THE BABCOCK MILK TESTER. 
Value of the Machine for the Dairy Farmer. 
My experience with and observation of the Babcock 
tester has mostly been in dairies where milk is taken 
to the creamery or milk station. I recall two instances, 
however, where butter makers have used it in their 
dairies. In one of these the dairyman used the test 
and found that he was getting considerably less butter 
than he should, judging from the test he made. After 
some experimenting he discovered that 
his churn was too small, as a larger 
churn gave him the correct yield, accord¬ 
ing to the reading he had made of his 
testing bottles. The other instance was 
one where five neighbor; purchased a 
10-bottle machine together. This was 
passed around from one to another as 
was found convenient. Not only was 
the milk and the skim-milk and butter¬ 
milk tested, but each individual cow 
came under scrutiny. Some great sur¬ 
prises resulted. In one of these dairies 
the cow that had been regarded as the 
best proved to be the one that yielded 
the smallest amount of butter on the 
farm. Some of those that had previ¬ 
ously been “endured” came up toward 
the head of the class. So far as I am 
able to judge, and I have visited a good 
many dairy farms, not more than one 
per cent of dairymen use the Babcock 
test. Many feel that they do not know 
how to test milk, and that there is some¬ 
thing about it that they cannot learn. 
I know a rural school where the test 
has been taught, at least to some ex¬ 
tent. It took very little time from other 
studies. The pupils were shown how 
to measure and then left to make their 
own measurements with the pipette, sev¬ 
eral of them taking it home and prac¬ 
ticing with water till thry could meas¬ 
ure very well. Then came the readings. 
The test bottles were nearly filled with 
water, bringing up the column into the 
neck of the bottle a little. On this 
column was placed a small quantity of 
oil from the machine oil can, some kero¬ 
sene having been added. This repre¬ 
sented the quantity of fat, and careful 
readings were made and compared. The 
work was found to be of great interest 
to the pupils, especially as much dis¬ 
cussion had been made in the neighbor¬ 
hood respecting the test. 
If one is making butter, it seems to 
me that the test might be of enough 
benefit to make it profitable, as indi¬ 
cated in a previous paragraph. If one 
furnishes milk to a creamery where the 
per cent of butter fat is used as a basis 
for payments, it might pay the dairyman 
to use the Babcock machine, both as a 
protection and a satisfaction. In either 
case, it will pay the farmer to know the value of his 
individual cows, and this can only be determined by 
means of a testing outfit. If one is furnishing milk on 
the “pooling system,” and every man is trying to get 
as near the limit allowed by law as possible, I am 
not sure but the man is happier if he remains ignorant 
of the true value of his cows. More dairymen are 
using the test than ever before. 
The size of the outfit would have to be determined 
according to conditions. One can get along with a 
two-bottle machine, and if he simply wants to know 
how his herd, as a whole, stands two bottles might 
do very well; but if he wishes to test each of the 10 
to 30 cows in the herd, lie will probably add another 
dollar and get a four-bottle machine. Even an eight 
or 10-bottlc machine is not too large in that case, 
though four bottles will answer. I know an owner of 
a'herd who discarded an eight-bottle machine for a 
larger one, because he wanted to make frequent tests 
of his 30 or more individual cows. It is in testing 
the individual cows that the value is greatest. It’s 
an eye-opener, and many a “boarder” has had 
to “get” after the Babcock came, because she 
never paid up, and many a “suspicioned” cow got her 
true estimate only after the machine spoke her merits. 
The weighing scales and the Bahcock tester are becom¬ 
ing essentials for the dairy farmer. To use the tester 
requires care. Measurements must be accurately made, 
the acid must be right, and the whirling sufficiently 
rapid and continued long enough. The temperature at 
reading should be the full 140 degrees F., and the full 
column should be read from outside to outside, as de¬ 
scribed by Prof. Wing. Doubtless the best way is for 
a neighborhood to purchase a machine together, and 
cither pass it around or let some one operate it for all, 
each sharing in the expense. In case of a family of 
boys, a testing outfit would make a glorious Fourth-of- 
July present, would make interesting and useful amuse¬ 
ment, and be a source of much information and training. 
Regarding the method of using the test, there are 
differences of opinion. 1 remember quoting Prof. Hills 
one time at a farmers’ meeting, the professor having 
said that two tests 1 a year for each cow will answer very 
well. One of these should be made at a time six or eight 
weeks after the cow comes fresh, and 
the other at five to seven months along 
in the lactation period. A man present 
immediately pronounced this a lazy 
man’s method. Prof. Pearson suggested 
to us a short time since that one test 
at about four months after the cow 
freshens will give an approximately cor¬ 
rect value of that cow’s quantity of but¬ 
ter fat, but he added that he would take 
samples for at least three days, and 
make a test from the composite sample. 
I will admit the closer accuracy when 
frequent tests are made, but for a man 
who is busy with his farm work I be¬ 
lieve either Prof. Hills’s method or that 
of Prof. Pearson will answer his pur¬ 
pose quite well. Perhaps a combination 
of the two methods, that is, make the 
two tests but take a composite sample 
for three days at each time, will answer 
as well as any way. It is quite a chore 
to make a test with a hand machine, 
though not by any means difficult after 
a little practice. 
Since writing the above I have figured 
on an official test made on a Guernsey 
cow owned by Dr. Evans of this place. 
It is as follows: January, 4.20 per 
cent; February, 4.22; March, 4.91; 
April, 4.87; May, 4.50; June, 4.01; July, 
4.23 ; August, 5.63 ; September, 5 ; Octo¬ 
ber, 5.15; November, 5.15; December, 
5.15; average, 4.78. It is evident that a 
test taken in six weeks and again in six 
months would give an average under 
the yearly average in this case. It could 
not be made to average over 4.36 per 
cent, or 0.42 per cent less than the year¬ 
ly average. This was a two-year-old, 
and gave 9,030 pounds of milk in 365 
days. Had it been a 4,000-pound cow 
there would have been less than 17 
pounds of butter fat estimated under 
that' from a full year test. The 9,000- 
pound cow would vary about 38 pounds 
of fat. H. H. LYON. 
R. N.-Y.—As some readers may not 
be familiar with this machine it may be 
said that the Babcock tester is a device 
consisting of glass bottles, varying in 
number from two to 12, according to 
capacity of work desired, set in a centri¬ 
fugal machine. The bottles have long 
necks with graduated scale marked 
thereon. Given quantities of the milk to be tested and 
sulphuric acid of 1.82 specific gravity are put into the 
bottles, and they are then swiftly whirled. The acid 
dissolves all solids other than the fat, setting the fat 
free so that it can be measured at once. The rotary mo¬ 
tion is to hasten the action of the acid. This test was 
invented in 1890 by Dr. S. M. Babcock, of Wisconsin. 
For effectiveness and simplicity it is the best known and 
has practically taken the place of all others. Tt may be 
safely worked by anyone who can make exact measure¬ 
ments and will handle the acid carefully. It costs from 
$8 to $14 at dairy supply houses. 
SPRAY OF MARECHAL NIEE ROSE, MUCH REDUCED. Fig. 181. 
See Ruralisms, Page 442. 
