304 REPORT OF THE CHEMIST OF THE 
TABLE XV. 
EEEEEEEE—E—E—E—T—T—ET—TCE—E—C——EEEEEEEE=EESE=E—EEIEIEIE=ELESE=SESES=E==SSSSSSSSSSSS 
: : Dividend : 6 1 Dividend 
Fat in milk. Farner Fat in milk. nites 
Per ct. Per ct. 
3.00 5.10 4.05 6.67 
3.05 5.17 4.10 6.64 
j 3.10 5.24 4.15 6.71 
3.15 6.31 4.20 6.78 
3.20 5.38 4.25 6.85 
3.25 5.45 4.30 6.92 
oooU OP 4.35 6.99 
Shoo 5.59 4.40 7.06 
| 3.40 5.66 4.45 ales 
3.45 5073 4.50 7.20 
oRDU 5.80 4.55 (eer 
8.55 5.87 4.60 7.34 
3.60 5.94 4.65 7.41 
3.65 6.01 4.70 7.48 
f 3.70 6.08 4.75 7.55 
ge Sato 6.15 4.80 7.62 
3.80 6222 4.85 7.69 
3.85 6.29 4.90 Vehike 
3.90 6.36 4.95 7.84 
3.95 6.43 5.00 7.90 
4.00 6.50 


(5) The introduction of the fat-test is called for by this method, 
and thus a great step in advance would be made in comparison with 
the weight-of-milk method. This might ulitmately lead to the adop- 
tion of the simple fat basis. 
The following objections may be suggested to such a method: 
(1) It aims to pay for the amount of cheese produced with- 
out regard to composition or quality. Of course, this same objec- 
tion applies to the fat-and-casein method and the fat-plus-two 
method. 
(2) The method of calculation may give amounts of casein dif- 
fering from those actually present in milk. In individual cases and 
for single tests, this might be true, but, taking the average of a 
whole season, the differences would not usually be found great, and 
the season’s average would be the factor on which to base a com- 
parison as to accuracy. As a matter of fact, in the case of the 50 
herds already referred to, in no case was there a difference in the 
season’s results greater than 0.25 per ct. of casein between the cal- 
culated amount and that obtained by the chemical method, while 
in the case of 40 out of 50 patrons the results differed by less than 
O.I per ct., in several cases being identical. 
