It,

COMPOSITION OF FLUID MILK PRODUCTS

IN .

SELECTED FEDERAL ORDER MARKETS

JUNE 1982

FEDERAL MILK MARKET ADMINISTRATOR

SERVICE UNIT NO.1

COMPOSITION OF FLUID MILK PRODUCTS IN SELECTED FEDERAL ORDER MARKETS

Federal Milk Market Administrator Service Unit No. 1

June 1982

Introduction

The composition of fluid milk products was analyzed for a representative

group of handlers in the midwestern area of the United States for the month

1/ of June 1982.- The purpose of the study was to determine the composition of

fluid milk products available to consumers as to milk fat, solids-not-fat and

protein content. The samples used were obtained by the six market administra-

tors administering the 15 Federal }1ilk Orders included in the study. A total

of 72 handlers were included, located in the states of Arizona, Colorado, Idaho,

Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Dakota,

Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

Study handlers received milk from producers located in 24 states during

the month of June 1982.

These regulated handlers are representative of the total market as to

ownership, type of operation and size. The bottling plants were either o\vned

by national dairy firms, grocery chains, independent proprietors or dairy

farmer cooperatives. (Table 1).

l/ This study was made at the direction of the Dairy Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agriculture, in response to a request received from two major cooperatives.

The study was developed to be generally comparable to work that was done in February 1972 by the same group of market administrators in the preparation of a paper for presentation at the 1972 Annual Meeting of the American Dairy Scienc.e Association at Blacksburg, Virginia. (1)

(Members of the Service Unit are market administrators located at Dallas, Texas; Aurora, Colorado; Overland Park, Kansas; Phoenix, Arizona; Maryland Heights, Missouri and Tulsa, Oklahoma.)

- 2 -

TABLE 1 - Type of ownership represented by the 72 handlers included in study.

Category

Proprietary National dairy chain Chain store Cooperative association

Total

No. of plants

16 26 15 15

72

Number

22 36 21 21

100

Percent Total Class I disposition

24 39 19 18

100

During June 1982, the 72 handlers had disposition of fluid milk products

of 595 million pounds and individually ranged in size from two million to a

maximum of over twenty million pounds per month. (Table 2).

TABLE 2 - Study handlers ranked by volume of Class I disposition, June 1982.

Class I disposition (million pounds)

2 to 3 3 to 4 4 to 5 5 to 6 6 to 7 7 to 8 8 to 9 9 to 10

10 to 11 11 to 12 12 to 13 13 to 14 14 to 15

Over 15

Total

Number of handlers

5 4 7

10 9 7 6 6

3 2 4 3 6

72

Percent of total

7 6

10 14 12 10

8 8

4 3 6 4 8

100

- 3 -

All handlers were not included in the study. It was decided that those

. handlers comprising at least 75 percent of the total fluid milk products

disposed of in the market would be included. Study handlers represented

from 77 to 97 percent of the fluid milk products disposed of by all handlers

regulated under the individual orders and 81 percent of the total Class I

disposition in the 15 orders combined.

All fluid milk products were not analyzed for each handler. Homogenized

milk, lowfat and fluid skim milk products, which in total represented at

least 75 percent of total fluid milk disposition by each handler, were ana-

lyzed and considered to be representative for the purpose of this study.

The month of June was selected as the test month. Such selection was

on the basis of expediency and does not infer that June is more representative

than any other month for this type of analysis.

Procedures

Fluid milk products analyzed are listed in Table 3. In April 1982, these

products accounted for 93 percent of all fluid milk disposition in 46 Federal

Milk Order markets in the United States.(2)

Fluid milk products in consumer cartons were sampled randomly and analyzed

on the basis of what the purchaser sees in the dairy case. If the carton or

label indicated that the product contained nonfat dry milk solids added, it

was so categorized. In numerous cases, laboratory analysis did not reflect

the addition of nonfat milk solids even though the carton indicated nonfat

dry milk solids were added.

I

- 4 -

Samples of fluid milk products used for laboratory analysis were, with

few exceptions, personally selected at the plant by market administrator per-

sonnel. A determination was made for all handlers on all study products.

prior to the study month, as to specific containers to be sampled for each

product. Containers selected represented the major volume disposition for

individual products. The gallon container was the most cornmon container sam-

pled and frequently represented 100 percent of the disposition of a product.

