Sie sind auf Seite 1von 58

Dej)(a'l1nent of Agricultural Economics Bulletin No.

In each of the past five years taste tests of various kinds of reconstituted milk have been
held at the dairy marketing sessions of the Agricultural Industries Forum. In 1963, ten
different reconstituted milks were sampled by about 200 people. Some of the samples
were mode from sterilized cream and nonfat solids mixed with water, and some were 3: 1
sterilized concentrated milk mixed with water. The judgment of those testing the milk was
that at least half of the samples were of sufficiently high quality to be acceptable as a
replacement for fresh whole milk. Those participating in previous taste tests agree that the
quality of products tasted has tended to improve each year.
In the cover photo, which shows the taste-test session at the 1963 Forum, are (left to
right) Dr. E. O. Herreid, Professor of Dairy Technology, University of Illinois; Dr. T. W.
Workman, Borden Company, New York City; Jean Moffett, Deportment of Agricultural Eco-
nomics, University of Illinois; and A. H. Kaemer, Galloway-West Division of the Borden
Company, Fond du Lac, Wisconsin.
STERILIZED MILK PRODUCTS
Processing· Testing · Marketing
Papers in Dairy Marketing
Presented at the Fifth Agricultural Industries Forum
January 29 and .'30, 196.'3

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS, COllEGE OF AGRICULTURE· SEPTEMBER 1963
Additional copies may be obtained from the Department of
Agricultural Economics, University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois
Table of Contents

I NTRODUCTION. 5

WHY AND HOW WE GOT INTO ASEPTIC CANNING


OF STERILIZED MILK PRODUCTS 6
F. J. BARTER

WHAT U.S. STEEL IS DOING TO EXPAND MARKETS


FOR STERILIZED DAIRY PRODUCTS 9
THOMAS E. WILEY

RECENT RESEARCH DEVELOPMENTS IN PROCESSING


STERILIZED MILK CONCENTRATES 14
A. M. SWANSON and M. E. SEEHAFER

PANEL TESTING OF STERILIZED DAIRY PRODUCTS 27


B. H. WEBB and KAREN E. NELSON

LOWERING UNIT COSTS WITH CAN STANDARDIZATION


FOR STERILIZED MILK PRODUCTS 33
F. M. JOHNSON

SHOULD THE GOVERNMENT INCLUDE PACKAGED STERILIZED


CREAM IN ITS PRICE-SUPPORT AND FOOD-FOR-PEACE
PROGRAMS? 41
ROLAND W. BARTLETT

PROTECTIVE ACTION OF MILK AGAINST STRONTIUM-90


FALLOUT . 50
B. L. LARSON

LIST OF THOSE ATTENDING THE DAIRY MARKETING SESSIONS


OF THE 1963 AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES FORUM. 52
Introduction
At the dairy marketing sessions of the 1960 Agricultural Industries
Forum , talks were centered upon finding ways to eliminate trade barriers
in the distribution of mill<. On June 4, 1962, in the LeHigh Valley case,
the U.S. Supreme Court declared compensatory payments exacted under
the New York-New Jersey Federal Milk Order illegal because they tended
to preve nt the free flow of high-quality milk betwee n markets or produc-
tion areas. This decision has resulted in an "agonizing reappraisal" of all
federal milk orders which include compensatory payments.
Another case, Polar Ice Cream ComjJany v. Florida, was accepted for
review by the U.S. Supreme Court on March 18, 1963. In this suit, an
attempt is being made to permit high-qu ality Alabama milk to be sold in
Florid a. Presumably, a decision on this case will be made within the
n ext few months.
A logical quest ion is: Of what significa nce to the marketing of steri-
lized milk products was the Supreme Court's decision on the LeHigh
Valley case and its acceptance of the Polar Ice Cream case for review?
The answer to this is simply that there is now a determined legal effort
to break down trade barriers which have prevented the free How of milk
between markets and between sta tes. The elimination of one barrier
p aves the way for elimination of others.
Since sterilized milk and milk products are likely to be produced in a
limited number of plants, it is highly desirable that there be the greatest
possible freedom in marketing these products throughout the United
States.
Why and How We Got
into A septic Canning
of Sterilized Alill'L Products
F. J. BARTER'

It is a pleasure to discuss something that we have been interested in


for a number of years - aseptic canning of sterilized milk products.
Our first experience with aseptic canning took place about 13 years
ago. At that time an aseptic system, which included a tubular-type heater
and an aseptic canning machine, was installed in Borden's Elgin, Illinois,
plant. The company experimented with various formula foods and with
sterile milk and chocolate drink, and much work was done with various
methods of heat trea tmen t and with stabil izer combinations in the pro-
duction of these products.
We were able to produce products that we considered marketable.
However, aseptic canning equipment was relatively new at that time,
and it did not operate with required mechanical efficiency. Considerable
spillage took place in the operation, and waste was high. Upon com-
pletion of our research, it was decided not to proceed with the marketing
of these products, and the project was dropped for the time being.
In 1960 Borden introduced a fresh 900-calorie dietary drink called
Ready Diet. This was produced in both chocolate and vanilla flavors.
Consumer acceptance of the product was good, and many favorable
comments were expressed as to the flavor quality.
As our experience broadened, we began to realize that the fresh
product had certain limitations. We found that many people were in ter-
ested in such a product, not as a steady everyday diet, but for inter-
mediate or future use. They wanted to have it on hand in the event
they wished to skip a meal now and then. The fresh product, requiring
refrigeration, did not lend itself to this type of program. Because of these
limitations, it was decided to supplement the fresh product with a sterile
product that would not require refrigeration. vVe also wanted to main-
tain the flavor quality of the fresh product.
This is when aseptic canning came back into the Borden picture. Our
earlier experience indicated that this method of processing would provide
'Vice President in Charge of Production, The Borden Company, Central
Division, Chicago.

6
a product of good quality and one that could be handled without
refrigeration. Further experimentation with the dietary drink proved
that this was true, and in the fall of 1961 we entered the market with an
aseptically canned sterile Ready Diet drink.
Although consumer acceptance of the sterile product was good, sales
growth was checked by a shrinkage in the market for measured calorie
products of all kinds. Some people said diet drinks were just a fad.
Others believed they were not a fad but that volume would settle at a
reduced but steady level. The opinions were and still are mixed on this
question.
To supplement the production of Ready Diet, we developed an egg-
nog drink and marketed it in a limited area during the recent holiday
season. We had many comments on the fine quality of this product.
Whether sales of this product, because of off-season availability, will
continue throughout the year is still a question.
Borden's aseptic canning line is located in the Galloway-West Division
plant in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin. Heating is done by a spiral heat ex-
changer capable of raising product temperatures almost instantaneously
to 300 0 F. This equipment is designed so that temperatures and holding
times may be varied as desired. Homogenization is done by sterile-type
homogenizer, and a Dole 4-S canner is used in the filling operation. Other
mechanical equipment includes cluster-pak machines, casers, case sealers,
coding equipment, and conveyor systems. 'vVe also have a steam-injection-
type heater installed so that we have a choice as to the method of
sterilizing employed. Investment in this type of equipment is substantial.
If a fair return on investment is to be realized, volume must be sufficient
to provide for maximum use of the equipment.
As of now, aseptic processing of dairy products is still pretty much in
its infancy. To predict its future at this time with any degree of cer-
tainty is most difficult. From our limited experience, we do have some
observations to make.
We certainly do not believe that sterile products will replace fresh
dairy products in the foreseeable future. We do believe that sterile
products may complement the sale of fresh dairy products by increasing
product availability. We are all aware of the modern housewife's interest
in convenience items. We are also aware of the fact that due to sudden
demands and Jack of refrigerator space she often will not have enough
fresh dairy products on hand to meet her needs. Here, then, may be the
answer to her problem. She can keep a reserve supply of sterile products
on her pantry shelf to supplement her fresh product requirements. This
should lead to increased dairy product sales.
Sterile dairy products should also find acceptance by the military for

7
use In those areas where fresh products are not available and for use m
food-for-peace programs, as has recently been outlined by Dr. Bartlett of
the University of Illinois.
One of the problems that must be faced at the present time is the com-
paratively high cost of containers used in the aseptic canning method.
Quart costs exceed the cost of a quart paper con tainer by approximately
5Y2 cents. A 46-ounce can costs approximately 5 cents more than a paper
half-gallon. This high container cost makes it difficult to market single-
strength aseptic products and still keep them competitively priced with
fresh dairy products. Concentrated products may bring this cost more
nearly in line. However, we question whether toclay's modern housewife
is ready to accept concentrated dairy products. We believe that a way
must be found to provide for lower container costs.
\l\/ e also believe that a worcl of caution is in order at this time. In the
past few weeks we have had occasion to taste some of the sterile dairy
products that are currently being offered for sale. Some of the products,
in our judgment, were good, but others were of inferior quality. If
products of questionable quality are going to be marketed, they can
adversely affect the future of aseptic canning in the dairy industry. If
consumers get an unpalatable canned dairy prod uct, it will be a long
time before they are ready to try another one. Adequate formulation
and proper quality control must be practiced to prevent poor products
from being offered for sale.
We currently have several products with which we are experimenting.
These products will not be marketed until we are sure they will meet the
quality standards that have been set within our company. We feel that
this is most important where the future of aseptic processing is concerned.
In closing, we believe that aseptically canned dairy products will have
a future in the dairy industry if costs can be reduced and if adequate
research is carried on prior to marketing to ensure that only high-quality
products are offered to consumers.

8
What U.S. Steel Is Doing
to EXjJand Markets
for Sterilized Dairy Products
THOMAS E. WilEY'

U.S. Steel's close association with sterilized dairy products began in the
summer of 1954, when it undertook the sponsorship of a research project
at the University of Wisconsin to develop a commercially acceptable
method of processing a fresh-tasting sterilized concentrated mille During
the following eight years, U.S . Steel representatives have been asked
many times, " Why is a steel producer interested in the manufacture of
dairy products?" The answer, of course, is found not in the product itself
but in the material used to package it. For if a commercially acceptable
sterilized concentrated milk product can be de veloped, a large market is
expected to be created for tin plate. And U.S. Steel makes and se lls tin
plate.
So, actually, the title of my discussion could just as accurately be "What
U.S. Steel is doing to expand markets for steel products." This in turn
could be the topic for a nyone of my associates in the market development
division of U.S. Steel, for this is our job.
Examples in other areas of agriculture would involve the promotion of
stainless steel farm bulk milk tanks, galvanized steel roofing and siding
for farm buildings, steel slotted floors for hogs, steel silos, and all-steel
manure spreaders. Also, stainless steel tanks for applying farm herbicides,
pesticides, insecticides, and fertilizers. And speaking of fertilizers, since
they are a byproduct of steel making, we have marketing programs to
promote the use of farm fertilizers.
In most of these programs, our market development activities a re asso-
ciated directly with a steel product or byproduct. Such is not the case,
however, with sterilized dairy products, because here OLlr efforts are pri-
marily on beha lf of milk items, although, to be sure, we expect this
product to be packaged in steel- in the form of tin plate. A unique
aspect of this program was the fact that before we could develop a
market for tin plate, it was necessary to develop the product to be canned.
, Market D evelopment Representa tive, U.S . Steel Corporation, Pittsburgh.

9
PRODUCT RESEARCH
During the early years of U.S. Steel's research project with the Uni-
versity of Wisconsin, a number of fundamental discoveries were made
concerning the key problems of bacterial spoilage control, physical keep-
ing qualities, with special reference to sedimentation and gelation, and
a wide range of factors affecting flavor. A significant technical break-
through was made in 1957, when the relation of viscosity during process-
ing to time-temperature variables was correlated with end-product results.
In 1960 it became apparent that sufficient processing information was
available to determine the most desirable production practices and to
move toward the development of refinements and standard procedures in
these selected processing techniques. At that time, an elaborate experi-
ment was developed by the U.S. Steel Applied Research Laboratory in
cooperation with the university staft'. Starting with seasonal variations
in raw milk chemistry, the purpose was to determine the effects of 1.2
different combinations of processing variables on the flavor and storage
stability of sterilized concentrated milk.
Twen ty-four packs of 300 8-ounce cans were produced every three
months from November 1960 through October 1961. Detailed tests
were conducted on the raw milk, on the concentrated milk immediately
after processing, and on the concentrate after varying lengths of storage
at 45 ° and 75° F. The university's evaluation of the concentrate after
storage included tests of solubility index, viscosity, flavor, gelation, and
sedimentation. Also included were tests to determine whether lacquered
and nonlacquered cans were equally satisfactory.
After all th e data were collected and tabulated, a detailed statistical
analysis was made. These data and the conclusions will be published by
the University of Wisconsin in the near future. The results could well
prove to be of major significance to the dairy industry because the
processing variables involved have been carefully correlated with product
results, and the best directions in which to proceed have definitely been
established.
While research was continuing in processing technology, other studies
were being conducted. Those that have been completed and reported
upon include: "Design and physical layout of a plant for the production
of sterile concentrated milk," by R. J. Lemerond; "A cost comparison and
analysis of two model dairy plants designed to produce sterilized con-
centrated milk," by ' 'T . R. Welke; "Costs of producing and marketing
milk concentrates," by L. C. Thomsen; and "Thermal inactivation of
heat resistant bacterial spores in milk concentrate," by W. P. Segner.
Studies completed but not yet reported include nutritional and cooking
evalua tions.

