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



who had milked too soon after freshening and had experienced trouble with 

 the hired help. In 1931. five of them lost $707.12 ; in 1932, six lost $399.29 ; 

 and in 1933, six lost $273.81. The same was true of those producers who in 

 addition to not sterilizing, had dirty milking machines, porous rubber and 

 used wooden plugs in old-fashioned eight-quart cans when cooling the milk. 

 Their losses dropped from $225.76 in 1931 to $156.98 in 1932, and to 

 $137.75 in 1933. However, one man in the group managed to lose about the 

 same amount each year. His losses were $85.79 in 1931, $100.43 in 1932, 

 and $92.88 in 1933. His principal sin was poor sterilizing and old rubber 

 on the milking machine. 



The two producers who had trouble in sterihzing equipment and who 

 persisted in not stripping the udders clean after using the milking machine 

 lost $233.06 in 1931, $267.01 in 1932, and $499.28 in 1933. One reason for 

 their high losses was the large volume of milk shipped. 



Totalling the last premium in each year for all factors given in Table 6 

 shows that $2,541.22 was lost in 1931, $1,926.31 in 1932, and $1,876.93 in 

 1933. On a percentage basis, the premiums lost in 1931 were 12.1 per cent of 

 the grand total; 9.1 per cent in 1932, and 12.0 per cent in 1933. Without 

 doubt if the study had been continued through the years 1934 and 1935, it 

 would show a smaller percentage of lost premiums during these years, be- 

 cause recent reports show this station had advanced farther in the quality 

 program. 



Differences between Grade A and B producers: In order to determine 

 the fundamental differences between the A and B milk producers it was 

 necessary to compare them in a detailed way regarding the stable, the milk- 

 house, the type of equipment, general condition and method of caring for 

 the equipment, handling the milk and the labor and current costs involved. 

 Although many B producers had identically the same equipment and were 

 caring for the milk in about the same way as the A producers, this analysis 

 brought to light a number of practices in which they differed. These gen- 

 eral differences indicate what the B producers would have to do in order to 

 equal the Grade A standard if they were to produce milk averaging under 

 10,000. 



Some of the B producers in both the Pattee and Monroe areas were 

 in the Grade A class. They appreciated the fact that they were handling a 

 highly perishable food product and they performed conscientiously each 

 operation which would insure its quality. In the Pattee area many of the 

 Grade B producers were anxious to be taken on as Grade A, if the opportun- 

 ity developed. A few of the B producers in the Monroe area had shipped 

 Grade A milk in the past. Several of them stated that they were following 

 the same procedure in producing B milk that they had used in producing 

 the Grade A milk. However, the comparison of the two groups of B pro- 

 ducers on the volume of milk shipped showed that those in Monroe shipped 

 much larger quantities daily than those at Pattee. For this reason they had 

 more to do with, and theiV stables and milkhouses were generally better 

 equipped than those of the B producers at Pattee. During the year 1933, 

 the 79 Grade A producers had 1189 cows, the 17 Grade B producers at 

 Pattee had 243, and the 24 Grade B producers in Monroe had 507. 



Stable: In many instances the cows were kept in the stable over night 

 during the summer because there was not a night pasture close to the barn. 

 This practice required more labor in keeping the cows and stable clean. 



