DAIRY PRODUCE TRADE

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 223, 21 June 1928, Page 12

DAIRY PRODUCE TRADE

IMPROVEMENT IN QUALITY STORAGE AND HANDLING IN BRITAIN PROHIBITION OF PRESERVATIVES Dominion Special Service. Palmers. North, June 20. In his address at the annual meeting of the National Dairy Association to-day, Mr. W. M. Singleton (director of the dairy division of the Department of Agriculture) dealt with the efforts that are being made to improve the quality of the Dominion’s 'airy produce and the conditions under which it is handled in Great Bri’Mn. Mr. Singleton said that during the 1926-27 season the differential advances made by the Dairy Produce Board had proved a potent factor in stimulating effort towards the improvement in quality of both butter and cheese. That factor was withdrawn, and during the past season there had been a tendency towards lessened effort in the manufacture of cheese, and as a consequence there had been a percentage of “finest” quality. On the other hand, the percentage of “finest” butter had been maintained, and the percentage of “second” grade had been reduced. He was of opinion that the position obtaining respecting butter had been largely safeguarded by the payment of differential prices for cream in accordance wifli grade. Quality First. The position in regard to cheese had not been improved by offers of equal prices ‘for “first” grade and “finest,” and it was known that some dairy companies had more regard for getting a few pounds more cheese of a lower quality than they had for the good reputation of their factory brand or the Dominion's produce The London officers of the Department advised that quality was th£ prime essential for success in selling. It was also essential that the quality of a brand should be not only good, but that it should be consistently good. There appeared, however, to be a growing recognition that “finest” cheese was worth more money than “first” grad; l . It was also becoming more evident that “finest” butter was worth a reasonable premium over that classed as “first” grade. Were butter and cheese always paid for on the basis of their comparative value there would be less difficulty in improving the quality of New Zealand butter and cheese above the generally recognised high standard of to-day.

Storage and Handling in United King-

Mr. Singleton said he believed that New Zealand producers of dairy produce were to be congratulated on the arrangements made by the Dairy Board for the better handling of their butter and cheese' in London. Late advices indicated that final arrangements had recently been made for the butter and cheese to go into suitable storage on being discharged from the ships. It was to be hoped _ that satisfactory arrangements for suitable storage at ports of discharge on the West Coast would also be realised. The handling of our produce in the United Kingdom had hitherto left very much to be desired. This was most disappointing in view of the fact that dairy companies and the owners of the gazetted cold stores gave such splendid attention in New Zealand. It was known that within the last few months New Zealand butter had been standing in a stack in London exposed to atmospheric conditions for a period of five or six weeks or more. The improved arrangement in London was long overdue, and in his opinion the Dairy Board and Mr. F. W. Granger, who did such yeoman service in this connection, were deserving of special commendation. It was only an organisation such as the board which could carrv through such a matter on behalf* of the producers.

Non-preservatised Butter. Regulations making it illegal to sell preservatised butter in the United Kingdom had become operative as from January 1 last. So strongly did the Dairy Division believe that- our dairy companies would comply with the regulations of the United Kingdom that no attempt was made to make tlie export from New Zealand of preservatised butter, illegal. That confidence tvas fully justified by later experience. Tests had been made of the export butter of each factory for preservative and with negative results. , , _ The United Kingdom s regulation appeared to cause some anxiety amongst importers of butter from the Southern Hemisphere. Many of these had not realised that they had in previous years handled large quantities of Aew Zealand non-preservatised butter with satisfaction. Some publicity was indulged in in the United Kingdom, but it appeared that this was not founded on deterioration of New Zealand butter and that probably a good deal of the outcry originated with blenders who found grocers and multiple shops diverting to. New Zealand butter from the blended article, which would not keep in a satisfactorycondition without preservative long enough to get to the consumers. It would appear from London advices that in some respects New Zealand had gained by the debarring of preservatives.