QUESTION OF MILK TEST.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LV, Issue 246, 7 March 1913, Page 7

QUESTION OF MILK TEST.

sitreme con: :' actiox. SHARE-MILKER v. DAi.IY FACTORY. JXTERESTIXG EYIDEXCE. The Supreme Court was yesterday afternoon engaged in hearing a case in which Arthur Howard Playle claimed from the Riverilaie Co-operative Dairy Factory Company Xs<>l damages for alleged libe!. Mr. M. Myers (of Wellington) and Mr. I). 0. Smart (Hawera) appeared for plaintiff and Mr. C. U. Morrison, K.C. and Mr. P. O'Dea (Tlawera) for defendant company. The ease was heard before Mr. Justice : Deniiiston and the following special jury:—\V. J. Penn, A. IT. Arnold, E. V i Webster, H. Ward, G. Ramson, W. L. Xewnian. 0. Deacon, A. MeHardy, W. F. I Xewnian. A. Ambury. 13. Wells and -J. C. Webster. Mr. Penn was chosen foreman. In o])ening llie case. Mr. Myers stated that plaintiff was concerned not so much about making money out of the case but in rehabilitating his character and reputation. The claim was for £5Ol, but this amount was sought because for 7io smaller sum could they have the cause brought before a jury. If the jury found that the facts and evidence were such as to support a verdict in plaintiff's favor, plaintiff only asked such a sum as would cover the expenses he was put to. Plaintiff was what was known as a share-milker, and worked for his father-in-law. Mr. Willcock-. who was at the time the events occurred that formed the ground for the present action chairman of directors of the Riverdale Company, though he was not now in that position. Playle was assisted bv his wife (Wilicocks' daughter) l and liis mother-in-law (Mrs. Wilicocks), The herd consisted of 10.) cows, mostly Shorthorns and Ilolsteins. and was one of the largest herds in the district. Playle superintended operations as a whole; his wife attended to the stripping and nothing else, whilst Mrs. Wilicocks had ch; u'ge of the milking machines. Xo one else was employed. Wilicocks himself had other farm business to attend to.

Counsel proceeded to describe how the milk was conveyed from the shed to the milk stand. It was by means of a V-shaped shoot, constructed almost horizontally, there being less than a l'/»in incline in the 33ft. For about lift another V-shaped shoot, was enclosed, being what was termed water-jacketing, the object of it being io cool the milk, when necessary, on its passage down the shoot. It was important to notice that ihe water was always running for about 15 to 20 minutes before the milk passed, so that if any water came through it must have been seen by those operating. The milk was delivered by Playle himself, the farm being but a quarter of a mile from the factory. Priot to Xovember 1 the morning's milk Was not put over the cooler, though the evening's was. Xo water could have been put 5n the milk unless by Playle or someone else within his knowledge, especially as the amount of added water alleged was up to 12 per cent. It was always possible a vindictive person would put water in the evening's milk, but it was only the morning's milk that it was alleged was affected by water. There ; was no opportunity of'.adding water to the morning's milk without the knowledge of plaintiff. The basis of payment was the amount of butter-fat contained in the milk supplied. The extent was ascertainable by means of the lactometer or Rabcock tester. A ' certain amount of whey was returned to suppliers to cheese factories, for use in feeding calves and pigs, "it a supplier watered his milk, he would get an extra supply of whey, but the man who would do a tiling like that was no better than a. sneak thief, for he would be robbing his fellow suppliers. A popular notion among some milk suppliers was that if tjhey diluted their milk with water they somehow would obtain better tests. The (esfs of milk varied considerably and often rapidly. Very often the variations were unaccountable. The smaller the herd the smaller the variation, and, on the other hand, the bigger the herd the greater the variation, both in quality and quantity. Tic referred to the possible causes. Excitement amongst the herd, the dogging of cows, the sudden change of weather conditions, etc., might upset the herd and affect the quality and quantity of milk. Holstein cows, which formed a big proportion of Playlc's herd, produced a large quantity of milk as a rule hut \\i.'rc not always good butter-fat producers. Counsel proceeded to state that on October 23 and 24 the manager of the factory spoke to Playle regarding the quality of his milk, which was deficient in solids and fats. Playle could not understand the deficiency, and invited the manager to visit his place and see the conditions for himself. He did not accept the invitation. During the next two days the tests happened to be better. Later he got the manager to test his milk, and found it to be 2.5, which was a low test. Subsequently the manager, at the solicitation of Mr. Willcocks visited the farm and inspected the milkchute. Counsel here referred to the constituents of milk. There was a proportion of what is known as butter-fat, solids other than fat. and water. Whilst the regulations under the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act provided for a standard of 3.25 butter-fat and 5.5 of solids not fat in milk for domestic purposes, this provision did not extend to milk supplied to dain- factories. The Dairy Industries Act. however, dealt with factory supplies, but set no star-da rd for solids not fat. This was a point of great importance. The only provision was that the milk supplied must be pure and in fat content not lc-s than :! per cent, lie contracted the English law with the Xew Zealand law on the subject. In England when samples of milk were taken for analysis, a portion of the sample was kept by the vendor, for the purpose of checking the analysis. This war different from (he wav dairy managers did the testing in Xew Zealand. They -imply made the tc-(. carefully or caivh---!y. and. mi lhc ; i 'ip-e dixit.'' without reference to an independent analysis, supplier- were posted as having added, water to ilicir milk becau-e the -ample -upnlied wa- below the standard set by the Sale of Food- and Drug Act. The dairy factories thought they could treat snpplcrs with contemptuous indifference, as they had treated plaintiff in the present action.

