1 
Vol. LXXIV, No. 4313. 
NEW YORK, JULY 3, 1915. 
WEEKLY $1.00 PER YEAR. 
A Youngster Well Worth Raising. Fig. 325. 
The Fat Test For Condensery Milk. 
Is it Fair to the Dairymen ? 
There has been considerable complaint among dairy¬ 
men, regarding returns for milk under the system of 
paying on the basis of the fat test or per cent of fat 
in the milk. Is this test fair in determining the value 
of the “solids not fat?” We h ave opened 
the discussion to farmers, buyers and 
scientific men alike. The latter take a 
hand this week: 
From the Inventor of the Babcock Test. 
I T is a general rule that milk with 
low fat test contains proportionate¬ 
ly more solids not fat than milk 
with a higher test, and consequently 
there is apparent injustice in basing 
the price of milk upon the fat test 
only. I believe, however, that there 
are compensating factors which fully 
balance the difference. It must he re¬ 
membered that the commercial value 
of hutterfat, per pound, is many times 
that of the solids not fat, and that the 
price paid for a pound of fat, in aver¬ 
age milk, at the condenseries is higher 
than at creameries, where skim-milk 
is returned to the patrons. In most 
cases this extra price is more than the 
value placed upon the solids not fat 
by the farmers themselves. For this 
reason creameries cannot compete with 
condenseries located in their immediate 
vicinity. 
Another factor which should be con¬ 
sidered is that more water must be 
evaporated from milk with a low test 
to prepare a product containing the re¬ 
quired amount of solids, than from a 
milk with a high test, and consequent¬ 
ly the solids of a rich milk are more 
valuable to the condensery than the 
solids of a poor milk. For these rea¬ 
sons I believe that the per cent of fat 
comes nearer to indicating the actual 
value of milk for these purposes than 
any other single test. It would be 
possible to determine the solids not 
fat from the specific gravities of the 
milks and to apportion the payment in 
accordance with results obtained, but 
it must be remembered, when this is 
done, that the price paid for fat will 
be considerably lower than at present, 
and I doubt very much if the patrons 
would he as well satisfied as under the 
present arrangement. If the fat and 
solids not fat are both rated at their 
commercial value the amount received 
for the richest and the poorest milk 
will differ but little from that received 
under the present plan. 
S. M. BABCOCK. 
I Diversity of Wisconsin. 
JD 
t-4 
% 
cenl 
03 
4) 
a) 
<j 
4-* 
03 o* 
o'* 
J3 
C5 
> 
o 
OB 
4-* 
o 
(-4 
> 
3.00 
if! .90 
7.70 
$ .308 
81.208 
3.50 
1.05 
7.95 
.318 
1.368 
4.00 
1.20 
8.20 
.328 
1.528 
4.50 
1.35 
8.45 
.338 
1.688 
5.00 
1.50 
8.70 
.348 
1 .8 is 
5.50 
1.65 
8.95 
.358 
2.008 
6.00 
1.80 
9.15 
.368 
2.168 
73 
-a 
O 
0,0 
j3 r—4 
2.60 
2.94 
3.29 
3.63 
3.97 
4.31 
4.657 
By studying the above table, it will 
be seen that under Borden's present 
system of paying for skimmed milk on 
a flat rate, the producer of low-testing 
milk gets a better price for the solids 
not fat his milk contains than does the 
producer of rich milk. The food value 
at four cents per pound of the protein, 
and sugar in 100 pounds of the poor 
milk is 30 cents, while in the 4.5% 
milk it is 33.8 cents. 
Under Borden’s present arrange¬ 
ment, if I understand it correctly, the 
producer of 3% milk would receive 
pay for about 150 pounds of skimmed 
milk when he furnishes 4.5 pounds 
of fat, while the producer of milk con¬ 
taining 4.5% of fat would receive pay 
for only 100 pounds of skimmed milk. 
Thus the producer of low grade milk 
gets paid for his excess of solids not 
fat at their market value. He does 
not think he is being paid for his 
solids not fat, but he is paid a better 
price for them than his neighbor who 
is producing rich milk. 
In my opinion, Borden’s method of 
paying a definite price per pound for 
the fat and another price for the milk 
serum (skimmed milk) is right and 
proper, because it pays each producer 
equitably for the food value in his 
milk. When a miner delivers a load 
of ore to the smelter, he is paid one 
price for the gold it contains, and an¬ 
other for the silver, and he is allowed 
nothing for the slag and dross, and 
that is the proper principle to apply wherever pos¬ 
sible. The hutterfat corresponds to the gold, the 
protein and sugar to the silver and copper, and the 
water to the commercially worthless slag in the ore. 
A New Recruit for the European War. Fig. 324. 
An Analysis of the Situation. 
I believe the producers of milk of 
low composition are laboring under a 
misapprehension of the problem. They 
are receiving the same amount per 
pound for the fat in their milk that 
is paid for the fat in richer milk, and 
as * understand it, all producers are 
l»aid a flat rate per 100 pounds for the 
skimmed milk. That gives the producers of 
grade milk a little higher price for each pout 
protein and milk sugar in the skimmed milk 
is given the producer of naturally rich milk. 
The demand for hutterfat as a food gives it a 
fairly high value over other fats and over protein 
and sugar. The protein and sugar of milk have a 
comparatively low value, because they have to coui- 
is so because the Bordens pay for the skimmed milk 
on a flat rate of so much per hundred, regardless of 
composition, and the skimmed milk from 100 pounds 
of 3% milk does not contain as many pounds of 
protein and sugar as the skimmed milk from 100 
pounds of 4% or 5% milk, a point overlooked. 
pe e . .. the proto, ■ , nd 8ugars produccd plentl . 
felly from other noun.,, Nearlv ev9rJ . one w ,„ 
agree ttat 1% of fat antf o( proteln an<J sugar 
m a 3% milk has no greater,... lu9 than tatf 
and one per cent, of protein and rai . in a miIk 
While the market value of a porn. of thege diftv . V ' 
ent constituents fluctua. M tll( * 
supply and demand, perh. >s ;l f;lil . 
price for the raw hutterfat ,, ni | (l | >e 
30 cents a pound, while four , t 
pound for the casein and sugar 
about all that can be realized fro a. 
these substances without expending 
much money converting them into 
more concentrated, desirable and con¬ 
venient form for use. The following 
table gives approximately the per cent, 
of protein and sugar in pure milk con¬ 
taining different per cents of fat. and 
the value of 100 pounds of each milk, 
calculated upon the basis of 30c pei 
pound for fat and four cents per 
pound for protein and milk sugar. 
100 lbs. of Milk. 
Fat Sugar and Protein. ; * 
