DOES TESTING PAY.

Hawera Star, Volume XLVI, 25 July 1927, Page 4

DOES TESTING PAY.

DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BUTTER AND CHEESE.

A CORRESPONDENT’S VIEWS,

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —Under the above beading appears a leader in the issue of your paper of June 25 In another column of the same issue there appears an article headed “Record Results” -in which it is stated that a certain “prominent personality associated with the industry” urges the, advisability of group testing in Taranaki for the purpose of increasing production, arm gave the “Star” representative some facts and figures bearing out his philosophy (?). These figures are very interesting and important where butter-making is being carried on, as in the particular part of Waikato that he is speaking about, for butter is made out of butterfat with the addition of 16 per cent, of water; but they are quite inapplicable to Taranaki, where cheese making is in vogue. Cheese is not made out oi butterfat. Reading on, I find that your informant states: Surprise is being continually expressed at the comparative lack in South Taranaki of organised effort by means of herd testing associations to improve butterfat production”. That surprise could not have occurred in Taranaki, ior what would it benefit us to increase butterfat production without an increase oi milk to balance it, when our product is cheese and not butter. We are not suffering in Taranaki from a paucity of butterfat in the milk for cheesemaking, but quite the reverse, ior tests liave been going up each year, and the matter is becoming rather alarming Further, your informant says that Taranakif farmers in respect of* herd testing are “sadly behind the times.” Why sadly, if the system advocated is not going to benefit them commercially? Continuing, your informant shows that the testing stunt in that particular part of Waiikato mentioned resulted in an increase of £200,000; but that increase could not have occurred were they cheese-mak-ing instead of butter-making unless the milk increased co-existent with the butterfat, so the increased butterfat return is of no interest to us we aie cheese-making Concluding, the personality who‘is desirous of putting the ignorant cockier in Taranaki on the light track, says: “A similar effort in Taranaki, would no doubt bring about a corresponding result.” No, °it would not. for cheese it not made out of butterfat. And he says: “Farming, outside the technical knowledge required, shouldbe treated from a commercial point of view, and one of the most important factors in any commercial business is turn over or output.” So say all of us; but we will never get- the desired result of more pioduction of cheese while we recognise the inequitable system of paying out on test, enabling some people to benefit at the expense of others by paying them more than they produced” “The farmer’s turnover is hisbutterfat output.” Tell that to the marines—we are making cheese in Taranaki! , , . T o~ Reverting to your leader of June 10, I have not much to say except to state that you have drawn inspiration from your informant and followed liis line of reasoning without taking cognisance of the altered position. You want us in Taranaki to follow a course that would be inimical to the best interests of the cheese-raising industry by raisinrr the tests and crowding more but-ter-fat into the cheese. You have not shown us that an increased butter-fat content in our cheese would ensure us a price for the manufactured article commensurate witli the increase. Nor could you, for was not our cheese made from high testing milk last season selling for 765, while the Canadian product made from moderate testing milk was fetching 945. How do you explain it? If increased production be our slogan, there is sufficient data on hand to make it safe to. say that the way to increase production of cheese is to stock up herds that give a large quantify of milk with a moderate test, tor we" invariably find that cows that give a high test’ are responsible for a diminished quantity of milk as compared • with other cows lower in the scale in regard to te-st, and the- farmer possessing the former, by being paid on the basis of butter-fat, is being paid more than the value of his milk for cheese-making, _ to the obvious detriment of his neighbour. . Let every supplier be naid the' approximate value of his milk *for cheese-making, and we need not waste ourselves to a shadow worrving about there not being sufficient butter-fat- in the milk to make cheese. The butter-fat- will be there right enough. It was there 50 years ago when there was no means of ascertaining its presence, and some of the old hands will tell us- that the cheese I in those days was as good and better that it is now, with all the talk about test and butter-fat. Many years ago Thomas Carlyle wrote that /“in England there were 27 millions of people, 70 per cent of which were fools,” 30 per cent living on the remaining 70, and this may be aptlv applied to dairy farmers in Taranaki. It must be knocked out of people’s heads that- cheese is made out of butter-fat, and the most effective wav to do that is to pay oach supplioi the value of his milk and no more. Then the 30 per cent of spongers will com© to their senses, for they will find it will not be profitable to adopt a policy of straining after high tests when they only get paid for their own and not part of their neighbour’s besides. This matter of equity of payment has been well advertised in the columns of the “Star” for the last three years, but none of the chairmen of directors of the various factories in Taranaki has ever thought it desirable to bring the matter forward for discussion - at the general meetings, usually held in August. In most instances they deem it not prudent to -do so —vested interests' tell them that it pavs them to have the matter shelved, and the 70 per cent of fools are so a oat he tic that they have not the courage to make a- move in a nmtter for their own benefit and of then' oountrv. I might inform you, Mr. Editor, if vou want to know how much butter-fat'is in 1001 b of cheese made from a 3.0 test, which is quite high enough for cheese. You have only to call qn the scientist at the laboratory, and you will he surprised to learn that not- even one-third of the total is but-ter-fat, and if that cheese was sold at 1-s per lb the water contained therein (wliich is worth nothing) is as valuable pound for pound as the precious product that you are advising us to crowd into the milk. Finally, it has been promulgated that, the experiment recently conducted at Tokaora is for the purpose of ascertaining “which is the best breed of cows for cheese-making.” Though data obtained under, local conditions may be of use scientifically, we fail to see what benefit it will be to farmers unless they are “controlled,” which seems very impracticable. T have heard from a- private source, that the primary object of the test is to find out if a means can he discovered for paving out more in conformity with

equity than oy paying by the gallon for milk, and if the matter does come up at the general meeting for discussion (and goodness knows it is time it did), it is to be hoped we will not be regaled with clap-trap and bluff.—l nm &tc PRO BONO PUBLICO.