THE MILK SUPPLY.

Evening Star, Issue 22955, 12 May 1938, Page 21

THE MILK SUPPLY.

TO THE EDITOR.

Sir, —My relatives in. Wellington have advised me to oppose municipalisation of our milk for several reasons. “ If you have any of your family requiring breakfast early, and you happen to be lucky, you may got your milk at 6.30; or if you are unlucky you may get your milk at 10.30. It all depends when your van comes to your home. We get our milk at 11.30, and not too sweet at times. Our bottle must be left at the gate and the coupon or cash in the bottle—or no milk. If we break a bottle we have to pay for it.” So much for the municipal milk supply. The cost is £200,000, and that means increased rates, and increased rates mean increased rents. My father kept two cows in the early days to help to feed nine of a family, and I am, at 51 years of age, the youngest member, and all alive to-day, strong and healthy. Three boys fought for their country and are in splendid health to-day, thanks to raw cows’ milk; and these cows 'were milked within the city boundary.—l am, etc., AVokkino Family Max. May 9.

TO THE EDITOR. I Sir, —I was amused at some of the letters from your correspondents who confuse the terms lower standard of milk with the putting of water in milk. The facts are that in the past dairymen who supplied factories were divided into two classes, men who bred cattleto provide cheese factories with milk, and men who bred stock suitable to provide butter factories. The former class were once paid for their milk according to its solid casein content. Now, however, they are paid according to the butter-fat .content. The result is that cows low m butter-fat content are not payable, ft sometimes happens that such culled - cows, being healthy and good milkers, may be unknowingly bought at the Burnside sales by 'a farmer whose milk is sold in the city for human consumption. Unless that milk is mixed with cows’ milk that contains a higher percentage of butter-fat content, the milk is considered below standard, A municipal milk supply to ensure that milk is up to standard has inspectors who test the milk from every cow that a farmer, has in his possession. A wise farmer welcomes such testa, as they enable him to cull unprofitable cows from the herds and remove the unjust stigma that milk has been watered when it has not. People have been fined for having milk below the standard just as people have been fined for having put water in the milk. There is a distinction between the two. In one case the act is unintentional and in the other case it is deliberate. The inspectors appointed to do such work are usually veterinary surgeons, who can condemn "unhealthy cows. Unhealthy cows are not only unprofitable but are a menace to the rest of the herd they may contaminate with their disease. A wise' farmer, not wanting anything unprofitable, welcomes a veterinary surgeon to the farm. It not only protects hiin, but in addition protects the people from drinking milk that may be a source'of infection. The private vendor of milk may riot test the herds from . the points of both health and quality, but the municipal milk- department .must.. . The butter *ffi:tory supplier, uses skimmed milk for such by-products as calves, pigs, poultry,- .etc. j but the dairyman who sells all nis milk for human consumption has no;, such-side-lines. He must rely on IHe.price he gets for his milk. It must be. big-enough to pay for winter oats, turnips, etc., such as are grown in those level, ploughed paddocks with a nice; sunny, sheltered aspect like the Passmore-'estate', which some people condemn unseen. The suppliers of both butter and cheese factories dry off their herds in the winter, but the milk supplier must feed artificially in winter to get milk. A municipal milk supply can alone by its economies pav for and retail milk at a price that will satisfy all, and inspectors’ correlation with .farmers increase both production; and of milk.; Inspectors are appointed to protect and nob to persecute. Protection of farmers’ interests is also protection of the public ■ interests. They cannot be separated, for if understood they are identical.— I am, etc., • J. E. MacManus. May 9. TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —Let me assure Mrs Gertrude Brooks that the first two cases I cited were given by men who would have no object in giving false testimony, and were also given in conversation merely to illustrate their experiences, while the third case was on a farm of which I had personal knowledge and