10
Using the basic processing information gained in the 1961 research
programs, U.S. Steel's Applied Research Laboratory and the University
of Wisconsin designed the 1962 research program to point specifically
toward further product improvement. The processing treatments yielding
the most satisfactory products in the 1960-61 program were used as a
basis for evaluation of selected new treatments. The 1961 data showed
that statistically significant results could be obtained within a three-month
period, and in 1962 the program was expanded to investigate new factors
such as polyphosphate addition, pH adjustment, elimination of viscosity
buildup, and steam injection with vacuum cooling.
Preliminary observations indicate that we have been able to solve the
problem of gelation by using polyphosphates and pH adjustment in
combination with the right time-temperature sequence. Also, we can
achieve substantial flavor improvement through elimination of the vis-
cosity buildup period. In addition, it appears that sedimentation can be
controlled by proper forewarming treatments. Final analysis and report-
ing of these results by the university, however, must await completion
of the storage period of six months.

PREPARING FOR MARKET


As a result of progress made at Wisconsin, it was decided to begin
transfer of the processing methods to full-scale commercial equipment.
This is now under way at Dairy Maid Products at Eau Claire, Wisconsin.
In their Clear Lake plant on December 18, 1962, they produced the first
sterilized concentrated milk on commercial lines.
Samples of the commercial product will be sent to the university for
analysis and storage tests so that results can be correlated with those
obtained from the university's experimental-line product. U.S. Steel's
Applied Research Laboratory will assist in designing this test-pack pro-
gram and in tabulating, analyzing, and interpreting the resulting data.
In much the same manner that the preliminary results from the 1961
research program pointed the direction for 1962, current observations
indicate specific objectives for 1963. Even though significant flavor im-
provement was attained in 1962, the longer shelf life resulting from
improved body stability has shown the need for improved flavor, especially
after prolonged storage. We propose to attack this problem through a
program of basic flavor research on the laboratory equipment at the
University of Wisconsin.
As the laboratory processing techniques are refined for production and
as experience is gained on the commercial units, consideration will be
given to producing the large amounts of product needed for consumer
evaluations and market tests.

11
When a reliable source of product has been established and storage
studies a nd test panel evaluations indicate that an acceptable product
can be produced consistently, a consumer study program would seem to
be in order. The purpose of this would be to predict consumer response
to the product and to provide additional information for use in promoting
this development to food processors and distributors.
Some marketing information is already available. Several years ago,
when it looked as though a technically feasible canned product could be
developed, it was thought desirable to make a careful check on the
market potential: Who would buy the new product? How much would
they buy? Where could it be sold? How much would people pay?
These and many other questions entered our minds. To find the an-
swers, U.S. Steel hired the nationally known and well-qualified Alfred
Politz Research organization to make a countrywide survey of housewives.
Politz reported in January 1960, on what is considered a very conserva-
tive basis, that a properly qualified fresh-tasting canned milk concentrate
would probably find a market equivalent to 10 percent of this country's
23-billion-quart fresh milk market. Furthermore, this demand would
probably develop in a reasonably short time after the new product came
on the market in volume.
Incidentally, the deta iled results of the Politz survey were reported a t
this meeting two years ago and can be found in the published talks of
that year." Another report of interest in the marketing area is titled
L egal Aspects of Marketing St erilized Concentrated Milk, by attorney
George Kuehnl, published in January 1962 as Research Bulletin 232.
Much more marketing information is needed, however, especially con-
cf'.rnino' tr:;lrl p h-':-'r'ri P l'C' ':\('C'I"\,....; .., I-orl ~,,;f-I ... ,..\., ...... ........ 1...-.. ..... c _", ~_:': __ .J _1-: . ___ _ . -

Recent Research
Developnunts in
Processing Sterilized
Milk Concentrates
A. M. SWANSON' M. E. SEEHAFER'

The need for and advantages of sterilized milk concentrate, which on


reconstitution with water has beverage-milk qualities, have been reviewed
many times . A discussion of historical developments and economic prob-
lems involved will not be undertaken . Attention will be focused on stor-
age stability problems and recent research developments. These new
hnrt;nrfC ":)1'" ("\ "p,'\.! c;o-nii1l'-::tonf' ':':Inrl (' i"ll"'\l,lrl . . . . . 1. . . -- ~- :-----
to gather infonnation on the critical changes that occur during storage,
and the development of processing techniques to overcome these changes.
In the third category, the effects of changes in processing procedures were
established, as well as the length of storage time that could be expected.
The latest research work has been directed to the use of such aids as
(PO,) n (polyphosphate) additions and pH adjustments in conjunction
with the most desirable sequence of heat treatments.
The research findings to be reported here will include the work on the
effects of (1) forewarming heat treatments, (2) introduction of poly-
phosphates, (3) pH adjustments, and (4) elimination of the concentrate
holding step as compared to the holding of concentrate at 200 0 F. for 2
minutes before sterilization. Also included is a comparison of a product
made from whole milk and that made by formulation of concentrated
skim milk and cream.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE
The processing scheme used in the manufacture of sterilized milk con-
centrate (Figure 1) includes the fOllowing equipment: starting at the
upper left, (1) vats for holding milk at desired forewarming temperatures
and for clesired lengths of time; (2) a vacuum evaporator for concen-
trating milk; (3) equipment for cooling the concentrate; (4) a vat for
standardization; (5) a feed pump to supply the high-pressure pump; and
(6) a high-pressure pump to force the concentrate through holding and
sterilizing tubular heat exchangers. At the lower left is (7) a heat ex-
changer for cooling the concentrate before homogenization; (8) a high-
pressure homogenizer capable of operating under steri Ie condi tions; (9) a
final cooler; and (10) an aseptic canner.
The flow diagram with temperatures and times of various treatments
indicated is shown in Figure 2. All operating conditions were held con-
stant except for the factors that were evaluated. For instance, starting at
the upper left, the cold raw milk was forewarmed to 145 ° F., 165° F.,
or 185 ° F. for 30 minutes and then condensed to 37 .0 percent total solids.
After cooling to 40° F., the concentrate was standardized to 36.5 percent
total solids. At this point the polyphosphates were introduced and the
pH adjustments were made when these steps were included in the experi-
ment. When concentrate holding was practiced, the product was heated
to 200° F. and held for 2 minutes before sterilization. Sterilizing was
done at 295° F. for 3.5 seconds. The product was then cooled to 150° F.,
homogenized at 6,000 p.s.i. , cooled to 50° to 60° F., and aseptically
canned.
Each run required 90 gallons of milk. On the first clay of each run the
milk was forewarmed, concentrated, cooled, and standardized. On the

15
Figure 1. PROCESSING SCHEME FOR STE,RILIZED CONCENTRATED MILK

EVAPORATOR

STORAGE VAT

STANDARDIZING VAT
fORE WA RMING
fEED
PUMP

COOLING

PUMP PUMP

CONCENTRATE PREHEATING
HIGH
PRESSURE
'--_ _ _----.. CONCENTRATE HOLDING '--_ _----... COOLING
PUMP

PRESSURE REliEf
VALVE HOMOGENI ZER ASEPTIC CANNER
Figure 2. FLOW DIAGRAM FOR STERILIZED CONCENTRATED MILK

FOREW ARMING

STORAGE VAT

COOLING

BY - PASS

CON CENTRA TE
STERILIZATION
295 0 F. PREHEATING
3.5 Seconds 200 0 F.
CONCENTRATE
COOLING 3 to l Co ncentra te
CONCENTRATE HOLDING 36.5% Total Solids
2 Minutes 200 0 F.
FEED PUMP

HIGH PRESSURE PUMP


(Homogenizer)

HOMOGENIZER
6000 psi. CONCENTRA TE
Single Stage
COOLING
50-60° F.
ASEPTIC CANNER

......
-I
Figure 3. EFFLCTS OF FOREWARMING TRLATMENTS ON INITIAL SOLUBILITY OF STERILIZED
3:1 CONCENTRATf.D MILK (No CONCENTRATE HOLDI NG)

1.8

1.6
~H ..---
. ~

-----
Control
pH od;usred
(PO, I" added

-'1
• '\P 'Po.,)" .... - - - - pH adiusted &

.-~ .~

-- -
1.4

] 1.2 :~~4 1 1--

]
~

1.0
~~, -,4= pH + 'P~4)" - 1- , - r---
~

,,~iI. I
:g
.
""§
J>

°0;
0.8
0.,
~ 0.6 ,

0.4

0.2
pH d? .,,\
"
~"\
. ~ C? NTROl

---- r--- A
---
.+
-
--,--
0.0
145 165 185
Foreworming temperature tOFJ

second day the concentrate was preheated, held for 2 minutes (if prac-
ticed), sterilized, cooled, homogenized, further cooled, and aseptically
canned .
Tests were run on the raw milk, the concentrate, the finished product,
and on the product after storage at either 45° F., which simulated re-
frigerated distribution , or 75° F. , which simulated room-temperature
handling.
The tests used for evaluating the product were solubility index as meas-
ured by a modified American Dry Milk Institute procedure, sedimentation
by actual accumulation in the bottom of the can, apparent viscosities by
Brookfield viscosimeter, and flavor by a taste panel.·3

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
A series of experiments was cond ucted in which the effects of fore-
warming treatments, concentrate holding, polyphosphate addition, and
pH adjustment were observed. The preliminary results of these findings
will be presented.
Three forewarming treatments, 145°, 165°, or 185° F. were used.
When concentrate holding was practiced, the concentrate was held at
'Rcsults of flavor cvaluations will be discussed in a forthcoming paper.

18
200 0 F. for 2 minutes before sterilization. Polyphosphates were intro-
duced at a rate of .05 percent of the whole milk, and the pH of the
concentrate was adjusted to about 6.55 to 6.65.
Effects of forewarming treatments, polyphosphate addition, and pH
adjustment are shown in Figure 3. In the control sample, to which
nothing is added, the 145 0 F. forewarming treatment results in a high
solubility index value, while the 165 0 and 185 0 F. heat treatments pro-
duce a low solubility index value. Adjustment of pH reduces the solu-
bility index somewhat, but not to a satisfactory degree in the 145 0 F.
forewarmed milk. Polyphosphates have little effect on solubility index.
The effects of concentrate holding for 2 minutes before sterilization
on the solubility index are shown in Figure 4. In all samples except those
with polyphosphate addition and pH adjustment combined, the 165 0 F.
forewarming treatment resulted in higher solubility indices. The 145 0 F.
forewarmed milks had lower solubility indices when holding of the con-
centrate was practiced. At 185 0 F. forewarm ing the results were the
same as shown in Figure 3, except that the control had a higher value.

Figure 4. EFFECTS OJ' fOREWARMING TREATMENTS ON INITIAL SOLUBILIT Y OF STERILIZED


3:1 CONCENTRATED MILK (2-MINUTE CONCENTRATE HOLDING )

2.2

2.0

/ I~
·•

.......---- Control
- -
------
... ----
- pH odjusted
(PO,l.odded
pH adjusted &

V '\1\
(PO. 1. added
1.8

1.6 -
V CONTROL ¥
\
]
<
1.4

- lL
t-- -

~ 1\
~ 1.2
... ~- i',
]
l
e/ .... ....
~
~
, 1
,\
~
""§
1.0 -
....
~~
(PO.). Y
,, \
1---

'"~ 0.8 ... ~

,, '\.
.'!
0.6
-~ i'"---
....
~- - ~-~,

pH
y - "'- .... '" "
'\ .-
0.4
r"- .. i'_"""" ,-' -
+ (PO.). I7 ~""" ...........
pH
--- 1---
................
"
0 .2

0.0
1---- r---. -~
r--- .... :
145 165 185
foreworming temperature (Of.)

