Experiences with Solids-not-fat and Protein Testing

Abstract

Subject. We might find that interest has declined on milk composition during the past few years, if frequency of comments in trade publications, discussions at industry conventions, and with individuals are indications. This is a very super- flcial observation and could be incorrect. If we find that interest has declined, then it would be helpful to know the reasons. Could it be that proponents of change in buying formulae have grown weary from an apparent lack of pro- gress in this area?, Will the magnitude of the change involving many regulations at local, state, and federal levels; price support pro- grams; numerous federal marketing orders; various grades of milk for fluid and manufactur- ing purposes; and many subsequent areas of utilization of the raw commodity result in overwhehniug ramifications of change, and lead to the conclusion that inequities in the present methods are not great, and any advantage gained would probably not be significant ? Never- theless, these reasons are not sufficient to ne- glect the problem. With the exception of California and one area in Wisconsin, there have not been any changes in buying practices. Though there has been variable progress in some areas, our indus- try has been going through important changes. At the ADSA Symposium in 1963, Coulter (3) cited large government purchases of solids-not- fat (SNF) and milk fat as evidence that there was no need to increase production of these products. At that time SNF was 11.8% in excess production and milk fat was 8.9%. In only four years, surpluses of both items have become unimportant. The consumers' changing attitudes towards milk fat and SNF are clearly shown in a recent report from the National Dairy Council. Butz (2) reported that by using 1947-1949 as the average consumption of 42.9 lb of protein and other nonfat solids, and 29.5