HANDLING OF MILK

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 162, 6 April 1944, Page 6

HANDLING OF MILK

Supply Methods In Hutt District

CHARGES AGAINST DAIRY FARMERS’ ASSOCIATION

Decision was reserved by Mr. Goulding, S.M., in the Magistrates’ Court, Wellington, yesterday, following two days’ hearing of evidence and legal submissions in seven cases in which the Wellington Dairy Farmers’ Co-operative Association, Limited, was charged witli selling milk which did not conform to the legal standards of butterfat content. Ten other cases against the same defendants have been held over pending the reserved decision. Mr. 11. R. Biss appeared on behalf of the informant, R. W. Poraare, an inspector of the Department of Health .and Mr. D. R. Hoggard for defendant. Mr. Hoggard submitted that the charges must fail because the defendant association had exercised all reasonable care to ensure that the milk supplied conformed to the legal standards, and also submitted that the regulations under which the charges were laid were ultra vires because they, in effect, outlawed the Friesian breed of cattle for milk supply and compelled the dairyfarmer to strip the cow, which was no longer a standard practice. The majority of the evidence centred round the metliods used by the association in handling the milk it received from dairy-farmers. J. J. Maher, chairman of directors of the association, said in evidence that there were a few herds in the Hutt area which were largely Friesian. The milk from these herds was sent into Wellington city, where it was welcomed because of its low butterfat content, for mixing with richer milk. He considered a suggestion by the Department of Health that all milk collected by the association should be taken to the association’s Epuni depot and bulked d’as impracticable. The practice was that lorries would collect from the farms and deliver to shop vendors and roundsmen on their way back, taking only the surplus to the depot. If the milk were bulked at the depot there would be a danger of one bad can spoiling a lot of milk. The association had made application to the Customs Department for a permit to import a pasteurization an' bottling plant. This had been done last year, but no decision had been given by the department or the Ministry of Supply. There was some difference of opinion as to who should operate the plant. Mr. Goulding: You are waiting on the Government? Witness: We are waiting on the Government.

Mr. Goulding: And the public is waiting on everybody. Witness said he did not consider bulking safe without subsequent pasteurization. Medical Officer's Opinion.

Dr. Hubert F. Smith, Medical Officer of Health, Wellington, said that following a visit to the Epuni depot in February last year he had written to defendant association drawing attention to the temperature at which he had found some of the milk. The facilities for handling milk at the depot were <*ery small, and it was not possible, in his opinion, for the milk to be cooled as it should be. He held that the milk should be bulked and cooled, and that a plant, which could be obtained within the Dominion, should be installed for the purpose. The cost should not be prohibitive. Answering Mr. Goulding, witness said he did not know if such a plant was in operation in the Dominion, but it should be. The question of pasteurization was, in his view, subsidiary to that of bulking and cooling. The latter, either at the farm or in. the depot, was essential. In cross-examination, witness said that since he had drawn attention to the inadequate can-washing plant at the depot new facilities had been installed. Artificial means would be needed to cool the milk to the temperature, 40 degrees F„ which he considered necessary. He agreed that some of the milk going into tile bulking plant at the Wellington city depot reacted to the methylene blue freshness test in 15 minutes, and that milk which would not stand the reductase test for four hours also went in. On the average the milk of the Hutt producers was excellent. Evidence was given by Dr. C. S. M. Hopkirk, veterinary surgeon and bacteriologist, Wallaceville, that in his opinion the methods of the association did not sufficiently guard against poor milk reaching the consumer. He favoured bulking, with cooling to 42 degrees. The cooling could not be done without a special installation.

In cross-examination witness agreed that bulking by individual producer-sup-pliers was unnecessary. Mr. Hoggard: With 100 individual suppliers there would be no need to bulk? Witness did not answer, and Mr. Hoggard added: You see the absurdity? Witness said that in machine milking the milk from three or four cows went through the machine together and ran out into three or four cans.

Mr. Goulding: Then there is already something of the bulking to which you refer inevitably taking place?-—Yes. Witness said that hulking would not be justified just to catch the odd poor can alone, it should be accompanied by cooling.

Mr. Hoggard asked the magistrate *•» consider the ease under section 13 of the regulations. Tbe whole question was whether all the milk should have been taken to the depot and hulked, cool“d and re-canned before distribution. He submitted it was better to escape the disadvantages of that, even at the cost ->f the odd can of low test which reached the public. The sending of low-test milk to the city milk depot was. in his opinion. illegal if the regulations were strictly read.

Mr. Biss said the dispute between the department and the association was that the association’s method of handling allowed milk below tlie legal standai'd to reach the public. The law allowed milk under the standard to be sent tn the dairy factory. Nowhere in evidence was there anything to show the association had taken ail reasonable care to prevent mill: going to the public in defiance of the law.