19
Figure 5. EFFECTS OF FOREWARMING TREATMENTS ON SEDIMENTATION OF STERILIZED
3:1 CONCENTRATED MILK AFTER THREE MONTH S' STORAGE AT 75 0 F. (No
CONCENTRATE HOLDING )

9
• ........-- Con lrol
• - - - pH adju sted
... , - • -- ---- IPO, ', added

~,
,". ,' '\_frI
I
PH (PO, ), A - -- - pH adjusted &
, IPO,), added
-"
....
..
c
c
a
6

- I~ ", !;>4 (PO, ),


'0

~
':J

~'
c
.~
;;
c ~" '\
,
i
~
'" ~, :- ',\
CONTROL V~
~

... 1'~ ~ ''\


'"~
~ 1-
~;~'~
:--
~ '"
pH ~--- r---_
---- r-- -_ •
o
145
"\ - --
I..=-::
165
Forewarming temperature {Of.l
--
~-
r-- -- •
• ..0:: -


185

Figure 6. EffECTS OF FOR£WARMING TREATMENTS ON SEDIMENTATION Of ST ER ILIZED


3: 1 CONCENTRATED MILK AFTER THREE MONTHS' STORAGE AT 75" F. (2 ·
MINUTE CONCENTRATE HOLDING)

~
u
8

• -.. -- -- --
r---:-:: - 1'. ,, ··.---
--------
------
Conlrol
pH odjusted
IPO,),odded
A - - - - pH odjusted &
IPO,), odded
c
c
0
6
~ '-.... (PO,), ? ,,
'0
j 5
~.
,
CONTROl~"''''' ",
••
M

c , t....
.2
a ....... t--_~ ......
c
E
] ¥- t..~
~
r-..- "
....::.:... r---- ::::....::..:: ~-
+ (PO,), - r--:- ~ ~
, ••
~ pH t
'"~ 2
~

'-~ ...
PH Y

o
145 165 185
Forewarming temperolure (oF.l

20
After three months of storage at 75 ° F., all samples were observed for
sedimentation. Previous work has shown that with a high solubility
index value in the original product one can expect high sedimentation
values. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, this again is true - the best results
are obtained with 185° F. forewarming and no concentrate holding.
Figure 5 indicates that the 165° F. forewarming treatment is also quite
acceptable. In Figure 6, sedimentation, even with 185° F. forewarming,
is too high . Any sample having two 32nds of an inch or over of sedi-
ment within six months is considered unacceptable.
High apparent viscosity values indicate that the product is thickening
on storage and may gel. Any value above 5,000 centipoises (cps.) is
believed beyond acceptance by the consumer. I t may be even lower
than this. The effects of forewarming treatments are again typical. Milks
processed at lower forewarming temperatures have less tendency to gel
but, as shown before, are not acceptable because of high solubility index
values and tendency to sediment on storage.
The effectiveness of the introduction of polyphosphates is shown in
Fig'ures 7 and 8. While pH adjustment alone increases the tendency to
thicken, the poly phosphates again will prevent thickening when combined
with pH adjustment.
The above data report observations limited to three months of storage
at 75 ° F. Additional storage life can be had with refrigerated storage
temperatures. In Figures 9 and 10 the results of extended storage time at
both 45° and 75° F. are shown as an example of a typical product from
165° F. forewarmed mille Of the four sample groups stored at 45 ° F.
(see gray lines, Figure 9) two groups, those with polyphosphates alone
and those with polyphosphates and pH adjustment combined, stored for
48 weeks without sedimenting. The control and the pH-adjusted samples,
however, showed rapid increases in viscosity at 12 to 16 weeks, so sedi-
mentation could not occur. The increase in viscosity upon storage will
keep any sediment suspended in the product.
Of the four sample groups stored at 75 ° F. (see black lines, Figure 9) ,
the control and pH-adjusted samples again showed rapid increases in
viscosity, after 4 to 8 weeks, and again no sedimentation could occur.
Samples with polyphosphates and pH adjustment combined showed in-
creased sedimentation at 16 weeks, while the samples with polyphosphates
alone showed much slower accumulation of sediment.
Viscosity readings (Figure 10) showed that the control and the pH-
adjusted samples stored at 45° F. gelled after 16 to 20 weeks, but the
samples with polyphosphates alone and those with polyphosphates and
pH adjustment combined continued through 48 weeks without change in
viscosity.

21

- 1
cosi ly (cps.) >Tj
LYPHOSPHATE.S AND pH ADJusTMeNT ON ApPARENT VISCOSITY OF PRODUCT FORCIVAR~lED 30 MINUTES AT 16)° F. ciQ"
A- C>- o:>
T 4)° OR 7) ° F. (No CONCENTRATE H OLDING) '"
'0 '0
""
'0 '0
"'"..,....,
"" "" ""
. . . . . . 75° F. Storage
I I ~ ;:M
ZN~
e •• A 45° F. Storage o h[T:

O::':;l
o ..
- Z
gO'"
- 0

Z 0 "'"
.., " 0
l :;:;, () ~
~t"'"I ..,~ >-~
~ I I ..... "''''
>

~P I
ot-4 .., ';?'
::
S g; 6
~~>-J
I--_~~-+---+---t---t---r--- --- ?:t= ~,.
, ..,
~ ~
I .., to

'r.-:" ..,2
>-J~
~ z
g; :J;>
~~
o ~
2 ~
.., Z
I
h
:I: ..,
(PF,I,,45° F.
"'- ....
(f)':
F.~.j..:t
H -1 0
- (PO J 75 F pH
I
-I- (PO,I" 45 0
. _ .., en
o ()

_~:~~;:':~:m'II'" ;...
P 4" _

-. 12
L_l,---i ----- ---
16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
,.'" '"0
"
to

..,,.
--,
In(f)
:j
""'
0
."

° ..,
'"
"'"';'
Weeks of sioroge
Table 1. STORAGE CHARACTERISTICS OF CONCENTRATES MADE FROM WHOLE MILK AND
CONCENTRATES MADE FROM CREAM AND CONDENSED SKIM MILK, ALL
SAMPLES WITH POLYPHOSPHATES AND pH ADJUSTMENT"

Condensed skim milk


Condensed whole milk and cream
Weeks of
storage Apparent Apparent
at 45° F . viscosity Sediment viscosity Sediment

cps. cps.
none 45 50
4 60 0 95 0
8 75 0 95 0
12 63 0 108 0
16 63 0 143 0
20 70 0 110 0
24 63 0 130 0

:1 All samples forewarOled at 165 0 F. for 30 minutes; no concentrate holding.

At 75° F. storage (Figure 10) the samples with polyphosphates added


did not change in viscosity during 48 weeks of storage, but the ones with
polyphosphates and pH adjustment started to increase in viscosity at
about 20 weeks. The control and pH-adjusted samples again showed
extreme viscosity increases at about 4 to 8 weeks.
Table 1 reports the results obtained when 3: 1 sterilized milk concen-
trates made by condensing fluid milk are compared to products made
by formulation from cream and concentrated skim mille Poly phosphates
and pH adjustments were used in both groups of samples. The original
viscosity of the samples made from cream and condensed skim milk is
slightly higher and continues to remain so, but in other respects the
results are identical. I t appears that a satisfactory product may be made
by formulating cream and concentrated skim milk.

SUMMARY
In summary it may be said that forewarming treatments are very
important in the manufacture of 3: 1 sterilized concentrated milk. Low-
temperature forewarming treatments, 145 0 F. for 30 minutes, will retard
the tendency to gel but in turn will give high solubility index values and
will enhance sedimentation on storage. Results obtained with 185 0 F.
forewarming are opposite those obtained by using 145 0 F. for 30 minutes.
The 185 0 F. forewarmed milks result in products that will have low
solubility index values and will not sediment but will tend to gel. When
polyphosphates and pH adjustments are used, with no concentrate hold-
ing, the 165 0 F. and 185 0 F. forewarming treatments give similar results
and yield acceptable products.

25
The introduction of polyphosphates will prevent ge lation but not
sedimentation. The combination of polyphosphates and pH adjustment
is about as effective. A comparable product may be made by formulating
3: 1 sterilized milk concentrate from cream and condensed skim milk.
Research reported here was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Steel
Corporation.

26
Panel Testing
of Sterilized
Dairy Products
B. H. WEBB' KAREN E. NELSON'

The flavor of fresh, fluid dairy products in the United States has been
so good that it has been difficult to produce sterilized products with a
flavor equal to them. The development of improved high-temperature
short-time (HTST) processing has brought us near to the fresh-product
flavor goal. But the sterilized products must withstand a more critical
test than their fresh counterparts - the test of relatively long storage
without change. Storage causes changes in both body and flavor. This
discussion will be confined to the changes in flavor and their measure-
ment.
The quantitative measurement of flavor in dairy products is extremely
difficult. Chromatographic and chemical methods have shown great
promise; but to iden tify compounds responsible for specific flavors and
to determine actual quantities when parts per billion cause pronounced
flavors is a formidable task. At present we must rely on individual or
panel taste testing to give us preliminary answers to our questions about
flavor. Eight- or ten-member panels yield adequate data for reliable
statistical treatment.
Many reports on taste-panel testing are in the literature, which we
consulted when the Dairy Product Laboratory (DPL) taste panel was
organized several years ago. From the background of this earlier experi-
ence we devised a panel routine which has yielded organoleptic data
that can be treated quantitatively. Our ten-member panel, selected from
a roster of at least fifteen trained tasters, meets daily at 11 :00 A.M. in
specially designed taste booths. Usually eight to twelve samples of the
sterilized or other milks are judged at each session. No distraction or
communication is permitted in the judging room. After the samples
have been scored the tasters pass to a discussion room where coffee is
1 Chief, Dairy Products Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
2 Chemist, Milk Flavor Investigations, Dairy Products Laboratory, Agricultural

R esea rch Service, U.S . Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C .

27
figure 1. SCORE CARD USED BY TASTE-PANEL J UDGES, DAIRY PRODU CTS L ABORA TORY

USDA-ARS-EURDD
Session : _ __ _ __ DRY MILK PRODUCTS SCORE CARD Nome: _ _ _ _ __

Dofe : EU Farm 2 (R eVlse d J uIy 1960) B00 Ih N0 .:

Sample Code :
Sample No.: I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 II 12 J3 14 15 16
Score Given :
CRITICISMS
Acid
Astringen'
Bitter

Cholky
Cooked
-- ~

Feed
Fiol
Foreign (Obi.l
Fore ign (Un obj.l
Greasy
Metallic
Oxidized
Rancid (Lipolysis)
Solly
Sco rch ed
Slole
Unclean
Weedy

served and scores are discussed. Details of the panel routine ca n be made
available to those interested.

FLAVOR SCORES
Scori ng of milk samples is done according to a modified Am erican
Dairy Science Associa tion score card with a range of 0 to 40. The effec-
tive range actually is 30 to 40, with an acceptable milk scoring 35 or
m ore. The sco re sheet used is shown in Figure 1. The performance of
the judges for the month of December 1962, cove ri ng the judgment of
about 200 samples, is shown in Figure 2. Only th ree of the sixteen
judges devia ted more than one point from the mean. An advantage of
using ten judges is that such a deviation r eflec ts a d ifference of only one-
tenth of a point in the fin a l sco re of a sample.
Fluid milks sterilized a nd aseptically packaged by various companies
according to their own methods have been examined for fla vor. Some
results are shown in Table 1. Samples A and M were considered

28
Figure 2. AVERAGE DEVIATION OF EACH JUDGE'S SCORES FROM THE SAMPLE. :MEANS,
200 SAMPLES, DECEMBER 1962

02 r-- - - - 1 - -_ _ _ _ _. ._ _ _ __
03 - - - - - r - - ...._ _ _ _ _ _ __

06 - - - - - r - -_ _ _ _. ._
09 - - - - . -r- ______...__
11 r - - - - - - r - - -____• _ __
13 r--- - - . - r - - -11_ _ _" _ __
~ 14 r - - - - - . - r - - - - __..._ _
1 18 r - - - - - - - . -r--II_ _ _ _ _• _ _ __
~ 19 r - - - - ..._ _ _. ._ _ _ _ _ _..._
] 24 r - - - - --. - ) - - - ____• _______..___
r - - - - -r----I____. .____
27

30 r - - - - - f - - - ___• _ _ __
31 - - - - - - - - -__• _ _ __
33 - - - - - - - - - __• _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

35 - - - - . - - -_ _ _ _ _. . ._ _
37 - - - - . - - - _ _ _ _ _• _ __

-2 -1 o +1 +2

acceptable but not quite as good as normal bottled milk, which usually
scores about 37 . The older samples scored below 35.
Typical flavor scores for commercial evaporated milk are given in
Table 2. When the reconstituted evaporated milk was mixed with equal
parts of fresh milk, the mixture was judged acceptable with a score
above 35.
Concentrated milks prepared by HTST methods were generally accept-
able when judged during the first week after manufacture. Some excep-
tionally high scores on this type of milk are shown in Table 3. These

Table 1. FLAVOR SCORES OF STERILIZED FLUID MILKS PRODUCED BY FIVE DIFFERENT


COMPANIES

Age Predominant
Sterilizing when flavor
Sample process judged criticism Score

days
A (1959) 303 0 F., 0 sec. 14 cooked (6 judges) 36. 1
M (1962) 300 0 F., 0 sec. 10 cooked (7 judges) 35.5
F (1960) >30 cooked (7 judges) 33.0
R (1961) 285 0 F., 15 sec. 30 cooked (6 judges) 32.9
D (1963) 285 0 F., 3 sec. 35 stale (4 judges) 32.0

29
Table 2. FLAVOR SCORES OF COMMERCl ,\L EVAPORATED MILKS DILUTED TO NORMAL
WtrH WATER OR DILUTED AND MIXED WITH FRESH FLUID MILl<

Mixture Brand No. Brand )lo. 2

100% diluted evaporated 31 .4 30.8


50% diluted evaporated:
50% fresh milk 35 5 35.8

Table 3. FLAVOR SCORES OF COM~{ERCIALLY PRODUCED, EXPeRIMENTAL HTST STERI-


LIZED MILKS RECONSTITUTED FROM 2:1 AND 3:1 CO NCENTRATIONS

Coneen- Storage
Sample tration a t 40 0 F. Score

Fa clor)' An
1 2:1 none 36 . 0
2 2:1 3 months 35 2
3 3:1 none 36 0
4 3:1 3 months 35 5
Factory 8°
1 2:1 2 months 35 . 7
2 2:1 1 \·v cek 35.8

II All Factory A samples from same batch of milk. 1vlilk forcwarmcd at 190 0 F. for 20
minutes. st c l-iiizcu at 280 0 F. for 15 seconcJs.
b ~1iJk fore warmed at 190
0
F. for 20 minutes, sterilized at 303 0 F. for zero seconds.

Table 4. FLAVOR SCORES OF RECONSTITUTED 3:1 MILKS, BEFORE AND AFTER STORAGE

Storage
185 days, 185 days,
Sterilizing process None 50 0 F. 80° F.

