View report page

111
The contention of the creamery proprietors was that at the same rate of
carriage the conveyance of milk in bottles would be more profitable to the
railway company, since there is less trouble in handling the cases, and the
latter being flat may be arranged in tiers in a van. An economy of space is
thereby effected which it is alleged more than compensates for the additional
cost of haulage, while the customer benefits through receiving milk free from
contamination and interference in transit. At the same time, the farmer
would, it was stated, receive a slightly increased price for his milk, while the
consumer would be charged no more than at present. It was also contended
that the granting of the concession would cause a considerable increase in the
trade in milk generally. The railway company concerned, on the other hand,
maintained that it is no more trouble to carry milk in casks and cans than in
bottles in cases, and that if the bottled milk trade increased it would probably
be only at the expense of the existing milk trade, so that the new customers
would be favoured at the expense of the old. The firm in question subsequently
arranged for a motor service between the creamery and Glasgow, and
no settlement of the question raised was arrived at.
The Sealing of Charm for Railway Transport.—Board of Agriculture and
Fisheries (Intelligence Division)—Extract from Annual Report for 1905:—
The value of sealing churns as a protection against pilferage appears to
depend largely on the pattern of churn used. The type which, owing to the
simplicity of its lid, is apparently the most popular permits both the removal
of milk and the addition of water without unsealing the churn. The protection
afforded by sealing in such cases is therefore not complete, though the
abstraction of milk would, in the case of a full churn, not be easy owing to its
weight, some 2 cwt. There are, however, several makes of churns with lids
so arranged that it would be very difficult to add any water to the milk without
taking off the lid. In the case of milk sent by rail in such churns with the
lid sealed there is very little risk of anyone attempting to abstract milk and
make up the quantity by adding water.
The attention of the Board was drawn by one of their Agricultural
Correspondents to the fact that seals on milk churns sent from a certain
station were being, in some instances, removed by the railway officials. On
enquiry being made it appeared that the seals in question had been removed
from churns which had not the tare stamped on them in the manner prescribed
in the owner's risk rate conditions for the carriage of milk.
Two cases where railway companies have detected persons stealing milk
from their stations have been brought under the notice of the Board this vear.
The traders regard these cases as showing that the check kept by the railway
companies on the removal of milk from their stations is insufficient. The
railway companies probably woulditake the view that they show that any cases
of theft that occur are readily detected.
Reference was made last year to the fact that small shortages in milk sent by
rail might be caused by leakages in churns, and also that soap and rags were
occasionally employed by farmers to stop such leakages. During the past
summer a farmer in the neighbourhood of Liverpool was fined 29s., including
costs, for stopping a leakage with soap. The Local Authority proceeded for
breach of regulations made under Article 13 of the Dairies, Cowsheds and
Milkshops Order of 1885.