DAIRY REGULATIONS.

Dominion, Volume 2, Issue 312, 26 September 1908, Page 3

DAIRY REGULATIONS.

OBJECTIONS AT MAURIciEVILLE, . THE TARANAKI VIEW. Some idea of the objections to the-proposed dairy regulations held by small farmers, who pursue the industry under somewhat difficult conditions, may be gathered from what transpired at a meeting of Mauriceville dairymen on Thursday (writes our Wairarapa correspondent). Mauriceville is hilly, country, apparently more adapted for'sheep than for cows,. but there are a number of small holdings which could not bo made to pay except under dairying. • The majority of the dairymen have to- be - most/industrious in order to make both ends meet. - They do so, however, and their butter factory has an enviable reputation' fpr • turning out a good article. The meeting on Thursday, was largely attended, and the proposed regulations were discussed with vigour. i Mr. E. Petersen, who was chairman, stated /that if the regulations became law it would mean death to the industry so far as the supplier with twenty or thirty-"cows' was ooncerned. The alterations which would be required, the removing of various outhouses and yards further away from the milk-houses, and the concrete race .arid yard, provisions were stated by the speaker to be impracticable in Mauriceville, owing to the hilly nature of the farms, and the difficulty; in. obtaining gravel. It had cost '12s. 6d. per yard to concrete the floor of the Mauriceville Butter Factory. Objection was also made. to the clauses which did npt permit dairymen to house any animal or bird, except cows, in a cowshed, nor allow cows or calves, or any other animal, to be at large within 30ft. of a cowshed. ,The dairy farms, said Mr. Petersen, comprised areas which ranged, from 40 to 100 acres, and it would be ruinous if the settlers were ■ absolutely forced to comply with the regulations. Farmers did not object to the doctrina of cleanliness: sot out in' the regulations, but they took exception to drastic provisions which were intensified by a clause permitting a rather severe fine. Mr. E. W. Neilsen thought farmers had already quite enough trouble in their industry, without the worry involved by the proposed regulations. The average dairy farmer was clean. The Mauriceville butter-had always commanded full market rates,: and in-spectors-had stated that they were satisfied with the condition in' which the milk reached the factory. While admitting that there was much to be said in confirmation of the statements made by the chairman, Mr. H. H. Hillas thought that there was room for improvement in many dairies in every- country district in. New Zealand. The proposed regulations, however, were beyond-the bounds of necessity, and it was quite right and proper that the ■ objectionable : clauses should be taken exception to. ': After furtiier discussion . it was resolved ":o inform the Stock Committee now taking evidence on the regulations that the meeting strongly objected to Clauses 9 (referring f;o notification to the inspector of proposed Structural alterations), 14 (referring to the methods to bo employed in the cooling and straining of milk), 20.'and 24 (labelling of milk cans and carts), 29 (housing in ■ cowyards or milk-stands), .30 (the 30ft. and 60ft. restricted area around cow-yards), 31 (the restricted use of milk-carts), and 33 (mode of settlement of disputes). Objection' was also taken to portions of Clauses 8 (in which there are seventeen . sub-sections dealing with cow-yards, cowsheds, milk-stands, and watersupply), 19 (the broad-arrowing of condemned utensils by the inspector), and 27 (which refers to., the non-employment of dairymon suffering'from infectious illnesses). .'. The Taranaki Vlow.' : After discussing the proposed regulations for 6£ hours,'a meeting of the Dairyi Farmers' Club at Stratford, on Wednesday,jcanie to the following decisions Clause , 3, empowering the ' inspector to withhold a certificate.—lt was decided to suggest that' iri -'lieu ;of that course the Department should'-prosecute any farmer to whom a certificate could not - be issued on account of not having complied with-the regulations. Clause 4", a certificate transfer fee of 2s. 6d.—Struct out. ... 1 Clause 6, fee for registration, 10s..—Struck OUt. ■ ; Clause- 8, section (e), cowshed to be white-washed in July and January of each year.—The January stipulation was deleted, as the/inspector is given power to require the work to bo done when lie pleases. Section (f) manure, etc., to be removed from the cowshed within '.'two hours after each milking."—Altered' to "once a day." Section (k), sub-sections (1) and (2), concreting of yard or providing of a 30ft race.—Altered so as to provide that 12ft. of paving in the yard .will be sufficient. '. . Clause 9, notice of proposed structural alterations to sheds.—Struck out. , Clause 17, buckets to be cleansed as. de-scribed.—-Description struck out, and the word "thoroughly" inserted. Section (a), stated time allowed- for cleaning.—Struck out. • Clause 18, forbidding use of utensils improperly soldered, or rusted.—The second stipulation was deleted and " not in a good state of repair" inserted. Clause 19, concerning broad-arrow on any condemned utensil, forbidding its use.— It was agreed that a .dairyman .should be allowed 14 days in which to get new buckets, ■ etc. '■ Clause 20, cans to bear conspicuous metal label.—"Provided that this clause. does not apply to factory suppliers" was added. .Clause 21, milking machine not to be stored in a milking shed.—Struck out.: Clause 24, dairyman's cart must have his name painted on it. in big letters.—"Provided this clause does not apply to factory suppliers" was added. Clauses 30 and 31, animals not to roam near farm buildings used for milk, and no vehicle used for cartage of milk to bo used for carrying live or dead animals, offal, etc. :—Struck out. Clause 33, relating to the appointment of an officer to deal with appeals, was struck out, and the formation of an appeal board suggested; same to consist of a director Of a dairy company and the district • stock inspector.