241.5 0 F., 15 min. in th e can 33 4 32.8 32.7


258 0 Y., 2.3 min . in the can 33. 8 33.4 32.9
300 0 F., 3.8 sec. in tubes, aseptically canned 34 . 0 33.9 33.3

milks retained their good flavor even after storage for three months
at 40° F.
A number of sterilized milk sampJes prepared here at the University
of IJlinois under the direction of Dr. Joseph Tobias were scored by our
taste panel. Results of this work will be reported in detail by Dr. Tobias,
but a few of the DPL panel scores (Table 4) may be of interest. Our
panel did not taste these samples when fresh, but Dr. Tobias' judges
scored the HTST samples (258° and 300 0 F.) at 35 at first tasting.
A statistical treatment of panel scores of the Illinois milks held in

30
Table 5. STATISTICAL SIGNIFICANCE OF TASTE-PANEL SCORES ON RECONSTITUTED 3:1
STERILIZED MILKS STORED FOR 37 DAYS

Sterilizing Storage
process temperature Score Significance

oF.
300° F., 3.S sec. 50 34.4
300° F., 3.S sec. SO 34.3
25S o F., 2.3 min.
258 0 F., 2.3 min.
50
80
34. 1
33.7 II
241.5° F., 15 min.
241.5° F., 15 min.
80
50
33.2
33.0 I
storage 37 days (Table 5) shows small differences in significance. In
consideration of all the DPL panel data on the Illinois samples, the fol-
lowing statement can be made: The aseptic milk (300° F .) scores con-
sistently higher but not always statistically higher than the HTST milk
(258° F. in can) at both storage temperatures. The conventional milk
(241 ° F., 15 min. ) at 50° and 80° F . storage scored not only consistently
lower but in most cases significantly lower than aseptic and HTST. The
aseptic milk was always better than the conventional milk at 50° F .
storage. In practically every case, differences in sterilizing conditions were
more important than differences in storage temperature. Increases in
storage time usually caused increases in the intensity of stale flavor.
Sterilized cream and nonfat dried milk can be reconstituted to produce
fluid milks of acceptable quality. Since the cream and skim milk can be
mixed easily without use of special equipment, these products have been
advocated for distribution to families abroad as part of our foreign aid
programs. Flavor scores on milks made from one batch of commercially

Table 6. FLAVOR SCORE.S OF MILKS MADE FROM HTST STERILIZED 40 PERCENT


CREAM AND SKIM MILK

Days Cream
Skim milk and dried
used to milk stored Ave rage Predominant
reconsti tu tc at 40° F. score flavor criticism

non e, fresh fluid milk 36.9 feed (5 judges)


fresh none 35.4 stale (5 judges)
dried none 35.4 stale (5 judges)
fresh 19 36.3 feed (5 judges)
dried 19 34.6 stale (7 judges)
fresh 85 34.1 acid (4 judges)
dried 85 33.9 oxidized (6 judges)
fresh 139 33.7 stale (4 judges)
dri ed 139 32.7 oxidized (9 judges)

31
sterilized 40 percent cream are given In Table 6. After each storage
period the cream was reconstituted with fresh skim milk and with a non-
fat dried milk that had been stored under the same conditions as the
cream. The resulting milk was acceptable when the cream and skim
milk were fresh, but during storage there was deterioration a t what seemed
to be about the same rate as commercially gas-packed dry whole mille

CONCLUSIONS
Sterilized milks with flavor only slightly less acceptable than that of
good pasteurized milk can be made by HTST methods. This fl avor ac-
ceptability usually declines rapidly in storage even at 40° F.; but there
are exceptions, for some samples maintained a good flavor during several
months of storage at 40° F. Further quantitative flavor studies are needed
to improve our evaluation of sterilized milks.
The most pressing unresol ved problem with sterilized dairy products
is how to eliminate stale flavor de velopment during storage. Stale flavor
appears in all products regardless of the method of sterilization used in
their preparation. Sterilization by HTST processes and aseptic pack-
aging produces superior products, but these usually do not retain a fresh-
milk flavor beyond a few weeks' storage. Storage at 40° F. helps to retard
staling, but even at this temperature it occurs so soon that the sterilized
product cannot long compete with fresh mille More research is needed
to determine how to retard stale flavor development.

32
Lowering Unit Costs
with Can Standardization
for Sterilized Milk Products
F. M. JOHNSON '

The successful trend in the industry to convert increasing tonnages of


milk into manufactured food products places new importance on unit
costs. Every manufacturer of processed foods recognizes that the cost
of the package is a significant percent of unit cost, especially with
sterilized products. This paper will demonstrate that lower unit costs
can be achieved by standardizing the size of the container for steril ized
milk products.
The discussion is focused on round metal containers with a capacity
of one gallon or less, inasmuch as most sterilized milk products are so
packaged. As new containers and canning systems become available to
the dairy industry, new studies will be required to determine the degree
of savings possible with standardization of glass, plastic, or other packages
for sterile milk products. Since such packages and systems are largely
unavailable today, this paper will be limited to standardization of metal
cans. The following areas will be discussed: (1) the influence of sales
volume on selling price of a food container ; (2) deviation from standards
and its influence on container costs; (3) dairy plant problems when
handling multiple sizes of containers: (a) capital expenditures for change
parts, (b) down time to change can size, (c) inventory requirements of
space and money, and (d) subcontracting compli cations; and (4) po-
litical harassments and trade barriers.

SALES VOLUME AFFECTS CONTAINER COST


As the dairy industry searches for new food products manufactured
from milk, we notice the sharp rise in the number of nonperishable items. 2
A very substantial percent of these new products is aseptically canned.
Providing new food products holds great promise for the milk industry.3
In recent months a large group of midwestern milk plants have joined
'Director of Field Engineering, James Dole Engineering Company, San
Francisco.
'Sanna, F. Leon. "Sterile Cream," Milk Products Journal, May 1962.
, Sharon, James E. "Milk Concentrates," Doane's, June 196 2, pp. 26-30.

33
forces to collectively market their milk products, and it is significant to
note their corporate name of " American Dairy Foods, Inc."
Sterile milk is not new to the industry. The name of Gale Borden
has been a household word for ten decades. Past generations have con-
sumed tons of evaporated milk, but recent years show a downward trend
in sales as more discriminating buyers prefer a fresher tasting product.
In spite of a flavor not comparable to fresh milk, evaporated milk still
enjoys very substantial sales. A major percen t of this sales volume is
influenced by the low price. The evaporated milk industry has long
known the importance of unit cost, and has standardized its containers.
Many evaporated milk plants have no provision for handling more than
one size of container, and seldom does any plant have equipment for
handling more than two sizes of containers. If the newer sterile milk
products are to be packaged with the same degree of efficiency now
enjoyed by the evaporated milk industry, they must turn to standardiza-
tion of the container.

A LESSON FROM CANNED DIET FOODS


An indication of the willingness of the general public to accept new
dairy products is well demonstrated by the gOO-calorie diet food. While
it is recognized that gOO-calorie diet foods may be classed as a fad and
are now produced by only a few companies, the volume sales of these
items do indicate the public acceptance of nonperishable milk items. Diet
foods also demonstrate the importance of nonperishability to the milk
industry.
We can also thank diet food sales for calling to our attention a very
serious problem in the standardization of containers. As we merchandise
sterilized products, including milk and cream, we must avoid container
problems that were experienced in canning diet foods. With the public
demanding a one-meal serving of 225 calories, and with no standardiza-
tion to guide the canner, four different cans are used to supply the 225-
calorie mea\. A rather obvious situation developed promptly:
1. The total usage of anyone of the four containers was not great
enough for the can-making lines to justify supplying each geographical
area.
2. Pressures were brought to bear to select a container size that was
less desirable in order to use a con tainer in volume production.
3. Contract packaging suffered time and cost difficlllties m trying to
meet requirements of multiple container sizes.
4 . The public was confused in finding that containers of different
sizes all advertised the same calorie coun t.

34
5. The industry invited political investigation.
During the peak of diet food sales, several milk firms and merchan-
dising houses enjoyed a good sale of a new milk product and at the
same time had their first opportunity to explore the sale of a nonperish-
able milk product. Such contract shops as the Amboy Sterile Packaging
Company encouraged all clients interested in an 8-ounce can to use the
208 x 313 container! By maintaining this standard dimension, Amboy
supplied some 17 labels of diet food for a total packing charge of 1.5
cents per can, although some market-test packs involved as few as 500
cases. Had one of these clients decided to change the can dimension,
it would have involved as much as $5,000 in change parts plus change-
over time. Thus for market test, the unit cost may have increased
severalfold.
COST OF THE CAN
In the development of new food products and new markets, the volume
of the containers used is normally small in contrast to the ability of the
manufacturer to make cans. While it is true that once the sale of any
product has reached the level of carloads per day most can manufac-
turers will be interested in supplying this demand, it is also true that as
the volume grows so does the interest of the politician. May we first
comment on the cost of manufacturing cans.

THE CANMAKER'S VIEWPOINT

Some mention has already been made of the rather popular 8-ounce
container, 208 x 313 dimensions. Many dairy manufacturing personnel
do not appreciate that a single can-manufacturing line for this container
should easily produce 70 million cans annually. The canmaker must
have orders for multiple millions of cans annually to operate each line
at a profit. vVhile an order of 10 million pints of cream might seem like
utopia to the milk manufacturing plant, this could well be a production
headache to the canmaker, who would find his production line operating
only one week per month to supply this customer. The resulting problems
of how many cans to run, who will warehouse the empty cans, when
will the cans be paid for, and price problems, all point to the need of
using a large volume of the fewest container sizes.
As the can size increases, the total number of cans produced on a given
line is smaller. For example, quart-can lines have a capacity of approxi-
mately 30 million cans per year, while a gallon-can line may produce
less than half that amount. In addition to the time lost when changing
a can line to a new size container, there is a substantial investment in
• Lankford, M. P. " Offer Processors Facilities for Aseptic Canning Research
and Development," Food Processing, April 1961.

35
change parts for each new can size. A typical can manufacturing line
might require an additional $150,000 in parts to change the line from
one size to another, or as much as $350,000 to equip a new line. This
cost of change parts must be amortized against the selling price of the
can. In some instances the can manufacturer may refuse to produce a
special-dimension can, while others more anxious to serve their clientele
will set up a line and produce the special container, but add the setup
cost to the can price in order to amortize the added expense.

A HYPOTHETICAL CASE OF NONSTANDARDIZATION

To illustrate, let us examine the case of a hypothetical milk manu-


facturing plant located in Los Angeles and known as the Extra Good
Milk Company. The research department has developed a new formu-
lated milk product that is ready to be marketed in half-pint cans. The
merchandising department has decided that the sale will be enhanced
by use of a special can of 205 x 400 dimensions instead of the more con-
ventional 208 x 313. Unit costs include an estimate of 2.5 cents for the
can. When the purchasing agent of the Extra Good Milk Company
attempts to place his order for containers, he finds that his normal
supplier will not submit quotation. He checks with two other suppliers
and finds that one of them will produce the cans provided the Extra
Good Milk Company places its order for the entire year's requirements
and takes delivery as manufactured. Cans are to be stored in the Extra
Good Milk Company warehouse, and invoices are to be paid within 30
days after receipt of cans.
To set up the 205 diameter can, the canmaker must invest $150,000
in change parts and amortize this over the anticipated orders from the
Extra Good Milk Company. The Extra Good Milk Company sales
department estimates sales of 1.5 million cans for the first year, and the
can maker agrees to supply containers if purchased in one order. In
addition to the problem of warehouse and inventory costs of containers,
the Extra Good Milk Company learns that it must pay an additional
premium of $5 per thousand cans to cover the cost of special change parts.
The canmaker agrees to spread costs over a two-year period of usage.
Thus the normal 2.5 cents per container jumps to 3 cents per container,
or 24 cents per case of 4-8 cans. This 24 cents might weJl be a substan-
tial percentage of the profit to be realized.
To further illustrate, let us assume that Far Better Milk Company of
Chicago has a similar product and enters the midwest market using a
203 x 414 container. Far Better Milk Company also pays the premium
for the special dimensions. Let us further assume that both products

36
move well in their local areas, and the Extra Good Milk Company looks
longingly at the sale in the Chicago markets.
The Extra Good Milk Company salesman calls on his broker in Chi-
cago and learns that the Midwest has identified this product with a
203 x 414 container. The buyers say that if Extra Good Milk Company
wants to quote, they must deliver in the 203 x 414 container. Recog-
nizing that their sales volume will not justify a new plant in the Midwest,
Extra Good Milk Company contacts a local contract packer and finds
that in order to get into production on the 203 x 414 container it must
invest in change parts at the cannery in order to handle the 203 x 414
container. This cost totals some $5,000 for parts, plus $500 for labor
costs each time the cannery is set up for the Extra Good Milk Company
product. On nominal sales volume Extra Good Milk Company is at a
cost disadvantage even before launching the Chicago sales campaign.
Both firms would have benefited had they chosen a conventional 208 x
313 container for their new products. Savings to each firm would have
amounted to .5 cent to 1 cent per can during the early years of sale.

