Cooperative verification reports are issued weekly. The Seattle MA laboratory strives to complete all reports within 24 hours of running handler samples or receipt of handler data, whichever occurs later. Immediate copies of reports are available via e-mail or fax. Color copies are automatically sent out via US mail.

Test Summary table (p. 1)

This table lists producer results for fat, protein, and other solids based on identical samples run by the Market Administrator and Daisy’s Dairy Cooperative in the first week of February, 2000. Coop reports are based on 24 producer samples which are taken from different members throughout the year. All entries within this table are single sample infrared determinations (no tank averaging or weighting, etc.).

Two fat comparisons (#6, #17) and one protein comparison (#3) are automatically flagged due to their unusual discord; these measurements are referred to as "flyers" and are excluded from both the handler and MA final averages.

Fat, protein, and other solids are within target tolerance, and producers should be paid according to the handler’s weighted average pay tests per normal procedures.

[If a handler determination for a producer differs from the MA determination by more than four times the respective tolerance, that producer is flagged with an H or L. This "outlier" designation does not imply fault – it merely alerts the MA staff as to possible sampling or data processing errors. If this flag recurs for the same producer over and over, the MA will recommend remedial action. This report mechanism is designed to safeguard individual producers – conclusions based on group means do not always accomplish this.]

Graphical Comparisons (p. 2)

Upon entry of IR data into p.1, a visual presentation is generated instantly via Excel. The fat and protein "flyers" described earlier are now readily seen in relation to the core data. MA and handler IR results agree well for fat and imply similar calibration slopes and biases. Protein results also agree fairly well, but note the slight disagreement in slope and bias. Agreement in other solids is acceptable, despite an apparent mismatch in slope and bias (expect to consistently see the weakest agreement for this component because it spans a very limited range and incorporates uncertainties via difference calculations).

Historical Comparison (p.3)

From the table above and plots below on p.3, it can be deduced that Daisy’s laboratory performance for butterfat over the past 6 months has been exemplary (92% success rate). MA and handler overall fat means track very closely with no evidence of consistent bias. The average difference between labs over 3 months is very slightly positive (handler high).

Protein agreement has not been quite as tight (83% success rate), but there is no evidence of a repetitive handler bias.

Agreement in other solids is only fair and should be better given the implementation in 1999 of a uniform, region-wide, raw milk calibration system.