Part II.] DISTRIBUTION OF MILK. 137 



as it comes from the cow, especially since the former is some- 

 what richer than the latter in total solids? 



It seems to me the answer to both questions is "No." If 

 this feature of the law is without reason, and if its effect is 

 detrimental to breeders of cattle for rich milk, why should it 

 not be repealed? There are laws inconsistent with the plain 

 dictates of common sense. This is one of them. Another such 

 law is the one prohibiting the sale of skim milk in New York 

 City. 



The law of which I am complaining, coupled with the prac- 

 tice of producers selling to dealers by the can, regardless of the 

 real value of the milk, results in coarse work commercially. 

 We keep a record of all the milk and cream bought at each of 

 our 20 creameries, and likewise a record of the disposal. This 

 applies to the pounds of milk and cream bought and sold and 

 to the fat therein. Exception is made as to the sales from our 

 Auburn and Portland factories, where we have not as yet at- 

 tempted to keep such records. But for 18 creameries where 

 such records have been carefully kept and proved twice each 

 month (as of pay day) we jfind that for eleven months we come 

 out with a loss in weight of milk and cream of two-tenths of 1 

 per cent, and with a loss in pounds of fat of three-tenths of 1 

 per cent. This means that for every 100 pounds of milk and 

 cream bought we sold 99.8 pounds; for every 100 pounds of fat 

 paid for we sold 99.7 pounds. Now do not think for a moment 

 that our employees weighed and tested each lot as closely as 

 this, but they weighed and tested each lot as closely as they 

 could. They all understood that was what they were there for; 

 and the average was very satisfactory. Perhaps one producer 

 for one day or for one period got less or more than belonged to 

 him, but there is no reason why each one should not get pretty 

 exact justice in the long run under our system. Compare the 

 system of buying of producers by the can without regard to test 

 of fat. Three and five-tenths to 4 per cent is no extreme varia- 

 tion in the milk of different herds. This means that for every 

 100 pounds of fat furnished in the richer milk the yield of fat 

 in an equal number of cans of the poorer milk would be 87.5 

 pounds. This is a big variation in values — what I call coarse 

 business. The variations found by various milk inspectors are 