In only a few instances did the sample container represent less than 50 per-

cent of product disposition but generally represented at least 75 percent.

Producer milk1/ was analyzed for composition in the 15 Federal Order

markets. It is acknowledged that the milk fat content of such samples may

not be representative for handler's incoming receipts. This fact does not

discredit the value of producer milk analysis for solids and protein content

11 . d· h· d 1 h k· ·lk . 3/ as a compar~sons rna e ~n t ~s stu y re ate to t e s ~m m~ port~on.-

Producer milk samples used in this analysis represented large volumes

of milk and generally were coordinated to coincide with processing of fluid

milk products included in the study. While it is impossible to always obtain

samples of source producer milk used in processing of the fluid milk products,

an attempt was made to obtain this sample when possible.

The study month was divided into four one-week periods and samples of

study products were obtained at all plants where processed four times (once

per week) during the month of June.

1/ In this analysis the term "producer milk" is used to represent not only milk received direct from the farm, but also fluid milk products received from supply plants.

1/ The skim milk portion was used so as to eliminate the effect of milk fat content and make product comparison easier. The percent of solids-not-fat in the skim milk portion was determined by subtracting the milk fat content from 100 and dividing the solids-not-fat by that result. The percent of protein in the skim milk portion was determined by subtracting milk fat from 100 and dividing the protein in the product by that result.

- 5 -

All samples were shipped to the market administrator's laboratory in

Dallas, Texas, where they were immediately tested for milk fat, solids-not-

f d . 4/ at an proteln.- The use of a single laboratory for analysis eliminated

any variation that might be introduced due to differences between laboratory

equipment, reagents and procedures.

For purpose of this study, products were, with one exception, categorized

by carton information. The one exception was homogenized milk, high test.

Seventeen study handlers offered two homogenized milks to consumers, differing

only by milk fat content. Consumers should be aware of this difference due

to advertising and price.

The carton label approach was taken so that the analysis would agree

with what the consumer thinks is being purchased.

Table 3 shows the number of handlers processing each of the study products.

In the sampling of 72 handlers, some of the handlers did not process any prod-

ucts with added solids, whereas others processed the same product with and

without added solids.

TABLE 3 - Number of study handlers processing various fluid milk products .

Product

Homogenized, high test Homogenized, regular Two percent lowfat milk Two percent lowfat milk, added SNF One and one-half percent lowfat milk One and one-half percent lowfat milk, added SNF One percent lowfat milk One percent lowfat milk, added SNF One-half percent lowfat milk One-half percent lowfat milk, added SNF Skim Triilk Skim milk, added SNF Nonfat milk Nonfat milk, added SNF

a/ 72 study handlers.

Percent Number total

17 24 72 100 47 65 26 36

6 8 6 8

34 47 9 13

23 32 12 17 33 46 17 24

4 6 7 10

4/ All samples were analyzed, without added preservatives, on a Multispec M, Infrared Milk Analyzer. The infrared procedure is approved by the Associa­tion of Official Analytical Chemists. (3)

. ~}

- 6 -

Product Composition

Table 4 shows average milk fat, solids-nat-fat and protein in producer

milk and fluid milk products for all study handlers. This table also shows

the solids-nat-fat and protein expressed as a percent of the skim milk portion

of each product. This eliminates, for comparison purposes, the variation in

products caused by different milk fat contents.

It can be determined from this table that the solids-nat-fat and protein

content in the skim milk portion of nonfortified products is lmver than the

producer milk from which such products were processed.

TABLE 4 - Average milk fat, solids-not-fat and protein in producer milk and fluid milk products, all study handlers.