can vouch for its authenticity. I have had an opportunity of seeing dairy operations on a fair number of farms and am satisfied that the “maggoty” conditions referred to would be seen during the hot summer months on any number of farms. From my experience it is well-nigh impossible to produce clean milk unless there is an abundant supply of water with some ■pressure, and a large amount of capital sunk in well-plastered concrete floors and walls, which would be painted white and kept white. Many farmers have not been educated iri the science of farming, hence the rapid rise and popularity of young farmers’ clubs, and either have no knowledge of the extreme susceptibility of milk to bacterial invasion, or, if they have, they do not worry about it so long as it passes the inspector. In a milk supply where milk is produced at a hundred sources and distributed by fifty different businesses, it ie impossible for the inspectors to test every supply every day. The case I cited of the three Quarters of the cow being milked into the common supply although the fourth had practically fallen off was detected by an inspector, and, of course, corrective action was taken. But the uneasy query arises: who had been drinking the milk prior to the inspector’s action? Also in the case of the 30-odd cows with mastitis when examined, the necessary action was taken then, hut what about the milk before this examination took place? So Mrs Gertrude Brooks will, I hope, admit that no action on my part could have improved matters, as these cases had been remedied before I had heard of them. If I, -without poking my nose into the business, have heard of three cases, I wonder what a real investigation would show. Municipalised supply would mean that all milk would be pasteurised and supplied in bottles, and I for one would support this idea. In a supply for a city like Dunedin there "must be hundreds of milkers squeezing milk out of cows, and not all of these milkers would be familiar -with the necessities of cleanliness, as no doubt Mrs Gertrude Brooks is. It might be my misfortrine, or it might be hers, to be receiving milk obtained from the cow by a worthy toiler who, rising from his bed at some unearthly hour in the morning, pulls on a set of dirty overalls, likewise cowey boots, pats his faithful dog, later hails his cow Cissie up (Oyl Oyl) in a bail that has never been washed, legroped with a rope that has never been washed, hooks up on a nail Cissy’s tail, which certainly has never been washed, and proceeds to milk the said Cissie. Of course we know that dry milking is not favoured, so our farmer friend habitually dips his hands, unwashed, of course, into the froth to convey moisture to the cow’s teats. This may all seem very crude to the average city dweller, but I can assure Mrs Gertrude Brooks that I have seen this on many occasions. Then, with the system of individual milkmen carting their milk round. in carts, who has .not seen them sitting on top of a milk can as they drive ? And who has not seen the tired roundsboy wearily sitting on his 2J-gallon server waiting for a cart to come along? This last should speedily drive the most hardened drinker from the can to the bottle. Pasteurisation and then the bottling of milk is the surest way to land milk on the table in a condition most suitable for human consumption.—l am, etc.. Boil ’Em Up. May 9. *

TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —AVe owe “ Boil ’Em Up ” a debt of gratitude for his disclosures in Saturday’s issue of the ‘ Star.’ Disclosures as to the shocking and revolting conditions existing on some of the farms that are allowed to supply milk for human consumption; the mere thought—much less the sight—of the filthy clothing of the milkers, unavoidable in such surroundings, makes one shudder. The really horrifying description given by him serves to strengthen immeasurably the claim of many consumers to have their milk supplied direct from one of the well-known dairy tarmer-vendors, who have a reputation to maintain and whose premises are open to inspection. It is this very risk, infinitely more dangerous than one pictured, the risk that hygienlcally good milk may be mixed with supplies , from insanitary milking sheds and infected cows, which makes many consumers opposed to the establishment of one source only for the distribution of milk to householders. Surely even sterilisation would be required to render the product of mastitis-infected animals fit for human consumption. May it. be that the milk from the farms referred to went to the factories, and not to private houses?. Let us hope so. Lifting of the blind, with the glimpse afforded behind the scenes, raises the question of inspection. AAmy maintain an army of inspectors? What becomes of their reports? How comes it that the Department of Agriculture, has allowed such conditions to come into existence? Such could not be the result of a few months’ neglect during the driest summer on record. Do the department’s inspectors pay periodical inspections to dairy farms? Do they report? AVho reads these reports? What about the inspectors under the Health Department? Have they reported to ■the medical officer of health? And the city' inspectors, who have the power to take samples of milk from any delivery cart in the city and submit it to the bacteriological tests by the Medical School? Till to-day the consumers felt confident that Dunedin’s milk supply was guaranteed fairly safe by this system of inspectors under competent officers, responsible to the respective authority. This is evidently an illusion. If the disclosures are accurate, and if they apply to numerous other farms, one can only infer that not one of those authorities'has fulfilled its duty to the public. For many years the women’s organisations have 'been concerned about the sanitary conditions of byres and milking sheds, arguing that cleanliness at the fountain head is of utmost importance, rather than a camouflaging process at the distribution centre. For his cooperation we thank “ Boil ’Em Up ” for his revelation. —I am, etc., E. F. Denton Leech. May 9.