MILK

Press, Volume XCII, Issue 27734, 11 August 1955, Page 3

MILK

Sir, —Dr. Telford’s letter raises some interesting points. Dairy farming may be summed up as long hours of worry and hard work with high overhead charges, with but small monetary return in comparison with many city businesses. When I was farming we topdressed half a 60-acre paddock with lime. While the stock preferred the limed portion there was no extra growth to compensate for the cost involved, so we discontinued lime topdressing. The South Island’s mineral deposits are few and isolated, with the result that Canterbury land is exceedingly poor in water-soluble minerals such as calcium, phosphorus, iron, manganese, sulphur, copper, iodine, zinc, cobalt, potassium, etc. A good city milk supply must ential a building up of mineral and humus soil content, goSd pastures, good dairy herd and management, and a financial return to pay for all this. But if wise consumers are willing to pay an extra penny a pint, why cannot they get good milk?—Yours, etc., FRANK S. PYNE. August 10, 1955.

Sir,—l notice that Lincoln College has joined in the town milk argument. I think it would be better if they kept out of the discussion, as they do not know anything about producing town milk, as they have only been supplying for a short time, and one has to be m the business for a long time to known anything about it. Also, as they have big government subsidies and cheap labour, it would be very easy for them to keep milk up to a reasonable standard. In conclusion, I would like to advise all the know-alls and white-collar dairy farmers to leave the Christchurch milk alone, or they won’t have any to argue about, as the producers have had the lot of them. — Yours, etc., YOUNG DAIRY FARMER. August 9. 1955.