Product

Producer milk

Homogenized, high test

Homogenized, regular

Two percent lowfat

Two percent lowfat, added SNF

One and one-half percent lowfat

One and one-half percent lowfat, added SNF

One percent lowfat

One percent lowfat, added SNF

One-half percent lowfat

One-half percent lowfat, added SNF

Skim milk

Skim milk, added SNF

Nonfat milk

Nonfat milk, added SNF

Milk Solids-fat not-fat Protein

3.439 8.590 3.164

3.443 8.557 3.133

3.227 8.560 3.134

1.943 8.657 3.153

1.995 9.424 3.439

1.365 8.623 3.133

1.490 9.006 3.272

1.068 8.740 3.189

1.243 9.232 3.371

0.693 8.823 3.228

0.659 9.014 3.289

0.304 8.736 3.189

0.414 9.263 3.385

0.233 8.734 3.173

0.209 8.781 3.198

Expressed as percent of skim milk portion

Solids-not-fat Protein

8.896 3.276

8.862 3.244

8.841 3.238

8.828 3.215

9.615 3.509

8.743 3.176

9.143 3.323

8.835 3.223

9.348 3.414

8.884 3.251

9.074 3.311

8.763 3.199

9.301 3.399

8.754 3.178

8.800 3.204

- 7 -

Variation in Composition

Producer milk. The inherent composition and variation in producer milk

define the scope of the problem for a processor who desires to modify the

average composition or improve the uniformity of his products, or both. If

the desired composition is different from the actual composition of producer

milk, then changes in the product must be made. If the composition of pro-

ducer milk is highly variable, then frequent testing must be undertaken and

adjustments must be made to obtain a uniform product.

For all markets and all products, milk fat was the most variable of the

components studied. (Table 5).

To facilitate comparisons of the variation of different components in

different products, coefficients of variation were calculated to express the

standard deviation as a percent of the mean. (4) The 0.21 standard deviation

51 for milk fat in producer milk was 6.2 percent of the 3.44 percent average.-

Solids-not-fat in the skim milk portion of producer milk exhibited less

variation than milk fat and had the lowest coefficient of variation of the

three components examined. The average level of solids-not-fat was 8.90 per-

cent, with a range of 8.31 to 9.36 percent. The standard deviation was 0.11,

or 1.2 percent of the mean. Ninety-five percent of the samples should fall

between 8.68 and 9.11 percent.

21 Standard deviation is a measure of the dispersion of individual test values about their mean.

I I

- 8 -

TABLE 5 - Measures of variation in three major components of producer milk and fluid milk products for 72 study handlers, June 1982. a/

Product

Producer milk: Milk fat Solids-nat-fat in S~P Protein in SMP

Homogenized, high test: Hilk fat Solids-nat-fat in SMP Pro tein in Sl\lP

Homogenized, regular: Milk fat Solids-nat-fat in SMP Protein in SMP

Two percent lowfat milk: Milk fat Solids-not-fat in SMP Protein in SMP

~vo percent lo,.,fat milk,

Number of observations

288

68

288

188

added SNF: 104 Nilk fat Solids-not-fat in SMP Protein in SMP

One and one-half percent lo,.,fat milk:

Milk fat Solids-nat-fat in SMP Protein in SMP

One and one-half percent lowfat milk, added SNF:

Milk fat Solids-not-fat in SMP Protein in SMP

One percent lowfat milk: Milk fat Solids-nat-fat in SMP Protein in SMP

24

24

136

Range Standard Coefficient Mean Low High devia tion of variation

------Percent------

3.439 8.896 3.276

3.443 8.862 3.244

3.227 8.841 3.238

1. 943 8.828 3.215

1. 995 9.615 3.509

1. 365 8.743 3.176

1.490 9.143 3.323

1.068 8.835 3.223

2.54 8.31 2.98

3.11 8.59 3.12

2.44 7.63 2.77

1. 35 8.02 2.92

1.56 8.45 3.06

0.65 8.10 2.92

1. 26 8.29 2.96

0.34 8.20 2.94

4.71 9.36 3.50

4.18 9.06 3.31

3.54 9.48 3.56

3.29 9.37 3.47

3.27 11. 20

4.12

1. 67 8.99 3.27

1. 87 11. 46

4.23

3.22 9.13 3.36

.213

.106

.054

.141

.095

.041

.131

.175

.073

.19 8

.184

.075

.223

.665

.252

.261

.180

.074

.144

.697

.268

.349

.159

.064

6.2 1.2 1.6

4.1 1.1 1.3

4.1 2.0 2.3

10.2 2.1 2.3

11.2 6.9 7.2

19.1 2.1 2.3

9.7 7.6 8.1

32.7 1.8 2.0

~/ Solids-not-fat and protein contents expressed as a percent of ski.ffi milk portion.

