118 



Fig. 120. 



made by A. H. Barber Mfg. Co. 

 (Chicago) as a reminder to those 

 who know about it, but do not 

 use it as yet. The "IDEAL," the 

 "FACILE," indeed, nearly all 

 the modern power testers are 

 now satisfactory. The whole 

 question of Milk Testing is so 

 well covered by Profs. Farrington 

 and Woll, in their book "Testing 

 Milk and Its Products," that it 

 would be absurd to go into de- 

 tails here. 



I have before referred to the advantage, aye of the neces- 

 sity, of testing the individual cows if we want to get milk pro- 

 duction on a solid business base, and also suggested the Danish 

 plan of neighboring farmers co-operating and having a young 

 man to do the work by visiting each farm and do the testing 

 there. 



It is true that another plan would be to have him bring 

 the samples to the creamery and do the testing there if the 

 creamery manager has the good sense to co-operate with his 

 patrons and help in the good work. 



In the former case the young man (or old one for all that) 

 should have a convenient hand tester, easy to carry from 

 place to place. When the test first came out I had Mr. D. H. 

 Roe put up one of his four bottle testers for me in a telescope 

 case. This was 16^ inches square and 10 inches wide, and 

 there was a special rack for the glassware in the tester. But 

 even this was not very convenient and the modern styles are 

 all made much heavier so that this plan is not practical. The 

 Illinois State Food Commissioner felt the need of a handy 

 traveling outfit for the inspectors to use, and the State An- 

 alyst, Dr. E. N. Eaton, has just got up a modified Babcock 

 Tester, with modified Sharpies "Russian" bottles. 



This is shown in Fig. 121, and Dr. Eaton thus describes 

 his portable milk tester: 



"The bottle consists of two parts the bottle proper and 

 the removable reading tube. The bottle is four inches long 

 by one in diameter, and is divided into two compartments, the 



