MILK GRADING.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIV, Issue 206, 1 September 1933, Page 3

MILK GRADING.

" OBSOLETE TEST."

DEPARTMENT ATTACKED. SCIENTIST'S CRITICISM. Mr. P. 0. Vealc, dairy research chemist at the Hawera laboratory, lias com- , men ted on the reply made by the Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. C. K. Macmjllan, at Hamilton, to tlie open letter of criticism which Mr. Vcale addressed to tlie Minister. Mr. Vealc said that the Minister had very conveniently side-stepped all the principal issues, and that his remarks at Hamilton were really no reply at all. He could only assume that the Minister was unable to give any satisfactory explanation of the important disclosures made, namely (1) that he had caused the new dairy regulations to be drafted and printed before ever calling the advisory committee together; (2) that he had gazetted the regulations as law r despite the united opposition of the scientific and manufacturing representatives to the provisions governing milk grading; (3) that without authority from the committee or specific instruction from the resolution which named the personnel o'f the committee, he had raised the Departmental representation on the committee to four, whereas the only other organisation to have as many as three representatives was the Dairy Board; (4) that the weight of scientific and practical evidence was against the Department in its stand, and particularly that the Dairy Division would not accept tlie emphatic recommendations of the New Zealand Department of Scientific and Industrial Research and of the Dairy Research Institute. "No Confidence in Science." The Minister's claim to scientific backing for the Departmental stand would not bear investigation. The dairy science of his Departmental officers, as shown by their public utterances in regard to niilk grading, was hopelessly out-of-date—'.'as obsolete as the manufacture of cheese without starter-culture, to which era the cuid test belonged." Their onlv "scientific" supporter in New Zealand was the "Department's own scientist/' who had "of his own free will' sided with his superior officers. Mr. Vealc left it to the public to decide whether such "support" could be deemed impartial and of any value.. In any ease, New Zealand scientists were entitled to ask why should the opinion of one individual, "the Department's own scientist," be held sufficient to outweigh that of the Director of Dairy Research, the Secretary of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, his own and that of other independent scientists in New Zealand, to say nothing of overseas authorities of world-wide renown. New Zealand taxpayers were entitled to ask why should the Department of Agriculture continue to maintain its own laboratory and its own scientist and to use these to oppose the findings of Massey College, also maintained at their expense. The net result was to commit the Government to a vote of noconfidence in science by retaining, as the premier test in milk grading, an obsolete, non-scientific test which was in vogue before the' Babcock test was invented. Hence much of the _ money being spent on dairy research in New Zealand was going for nothing as long as the Department had its way. "Regulations a Disgrace." Mr. Veale went on to dissect the Minister's defence of his stand in favour of the "obsolete curd test." In conclusion, Mr. Vealo stated that his concern was eo to model the regulations that they would be a source of pride to New Zealand, and a powerful factor in advertising the quality of our produce in England. "At present the regulations are a disgrace and a source of shame," he said. ° "They advertise an out-of-date Department of Agriculture with no appreciation of modern science and, what is worse, make it appear that our milk quality for cheese is deplorable. The Minister's recent statement at Hamilton that the curd test regulations would 'help materially to improve the quality of the milk used for checscmaking' is, to those who understand the position, a really damaging disclosure. Overseas competitors and buyers would be entitled to say 'God help the present quality of New Zealand milk and cheese if the ancient curd test is going to make all that difference to it.' Personally I. deny the truth of the Minister's statement. The curd would make no improvement at all. It would provide a sort of lucky bag, out of which a certain number of 'second grades' would be occasionally drawn, but it would not improve the general position. In fact, practically every dairy company which referred to milk grading in its annual report stated that its own suppliers had 'nothing to fear' from the regulations and that all would have no difficulty in conforming to the standards."

Mr. Veale maintained that the time had como for New Zealand to range alongside the development of other countries in dairy science; to define our milk quality boldly in terms of bacterial standards which were known and appreciated overseas; to use the milk grading methods approved by the most progressive countries and to advertise the facts when gelling our produce. He did not see how any Minister who considered himself progressive could bo satisfied with less.