- 9 -

TABLE 5 - (Cont.)

Number of Range Standard Coefficient Product observations Mean Low High deviation of variation

------Percent------One percent lowfat milk, added SNF: 36

Milk fat 1. 243 0.55 3.23 .559 45.0 Solids-not-fat in SMP 9.348 8.69 11.56 .807 8.6 Protein in SMP 3.414 3.16 4.23 .303 8.9

One-half percent lowfat milk: 92 Milk fat 0.693 0.32 3.20 .535 77.2 Solids-not-fat in SMP 8.884 8.27 9.83 .286 3.2 Protein in SMP 3.251 3.03 3.61 .113 3.5

One-half percent lowfat milk, added SNF: 48

Milk fat 0.659 0.37 2.51 .369 56.0 Solids-not-fat in SMP 9.074 7.63 10.38 .528 5.8 Protein in SMP 3.311 2.73 3.79 .200 6.0

Skim milk: 132 Milk fat 0.304 0.06 1. 26 .205 67.4 Solids-not-fat in SMP 8.763 7.55 9.77 .281 3.2 Protein in SMP 3.199 2.59 3.66 .127 4.0

Skim milk, added SNF: 68 Milk fat 0.414 0.11 2.04 .336 81. 2 Solids-not-fat in SMP 9.301 8.59 12.64 .896 9.6 Protein in SMP 3.399 3.12 4.67 .339 10.0

Nonfat milk: 16 Milk fat 0.233 0.10 0.98 .215 92.3 Solids-not-fat in SMP 8.754 8.46 8.94 .129 1.5 Protein in SMP 3.178 2.98 3.26 .068 2.1

Nonfat milk, added SNF: 28 Milk fat 0.209 0.08 0.64 .129 61. 7 Solids-not-fat in SMP 8.800 8.09 9.34 .278 3.2 Protein in SMP 3.204 2.93 3.42 .llO 3.4

- 10 -

Protein could be the component of primary interest since it represents

one of the main nutritional attributes of milk in any form. Producer milk

delivered to the handlers included in this study averaged 3.28 percent pro­

tein in the skim milk portion. The variation was small in absolute terms,

with a standard deviation of 0.05, but in relative terms, was slightly greater

than the variation in solids-not-fat. The coefficient of variation for pro­

tein vlas 1. 6 percent compared to 1. 2 percent for solids-not-fat. The range

for the protein content of the skim milk portion of producer milk was 2.98

percent on the low side and 3.50 percent on the high side, with 95 percent

of the observations expected to fall between 3.18 and 3.38 percent.

The solids-not-fat and protein content of producer milk analyzed in

this study ,,,as lower than was observed in the February 1972 analysis. (1)

The differences in the skim milk portion of 0.09 in solids-not-fat and 0.12

in protein could be caused by different months used for the sample period.

Seasonal variation in all components of milk from producers is known to

exist.(5)

Homogenized milk. Homogenized milk still represents the standard product

of the fluid milk industry and should be the product for which handlers can

achieve the most consistent results with respect to desired milk fat content

and uniformity.

Handlers do achieve greater uniformity of composition of homogenized milk

than is found in any other product. The coefficient of variation for milk

fat, which is shown in Table 6 for all study products, is lower for both regu­

lar and high milk fat homogenized milk than for any other product. The co­

efficient of variation for solids-not-fat and protein for these two products

is, with two exceptions, the lowest of all products analyzed.

- 11 -

This table also reflects that the greater the modification of the

composition of a product by the handler, the greater the variability of the

product as to composition. The two homogenized milks analyzed in this study

were generally uniform in average milk fat content. The high milk fat product

averaged 3.44 percent milk fat and had a coefficient of variation of 4.1. The

regular homogenized milk, which averaged 3.23 percent milk fat, also had a

coefficient of variation of 4.1.

