or to be an expert opera- 

 tor. A two or three dollar machine in the hands of any man 

 is quite sufficient for this work. 



