BUTTER MAKING

Evening Star, Issue 22816, 26 November 1937, Page 12

BUTTER MAKING

DAIRY COMPANY CHARGED BREAGH OF REGULATIONS ALLEGED In the Police Court to-day, the Cooperative Dairy Company of Otago Ltd., who were represented by Mr E. J. Anderson, pleaded not quilty to two charges breaches of the regulations concerning the manufacture and preparation of butter. The company was charged that on June 4, in manufacturing and preparing butter enclosed in an unopened package, they failed to comply with the standard prescribed in that it contained more than 16 per cent, water and further that they manufactured and prepared butter containing more than 16 per cent, water. Mr E. Tuckwell, who appeared for the Department of Health, said that proceedings were taken under Sections 11 and 12, Sub-section 4, of the Sale of Foods and Drugs Act. On June 4 last, at Port Chalmers, Inspector Barrett, of the Health Department, purchased from the M.P. Stores, of which John Mitchell was the proprietor, two 11b samples of butter, the first being Huia brand butter, and the second whey butter, both, it was alleged, being manufactured by the defendant company. They were in unopened packets, and on analysis the Huia butter was found to contain 16.22 per cent, of water and the whey butter 17.13 per cent. Both samples, therefore, were contrary to regulation 46, sub-regulation 1, of the regulations made under the authority of the Act, which permitted an amount of only 16 per cent. Mr Tuckwell said that there was originally instituted a prosecution against Mitchell, and it was adjourned by His Worship to allow the department to consider whether it should proceed under section 11 against the defendant company and that _ was the reason the present prosecution was being brought. A percentage of 17.13 water present in whey butter was exceptionally high The highest percentage present in the last case to come before the court was 17.16. The percentage in the Huia butter was slightly lower than the other two samples in a previous case. In the present case, it was obvious that both samples had come from two separate churnings. It was submitted that the position appeared to be either that the system of detecting the moisture content was deficient or that the butter was not properly tested. _ Mr Anderson agreed to admit the evidence of the inspector that two lib samples of Huia and whey butter were taken by him from John Mitchell, Port Chalmers, in sealed packets, each packet purporting to be sealed by the defendant company. . Evidence was given by James Wilkie Shiels, a Government analyst, who said that in the taking of the analysis the true figure would range from 17.1 to 17.2 per cent.,- but most likely the true figure would be 17.13. Evidence as to methods of testing was given by David Cunningham, head gradei of the Agricultural Department,, and cross-examined by Mr Anderson he stated that the defendant company had quite a good reputation. He was in touch with it almost daily. Their manager was a highly experienced butter-maker, and enjoyed a good reputation in the trade and the industry generally. He was surprised to hear the statement made by the Government analyst as to the margin of likely error, for a good factory manager could go closer in the test done by the trade. The hearing was adjourned until the afternoon.