TABLE 6 - Coefficient of variation for milk fat, solids-not-fat and protein in producer milk and fluid milk products, all study handlers.

Coefficient of variationa 7 Solids-

Product Milk fat not-fat Protein

Producer milk 6.2 1.2 1.6

Homogenized, high test 4.1 1.1 1.3

Homogenized, regular 4.1 2.0 2.3

Two percent lowfat 10.2 2.1 2.3

Two percent lm.Jfat, added SNF 11. 2 6.9 7.2

One and one-half percent lowfat 19.1 2.1 2.3

One and one-half percent lowfat, added SNF 9.7 7.6 8.1

One percent lm.,fat 32.7 1.8 2.0

One percent lowfat, added SNF 45.0 8.6 8.9

One-half percent lowfat 77 .2 3.2 3.5

One-half percent lowfat, added SNF 56.0 5.8 6.0

Skim milk 67.4 3.2 4.0

Skim milk, added SNF 81. 2 9.6 10.0

Nonfat milk 92.3 1.5 2.1

Nonfat milk, added SNF 61. 7 3.2 3.4

a/ Solids-not-fat and protein is for the skim milk portion.

- 12 -

The milk fat average for regular homogenized milk of 3.23 percent is

below the minimum standard set by the federal government and all states in­

cluded in the study, with the e xception of Colorado which has a standard of

3.2 percent. (6) An analysis of the 288 samples tested showed that 153 or

53 percent were below 3.25 percent milk fat.

The range in milk fat for the high test homogenized, which is processed

by study handlers in 8 of the 15 orders involved, was from 3.11 to 4.18.

The range in milk fat for regular homogenized milk was from 2.44 to 3.54

percent.

The average solids-not-fat content of the skim milk portion of high test

homogeni zed milk was 8.86 percent, 0.03 percentage points lower than the pro­

ducer milk. The range was from 8.59 to 9.06 percent.

The average solids-not-fat content for regular homogenized milk was 8.84

percent for the skim milk portion. The range, from 7.63 to 9.48 percent, is

wider than the high test homogenized milk analyzed or the producer milk.

Two percent lo,,,fat milk. Six ty-five percent of the 72 handlers processed

t~"o percent Im"fat milk without added solids. (Table 3). This product is

similar to homogenized milk except that it has a lower milk fat content.

The variability in composition of this product was greater than homogenized

milk, with milk fat being the most variable of all components. The average for

all handlers was 1.94 percent, with a range of 1.35 to 3.29 percent milk fat.

The standard deviation for milk fat was greater than either s olids-not-fat

or protein. The solids-not-fat in the skim milk portion averaged 8.83 percent,

which is lower than producer milk or the two homogenized milks analy zed.

- 13 -

Two percent 10wfat milk, added SNF. Carton labels for 26 of the study

handlers indicated that the two percent 10wfat milk contained therein had

added nonfat milk solids. Laboratory analysis of the products of six of these

handlers did not reveal the solids-not-fat content to be any greater than the

average solids-not-fat of producer milk from which these products were pro-

cessed. Therefore, it can be concluded that dilution occurred to cause this

or the product was mislabeled.

The same was found to be true for all other study products that purported

to have added solids. A total of 77 study products were labeled as having

milk solids added. Laboratory analyses indicated that 31 of these products,

or 40 percent, did not have a solids-not-fat content higher than the average

for producer milk of the individual handler. (Table 7).

TABLE 7 - Comparison of products wi~7 added solids per carton label to actual laboratory test results. -

PRODUCT

One and 1\.,0 one-half One One-half

percent percent percent percent 10wfat lowfat lowfat 10wfat Skim Nonfat milk milk milk milk milk milk Total

Number with added solids per carton label 26 6 9 12 17 7 77

Number with added solids, per tests 20 3 6 7 9 1 46

Number with no added solids, per tests 6 3 3 5 8 6 31

Percent with no added solids 23 50 33 42 47 86 40

a/ °d d - ConSl ere to have added solids \.,hen the average solids in the skim milk portion of the product exceeded the average of the producer milk.