DAIRY PLANT PROBLEMS WITH MULTIPLE CAN SIZES


So far we have referred primarily to the cost of the container, but now
let us take a closer look at the cost of changing the canning plant to
handle a multiplicity of containers. Inasmuch as most of the new canned
dairy products are being packaged on the Dole system,3 for cost analysis
we refer to a typical aseptic canning plant having a Dole 4-S unit oper-
ating at 250 cans per minute with a 208 x 313 container. Changing
diameter of containers usually involves changing the entire canning sys-
tem. The changes may require as little as adjustment of guides on the
roller conveyor or as much as replacement of major components.
A conservative estimate for nominal dimension change, including can
handling, filling, closing, and casing, would be $15,000 if both the
diameter and height of the can are changed. In addition, an average
plant would require two to four men to change over the line in two or
three calendar days. With normal plants operating on a five-day week,
the changeover is often made at overtime rates on Saturday and Sunday.
We may assume that to change over the production line from one can
to another would average $15,000 of capital investment, and $500 of
labor costs for each changeover.
In a dairy canning plant handling only two or three sizes of containers,
the total investment is nominal and the total changeover cost would
be only incidental to the annual sales. If a plant is going to market
'Carson, Ronald]' "Sterile Milk Is Practical," Milk Products Journal, August
1959, p. 6.

37
products in three different quart containers, five different pint containers,
and a host of half-pint containers, the total investment of changeover
equipment might equal the cost of another line, and the total down
time would be so great that the plant would be operating only a few days
per month. This is an extreme example, but it does point to the problem
that cou ld result from ignoring the standardization of containers.

GOVERNMENTAL INVESTIGATION AND REGULATION


The above illustration is not so extreme as it might appear. Recently
one canner of diet food has been using 208 diameter cans in the Midwest
and 207 1/2 diameter cans on the west coast. The difference of 1/ 32 inch
( .031 inch) in the diameter is not recognized by the consumer, and
certainly cannot appreciably afl'ect sales . It can, however, invite criticism
by the local or national agency. May we explain.
To the consumer a 208 can and a 2071;2 can appear to be identical
when stand ing side by side on the grocer's shelf. It would take a caliper
to identify the .031 inch difference in dimension between the two con-
tainers. Upon opening, the cans present an obvious difference. The
head space on the 8-ounce 208 diameter can is usually one-fourth to
three-eighths inch to provide adequate vacuum and convenience in
filling. With the 207% diameter container, the same weight of product
may be reached by allowing a head space of only one-eighth inch. With
this very shallow head space, product may spill during the transfer from
the filling machine to the closing machine . When our good congressmen
open the two containers, they are given the impression that there is less
product in the 208 diameter container and that the public is being
cheated. A weight check on the contents of the 207Yz diameter container
might show that the product weight tends to fluctuate more than usually
permissible, and this would invite the condemnation of federal or local
inspectors. A detail such as the unavailability of standard change parts
for closing 207Yz containers is only a minor inconvenience when compared
with possible government intervention.
The influence of government on the milk industry cannot be ignored .
For decades the dairy industry has been subject to a myriad of regula-
tions at local, state, and federal level s. There is a strong suspicion that
a measurable amount of these regulations have been promoted by the
industry itself to provide a local advantage. Regulations that once gave
a local dairy some advantage are now returning to plague the industry
at large, and especially at the federal level. Trade barriers have been
discussed at m any dairy sessions,s and few barriers are being removed.
G See Trade Barriers in Milk Distribution, Univ. Ill., 1960; n.b. R. W. Bartlett,
pp. 32-42.

38
Table 1. CAN SIZES RECOMMENDED OR ALREADY USED fOR DAIRY PRODUCTS

Ca n dimensions
Product
Diamet('r Height volume Product

202 314 6 ounces Baby foods, concentra tes


208 313 8 ounces Diet foods, crea m, sauces
208 4-15" Y3 quart Ideal proportions for 3: 1
concentrated milk
211 410 a Y3 quart 3:1 concentrated milk-
second choice
307 510 Y3 of Y2 gallon 3:1 concentrated milk
307 710 Quart All dairy products
404 700 46 ounces Beverages like chocolate milk
603 700 96 ounces Institutional use, e.g., ice
(#10 can) cream mix, whole milk,
shake mix
603 812 128 ounces Institutional use, e.g., ice
(Gallon can) cream, milk, shake mi x,
cream

II Not in production.

In recent months the halls of Congress have reached into the packaging
industry. Fingers have been pointed at packages that were obviously mis-
leading, a nd the public has benefited by the attention called to the lack
of ethics of a few manufacturers. If the manufacturer does not choose to
police himself, it is obvious that new federal regulations will do th e job
for him . At a time when the dairy industry is already plagued with
regulation on regulation, another group of demands from Congress might
do irreparable damage.
INDUSTRY TAKES STEP TOWARD STANDARDIZATION

None the less there is a positive side to the standardization of contain-


ers. It is p ossible for much work to be accomplished outside of profes-
sional organizations. One such attempt to spark standardization has
already been initiated.
Member pl a nts of the Dairy Maid organization have critically ex-
amined the opportunities of nonperishable milk products and have
already established an energetic program both to provide a contract
service as well as to market proprietary items. Early in the investigation
of aseptically canned products, Dairy Maid discovered the multiplicity of
containers. Recognizing that no trade association had evolved a program
for standardization, they decided to invite food technologists and repre-
sentatives of the can-manufacturing and canning-equipment firms to a
joint meeting at Clear Lake, Wisconsin. Object: can standardization.
Table 1 summarizes the consensus of this group. This information was

39
later circulated among leading dairy canners and In general received
favorable support from the industry. The industry should be ready for
a larger step forward.
Within the various trade associations, or through the auspices of one
of our universities, firm steps could and should be taken to standardize
the containers used for sterilized milk products. Standardization of cans
will bear directly on unit costs.

SUMMARY
1. Annual usage of any container influences the selling price as much
as 1 cent per can. Cans with uncommon dimensions may not be available.
2. To set up a new can manufacturing line, equipment costs would
average $350,000 per line, not including buildings, repair shops, ware-
houses, and other important costs. Change parts average $150,000 for
complete change in height and diameter of a can.
3. DailY plants handling multiple can sizes without sufficient volume
to have one canning line for each can size, face additional problems:
(a) excessive capital expend itures for changeover equipment getting
small annual usage; (b) minimum production hours due to down
time for changeover, plus possible high maintenance costs for overtime
labor hours ; (c) heavy inventory requirements of cans and cases; and
(d) difficulties in subcontracting.
4. At all levels of politics we find criticism of packages. Standard
containers are a must.
Most sterilized milk products are new to the industry, and standard-
ization can be applied without changing deep-rooted traditions. Now is
the time to close ranks.

40
Should the Government Include
Packaged Sterilized Cream
in Its Price-Suj)port and
Foodjor-Peace Programs?
ROLAND W . BARTLETT'

In its price-support program the government is now (September 1962)


making daily purch ases of more than 1 million pounds of butter, 300,000
pounds of cheese, and 2.7 million pounds of nonfat solids. Continued
heavy purchases during the past 18 months have created a problem of
how to dispose of these products. The government now has over 350
million pounds of uncommitted stocks of butter, 100 million pounds of
cheese, and over 500 million pounds of nonfat solids.
In an attempt to alleviate its problem, in July 1962 the government
asked for bids to process and package 100 million pounds of butter oil.
There are two major problems related to butter oil: (1) To reconstitute
the oil with nonfat milk solids and use it as reconstituted milk is very
expensive, and (2) its ultimate utilization is limited to people in cities
that have milk plant facilities . This prevents its use by millions of
people who need more fat but have no facilities for converting the butter
oil to human use.
A basic problem facing hungry people throughout the world is to get
more fat. In its 1961 food-for-peace program, the U.S . government
donated 650 million pounds of dry nonfat milk solids to about 70 million
people in foreign countries, of which 30 million were youngsters. Five
billion 8-ounce glasses of reconstituted nonfat milk were made from the
solids. If surplus butterfat from the U.S. government price-support pro-
gram were made available in usable form, it would help a lleviate the
problem of disposing of these surpluses and at the same time furnish
needed fat to children and ad ults in these foreign countries.
How can these problems be met? It is believed that packaging sterilized
cream in tins and distributing it in the areas now receiving nonfat milk
solids would be helpful, although it should not be considered a panacea
for all of the above problems. The following questions may logically be
raised cOllcerning the use of packaged sterilized cream in governmen t
price-support and food-for-peace programs: (1) Is this product suffi-
J Professo r of Agricultural Economics, Department of Agricultural Economics,

University of Illinois College of Agriculture, Urbana.

41
ciently stabl e to retain its qualities under conditions of shipment and
storage that might normally be expected to extend to around 180 days?
(2) Are production faci lities now available for making and packaging
sterilized cream in quantities sufficient to make government purchases
worthwhile? (3) Would costs for processing, packaging, shipping, and
distributing sterilized cream be prohibitive compared with those for
butter oil? (4·) Could packaged sterilized cream be used in under-
de ve loped co untries that are most in need of food? Answers to these
questions are included in the following discussion.

MAINTAINING QUALITY OF STERILIZED CREAM


High quality can be maintained in packaged sterilized cream . Evid ence
of its usability is in th e fact that th e U.S. military forces have had speci-
fications for purchasing this product since 1951 and have been purchasing
it according to these spec ifications to the present time'" Four companies
known to supply the military forces with packaged sterilized cream are the
Avoset Company, Gustine, California; Foremost Dairies, Stanwood,
Washington ; Real Fresh Milk Company, Visalia, California; and San na
Dairies, Madison , Wisconsin.
The Avose t Company has been selling sterilized cream on the com-
mercial market since 1941 and uncond itionally guarantees its product for
six months. This company processes about 600,000 pounds of milk daily
into sterilized cream and other sterilized dairy products that are so ld in
46 states a nd 11 fore ign countries.
The R eal Fresh Milk Compa ny, now selling to several hundred stores
on a commercial ba sis, guarantees its packaged sterilized cream for one
year. The Sanna Dairies and th e Foremost Dairies guarantee their pack-
aged creams for six months when kept according to speciilca tions. Th e
Sanna Dairies are se lling to several hundred stores on a commercial basis.
During the past few years, in its purchases of millions of pounds of
butter, cheese, and nonfat so lids, th e government has required that each
of these produc ts mee t rigid quality specifications. Each lot purchased is
subj ec t to government labora tor y tests.
Presumably, if the government dec ides to purchase packaged sterilized
cream, it will ad here to the same policy of safeguarding quality . One
company now selling sterili zed cream runs two-day la boratory tests on
each ba tc h of sterilized product before permitting it to move to marke t.
A simil ar policy by the governmen t would prev en t shipmen t of any 10w-
quality sterilized cream to foreign countries and would ensure overseas
receipt of a usable product.
' A limited number of prints of these speci fi cation s are a vail a bl e, a nd a copy
will be sent on request.

42
Table 1. ESTIMATED AMOUNTS OF 3.5 PERCENT MILK AVAILABLE FOR PRODUCTION OF
STERILIZED CREAM, MAY 1962"

Pounds of
Compan y Plan t location milk daily

Arkansas City Milk Cooperative~ Arkan sas City, Kansas 600,000


Avoset Company' Gustine, California 125,000
Borden Companyd Fond du Lac, Wisconsin 300,000
Dairy M aid Products" Clear Lake , Wi sco nsin 1,000,000
Foremost Dairies' Stanwood, Washington 560,000
Maryland and Virginia Milk Producers' Laurel, Maryland 1,100,000
Nodawa y Valley Foods h Corning, Iowa 250 ,000
Real Fresh Milk Companyi Visalia, California 140,000
Sanna Dairies i Menom onee, Wisconsin 170,000
Total, daily +,745,000

a Estimated vo lumes do not incluue total plant capac it y, but rather the amount of milk avail-
able for sterilized cream rhal could be produced in addition to the regular produc tion of sterilized
producls of th e compa nies shown,
b Estimate of }dr. Fitzgerald, l'vfallager, in tclephon~ conversation i\1ay 24, 1962.
C ESlimate in ,"ltcr dated May 15 1962, from John Hyslop, Research Department.
d £~timate of Fren Harter, Vice IJrcsi dc nt in Chars-c of Production (Chicago), and Dr. Work-
man (New Yo.-k ) in interview at University of illinOIS, N[ ay 16, 1962.
c Es timate of Dr. f'abl'ieius 1 Technical DircctOl"1 in inlerview at Clear Lake, Wiscon sin . Ivla y
17, 1962.
f Es ti male of Mr. 'Wool ridge, tvlanager, in telephone co nversation l'vlay 23 ) 1962.
G' Estimatc of Arthur Robinson, Managcr. in telephont! conv~rsation lvIay 24, 1962.
h Estimatc of Dr. A. P. Stewart, Vice President , in telephon e conversation ~'l a)' 23 1 1962.
I Estimat e of Robert G{aveS, President, in telephone conversation May 22, J962.
j Estimate of Charles Sanna, Manager, in telephonc conversalion !vIa), 23, ]962.

