4 
THK AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. 
sells, that lie may receive the proper recompense, and not 
too little, while perhaps his neighbor for poorer milk 
receives too much. Both the farmer and the dairyman, 
by the employment of a milk tester, find the cows it is 
the part of wisdom to retain, and as readily those which, 
reducing the profits of the better animals, should be 
speedily discarded. 
The farmer with but a few cows is now ready for such 
a machine or apparatus, provided it is not too expensive, 
and he can successfully manipulate it. Does such a 
method for testing cows exist? 
f, . - 
COMPARING METHODS. 
As we have said, there are a number of methods that 
are well known, accurate and approved, but the question 
arises, Which is the most practical for the farmer and 
the dairyman? 
It is our purpose, then, to compare three methods for 
determining the fat present in milk, viz., Babcock’s, 
Cochran’s, and Shorts’, observing the economy of hand¬ 
ling the different apparatus, the rapidity of work, sim¬ 
plicity of structure, accuracy, and the cost of the outfit. 
To do this, we have made from 16 to 32 fat determina¬ 
tions with each apparatus; from each, whole, skim milk 
and cream, always drawing from the same general sam¬ 
ple and source. Our conclusions are summarized below : 
Economy of Handling .—Regardless of time, w r e find 
the Babcock tester to be much more cheaply man¬ 
ipulated, from the fact that but one reagent is 
required, commercial sulphuric acid, or oil of vitriol, 
having a specific gravity of 1.82, or about 90 per 
cent, pure acid. In addition to this, hot water is 
always required. The cost is about one-fifth cent per 
test when the sulphuric acid can be secured wholesale. 
With each of the other methods the same required for 