- 14 -

The solids-not-fat content for all two percent lowfat milk with added

solids reflects a higher solids content than the same product discussed above

without added solids. The range of solids-not-fat and protein content is

greater for this product than the previous product and the standard deviation

is also greater. A review of Table 5 shows that the same pattern exists for

all products with added solids when compared to the same product without

added solids.

Other products. A review of data in Tables 4, 5 and 6 indicates that the

greater the modification of the product, i.e. lowering milk fat content or in­

creasing solids-not-fat content, the greater the variation in the composition

of the product. Milk fat is the most variable of all components. The range

of extreme test results is always greater for this component than either

solids-not-fat or protein.

The reduction in solids-not-fat that occurs in products without added

solids also is reflected in the protein content. It can be concluded that

whatever action or variable causing such reductions affects both of these com­

ponents on a fairly uniform basis.

Summary and Conclusions

The composition of fluid milk products as to milk fat, solids-not-fat

and protein content was analyzed for a representative group of handlers in

the midwestern area of the United States for June 1982.

The following are the conclusions derived from this investigation:

(1) The composition of fluid milk products varies greatly as to milk fat,

solids-not-fat and protein.

(2) The variation starts with the first modification of the product.

The greater the modification, the greater the variation.

- 15 -

(3) Milk fat is the most variable of all components in processed fluid

milk products. Solids-not-fat is the least variable component.

(4) The lower the milk fat content, the greater the coefficient of

variation of the milk fat in the product.

(5) Products with solids-not-fat added varied more in solids-not-fat

and protein than products without such addition.

(6) The average milk fat content of regular homogenized milk for study

handlers was 3.23 percent, with a standard deviation of 0.13. Fifty-three

percent of the samples of this product tested less than 3.25 milk fat content.

(7) The average solids-not-fat in the skim milk portion of producer

milk was 8.90 percent, with a standard deviation of 0.11.

(8) The average solids-not-fat and protein content of all products that

did not have added solids was less than the average of the producer milk.

(9) Six categories of products analyzed were labeled as having added

solids, but laboratory analyses indicated no solids were added. The inci­

dence ranged from a low of 23 percent of the 26 handlers processing two percent

lowfat milk with added solids to a high of 86 percent of the 7 handlers pro­

cessing nonfat milk with added solids.

- 16 -

References

1. Grayson, U. Grant, Federal Milk Market Administrator, Dairy Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department of Agricul­

ture, Overland Park, Kansas. Variations in Composition of Fluid Milk

Products to Consumers. Journal of Dairy Science, Volume 56, No.2,

February 1973.

2. United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Ser­

vice, Dairy Division, July 1982. Federal Milk Order Market Statistics

for April 1982. Washington, D. C.

3. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 1980. Official Methods

of Analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists, 13th

Edition, Washington, D. C.

4. Fryer , H. C., 1966. Concepts and Methods of Experimental Statistics.

Allyn and Bacon, Inc. Boston, Massachusetts.

5. Webb, Byron H. and Johnson, Arnold H., 1965. Fundamentals of Dairy

Chemistry. The AVI Publishing Company, Inc. Westport, Connecticut.

6. United States Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Quality Ser­

vice, Agriculture Handbook No. 51. Federal and State Standards for

the Composition of Milk Products (and Certain Non-Milkfat Products)

as of January 1, 1980. Washington, D. C.

- 17 -

APPENDIX TABLES

Page

18 Total Class I disposition by all handlers in the 15 Federal Orders, and the Class I disposition and percent of the total disposition of all handlers represented by the 72 study handlers, June 1982

19 State and federal standards of composition of milk products for milk fat for study markets, as of January 1, 1980

20 State and federal standards of composition of milk products for milk solids for study markets, as of January 1, 1980

21 Frequency distribution of solids-not-fat in skim milk portion of producer milk for individual handlers, June 1982

22 Frequency distribution of milk fat content for individual handlers for regular homogenized milk, June 1982

23 Federal orders included in study and outline of geographic area from which handlers received producer milk, June 1982

- 18 -

Total Class I disposition by all handlers in the 15 Federal Orders, and the Class I disposition and percent of the total disposition of all handlers

