DAIRYING INDUSTRY AND DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

Press, Volume LIX, Issue 17811, 10 July 1923, Page 9

DAIRYING INDUSTRY AND DAIRY CONTROL BILL.

I I fO -nr. T.JJTCP. 07 "TRX FMSJ." i g; r —l have re:ij with considerable j interest a letter appearing in your ; va iuable columns .signed L. Hansen,, i general manager, Kiwi Dairy Co. Mr jj an sen says: "Even supposing the Dairy Control !Bill would possibly jjjjug us id a lb more for our produce, ; would cost tliat amount for its man.geaient, and the returns to the producers would lie nil." lam of tho opinion. Sir. that the above statment, coming from one opposed to control, is entirely .satisfactory to the promotes of the proposed Bill, inasmuch as jt is an admis'-ion that the dairy farmer will not; lie worse off than under the present system. I notice also that tie proprietary factories have formed a n association lately, apparently on amount oi' the promoters of the control making such marked progress as thev have done this year; I presume the" association v/as formed for tho benefit of dairy fanners. Mr Hansen also says: "'l.el us get down to the root of the matter, the dairy fanners. It is absolutely essential for tho progress of the industry, especially as far a 9 Canterbury is concerned, that we procure better eiass dairy herds. This can onlv be done by introducing a high milking strain of bulls. If we can produce -701b of butter-fat per cow instead of 1501b, as the cows in Canterbury to day are producing, it would inean an asset to the industry of over £10,000,000, spread over the whole of New Zealand." Mr Hansen ft laying the whole of the blame on ithc bub. Certainly pedigree bulls are necessary, and I do not wish to depreciate their value, but in my opinion there are other essentials that require attention. Sufficient attention is not paid to the milking of cows. I know of cases where no stripping is carried out where machines are used. This is mechanical milking gone mad. On other dairy farms I know attempts are made to carry out the milking with machines and employ very little labour, making it almost an impossibility to milk the cows as thoy should be done to get the best results. A dairyman often takes the advice of a milking machine agent, who, by the way, has perhaps never milked a cow in his life; but with a plausable tongue can instruct the dairy farmer how fast he cau get his cows milked, and often the dairyman's stupidity does the rest. I have before me a case in point whers rililking machines are used. One dairy farmer milks 35 cows (a crossbred herd by the way), with an average butterfat of 2831b per cow. His neighbour endeavours to inilk 60 cows, some of which are purebred. Also, a pedigree sire is kept. With the same number o£ employees as the 35-cow man. The result, is'only £l7 more for the best month of the year, and in March the monthly cheque was higher from the ,15-cow herd. I also know of several small crossbred herds that are milked by hand with an average of over 2701b of butter-fat, not necessarily kept on the best land. I certainly- do not agree with Mr Hansen that the btill should be blamkl for all small butter-fat returns, and, :'urthermore, a lot of the udder troubles ire caused by careless milking. The ;rcat bulk of the cows going to the inleyards are what might be termed ihort. season cows, caused chiefly by lot,being given the chance develop ;hoir milking capacity. I agree with Mr Hansen that the time is coming, when we will see jtvenuous competition on the Home market, let us have our house in order 1 .0 moot that competition. With conrol wo will stand and light against my country that likes to come along, mil not, as at present, against one mother. —Yours, etc., ■ 11. BLISS, JUN. I. Ellesmere.