MR SPRAGG AND THE LISTERBABCOCK.

Waikato Argus, Volume V, Issue 375, 29 December 1898, Page 4

MR SPRAGG AND THE LISTERBABCOCK.

The following from the New Zealand Dairyman, in reply to the letter by Mr Spragg to that paper, which has already been published in these columns, and Mr Spragg's further rejoinder will interest our readers : The Dairyman says:—"We have to thank Mr Spragg for ■ his explanation, we did not require his quotation from the work of Mr John Oliver—the work is on our shelves. All we will say here in reference to the quotation is that Mr Oliver must have been, at the time of writing his book, quite ignorant of the working of the Babcock test, or was referring to test bottles and pipettes marked incorrectly in order to give an estimate of the amount, of butter which the milk would produce. And, furthermore, Mr Spragg must know this. Mr Spragg then quotes from the chart issued with the Lister-Babcock tester, but omits to mention—innocently may be—that the chart is for "Computing amouHt of butter, for use with Dr. Babcock's tester." As Mr Spragg's quotation, "Suppose tat by tester shows 32 per cent., by adding o'4 we get the actual amount contained in the milk, viz., 3'6," is misleading, we will explain it. The chart he refers to for computing amount of butter is based necessarily on the standard over-run (amount of butter over butter - fat), and this is generally considered to be one-sixth or as it is in Mr Spragg's quoted example o'4, which a little calculation will show is about one-sixth of 3*2, and, added to the latter, gives the actual amount of butter contained in the milk testing 3'2 per cent. Perhaps Mr Spragg has blundered in confusing such a table (which attempts to show how much butter a certain amount of milk will produce) with one giving the total butter-fat in certain quantities of milk when the milk tests a certain percentage. In regard to the statement that the Lister table ' appears to have been compiled by G. Embrey, C.F.S.,' etc., we would point out to Mr Spragg that the Cornish, Curtis and Greene Manufacturing Company, Wisconsin, U.S.A., were the first firm in the world to manufacture the Babcock tester—in fact, were the inventors of the machine for applying Dr. Babcock's principle. This firm issued in 1891 a chare' for computing the amount of butter,' of which the Lister chart (from which Mr Spragg quotes) is an exact fac-simile. It will be agreed that as Dr. Babeock was chief chemist of the Agricultural Experiment Station of the University of Wisconsin, and the firm of Cornish, Curtis and Greene are also located in the Slate of Wisconsin, that it was most natural for tho local firm to make the first machine which was to effect the doctor's idea and to publish the first tables in connection therewith," Mr Spragg has replied:—"Editor New Zealand Dairyman, Wellington. Sir, —In your criticism of my recent communication published iu your issue for December, you do not dispute the correctness of my quotation from ' Milk j Cheese and Butter,' by Oliver, but you have the large and unqualified courage to correct that authority, and to say that Oliver was, ' at the time of writing his book, quite ignorant of the working of the Babcock.' I suppose this statement of yours was not made under excitement, and there is nothing left for me to say beyond expressing the appreciation of your temerity, which every dairyman who reads your words will feel. Your criticism upon my quotatiou from the Lister-Babcock instructions is a different matter, and is based upon your own unpardonable misrepresentations. I quoted the table for calculating the total solids in milk for use with the patent Lister-Babcock milk tester, and not, as you, without any excuse for the mis-statement say, one for ' Computing the amount of butter." I neither 'blundered' nor 'confused,' nor did I ' omit' anything either • innocently 'or otherwise. There is no reference whatever to butter in the table Irom which I quoted, but only to fat, and that as a basis oi calculation, and not as an end in itself. My point was that Oliver's and the Lister-Babcock statements agreed that o'4 added to the observation gives the amount of fat (not butter) in the milk. The position between us is a simple one. Either you or I are in the wrong. You have disposed of Oliver in a sentence, but unless you can dispose of the ListerBabcock instructions for ' calculating ' (the word is not ' computing') the total solids in milk' by showing that they do not exist, or that I have mis-quoted you leave it opeu to be supposed that Oliver, whose statement exactly agrees with it was not, is not the 'ignorant' person after all. I do not want to bandy words with you. I repeat I have quoted correctly and fairly. You insinuate that I have not. If you will prove that I have not I will forfeit £SOO, and will pay the amount over to public charities which you shall name, You see, in making this offer I do not ask yon to risk anything, but I assume you will cither secure this money for the institutions Ve/erred to, or make the amende honourable-In me. If I have attempted to mislead, &H you have unworthily suggested, I deserve to suffer; on the other hand, if you have done- me injustice, you will want to make some amends. Many of your statements aud some of your calculations will bear a. little commenting upon, but I prefer to settle one thing at a time, and not to confuse issues. I await the proof or the

retraction of your implied change that I have misquoted either innocently, ignorantly, or wickedly in this matter.