BUTTER, CHEESE, AND “FUSION.”

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 3 August 1925, Page 4

BUTTER, CHEESE, AND “FUSION.”

(To the Editor.) Sir, —A queer heading, but read on. Some time ago Mr. Buckeridge wrote a series of articles to The Star ill furtherance of getting a research laboratory established in South Taranaki m connect.on with the dairying industry. Other correspondents had some comments to make, and the ensuing controversy swung lound on to a matter altogether apart from the laboratory, and a matter of vital importance not only to those engaged in dairy iarm,ng, but of national importance as well. Apart' from the matter of the laboratory, Mr. Buckeridge is to be commended for his articles, which, with the views of correspondents, have taught tlie- dairy farmers more than they knew before. But, providing practical steps are not resolved upon to alter the unjust and anomalous practice sheltering under the name of cooperation, of robbing Peter to pay Paul, all the letter-writing and information conveyed has ended in smoke. It is clear that you cannot rob Peter to pay Paul without making Peter the poorer for the robbing, and it is surprising that dairy farmers have treated the correspondence referred to with such indifference; some 1 have spoken to did not even 8° to tlle trouljle ot reading • the articles on a matter so vitally concerning themselves, and others declared it was “all buncombe.” Others, representing the majority, did not think* it worth while bothering about tlie matter, notwihtstanding that their eyes were opened, so long were they wedded to existing conditions — satisfied with leceiving their cheques on the 20th of each menth. It is surprising that someone did not think it desirable to sum up on tlie facts elicited from the various articles (I will not call it controversy, for there was no opposition) at the time, and put the deductions an a plain and understandable way before the public and let them see, to* use a Scriptural expression, that “we all like sheep have, gone astray.” It is not too late yet, and the writer timidly steps in to the breach to sum up, “on the weight of evidence,” as they sav in the Courts, but not to create a fresh controversy. And he will be as brief and. to the point as the rimportanee of the case demands, knowing, sir, that your space is limited. Controversy at the present time would be superfluous —and we have already had enough of facts to work upon. Furthermore, you could not afford one half, of the space that, controversy entails, and there is no finality to the same. The better course, is for representatives from all the dairy factories iu the province to meet in conference and go into the important matter that I am about to deal with and arrive at a method or means of true co-operation, so that each and ad will b e on the same footing, and to the advantage of the country. There was an excellent opportunity for such a conference at the time of tlie South Taranaki Show, when people all over the province attended at Hawera before the present season started, and when the N.D.A. was in session. The Hawera Dairy Company calls the suppliers together once a >ear (which some call the “annual growl”) .to present th e balance-sheet and review the operations of the season closed. The meeting is timed to take place an hour be.orerthe luncheon gong invites them to dine—not allowing too much time for growling. This annual affair should be made a whole day;- a fire in the room, plenty of “tucker” about, and “smoko.” Those competent to speak could give short addresses pertaining to dairy farming, and others not competent to speak could come with papers prepared dealing with the various phases of the industry, and what with th e fire, the “tucker,” the “smoko,” the speaking, the reading of prepaiej papers, and the ensuing discussion, we could celebrate a leal, good old fourth of July, and impart a lot of information to each and all.

