DAIRY FARMING DAIRYING. 



381 



On reppjitin.u: the experiment the corresi ion dine valnes were 25.7!) Ihs. of milk, 

 containing 4.01 per cent of fat, ami 2t;.(»!) lbs. of milli, containing 4.07 per cent 

 of fat. As a rule the mixture of oats and barle.y was i-elished better than a 

 ration of clear oats. 



In anotlier exi)eriment oats gave slightly better results than bran as a grain 

 ration. A mixture of bran and oil meal proved nearly 8 per cent higher in 

 value for millv production, but the high cost of the meal scarcely prtid for the 

 increased yield of milk. Molac feed gave better results than bran as far as 

 quantity of milk was concerned, but the percentage of fat was reduced. Bran 

 gave better results tlian sugar-beet meal and was as a rule more palatable. 

 Molac daii'y food and Tillson's dairy food were found to be of about equal value 

 for milk production. 



Cooperative dairy work, L. H. Goddard and M. O. Bugby (Ohio Sta. Circ. 

 y.O, pp. 8). — An account of the work of the station in assisting dairymen to 

 keep individual records of their cows. There is a summary of the records of 

 the 6 herds that have been in cooperation with the station for more than a year. 

 The average amount of milk fat produced per cow per year was 235.4 lbs., 

 which is better than the average production of the herds tliroughout the State. 

 The best of these herds made an actual profit of $4(i.72, and the poorest herd an 

 actual loss of $1.22 per cow per year. 



Clean and sanitary milk, W. K. Brainekd {rirginid t<tn. BuJ. 185, pp. 3-22, 

 fi(/s. 16). — The sources of contamination of milk are discussed and the results 

 of experiments to determine the number of bacteria in milk produced under 

 different conditions are reported. 



Samples of milk were taken in .January and February from 3 different farms, 

 from the Virginia Polytechnic Institutp stables and the experiment station 

 stables. The results are given in the following table: 



Average resitJts of 21 bacterial roiinlii taken every seeoiid (tail from January 26. 



Source of milk. 



Farm No. 1 — Hand milking 



Farm No. 2— Hand milking 



Farm No. 3 — Hand milking 



Institute stables— Hand milking 



Institute stables — Machine milking 



Experiment station stables— Hand milking 



Number of 



bacteria 



present per 



cubic cen 



timeter. 



140, 657 



170, 278 



276, 287 



62,592 



59, 750 



2, 787 



Number of 

 putrefac- 

 tive bac- 

 teria per 



cubic cen- 

 timeter. 



19, 805 



20,4':5 



40, 508 



4, 637 



8, 535 



106 



Number of 

 acid-form- 

 ing bac- 

 teria per 

 cubic cen- 

 timeter. 



35, 070 

 35, 756 

 87,287 

 27, 116 

 17,271 

 910 



Acidity 

 after 24 

 hours. 



Per cent. 

 0.340 

 .378 

 .412 

 .210 

 .200 

 .120 



The stable on Farm No. 3 was a relatively expensive structure, but the cows 

 were dirty and the yard and stables uniidy. At the Institute stable, when the 

 rul)l)er parts of the milking machine were not kept in a limewater bath, the 

 bacteria] count was abnormally large. 



An attempt was made to determine the source of the bacteria found in the 

 milk from the station barn. This test covered G milkings extending over a 

 period of (> days during May. " In this stable about no jier cent of the bacteria 

 were eliminated when straw bedding was well moistened. A reduction of about 

 25 per cent was secured when a closed pail was used in milking as compared 

 with an open pail. About 23 per cent of the bacteria were eliminated when the 

 Hanks of well-cleaned cows were moistened." About 14 per cent of the bacteria 

 were removed by discarding the tirst streams of milk. A test of the relative 