FACILITIES FOR PRODUCING STERILIZED CREAM


Studies indicate that facilities are now available for processing and
packaging sterilized cream in large quantities. Estimates of officials of
nine companies already processing sterilized milk products show a pos-
sible production of sterilized cream from 4,745,000 pounds of milk daily
with facilities already available (see Table 1). 'With an average butterfat
test of 3.5 percent, this would mean a daily quantity of 166,075 pounds
of butterfat, or 60,600,000 pounds annually.
If ste rilized cream, as well as nonfat solids, were used to make a 3.5
percent reconstituted whole milk, it would require 94,055,000 pounds of
butterfat to make the 5 billion glasses that were donated to people in
foreign countries in 1961,3 Facilities are now available for producing
and packaging about two-thirds of this volume (60 million pounds), and
in less than six months the full amount needed, and more, could be
produced. With the addition of new equipment by companies a lready
, Five billion 8-ounce glasses are equivalent to 1.25 billion quarts. Since a quart
of milk weighs 2.15 pound s, each quart contains .07525 (2.15 X .035) pound of
butterfat. One pound divid ed by .07525 equals 13.29, or number of quarts of milk
per pound of butterfat; 1. 25 billion divided by 13.29 equals 94,055,000, Or pounds
of butterfat need ed to make 1.25 billion quarts of 3.5 percent mille

4·3
processing sterilized milk products and by companies just getting into the
field in 1962, the es timated volume of sterilized cream available for
government purchases could be doubled ( 121 million pounds annually)
within six months and tripled (1 82 million pounds annually) within
twelve months.

ESTIMATED COSTS OF DISTRIBUTING BUTTERFAT AS BUTTER OIL


To assess the possibility of using packaged sterilized cream in the gov-
ernmen t price-support and food-for-peace programs, costs for processing,
packaging, shipping, and distribut ing sterilized cream were assembled
and compared with similar costs for butter oil. The findings showed that
total costs for getting sterilized cream to ultimate consumers in foreign
countries ($1.15 per pound of butterfat) were substantially less than those
for butter oil ($1.26 to $1.53 per pound of butterfat). Costs associated
with distribution of butterfat as butter oil are discussed below.

BUTTER OIL F. O.B. CALCUTTA MILK PLANT

The itemized costs for converting butter to butter oil, packaging,


transporting to Calcutta, and reconstituting as whole milk are shown in
Table 2.
Raw Mat erial and Conv ersion Cost. Assume that butter is purchased
at the government support price of 57.75 cents per pound. Since butter
is only 80.5 percent fat, the raw material cost would be 57.75 divided
by .805, or 71.74 cents per pound of butterfat.
The cost to the governmen t for converting bu tter in to bu tter oil and
packaging it in No. 10 (three-quart ) tins has ranged from 4·.06 to nearly
5.00 cents per pound of butterfat. For this study the cost was conserva-
tively estimated to be 4.30 cents per pound. Hence the estimated cost
of the butter oil packaged for export was 71.74 cents plus 4.30 cents, or
76.04 cents per pound of butterfat.
Handling> Storage> and TransjJortation to Port. Costs for getting the
packaged butter oil to port were estimated to be 2.09 cents per pound
of butterfat. This figure included costs for in-and-out handling, storage,
cartage, and transportation from the Midwest to a seacoast port. Hence
the total estimated cost of the packaged butterfat f.o.b. the port was
76.04 cents plu s 2.09 cents, or 78.13 cents per pound of butterfat.
Ocean Freight to Calcutta and Cartage to Plant. In this study it was
assumed that butter oil packaged as a sterilized product in No . 10 tins
could be shipped from the west coast to Calcutta without refrigeration.
The estimated freight cost was 2.63 cents per pound, and the cartage
cost to the milk plant was .2 5 cent. Hence the total estimated cost of the

44
Table 2. ESTIMATED COSTS OF BUYING AND PROCESSIN G BUTTER OIL AND STERILIZED
CREAM, PACKAGING IN No. 10 TINs, TRANSPORTING TO CALCUTTA, RECON-
STITUTING TO WHOLE MILK, AND DISTRI BUTING TO SCHOOLS'

Sterilized 30
Materials and operations Butter oil percent cream

cents per pound of bUlierfat


Butterfat 71.74b 71.74b
Nonfat solid s in 30% cream 2.28
Processing, packaging in No. 10 tins , and
packing for export 4 30 25.53
Total , packaged for export 76.04 99.55
Transportation and handling, midwest plant
to American dock 2.09 5.85
Ocean Freight to Calcutta 2.63 8.78
Cartage , Calcutta dock to school or milk plant .25 .83
Total, Calcutta school or plant 81.01 115.01
Reconstitution, packaging, and distribution o
@ 3.38 cents per quart' 44 92
@ 4.38 cents per quart d :;8.21
a 5.38 cents per quart 71.50
Total, reconstituted milk delivered to
distribution point 115.01
@' 3.38 cents per quart 125.93
a 4 38 cen ts per q uan 139.22
@ 5 38 cen ts per quart 151 .51

n Specific costs of packing, transpor ling , and handling obtained through courtesy of a firm
engaged in the busin"'ss of selling ster il ized milk products to both domes tic and foreign markets.
b Calculation: 57.75 cents per poun d of buller divided by .805 pound of bUlledal per pound
of buucr.
c Conversion factor: 13.29 quar ts of 3.5 percent milk per pound of butterfa t.
d See Table 3.

packaged butter oil f.o.b. Calcutta plus cartage cost was 78.13 cents plus
2.63 cents plus .25 cent transportation cost to dock, or 81.01 cents per
pound of butterfat.

RECONSTITUTION AND DISTRIBUTION

Butter oil must be homogenized if it is to be used in reconstituted


whole milk. Homogenization requires the use of equipment in a milk
plant or other place where there is proper sanitation as well as machinery
for packaging of the finished product. Substantial costs are involved for
this type of processing and packaging.
Although several plants have been built in foreign countries for
processing butter oil and mixing it with nonfat milk solids and water to
make reconstituted whole milk, so far there is no such operation in the
United States. Hence it was necessary to simulate processing conditions

45
Table 3. ESTIMATED COSTS FOR RECONSTITUTING BUTTER OIL, MIXING WITH NONfAT
SOLIDS, PACKAGING, AND DELIV£RING A 3.5 PEl\CENT RECONSTITUTED MILK"

Item Actual cost

cents per qllart


Plant costs
Building and eq uipment .68
Labor .93
Paper carton .45
Administration .57
Finished product losses .14
Total plant costs 3 77
Distribution to school s, stores, etc . .61
Tota l, o;cluding- profit 4.38

n Based on the weighted average costs of eight efficiently operated milk pl an ts in the United
Sla tes handling an ave rage volume of 44 >475 quarts daily per plant.

by basing cost estimates on the average of actual expenses In eight milk


plants now selling to different markets in the United States.
Unit costs for handling, packaging, and distributing reconstituted
whole milk would be the same as those for fresh whole milk. Presumably
labor costs in foreign countries would be somewhat less than those in the
United States. Sav ings on labor, however, might well be offset or more
than offset by higher costs of homogenizing butter oil, a higher cost for
paper cartons (imported), a higher cost of equipment (imported), and
a lower volume per plant.
The estimated costs for reconstituting butter oil, mixing with nonfat
solids and water, packaging, and delivering a 3.5 percent reconstitutecl
whole milk are shown in T ab le 3. These costs are the weighted average
costs of eight efficiently operated U .S. plants processing an average vol-
ume of 44,4 75 quarts dail y per plant. A breakdown of these costs is given
below.
Processing Costs. Costs for processing averaged 1.61 cents per quart.
Of this amount, .93 cent was for la bor and .68 cent was for depreciation,
insurance, repairs, interest, and ta xes for building and equipment.
Costs for Container, Administration, and Finished Product Losses.
Most plants now mixing butter oil and nonfat solids with water to make
reconstituted whole milk package the finished product in paper cartons.
Each of the eight plants in this study packaged milk in paper cartons at
an average carton cost of 1 A5 cents per quart! Administrative costs in
, If r eco nstituted whole milk could be distributed in fiv e- or ten-gallon dispenser
cans, this cost could b e reduced som ewhat, although the saving would b e offset in
part by costs of can cl ea ning and returning the can from the distributio n point to
the plant.

46
these plants averaged .57 cent, while losses for finished products averaged
.14 cen t, for a total of 2.16 cen ts per quart.
Distribution Costs. In this study it is assumed that costs for distributing
reconstituted whole milk to schools and other places would be comparable
to efficient distribution of fresh whole milk to stores. For the eight plants
studied, the cost of transporting packaged milk from the plants to stores
averaged .61 cent per quart.
Total R econstitution and Distribution Costs. Plant costs of 3.77 cents
plus a distribution cost of .61 cent gave a total estimated cost, exclusive
of profit, of 4.38 cents per quart of reconstituted whole milk. Cost per
quart is converted to cost per pound of butterfat by multiplying the cost
per quart (4.38 cents) by th e number of quarts of 3.5 percent fat milk
required to use one pound of butterfat (see footnote 3).
Conversion, packaging, and distribution costs for one pound of butter-
fat, then, would be 58.21 cents.
For purposes of comparison, the above costs have been computed at
one cent per quart less (3.38 cents) and one cent per quart more (5.38
cents) than those shown for the eight milk plants. At the lower cost, the
cost per pound of butterfat would be 44.92 cents (13 .29 quarts X 3.38
cents); at the higher cost, 71.50 cents per pound of butterfat.
TOTAL COSTS FOR BUTTER OIL

Total estimated costs for packaged butter oil Lo.b. Calcutta were 81.01
cents per pound of butterfa t (Table 2) . If conversion, packaging, and
distribution costs were 58.21 cents (at 4.38 cents per quart), the total
estimated costs of butter oil made available for use as reconstituted whole
milk in Calcutta would be 139.22 cents per pound of butterfat (81.01
cents + 58.21 cents).
If one ass umed a lower conversion, packaging, a nd distribution cos t
(3 .38 cents per quart), the total costs would be 125.93 cents per pound
of butterfat (81.0 1 cen ts + 44.92 cents). On the other hand, jf one
assumed the higher cost (5.38 cents per quart), the total cost would be
152.51 cents per pound of butterfa t (81.01 cents + 71.50 cents).

ESTIMATED COSTS FOR PROCESSING AND


DISTRIBUTING STERILIZED CREAM
The total estimated costs for buying, processing, packaging, storing,
shipping, and distributing sterilized cream in Calcutta are shown in
Table 2.
STERILIZED CREAM F.O.B. CALCUTTA SCHOOL

Cost of Cream and Pa ckaging. The estimated cost of a 30 percent

47
cream was 71.74 cents per pound of butterfat plus 2.28 cents for the
nonfat solids to go with one pound of but terfat in a 30 percent cream.
To thi s was added 25.53 cents per pound for receiving, processing, and
packaging the sterilized cream in No. 10 cans with six cans to a carton,
or a tota l cost, f.o.b. a m id west plant, of 99.55 cen ts per pound of butter-
fat. The six cans would contain 4.6875 gallons having a net weight of
38 .9 pounds; gross weight would be 44· pounds. The six-can carton would
take one cubic foot of space.
Tra nsjJortation to American D ock. T he estimated transportation,
storage, h andling, and cartage costs for sterilized cream sh ipped from a
midwest manufacturing plant to an American dock were 5.85 cen ts per
pound of bu tterfat. The to tal cost, including raw materials, packaging,
transportation, storage, and handling costs to the dock, were estimated
to be 105.40 cents per pound of butterfat (5 .85 cents + 99.55 cents).
Ocean Fr eight to Calcutta and Cart age to S ch ool. The es tima ted cost
for sh ipping the 30 percent cream as ocean freight from the dock in the
Uni ted States to the dock in Calcutta was 8.78 cents per pound of butter-
fat. To thi s figure wou ld be added .83 cent for cartage from the dock
in Ca lcutta to the school or other distributing point.

RECONSTITUTION AND DISTRIBUTION

A reconst ituted 3.5 percent whole milk can be made by mixing steril ized
cream with the proper quantities of no nfat milk solids and water. In
many areas that now make a reconstituted skim milk, the only utens ils
are a stick and a pail. If sterilized cream were available, it could be
added to the pail and m ixed in th e same way. In this study it was
assumed that the sterilized cream , nonfat solids, and wate r could be
mixed in areas throughout the world at no cost to the U .S. government.

TOTAL COSTS FOR STERILIZED CREAM

The total cost to the dock in the Uni ted States was estim ated to be
105.40 cents per pound of butterfat. With ocean freight (8.78 cents)
and additional car tage cos ts (. 83 cent ), total es ti mated costs of the
packaged sterilized cream delivered to the school or other distribution
point would be 1l5.01 cents per pound of bu tterfat.

BUTTER OIL COSTS COMPARED WITH STERILIZED CREAM COSTS


The total estima ted costs for converting butter into butter oil, pack-
aging, transporting to Calc utta, and reconstituting in to whole milk are
shown in T able 2. The median costs were estimated to be 139.22 cents
per pound of butterfat; the low cos ts, 125.93 cents per pound; and the
high costs, 152.51 cents per pound.

48
The total estimated cost for process ing, packaging, storing, shipping,
and distributing sterilized cream in Calcutta (see Table 2) was 115.01
cents per pound of butterfat, or 24 cents per pound less than the median
cost for butter oil, 11 cents per pound less than the low-cost estimate,
and 38 cents per pound less than the high-cost estimate.
From a cost viewpoint, it is clearly more economical for the govern-
ment, in its price-support and food-for-p eace programs, to purchase
packaged sterilized cream than to purchase butter oil if these products
are to be used to make reconstituted whole milk .

DISTRIBUTION AREAS UNLIMITED FOR STERILIZED CREAM


Except under unusual conditions, reconstituted whole milk can be made
in Calcutta at a lower unit cost with sterilized cream than with butter
oil. Much of the cost difference lies in the fact that butter oil can be
reconstituted as whole milk only in areas where there are adequate equip-
ment and sanitary facilities - usually in a milk plant. In contrast,
sterilized cream can be sent to the hinterlands throughout the world
where nonfat solids are now being sent and can be used in making
reconstituted whole milk. This factor is of major importance in the food-
for-peace program, since frequently the greatest need for more food,
particularly fat, is in the more remote areas.