Tlii' in;iii:ij!i'i\ i-oiil iiuicd counsel. visited I'lavle's j)l;lci'. and proceeded io examine (lie mill; clmte. with the view to aiccrfaining how ami where the water was coming in. lie started scratching nhoiit and found a lioli' and then another. Tie thought he had solved the mystery. lint his own common sense should have shown him that even with ,i -mitl! hole the of water was insufficient to allow of the admittance of sneh a large anionnt of water as. according to his calculations, had boon added to. the milk the sample ofwjlicli lie had tested. These tests were 'postnil up in a conspicuous place in the factory without Playle having had any opportunity whatever of checking flic results or having them checked hv an analyst. Tt'wa-i (vac that the notice mentioned -•<-jfe+*MpTMjr><;: of Willcocks and not I'Jay}?' St3sisfeifii!%-'ii> - "-■:.... -'••-. ; :: /i- ; ''•.•.•.'••. '■

but everyone knew the relations between the parties ami that (lie parly hold to lie responsible was plaintiff. Counsel said that the only way of arriving at a true. Lest of whether water had been added to milk was by means of the freezing test. The JJabcock calculations could only raise the prima facie presumption that water had been added. It could not distinguish between water added to milk and milk naturally delicient, in solids. Tie would call expert evidence from Dr. McLaurin, Dominion Government analyst, and Professor Easteriield, of Victoria University to prove, this.

