16 N. H. Agr. Experiment Station [Bulletin 291 



ducer were carefully reviewed to determine whether or not any of the high 

 counts previously discussed actually did cause him to take second or third 

 premiums or no premiums at all. The amount over what first premiums 

 would have been and what he received in second or third premiums or no 

 premiums at all would be the amount of lost premiums. This amount varied 

 directly with the volume of milk shipped during a pay period and the rate 

 paid. As was previously pointed out, more high counts occurred during 

 the summer and early fall months when the highest rates were in effect. 



In the preceding discussion of Table 5 the counts could be considered 

 separately for many single factors, but it is necessary to combine these fac- 

 tors still more when considering pay periods and premiums. The bacteria 

 counts are based on four samples of milk taken for each producer during a 

 pay period; accordingly, the chances of having more factors in one period 

 are greatly increased. Furthermore, many encountered a variety of troubles 

 during the three-year period. This explains why new combinations were 

 necessary in determining the lost premium for each producer. (See Table 6.) 



The most important single factors in total lost premiums for the entire 

 three-year period are in the following order: steriHzing, $1,542.18; cooling, 

 $331.74; and gargety milk, $290.86. On a combination basis, sterilizing, 

 unreliable hired help and milking too soon after freshening were the most 

 costly, amounting to $1,380.22; sterilizing and not stripping after the milk- 

 ing machine, totalling $949.35, second ; and sterilizing, dirty milking ma- 

 chine, porous rubber, and wooden plugs made the third largest lost premium 

 item, totalling $520.49. 



Comparing the factors on a yearly basis, considerable improvement was 

 made in sterilizing methods between the years 1931 and 1933. Whereas 20 

 producers lost premiums in 1931, totalling $659.50, only 13 lost premiums 

 because of poor sterilizing in 1933, amounting to $358.46. The average of 

 premiums lost on this account showed much improvement between 1931 and 

 1933. However, some producers learn very slowly. One large shipper lost 

 $121.24 in 1931, $213.57 in 1932, and $164.29 in 1933, or a total of $499.10 

 during the three-year period, because his equipment was not sterilized. 



About the same yearly losses occurred for cooling. There was little 

 change in the number of men who lost premiums, but there was a down- 

 ward trend in the average amount lost. The largest amounts lost by any one 

 producer due to this factor were $67.69 in 1931, $61.70 in 1932, and $43.87 

 in 1933, or a total of $173.26 in the three-year period. His losses would 

 have built several well insulated cooling tanks. 



Gargety milk caused producers more trouble and bigger premium losses, 

 both average and total, with each succeeding year. The largest amounts lost 

 by one producer for this cause were $30.63 in 1932, and $59.65 in 1933. 

 Another lost $38.73 in 1932, and $35.80 in 1933. 



About the same situation was found in respect to drying off cows, milk- 

 ing once a day, milking too close to the freshening period or too soon' after. 

 Since all of these factors are so closely allied with gargety milk, particularly 

 in the producer's mind, they could be considered as one group. On this basis 

 the total premium losses for each year would increase from $33.79 in 1931 

 to $160.11 in 1932 and to $232.81 in 1933. Apparently these conditions 

 need to be guarded against more carefully, for 26 producers in the combined 

 group experienced trouble with them in 1933. 



Comparing the most important combinations of factors on a yearly basis, 

 a marked improvement was made by those who had not sterilized properly, 