RECOMMENDATION THAT THE GOVERNMENT


BUY STERILIZED CREAM
Since the usual unit cost for reconstituted whole milk is lower when
made from sterilized cream than when made from butter oil, and since
sterilized cream has the advantage of unlimited areas for utilization,5 it
is recommended that consideration be given to buying sterilized cream
packaged in tins for carrying out the government's price-support program
for dairy products and the food-for-peace program.
One reason advanced against the purch ase of sterilized cream is that
there might be adverse public reaction in the United States to donations
of cream abroad while we give our own people dry skim mille But there
is no good reason why packaged sterilized cream should not be added to
the list of butter, cheese, and nonfat solids for distribution to American
schools. It could be used in soups and for other cooking purposes in
order not to compete with a school milk progra m.
'Letter of Don S. And erson, director of purchases of dairy products used in
the price-support program, included in Dairy Record, August 15, 1962, page 4:
" . .. The decision to store the butter oil in 'cooler' storage was based on the
advice of most of the many government and industry d airy technical people con-
sulted and on the fact that we do not yet know where or when most of the butter
oil will be shipped overseas."

49
Protective Action of Milk Against
Strontium-90 Fallout
B. l. LARSON'

The amount of stron tium-90 (Sr90) in radioactive fallou t resulting


from detonation of atomic devices and incorporated into the food su pply
has been very small. Sr90 consumed in food has its greatest potential
danger in that some of it deposits rather permanently in bone along with
calcium. If in high enough concentration it may cause di seases such as
leukemia and bone cancers. The levels of additional bone radiation
resulting from Sr90 , however, have been so small, compared to levels of
natural radiation received by the bones, that even with large populations
it has been impossible to show any increase in the incidence of these
diseases.
Extensive studies have been conducted on Sr90 to determine how it
gets into the food supply and into bone. If the levels of contamination
should become much higher than they are now, through greatly in-
creased detonation of atomic devices, such as in war, knowledge would
be available for suitable action to help protect the population.
These studies have shown that the presence of milk in the average
diet in the United States has been a significant factor in reducing the
population bone burd en of Sr90 below the level that would have resulted
from the same diet withou t mille This is true because the level of Sr90
depositing in human bone is dependent upon the ratio of Sr90 to calcium
in the total diet 2 (Sr 90 /Ca ratio), and milk has contained a lower Sr 90 / Ca
ratio than the average of other food s in the diet.
The cow, in producing mil),; from primarily plan t foods, discriminates
against Sr 90 and incorporates relatively more calcium. Due to the dis-
criminating action of the gut, kidneys, and mammary gland, the Sr90 / Ca
Tatio for milk is only about one-eighth that of the diet the cow consumes.
The gut and kidneys of man also discriminate against Sr90 in favor of
calcium, to the extent that the Sroo/ Ca ratio of materia l depositing in a
YY'I':'ln'" hl""'lT10 ;c- . . . h ......... I- ,...,...., ...... { .... ,.y.l-h ,-h,... , . .......-;,..., ...... ~ ...... ,.,. .......... I- : . .... t.:_ ....l:_... "T"L __ _ ... 1__

THOSE ATTENDING THE DAIRY MARKETING SESSIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES FORUM, JANUARY 29 AND 30, 1963

Arkansas s. E. ALV IS
The Divcrscy Corporation
level of Sr 90 depositing in bone is dependent on both the Sr90 and the
calcium levels in the diet. By first placing plant foods through the cow,
in the production of milk, we decrease the relative amount of Sr 90 per
unit of calcium in the human diet.
Analyses of foods have shown this difference in milk and other foods.
For example, in 1956-57 it was estimated that milk in the United States
contained a Sr 9 °/Ca ratio of 6, vegetables 10, and cereals 15. In 1959-60
values for Sr9°/Ca were estimated at about 8 in milk, 40 in potatoes,
30 in cabbage, 25 in soybeans and 100 in wheat. Studies in 1961-62
indicate that the nonmilk portion of the average diet in the United States
contained a Sro oICa ratio up to about twice that present in mille Thus,
even though milk has contributed about 30 to 50 percent of the Sr 90 in
the average diet, it also has contributed some 60 to 80 percent of the
calcium. Since the level of Sr90 that deposits in bone is dependent upon
the Sr 9°/Ca ratio in the total diet, the presence of milk with proportion-
ately more calcium than Sro o has served to lower the Sr9 °/ Ca ratio in the
total diet.
Confirming evidence for this action of milk has come from studies of
populations consuming widely varying types of diets. In summary, they
indicate that even though the United States has received four to five
times more fallout, human bone levels of Sr DO are only about double
that found in the primarily plant-consuming cultures, most of which are
situated in the equatorial and Southern Hemisphere portions of the
world. This has been ascribed to differences in diet, with the major factor
being a higher milk consumption in the United States.
It is apparent that somewhat of a paradox now exists in that milk
ins tead of increasing has been effective in decreasing the accumulation
rate of Sr90 in human bones. Because it is harvested daily, is readily avail-
able from all sections of the country, and has widespread consumption,
especially among children, milk is still the best material for assay of Sr 90
contamination in the diet. It is apparent that this attention to milk in the
Sr DO problem makes the dissemination of the concept of its actual role in
the diet a more difficult task.

51
THOSE ATTENDING THE DAIRY MARKETING SESSIONS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

AGRICULTURAL INDUSTRIES FORUM, JANUARY 29 AND 30, 1963

Arkansas S. E. ALVIS
The Diversey Corporation
PITTMAN SI SC O
212 West Monroe, Chicago 6
The Borden Company
P.O. Box 951 C. B. BAKER
7900 Asher Ave nue, Littl e Rock Professo r of Agri c ultural E conomi cs
302c Mumford Hall
CaLifornia University of Illinois, Urba na
H. R. GOfF R. A. BARA C KMA N
President, James Dole Engine ering Rese a rch Associ a te, Victor Chemical
Company Division, Stauffer Chemical
2300 Russ Building, San Francisco 4 11 th & Arn old, Chicago H eights
ROBERT GRAVES
LESTER G. BARCHUS, JR .
President, Real Fresh Milk Company Salesm an, R. A. Johnston Company
Visalia 5602 North M errima c, Peoria

Wash ingt on, D.C. CLAIR R. BI SHOP


Presid ent, Mid-Continent Dairy
E. G. NOURSE 110 North Franklin, C hica go 6
Th e Brookings Insti tu te
722 Jack son Place, N.W. JOHN N . BI XBY
Washington 6, D.C . Research Superviso r, Oval tine
Food Products
BYRON H. WEBB
Villa Park
Chief, Dairy Products Laboratory,
Agricultural Re sea rch Servic e, JOH N M. BOYD
U.S. Department of Agriculture Senior Research Eng in eer,
Wa shington 25, D.C. Con tin ental Can Company
1350 West 76th Street, Chicago 20
iLLinois
H. B. BRADSHAW
GOTTFRIED ABLASSER
Gen eral Manager, D eLaval
Assistant in Marketing Separator Co mp a ny
417 Mumford Hall 5724 Nor th Pulaski Road, Chicago 46
University of I llinoi s, Urbana
OSC AR D. BRISSE NDEN
JAM£S D. ADAMS Illinois Agricultural Associa tion
Pl an t Manager , Country's Delight 1701 Towanda Ave nue, Bloomington
5332 South W es tern, Chicago
L. B. BROOM
M. F. ALBRECHT Area Ad viser
Vice Chairman, Oatma n Di xon Springs Experiment Statio n
Brothers, Inc. Robbs
735 Prairie Road, Au rora
K. D. BROWN
CHARLES M. ALLEN Sales M an ager, D eLava l Separator
Plant Manager, Laes ch D airy Compan y Company
210 Greenwood Av enue, Bloomington 57 24 North Pulaski, Chicago 46
D,\LE V. ALSTRAND WILLIAM H. BUTLER
Am er ican Can Compa ny Milk Sanitaria n, Springfi eld
11 th Ave nue & St. C harl es Ro ad Health & Safety Department
Maywood 310 Ci ty Hall, Springfield

52
Vhs CASTEEL J. C. FLAKE
Division Manager, Germantown Director of Sanitary Standards,
Manufacturing Company Evaporated Milk Association
Route # I, Box 398-B 228 North LaSalle, Chicago I
Lake Zurich
H. H. FULKER SON
T. F. CONLI'" Ogle County Farm Adviser
Manager, Amboy Sterile Box 147, Pines Road, Oregon
Packaging Company
Amboy MAX FULLING
R . R. #1
WILLARD J. CORBETT Palestine
Vice President, Dean Milk Company
1126 Kilburn, Rockford KARL E. GARDNER
Associate D ea n, College of Agriculture
DENVER CORN 104 Mumford Hall
St. Clair County Farm Adviser University of Illinois, Urbana
407 East Lincoln, Belleville
ALBERT E. GEISS
EDWARD H. CROl<!DIE Bowman Dairy Company
Vice President, Crombie's Ideal Dairy 140 Wes t Ontario Street, Chicago 13
461 Second Avenue, Joliet
PAUL GELIlER
D. 1. DEAN Associate Editor, Food Processing
Manager, Champaign County Milk Magazine
Producers III East Delaware Place, Chicago II
221 North Race, Urbana
MILTON C. Gwnlm
WARD DODD
Manager, American Dairy Association
Dairy Marketing Specialist, of Illinois, Inc.
Illinois Department of Agric ulture 505 North Scott Street, Joliet
Dongola
E. E. GOLDEN
HENRY G. ELLSWORTH
DeKalb County Farm Adviser
Lazarus Laboratories, Inc.
315 North 6th Street, DeKalb
4742 South Kedzie, Chicago 32

G. M. ENGLAND
L. D. GRAHAM
Associate Professor of Agricultural Kank akee County Farm Adviser
Economics 290 North Schuyler, Kankakee
30la Mumford Hall
H. COPELAND GREENE
University of Illinois, Urbana
President, Brook Hill Farms, Inc.
ROBERT S. ERICKSO N 5230 North Milwaukee Avenue
Quality and Production Manager, Chicago 30
Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.
200 North 9th Street, Springfield HERMAN GRETHER
Eastern District Manager, Milk
H. R. F AGERSON Machinery Department, FMC
Borden Company Corporation
1821 South Kilbourn Avenue 103 East Maple Street, Hoope ston
Chicago 23
L. T. GUSTAFSON
FORREST FAIRCHILD Creamery Package Manufacturing
Sanna Dairies, Inc. Company
R. R. # I, Hudson 1243 West Washington, Chicago 7

53
CARL F. HANSEN FRED M. JOHNSON
S~lesManager, Beatrice Foods Director of Field Engineering, James
Company Dole Engineering Company
132 Sou th Market, Champaign 5917 Spring Creek Road, Rockford

CARL N. HANSEN ORRAN KEACH


Vice President, Beatrice Foods President, Prairie F arms Dairy, In c.
Company Rose Hill
132 South Market, Champaign
WENDELL E. KEEPPER
EDWIN HASSELDAClIER Dean, School of Agriculture
Peoria Milk Producers Southern Illinois University
R. R. # I, Elmwood Carbondale

R. W. HAYWARD, JR. KLAUS P. KEITEL


Brown County Farm Advi ser Plant Superintendent, Millstadt
112 West North, Mt. Sterling Creamery
208 Kossuth, Millstadt
W. L. HWIN
Borden Company LYLE D. KERLEY
1821 South Kilbourn Avenue Kane County Farm Adviser
Chicago 23 Box 151, Gen eva

E. O. HERREID H. J. KROHM
Professor of Dairy Technology Owner, Millstadt Creamery
101 Dairy Manufactures 208 Koss uth, Millstadt
University of Illinois, Urbana
DANIEL A. LM:scII
JOHN H. HETRICK President, Laesch Dairy Company
Research Director, Dean Milk 210 Gree nwood Aven ue, Bloomington
Company
1126 North Kilburn, Rockford BRUCE L. LARSON
As socia te Profcssor of D~iry Science
LYMAN B. HORTON 324 Animal Science Laboratory
Milwaukee Road University of Illinois, Urbana
Room 792 Union Station, Chicago 6
C. H. LIST
RICHARD M. HOYT Sales R eprese ntativc, Vitex
National Milk Producers Federation Laboratories
1206 West Clark, Champaign 129 Welty Avenue, Rockford

R. V. HUSSO NG I-IcRDERT D. McAULIFFE


Research Manager, National Dairy Director of Research, Bowman D airy
Products Corporation Company
Glenview 140 West Ontario Stree t, Chicago 10

KeNNETII R. hUG CARL MCCUNNING


lroquois Coun ty Farm Adviser Director, Mississipp i Valley Milk
214 East Walnut, Watseka Producers Association
Alpha
TETsu JOHKE
Visiting Researcher, Department ROllERT C. MCCULLOClI
of Dairy Science Mid- West Dairymen 's Company
University of Illinois, Urbana R. R. # 8, Box 40+, Rockford