Dr. James hi. .McLaurin. doctor of science and Dominion analyisL, was lirst called. In that capacity he receives a large number of samples of milk year by year for analysis. Was acquainted with the methods "of taking lactometer and ISabcoek tests, but did not use them. >Tlie worst method of ascertainig beyond doubt of (he amount of added water there may be in milk. It was by means of the cryo-scopical or freezing test. It depended upon the difference in freezing points of pure water and water found in natural milk. Water freezes at .0 degrees centigrade ami genuine milk at minimum point ."wo. The freezing point of water was determined, and . then the freezing point of milk by the same instrument immediately after-: wards. If the milk under examination had the freezing point mentioned, then it was normal. If between that and .0 degrees, then water had been added, the preparation of which could easily be calculated. There was no other method by which the same question could be accurately determined. Knew that under the Sale of Foods and Drug Act the standard was that milk should contain not less than 12 per cent, of the total solids. .Made other tests to determine total solids and solids fat and solids not fat in milk. Had found samples of milk showing deficiency in solids not fat, and yet showing on the cryo-scopic test that no water had beer added. Some of the lowest had been down to 7.87. The samples were taken from cows under the Government inspection. This was in Auckland. Some in Taranaki were almost as low. Had had samples which were beyond question genuine milk below the standard. The early spring. September and October were the months when the lowest tests were obtained, Milk testsexamined in September in the morning] showed that these were Bper cent und*r it he standard. There were KiOO tests. The evening tests were slightly worse. October was better being 3% in the morning and 3.8 of the samples submitted were under the standard. Those r tests referred to two or three years ago.] There were, considerable variations in; tests from day to day in the same herds j due to cold weather, insufficient food, or J excitement. These would all involve re-j duction mainly to solids in fat and in > a lesser degree to solids not fat. In | Holstein cows the average in solids not I fat was 8.0. This referred to England. He had not New Zealand figures, but knew the average wasllor.w r . At Wereroa, near Levin, they had a model dairy farm. Some years ago tests were inado there, .and they were low; some below the standard regulations. Knew of no other legal standard for solids not fat other than the one under the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act.. Could not safely say if the Hancock and lactometer tests showed an excess of water over standard, that excess proved water added after milking. If there was an excess of 10 or 12 per cent, of water on the basis of a standard of 8.5, solids not fat, there would be a presumption that water bad been added. The test mentioned in the statement of claim showed nothing first of all in the lactometer readings to indicate added water. These lactometer tests appear to have been read to whole degrees only. They should have been read to half degrees at least. A few but very few lactometers used in factories bad been sent in for examination, and some had varied from point S above to point 2 below.: One may be point S too high and the other too low. If a lactometer were half j a point out it wonld make a difference, of about 1.12 per cent, in solids not fat. There were several well-known formulae, for obtaining excess of water added or otherwise after the lactometer reading, and the fat and total solid percentages had been ascertained. Had applied these formulae to the figures (quoted in the statement of claim) based upon the only legal standard (8.5) in New Zealand. On that standard could not find there was any excess of water in the first case. In No. 2 there was an excess of 7.41 (instead of 12. as alleged). In the uth case 2.24 (instead of 11 per cent.). Without a freezing test one could not say whether those percentages were due to added water or were due to the poorness of the natural milk. If samples had been sent to him he could have ascertained definitely by the freezing test. In taking lactometer readings, temperature was a matter of importance; (10 degrees Fahrenheit was the temperature at which they should be taken. If the lactometer were put into the sample at any other temperature corrections would have to be made. Five degrees in the temperature would make «■ difference of half a degree in the lactometer. To Mr. Morrison: Took in his formulae the factor representing the solids not fat at 8.5. This was the minimum in the Sale of Foods and Drug Act. Each hcrd\ milk bad its individually in average quality. It would be very poor quality which would he represented by 5.5 in* solids not fat, Would expect to find that on poor land. Have never done any dairy farming. If he were a factory manager he would first ascertain as far as possible the normal standard of quality in the milk if he decided ' to use the -Babcock and lactometer tests. Supposing the average standard of solids, not fat. in a herd were 0.1. would not anyone designing to get as near as possible the amount ofadde'd milk use !) instead of 5.5? Yes, A cold snap would affect also the quantity of milk, and so the volume might be reduced on a particular day. Assuming an even set of conditions there might: be many causes to account for a sudden rise back to the same conditions. Supposing the average to be 51100. and one day jumped up to 5500, how could you account for that? I am not a dairy farmer. In normal milk there'was no relation 'between solids not fat and but-ter-fat. In examining milk he had not particularly sought for that. There could, however, be no relation. Considered Richmond's Dairy Chemistry an aiiihorify. but did not know I'rofessnr Schniedd's (Minnesota) work. Did not know whether I'rofessor Goodwin's work could be regarded as an authority. 8.!) was (lie average all'over the world in English speaking countries of i-olids not fat in milk. He had made calculations on that basis. The results were lirst M.B second 11.ti and the third 0.7 of added water (these referred to the ti-sl- mmioned in the statement of claim). Assuming the average of Mr. Willcocks' breed was higher titan the general average in non fatly solids, then you would be justified ir taking the higher factor than, 8.5. Yes, he would employ the higher figure assuming that method was available. The amount/if added water cannot be arrived at under the Babcock arid lactometer tests unless one absolutely knew wdiat the original solids were. He ' (witness) quite disagreed wi,lh liarfhell's Milk and Dairy Produce Publication,' wherein he says there is no i difficulty in proving added water, where j more than 10 per cent by means of the! formulae mentioned. Assuming the particular milk contained 8.11 of solids not I fat as it left the cow the formulae show- ( ed. that it contained added water. Itwas not an ascertainable fact now. and J ,y.asv : -not then (except by cryb-scopic

test) or by ascertaining from the person li;iwiling the milk wli.il percentage (if not i'at whs in the milk. Would you in any ca.sc adopt. the lactometer anil Babeoek test as conclusive? No; T could not lie quite sure. In 1900 he took ];j!)S samples taken and tested. Would not have as many as that in an ordinary year, hut had ,1 great number. The averne'e from genuine milk specially taken oi all milk supplied for town of solids not fat was 8.1115. Would expect this to show a higher standard, because of the provision of the law than in herds sunplying factories, Ihe Court then adjourned till this Muominir.