PASTEURISATION.

Putaruru Press, Volume IV, Issue 152, 30 September 1926, Page 3

PASTEURISATION.

THE DIRTY MILKERS SHIELD. i Its Effect on Milk. Despite the advance cf dairy science and the latest strictures on the sale and supply of dirty milk, there are still with us, unfortunately, a large number of milk producers who, if they only knew it, would be responsible for more infant mortality than the infamous King Herod could ever have hoped to be, if it were not for the fact that the large town dairies and most dairy factories pasteurise the whole of the milk that passes through their hands.

The conditions under which some milk is produced in this country, and in this province, and, to come nearer home, in the environs of this city, are little short of disgusting, remarks a southern writer. Those whose lot it is to use the milk so produced, or those who ore compelled to consume the cheese or but ter, would turn with distaste from the thought of it if they knew one-tenth of [ the squalid conditions that surround the milk before it leaves the farm. Mud and Slush. Cows stand knee-deep in slush and mud and filth in the middle of winter waiting to be milked. In summer, too, often dirty ponds are their only watering places. To the hygienic farmer it may be surprising to hear that many a herd is never even Washed before milking operations commence. I have worked in sheds that never saw a pan of water for washing teats from one scestson’s end to another. The animals are brought into cowsheds that can be smelt 50 yards away and milked by men whose hands still are covered with accumulated grime of a day’s work on the farm. Too often skin diseases on the hands of the milker arc not sufficient to warrant his suspension till a cure is effected. When all these conditions, and hundreds of others, such as those that produce “slimy’’ milk and germ-laden milk, are considered dispassionately, one can readily understand why those who handle the milk are compelled .to go to great expense to pasteurise the supply, thus increasing iis cost, and at the same time decreasing its nutritive value. Pasteurisation, which docs not improve the milk, has been made necessary in the interests of public health and quality production. Why should it be necessary to put milk through a. process that does it no good? Because the producer lias not yet learned that the quality of production is a much more important factor in successful farming than a vaiu yearning for booming markets. Damaged Goods.

There is one fact to face in this connection. Although the retailer of milk or produce is, as a result of pasteurisation, given the satisfaction of selling a safe and innocuous article instead of the deadly liquid that is sent in to him with the good, he is, nevertheless, compelled to sell an inferior and damaged article. Fresh, pure, clean milk is the most valuable and health-giving of foods, but the same cannot be said for milk that has first been made dirty and diseased and then purified. The dirt wTI remain, even though it has been rendered innocuous. This is a fact, not obvious at first sight, but which has been substantiated by numberless experiments.

Pasteurisation brings about certain changes in milk that do not improve it. The actual scientific explanations need not concern us (I do not know what they are, anyhow), but there is a certain resulting depreciation in the vitamines and mineral properties of the milk, that makes it malnutritive. An unequal balance of these two elements produces deficiency. Pasteurised milk is not-dangerous, but it is not as good as it should be. It is unnecessary, ana wholesale pasteurisation is a bad precedent to sot. It tends to kill the incentive to produce the superior article. The careless milker knows that this process will counteract his carelessness an ! so he just continues in the same old way. A Good Standard Wanted. On the other hand there are plenty of farmers who take a pride in producing the clean, wholesome article—not necessarily for the hope of greater returns—but simply because they arc naturally thorough, and would be ashamed to turn out shoddy. In the case of town delivery these men have their reward, as their customers soon find out which milk keeps well in hot weather They have only to keep on producing good milk to retain their custom. The care-

less man finds that there is little room for him in town delivery, and probably sends his milk to the factory. Here again pasteurisation is his salvation. The dirty is mixed with the clean, and both are pasteurised, though the process is unnecessary in many cases. Of course, the factory manager can warn his suppliers, but there have been eases where delinquents have been warned, as a result of which a strainer has found its way into the shed, only to be thrown aside because the milk would not go through. So ihey slip back into old ways again.

As long as a few dirty milkers supply the same factories clean milkers, pasteurisation will be necessary. And as long as it is found necessary to continue this process, so long will the produce, exported or consumed locally, be benca.h the standard that could be attained.

It is a case of the farmer helping himself in this instance, and by the exercise of a little care and a few of the principles of common cleanliness, he can effect a great improvement in his milk and his dairy produce. The time cannot be very far distant when his neglect will be the subject of severe legislation. Milk will not be permitted to be sold off any farm unless it comes up to necessary standards. And ifa standard is to be fixed let us hope it is a high one, based on a qualitative bacterial count as well ns a quantitative by an unassuming quiet worker in a laproducer. distributor, and consumer, here or abroad. Wc shall hnv-e to fee.-* this question before long and it is to be hoped that a move is soon made.