54
HOWARD MCGUIRE EARL PRITCHARD
Sanitarian, Illinois Health D epartment R. R. #1
30 I West Birch, Champaign Maple Park

TRUMAN W. MAY S. N. QUAM


Madison County Farm Adviser Sugar Creek Creamery
900 Hillsboro, Edwardsville 222 West Adams, Chicago
EMIL C. MOSSER
DWIGHT E. REED
Area Farm Adviser
10 I South Henrietta, Effingham Packing Technologist, American
Can Company
SHURYO NAKAI II th Ave nu e & St. Charles Road
Research Associate In Food T ec hnology Maywood
Dairy Manufactures
University of llIinois, Urbana OTIS E. Ross
Chemist, National Pectin Products
RAY T. NICHOLAS Company
Lake County Farm Adviser 2656 West Cullerton Street
P. O. Box 267, Gra yslake Chicago 3

PETER P. NOZNICK
KEN)I SASAGO
Director of Research, Bcatrice
Research Associate in Food Technology
Foods Company
207 Dairy Manufactures
1526 South State Street, Chicago 43
University of Illinois, Urbana
H. A. NTAILIANAS
Research Associate in Food Technology DALE SCHAUfEL8ERGER

104 Dairy Manufactures President, Square Deal Milk Producers


University of Illinois, Urbana 1115 Broadway, Highland

ARTHUR E. PilHL CLEMENT C. SCHMIEGE


Secretary-Treasurer, Square Deal Supervisor of Packaging Engineering,
Milk Producers Continental Can Company
1115 Broadway, Highland 1200 West 76th Strcet, Chicago 20

MAYNARD PEARSE ARTHUR E. SmHRs


Mid-West Dairymen's Company Research Director, KrimKo-Bireleys
R. R. # 5, Box 225, Rockford 26 North Garden Street, Bensenville
GEORGE D. PERISHO
JAMES T. SOMEHS
Peoria County Farm Adviser Lee County Farm Adviser
1716 North University, Peoria 31- 37 East Avenue, Amboy
JOSEPH H. PETeRSEN
PAUL SOMERS
Director of Research and Development,
Borden Company Assistant Professor of Dairy Sci ence
1821 South Kilbourn Avenue 340 Animal Science Laboratory
Chicago 23 University of Illinois, Urbana

CARL E. PETERSON DONALD V. SPORE


Vice President, Dixie Dairy Company Sales Manager, Country's Delight
2015 Chicago Road, Chicago Heights 5332 South Western, Chi cago 9

K. D. PISTORJUS JOHN R. STEINWART


D eLaval Separator Company Vice President, Oatman Brothers, Inc.
5724 North Pulaski Road, Chicago 46 735 Prairie Road, Aurora

55
ARNOLD B. STORRS SHELDON W. WILLIAM S
T cc hnieal Director, Brook Hill farm s Cooperative Agen t, Nor th Cen tral
5230 North Milwauk ec Avenu e R egional D a iry Milrk c tin g Researc h
Chicago 30 Commi ttec
435 Mumford Hall
ROBERT B. SV030D,1 University of Illinoi s, Urbana
Urban a Pure Milk Compan y
'1·06 N orth Gre go ry, Urbana H. K. WILSON
Assistant Professor of Dairy Te c hnology
J. f. TH OMA NN
202 Dairy Manufac tures
Dire c tor, Pr a iri e farm s Diliry, In c. Un ivc rsi ty of III ino is, Urbana
Noble
KU N IO YAM A U C III
J OSCI'IITorH As
R esc81'ch Assoc iate in food Te chnology
Asso ciate Professor of Diliry
20 6 Dairy Manufactures
T ec hnology
University of Illinoi s, Ur ban ;:)
103 D a iry Manuf ac ture s
Uni ve rsity of Illinois, Urb a na
CARl. E. ZURBOR C
JOHN TREr Mississippi Vall ey Milk ProJuccrs
Mid-West D a ir ymen 's Com pany Assoc ia tion
43 13 W es t State StreCl, Rockford 191 9 2nd Avenue, Molin e

GEOR G£ A. TRU LL
Morgan Count y f a rm Adviser indiana
11 6 North E as t Stree t, Ja ci<so nvilk
H. f. FORD

STEWART L. TUC KEY Anim a l Science D e partment


P r ofessor of Dairy Techn olog y Smith Hall
10 1 Dairy M a nufactu res Purdue Univ ers it y, Lafa yet te
Un iversity of Illinois, Crbana
BER NA RD ]. LrSKA
C. D. TUR N ER Assoc ia te Professor
DeLav al Separator Company Smith Hall
265 5 West Almora Terrac e, Elgin Purdu e Universjty, L a fayette

H ,IROLD VERBU RG H. F. LONC


Di versey Corpo ra tion Su gar Creek foods
L I 2 W es t Monroe, Chi ca go 6 525 1 E ast Lexington, Indi a napolis
ROBERT WACK
CA RTeR NORj\IINC~O N
Stephe nson Count y farm Adviser Choe-Ol a Bottlers, In c.
11 7 Sou th Walnut Street, frec port 230 I C hurc hman Avenue, I ndi;:)napolis
AUDI\f:Y W .,Ci\ £R
H :\RRY NORMI NG TO N , SR.
Ass istant in Marketing
Presid e nt, Choc-O la Dot tiers , Inc.
417 Mumford Hall
L30 L Churc hma n Aven ue, Indianapolis
University of Illinoi s, Urbana

L. K. W AI.LACE C. E. PAR MELEE


Dai ry M arketin g E conomi st, I'Ilinois D a iry Sec tion
Ag r icu Itural As soc iation Smi th Hall
170 L Towanda Avenue, Bloomington Purdu c University , L afaye tte

P. J W,IRD J O. YOUNG
\1atio nal D a i!'y Products Corpo!'ation Smith Hall
30 I W<1Uk cgil n Road , Gle n view Purdue U niv c rsity, Lafa yc tte

56
io w a M innesota
JOHN H. BRI N KEll REGINALD E. ]'v[EADE
Cherry-Burrell Corp::>ration Process Development Engineer,
2400 6th Stree t, S.W., Cedar Rapids The Pillsbury Company
311 2nd Street, S.E., Minn eapolis
N. L. MILLER
Engineer, Cherry-Burrell Corporation GEORGE B. PfEI FER
2400 6th Street, S. W., Cedar Rapids General Mana ge r, Ameri can Dairy
Foods, In c.
RICHARD SEIM 807 Degree of Honor Building
Farm Journal St. Paul I
P. O. Box 35'f, Ames
Missour i
A. P. STEWART
Vi ce Presid ent, Nodawa y Valley SAM H. BOEHMS

Foods, In c. Assistant Manager, Seal test foods


801 Benton Avenu e, Corning 200 I Chestnut Street, St. Louis 3

W. H. WOODROW GEORGE H. COULT1,R


Vice President, Cherry-Burrell St. Louis Bank for Cooperatives
Corporation 506 Olive, St. Louis
2400 6th Street, S.W., Cedar Rapids
FREU flt[DR)CI<
field Supervisor, Seal test Dairy
Kansas Company
20th Pine Stree t, St. Louis
C,\RL FIT ZGm,\LD
Mana ger, Arkan sa s City Cooperative GARY l-LYNMA N
Milk Association Assistant to Market Administrator
615 West Chestn u t, Arkan sas City 2710 Hampton, St. Louis 39

MOly/and Wll.LlAM L. PALM


Marke t Administrator's Offi ce
PAUL BOEGLI 2 710 Hampton, St. Louis 39
Maryland & Virginia Milk Produ ce rs
P. O. Box 184, Laurel JAMES L. V ETTER
Food T ec hnologist, Monsanto
THOMAS L. fRA N I<OVIC Chemic al Compan y
Ex ec utive Marke ting Director, 800 North Lindbergh Boulevard
Maryland & Virginia Milk Produ ce rs St. Louis 66
P. O. B:Jx 18+, Laurel
Nebraska
ALEXANDER J. ROBE1(TSON, JR.
Sales Representative, Continental L. K. CROWE
Can Company 208 Dairy Industry
7800 York Road , Baltimore University of Nebraska, Lincoln

ROGERT P. JOSLIN
Mi chigan
Fairmont Foods
\ / I N Cf.NT AR SCANIAN 320 1 Farnam Stree t, Omaha
Ex-Cell-O Corporation
850 Ladd Road, Wall ed Lake N ew Jers ey
D. H. LOVE K. f. BORDEN
Michi gan Milk Producers Association Allied Chemical Corpora tion
355 East 2nd, Imlay City P. O. Box 70, Morristown

57
N ew York Pennsylvania
RICHARD W. CONDON FREDERICK M. GREENLEAF
President, Condon Farms, Inc. Assistant General Manager, LeHigh
II East 44th Street, Ne w York 17 Valley Coopera tiv e Farmers
1000-1160 North 7th Street
DO NA LD GUERRA
Allentown
American Milk Review
850 Third Avenue, New York 22 MURRY C. MCJUNKIN
Un i ted S ta tes Steel Corpora tion
L. B. HJTCHCOCK
525 William Penn Pl ace, Pittsburgh 30
Partner, Hitchcock Associates
60 East 42nd Street, New York 17
ROBERT L. STeELE
G. A. HOURA N Pennsylvan ia Farmers' Association
Vice President, DeLaval Separator 2 1st and Chestnut Streets, Camp Hill
Compa ny
Pou ghkeepsie THOMAS E. WILE Y
Market Dev elopment Division, United
JAMES IVERSON States Steel Corporation
Condon Farms, I nc . 525 William Penn Place, Pittsburgh 30
II East 44-th Street, New York 17

HENRY LEBER S autlt Carolilla


Production Research Specialist,
HE NRY D. OTT, JR.
Dairymen's Lea g ue Cooperative
402 Park Street, Syracusc 8 Product Man ager, Millik en Tetra-Pak
Box 2927, Spartanburg
GLENN A. NESTY
Allied Chemical Co r porat ion
61 Broadwa y, New York 6 South Dakota
RICHARD GAUGHEN
ALFRED R. PLA CE
Division of Milk Control, Ne w York Partner, Gaugheo's D a iry
State Department of Agriculture Box 889, Lcad
and Markets
State Offiee Building, Albany Wisconsin
ARTHUR B. QUENCER DOUG LAS R. Bl\ ,\ ATZ
Dairymen's Leagu e Cooperative Consolidated Badger Co-op, Inc.
402 Park Street, Syracuse 8 116 North Main Street, Shawano
T. W. WORKMA N
N. E. FABRI C IUS
Borden Company Technical Director, Dairy Maid
~ 50 Madison Avenue, N ew York 17
Products
l24 3 Eleventh Street, Eau C laire
Ohio
HARVEY A. HAIIM
A. L. DELISLE
Customer Packagin g Services, Vice Pres id ent a nd Manager,
Owens-Illinois G lass Company C hocolate Di vis ion, Robert A.
Adams and 14th Stree ts, Toledo Johnston Company
4023 West Nation a l Avenue
Milwaukee
Oklahoma
PAUL BROCKWELL G. H. HARTMAN
Pure Milk Produce rs Association Chief Chemist, White House Milk
of Eastern Oklahomil Division, I\. & p
P. O. Box 5116, Tu lsa Box 107, Manitowoc

58
A. H. KAEMMER W. USELMAN
Galloway-West Company, Division Galloway-West Company, Division
of Borden Company of Borden Company
325 Tompkins Street, Fond du Lac 325 Tompkins Street, Fond du Lac

KARL KLUG
JERRY J. WELLS

Research Engineer, Creamery Package The Creamery Package Manufacturing


Company
Manufacturing Company
Fort Atkin so n
Fort Atkinson

E. J. KOWAN
Canada
District Sales Manager, Robert A. D. H. BULLOCK
Johnston Company Associate Professor
4023 West National Avenue Ontario Agricultural College
Milwaukee Guelph, On tario

D. B. McINTIRE R. W. CHARLES

Project Engineer, Union Carbide Dominion Dairies


Development Company 235 Walmer Road, Toronto, Ontario
2510 West Capitol Drive, Milwaukee 6
J. H. FORDE
Canada Dairies Corporation, Ltd.
F. L. SANNA 266 Donlands Avenue, Toronto,
President, Sanna Dairies Ontario
910 Wingra Drive, Madison
F. D. GILLIES
M. E. SEEHAFER Manager, Canada Dairies Corporation,
Project Assistant Ltd.
207 Babcock Hall R. R. # I, Burgcssville, O ntario
University of Wisconsin, Madison 6
RICHARD M. HILL
Manager, Tetra-Pak Company, Ltd.
SCOTT E. SElDERT
1470 Don Mills Road
Research Assistant Don Mills, Ontario
207 Babcock Hall
University of Wisconsin, Madison 6 ELWOOD HODGINS
Ontario Whole Milk Producers League
R. E. SQUAGLIA 409 Huron Street, Toronto, Ontario
Sales Manager, Robert A. Johnston
Company ROBERT LOWE

P. O. Box 691, Milwaukee President, Becker Milk Company, Ltd.


98 Nassau Street, Toronto, Ontario
ARTHUR M. SWANSON
Professor of Dairy Technology
COLIN J. McMECHAN
Vice President, Donlands Dairy, Ltd .
211 Babcock Hall
266 Donlands Avenue, Toronto, Ontario
University of Wisconsin, Madison 6
C. M. MEEK
H. E. TIIEW Dairy Branch, Ontario Department
Gen era l Manager, Madison Milk of Agriculture
Producers Co-op Dairy Parliament Buildings, Toronto 2,
1707 South Park Street, Madison 13 Ontario

ED THOM FRANK TODD


Editor, Olsen Publications Ontario Whole Milk Producers
1445 North 5th Street, Milwaukee 12 Churchill, Ontario

59