120 



(;RAI)I\(. AM) IKSTIXC; MILK AM) CKI.A.AI 



Ilabcock Test <j[ 



Condition of Cream 



\'iscous, not \'cry smooth 



Smooth and e\'en 



Ilea^y on top, liquid Ijelow, lump_\ 



Viscous but good condition 



(luite liquid 



\'iscous, slightly' lump\' 



Top fair, bottom almost solid, 



lumpy 



(Jood condition 



Dipper 

 Sample 



41 .0 

 ,S0 . o 

 42 -5 

 34 . S 

 ^6 . 5 



40-5 

 47 S 



40. S 



Tube 

 Sample 



44.0 



39. S 



,3S.S 

 M ■ S 

 -4-5 

 40.5 



39-S 



Difference 



I'er Cent 



3-° 

 o-S 

 4.0 

 i.o 

 2.0 

 0.0 



g.o 

 1 .0 



While the difference in the test of the samples under the two 

 methods was usually not great, yet the dipper method of sampling 

 proved unreliable. 



Sampling- tube. — At creameries where milk is received, the 

 sampling-tube, or milk-thief, gives the best results and satis- 

 faction. It is A'ery difficult in practice to get a proportionate 

 sample with a dipper, from day to day. To illustrate: A patron 

 who dehvers 200 pounds of milk testing 3 per cent fat one da}- 

 may on another da}' deliver 100 pounds of milk testing 5 per cent 

 fat. If a dipperful is taken from each for a composite sample, the 

 test of that composite sample will be 3-1-5^2, or 4 per cent. 

 According to this test, these 300 pounds of milk delivered will 

 contain 12 pounds of butter-fat. In reahty 6 pounds of fat were 

 delivered in the 200 pounds, and 5 pounds of fat in the 100 pounds, 

 making a total of 1 1 pounds of fat. Thus we see that the dipper 

 method is not reliable, and in this case the patron was paid for 

 I pound of butter-fat too much for the two da}-s' deliver}-. If 

 the sample taken from the 200 pounds of milk had been twice as 

 great as that taken from the 100 pounds of milk, then the com- 

 posite test would have been perfect, no matter whether it had 

 been taken with a dipper or with a sampling-tube. If the same 

 weighing-can is used every day, it is possible to maintain an 



