Milk Tests and Cheese Payments

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 172, 16 April 1932, Page 13

Milk Tests and Cheese Payments

In a letter too long for publication i’t full, "Solid Content” replies to “Superfine” ou the question of milk tests and cheese. “ ‘Superfine,’ ” he states, “makes a very common mistake when he says that the concensus of opinion in New Zealand is very definitely that the Jersey gives the most economical production of butterfat per acre, and he quotes the tremendous growth in popularity of the Jersey cow as sufficient evidence, that have realised this. Would it not be more correct to say that high testing herds have been encouraged in New Zealand iu all the cheese-making areas, by the system of payment solely on a butter-tajl basis. This system,” “Solid Content urges, has been enriching the owner’s of high-testing herds, and robbing the owners of lower-testing herds. Naturally enough the high-testing owners are not willing to alter a system that has provided them throughout the years with moneyl The owners of the ’white milk lower-testing breeds are demanding that justice be done in this matter, that payment for milk should be made according to -its value for cheese making. If that were done,” adds the correspondent“there would undoubtedly he a big ‘change over’ in cheese-making districts to the lower-testiug breeds (Ayrshire, Freesian, and Shorthorn). “A Taranaki dairy farmer last season supplied milk containing 32,1531 b. of but-ter-fat to a cheese factory. His average test was 3.83 per cent. Allowing P.O.jlbcheese per lb. fat, the total production ol cheese would be 85,2051 b., and the value at 6d’. per lb. £2130/2/6. A supplier o! 32,1531 b. butter-fat from milk with an average of 5 per cent., allowing L. 4 F cheese to per lb. fat, would yield 77,1'•• lb. cheese valued at 6d. per lb. -LL -• l 3/6. The lower testing milk would d«»i only make the best cheese, but it would make cheese worth £2OO/19/- more tha n the cheese from the higher testing milk, and yet the factory payment to both suppliers under the present system is tinsame. . . . “The following comparison is given ••> payment under the present system with payment on value of cheese made from milk supplied, three suppliers each sending 32,1531 b. fat to the factory:-— A_Test 3.83 per cent., value of cheese at 6d. per lb., £2130/2/6. B— 'j’ es t 5.0 per cent., value of cheese a> 6d. per lb., £1929/3/6. C—Test 6.4 per cent., value of cheese a' 6d. per lb., £1856/16/6. “Under the present system of payment solely on a butter-fat basis each supplier receives £1972/0/10. Therefore, A is underpaid £l5B/1/8; “B” overpaid £417/4; and “C” overpaid £Llo/14/4. “There has,” says “SolitT Content, “been a marked deterioration in the quality of New Zealand cheese, which deterioration , he adds, coincides with the increased use of high-testing yellow milk in cheese factories. In the North Island-cheese-making districts there is n great preponderance of Jerseys, while nt the South Island cheese-making areas the lower-testing “white milk’’ breeds are greatly in the majority. In view ol this position the cheese-grading figures ioHie year ended March 31, 1931 are quoted as illuminating:—North Island, tines., 81 per cent., first 88.} per cent., under first 8 per cent. South Island, finest 5J per cent., firet 40} per cent., under first. 4 per cent. ... In the South Island practically the whole of the cheese is made from the milk of the lower-testing white milk breeds. ... “One of the greatest authorities, probably the greatest authority in the world writing recently from overseas to a tnemt in New Zealand, said that the thing l° do in New Zealand was to breed lowertesting cows. He said he could never updeei'stand the preference that exists in New Zealand for Jerseys, and that there was no other dairying country in the world that used Jerseys to the same extent as New Zealand. , “‘Superfine’ endeavour to justify his claim that the Jersey breed has been mainlv responsible for raising the standard of dairying in New Zealand by quoting figures showing that the average production of C^ ea oi c 150.641 b. per cow, 1918-19, to -IS.Oolb. in 1929-30. Ho then quotes the official herd test figures in an endeavour to prove bis contention that the Jersey i* the superior cow. Here are his 11S7 Jerseys averaged 014.2b1b. fat, boFreesians averaged 280.421 b. fat. but ‘Superfine’ has conveniently omitted the most essential pari: of the statement, will supply the omission. ’l’lic HBi Jerseys came from 134 herds giving an average of 8.8 cows per herd. '1 lw boFriesinns came from 27 herds giving an average of 23.4 cows per herd. Any practical dairy farmer will see from the above figures that the Friesians give decidedly the better results. I quote for ‘Superhiio s benefit, the C.O.R. figures publi--hed in the Journal of Agriculture. !■)■>.. IJ3* returns: Ist class C.O.R, 9o I<riesians averaged 559.011 b. ol fat: 50.. Jerseys averaged 486.251 b. of fat, and for all certificates issued since tho beginning of C.O.R. testing the figures are: Friestan#. 485.06 fat; Jerseys. 151.77 fat; Ayrshire*. 139.92 fnt; Milking ghorthorm, •139.02 LU.