represented by the 72 study handlers, June 1982

Total market Federal Order Class I Study handlers Class I

Name No. 1,000 Lbs. 1,000 Lbs. Percent

Southern Illinois 32 35,171 32,039 91

St. Louis-Ozarks 62 89,417 76,576 86

Kansas City 64 32,849 26,699 81

Nebraska-Western Iowa 65 39,031 31,294 80

Iowa 79 52,413 46,465 89

Hemphis 97 16,566 13,689 83

Oklahoma Hetropolitan 106 49,809 41,341 83

Texas 126 221,431 170,502 77

Central Arizona 131 50,881 39,026 77

Great Basin 136 37,494 30,230 81

Eastern Colorado 137 48,765 39,723 81

Rio Grande Valley 138 26,689 21,645 81

Other 1/ 29,674 25,825 87

Total 730,190 595,054 81

1/ Central Illinois Order 50, Wichita Order 73 and Eastern South Dakota Order 76 combined due to confidentiality of individual market data.

- 19 -

State and federal standards of composition of milk products for milk fat for study markets, as of January 1, 1980

Whole milk Lowfat milk Skim milk State Min. Min. Max. Max.

------(Percent)------

Arizona 3.50 0.5 2.0 <0.5

Colorado 3.20 0.5 2.0 <0.5

Idaho 3.25 1/ 4/ 2.0 1/ <0 .5

Illinois 3.25 0.5 2.0 0.5

Imva 3.25 0.5 2.0 0.5

Kansas 3.25 0.5 2/ 2.0 <0 .5

}1issouri 3.25 0.5 3/ 2.0 <0.5

Nebraska 3.25 0.5 4/ 2.0 <0.5

New Mexico 3.25 0.5 2.0 <0.5

Oklahoma 3 .25 >0.5 <2 .0 <0 .5

South Dakota 3.25 0.5 2.0 0.5

Tennessee 3.25 0.5 2.0 <0.5

Texas 3.25 0.5 4/ 2.0 0.5

Utah 3.25 0.5 2.0 <0 .5

Federal 3.25 0.5 2.0 <0.5

1/ Percent of milk fat must be shown on label. 2/ If designated "2% lowfat milk" - minimum milk fat 1.9 percent, maximum

2.1 percent. 3/ Milk fat level must be declared on label: 0.5, 1.0, 1.5 or 2.0 percent. 4/ Designated as "lowfat milk".

- 20 -

State and federal standards of composition of milk products for milk solids for study markets, as of January 1, 1980 a/

Whole milk Lowfat milk Skim milk Total Added Total

State MSNF milk sol. milk sol. MSNF milk sol. Added solids ------ - Hinimum - Max.

Arizona 8.25 11. 75 2/ 8.25 3/ 3/

Colorado 8.25 8.25 5/ 9/ 5/ 9/

Idaho 8.25 11.00 3/ 3/ 3/

Illinois 8.25 4/ 4/ 7/ 4/ 7/

Iowa 8.25 11. 50 4/ 1/ 8.25 8.75 4/ 5/ 4/ 'if

Kansas 8.25 5/ 5/ 5/

Hissouri 8.25 11. 50 8.25

Nebraska 8.25 5/ 5/ 5/

Ne\" Hexico 8.25 8.25 8.25 5/ 5/

Oklahoma 8.25 1/ 'if '2/ South Dakota 8.25 8.25

Tennessee 8.25 §./ 8.25 6/ 6/

Texas 8.25 11.50 7/ 8.25 1.Q/ 10/

Utah 8.25 11.50 8/ 8.25

Federal 8.25 8.25 8.25

~/ Percent of weight.

1/ Grade A; solids-nat-fat mlnlmum 8.25 percent. 2/ Solids-nat-fat may be added and when added, the percent added must be declared

on the label. 3/ Must show approximate percentage of solids-nat-fat added. Solids must be Grade A. I/ If solids added, label must so indicate. 5/ Quantity not specified but amount added must be shown on the label. 6/ Optional. 7/ Added solids permitted but quantity not specified. 8/ Grade A. 9/ l.Jhen solids and/or vitamins added, designated as "fortified skim milk".

10/ Grade A solids-nat-fat permitted but quantity not specified.

