View report page

125
A letter was received on the 18th February, 1908, from the Secretary of a
Farmers' Association that he had tested Mr. D.'s milk taken at the farm, and
found it below par, that the cows were giving poor milk, and some days afterwards
he advised Mr. D. to alter the feeding to see if that would bring the
quality up to standard. On the 9th March the Secretary wrote again, saying
that Mr. D. was giving an abnormal ration of concentrated food, with the
result that the morning's milk was just over the standard. He pleaded that
the Dairy Farmer was innocent of any fraudulent action or intent, and asked
for the summons to be withdrawn.
The two summonses were heard at the same time at Clerkenwell Police
Court on the 25th March. The summonses were for the deficiency of 9 per
cent, of milk fat in one case, and of 8 per cent, in the other, and it was
explained by the Solicitor that of the two other samples taken of the same
consignor's milk, one was found to contain 3 per cent, of fat and the other
3.16 percent, of fat. It was also explained that each of these samples was
taken from separate churns on the same day, which must have represented
the produce of a large number of cows. Witnesses came forward to swear
that the milk was sent to London as it was drawn from the cow. Of course
it is impossible to bring controverting evidence in such cases, and the
Magistrate dismissed the cases.
This case raises some important questions It does not matter so far as the
consumer is concerned whether the farmer acted ignorantly or fraudulently.
It appears that by altering the feeding, the milk of a certain cow was altered in
composition, and it is known that according to the strain and breed cows can
be chosen for yielding large quantities of poor milk instead of small quantities
of milk of a high standard, so that by economising on the price of the herd
and on the quantity and quality of food, either an ignorant or a frudulent
dairy farmer can produce milk that is persistently below standard
(and the Board of Agriculture's standard itself is low), and can produce
witnesses to swear that this is the genuine article. The fundamental point,
therefore, that has to be decided is whether the law should require that all
milk produced shall be above a given standard, as it is evident that the Sale of
Milk Regulations of the Board of Agriculture, dated 5th August, 1901, were
useless to control the quality of milk consigned by a dairy farmer in bulk in
this case, which was tantamount to an appeal to a herd of cows.
THE APPEAL TO THE COW.
Ertract from the Annual Report of the. Board of Agriculture and Fisheries,
for the Year 1906. p. 59.'
"Reference was made in the issue of the Journal for May, 1907 (p. 89), to
the importance of testing at certain specified intervals or at certain points in
the lactation period for the purpose of ascertaining the average percentage of
fat contained in the milk of individual cows, while for the purpose of checking
the proportion of butter-fat in the mixed milk of a herd, it is obvious that
testing at frequent intervals must be necessary. It is hoped that as the value of
the system becomes more recognised, regular and systematic testing will be
more generallv adopted, and will take the place of the occasional and sporadic