In summing; up on the weight of evidence before me —dealing with cheesemaking only- I will ask several questions and. provide the answers : Are we sending away an overplus of butter-fat in the cheese that we ai'e neither getting credit nor payment for ?—Yes! , Is the system of paying out on the butter-fat content or milk ior cheesemaking in conformity with equity?— No! Are we stocking up the right class or breed of cows for cheesemaking?— No! In regard to the first question, our cheese in the flush of the season, when the test is low, is classed first-grade and brings the same price (allowing for fluctuations of market) as cheese manufactured in May, when the test is 50 per cent, higher. This shows that the cheese manufactured in the flush is normal and contains a moderate but-ter-fat content to make it acceptable and saleable. The May product contains an overplus of butter-fat and is only equally acceptable and saleable, and we get no credit or payment for the overplus of butter-fat. This, on the face of it, is a loss to the country, for if a sufficiency of butter-fat in cheese fills the requirement, all over that is given in. Mr. Buckeridge mentioned that more butter-fat- in the cheese means more vitamines; but why should w e as sellers be interested in vitamines; and, to the great multitude of consumers in England, cheese is cheese, and they purchase, to suit their taste and pocket. . If we went do the extent of putting before tjie English public the chemical analysis of cheese we would be making a fatal mistake. If we imparted the infoimation about vitamines all the. prospective purchasers would be fastidious. In regard to the second question, Mr. Buckeridge himself holds that the paying-out on butter-fat content of milk for cheesemaking is not equitable, and he was the only writer to say so. He showed in his articles that hightesting milk will produce more 'cheese, but not enough in proportion to warrant the supplier being paid on the butter-fat content. Otaer correspondents, some of whom actually made the test, stated that high-testing milk did not make tlie most cheese. In either case the weight of evidence clearly 7 shows that paying-out on the butterfat content for cheesemaking is not equitabe, and if we class the suppliers as Peters any Pauls it is clear, on the evidence, that Peter (who supplies the milk with a moderate butter-fat content) produces more cheese than he is paid for, and that Paul (whose milk contains more butter-fat than Peter’s) is producing less cheese than he is paid for, to the detriment of Peter, who supplies the deficiency. Nothipg as wasted. Paul merely scores- off Peter, and will continue to do so so long as Peter remains a- fool.

“Are we stocking up the right, class or breed of cows for cheesemaking?” is the third question, any the deductions made in regard to this, disclosed by the evidence, show that what is wanted where clieesemaking is in vogue is a c’ass or breed of cows that will give a large quantity of milk and a

moderate test, and I will add —off ruy own baf—a breed or class that _ is known to produce nice flavoured milk, not influenced or discounted by peculiarities of flesh. Iu short, a beast that the butcher could make use of when the beast ceases to function. I am not out to mention any particular class or breed; it makes no difference now whether it be Rolled Angus, Kerry, on Highland Fling. Contrary to the foregoing, people ar o continually talking about “test ’ and “butter-fat” as if we were exclusively butter producers, and not manufacturers of cheese. Many farmers whom I have classed Paul have for a great number of years been straining to acquire, sometimes at great cost, a certain breed of cows supposed or known to produce a high test. If the possessors of the moderate testing cows (whom I have classed Peter) were to emulate Paul, they would both be then on the sam e level so far as equity is concerned, for Paul would have no one to “sponge” on. The result would then be that both Peter and Paul would be losers, for they would be sending away in their cheese an overplus of butter-fat and would get no more for rfc than if it contained, a sufficiency, and less money would be coining to New Zealand. Were every dairy farmer a Paul, and increased the butter-fat content for cheesemaking another 20 per cent, (the limit is not in sight yet), assuming that it is possible to make cheese out of such milk, we would be sending away .a product which would be a conglomeration of cheese and butter, and would need a special name, which, in, keeping with the times, might be called “fusion.” It would be necessary to get more for the “fusion,” or w© would only be getting paid for the cheese, with the butter thrown in as discount. But a higher price might be readily obtained for the new product if the public were let into the secret of vitamines. The, Australians and Canadians, our competitors in the English market, make an excellent article that brings within a few shillings of ours, notwithstanding the drawback of climate in. the ease of Australia. In these countries the farmers have not been striving to stock up high-testing cows for cheesemaking, and yet they have got a place in the sun. Indeed, I have known the best of cheese to be made from cows of any old breed, so long as they had four legs and a swinger. Now, sir, thanking you in anticipation, I have been more prolix than I intended; but if the publication of this plain letter awakens dairy farmers to the fact that there is room for improvement —which may ultimately result in something practical being done —I shall be conscious that I have done some good in my day and generation.—• I am, etc., ONE OF THE PETERS. Fraser Road.