- 21 -

Frequency distribution of solids-not-fat in skim milk portion of producer milk for individual handlers,

June 1982

Number of Percent Range samples of total

8.60 & below 3 1.0

8.61 - 8.70 8 2.8

8.71 - 8.80 31 10.8

8.81 - 8.90 117 40.6

8.91 - 9.00 92 32.0

9.01 - 9.10 30 10.4

9.11 - 9.20 4 1.4

9.21 9.30 2 .7

9.31 & over 1 .3

Total 288 100.0

Average for all handlers 8.896 percent solids-not-fat.

- 22 -

Frequency distribution of milk fat content for individual handlers for regular homogenized milk,

June 1982

Range

2.54 & belm,

2.55 - 2.64

2.65 - 2.74

2.75 - 2.84

2.85 - 2.94

2.95 - 3.04

3.05 - 3.14

3.15 - 3.24

3.25 - 3.34

3.35 - 3.44

3.45 - 3.54

3.55 & above

Total

Number of samples

1

1

4

2

10

36

99

96

30

9

288

Percent of total

.3

.3

1.4

.7

3.5

12.5

34.4

33.3

10.4

3.2

100.0

Average for all handlers 3.227 percent milk fat.

Federal orders included in study and outline of geographic area from which handlers received producer milk

June 1982

\~\,. ~.~ i . J\ ",I:.,., 0

, • • - •. - •• - -"-"'-" "-"-. •• _1;;; 1 . 'WASH/NGrO

N !.~ •• - •• --_ •• __ •. _ •• _ •• _ •• AKOTA . NNESOTA /'" ~ . : "'

ONTAN

4 'NORTH ° 1M' " . _,

I ( ! : /'.. M'CHiG~",-= \, I \ j c;~~'IN ':£~ AI ' , '\' WIS : ! - ------) ( 'SOUTH o AKo", .....:...1----........

ORr·'· ..... ···_·-._ .. ...; ~GON ,

C4LtFORN"/4' T' - . . _ . • N[VA,O I .

I

\

\ \,

..

/ IDAHO 1 '- :..:,;.;..:;,; ..... __ _ ( . ,~-"'Ii WYOMING ..,.

(I:A\ rI 1<;-': s,ll rnl J)M~orJ\ ) ! t

:~OWA '--'-' ~ ~---.- . -~- ... ~ , ,.. .. -.-. i !NEBRASKA .-.~

. urAH ! I \ ~

r-, I L·-·"· __ ._. __ ._.i._ ... ~"~ ! ._.,' ~ • COLORADO I _. '''- __ • __ • 'I

<' nl.\'r ".,," I . . MISSOURI I E r-:()I S~ I , . __ . J.... \. , \lUTlilIlN 11.1.1 ./~ C " " '''<N'''' .''''''':J.iK~~S;':S-'-'-· .' . . f ( ':RF,\JUt I\ I\N~ \_ ; .

1;;;,___ j '..-c:,C<'MO \ i

oJ

'Z0N4----'J., C fWVA.~ / ~,. \1 : 'N _,, __ •• ~ , f) "'--". J r-" '.,

\, I 'w M --- '-"=--' - - - ~~ 'X'CO --'r'--- I .. " l I ,c _ .. - _u ' ( "CO,", .. ,,'" )' - , ' i TEXAS __ ) OKLAHOMA' __ -j 'l" .I ;0. - ' V'OG'N" .

G co .... '" .. = ,/,RKANSA5 --:'.; TEN" ES E~- -- -~ --; ; ';': CA,,"UNA

)

/

( CYr ll,\!. A U l l'.tJ~A ---( KIll (;It,\ NIlI: V,\U .I: Y )j

-- . .1

l . .. ,p~ i

.. -....--. ... -.~

~

J.' .:'~': ': _._, --;- . _i~~ : >~ -,' . --, ALABAMA-, '-. S.CAROLlNA·· "-

( 1 \GEORGIA " . " ,

'1 \--­;LOUISIANA I. ,

\ \

r- - -" -'\ • ['LORIDA" -_.

~

:/ :v ·,

{~p.\Nt.\

'; N.~·

N W