MY CRITICS ANOTHERS

Hawera Star, Volume XLVII, 18 July 1928, Page 4

MY CRITICS ANOTHERS

(To the Editor.) •Sir, —The suggestion referred to bv Mr. Editor may be excused on two grounds: Not so very long ago the ‘‘."Star” in two editorials strenuously advocated raising the tests by herd testing. This writer was the one who vigorously opposed it, and, like the woman in the argument, had the last' word. Secondly: When “1 actory Manager’s” letter was published in its columns at the request of the Jersey Breeders’ Association, advocating the desirability of rich milk for cheesemaking against data to the contrary obtained by a most careful investigation, the ‘‘Star” failed to state in a footnote that the matter is beyond argument. No. 2, Mr. Macdonald: Obliterate me if ,\ou can, or reduce my conceit; but do either by fair means! Please do notmisrepresent me, and do not go into irrelevancy You bead vour letter ‘"The Tokaora Test,” yet you immediately put forward an innovation that was not within the scope of the above test at all.' The subject on tap is the method of pay-out, and is or extreme urgency, since it is the only thing in sight to prevent the blunders of the past being repeated in the future. The season ahead, too, is about to start. Ton have not recognised the important matter of the revision of the pay-out. ,v hatever merits there may be in what you advocate 1 am not prepared to state, nor to the contrary; and the subject being irrelevant I cannot deal with it as pertaining to the Tokaora testf It is a matter that can well wait. The term ‘‘garrulous” as to me is out of place: -it refers to oral declamation—not literary effort. “Prolix” or “sententious” would be, perhaps, more appropriate. The latter 'weakness I must suppress, and also my lay-on-MeDuff propensity. Putting the matter of irrelevancy on one side, I will oblige by making a digression. In the finst. place your innovation is not allowed by law; that prevents its inception at present. Secondly : we are not in a. position to know what detrimental effect meddling with milk for cheese-making may have. W e would have to get that information from the laboratory. Thirdly: there may be some unforeseen difficulty in regard to the modus operand!, fourthly : it has not been shown that it gets us away from the obsolete method of pay-out. It is inopportune now—equity of payment lias precedence. Keep it in view, and if it appears to save us money and does not adversely affect individual suppliers we will give it attention. Mr. Veale does not “ignore entirely the value of butter-fat in whey.” That butter-fat is not lost, whether it be much or little —it is recoverable. i have not the published report before me now, but if my memory serves me rightly the test did not disclose that there was much butter-fat going out in the whey. Furthermore, contrary to popular belief, the difference between the quantity of butter-fat that went out into the' whey from the high-testing milk as against the low-testing is negligible. It is obvious, then, that when mixed milk —high and low together—it being made into cheese at a factory, suppliers are just about on an equal footing in regard to the but-ter-fat- in the whey. It does not •‘appear:’’ as you state, that I “cannot discern Mr. Veale’s opinions from his research work.” You mean facts discovered by research, lam not dealing i with Mr. Veale’s opinions at all, or anybody else’s opinions. I have been dealing with facts in preference. The three methods of pay-out put forward by Mr. Veale does not come withm the scope of the test; the test provided material to assist in evolving an acceptable method more in conformity with equity than at present. But you have not advocated a revision of pay-out. You yourself are at liberty to put forward a method. I propose putting before the public several methods, easy of calculation, off my own bat shortly. No, you have not gqt that “inord.nate assurance” I applied to “Factory Manager,” for you have accepted the facts disclosed by the test, but make a reservation on opinions expressed by Mr. Veale. Quite in order —everybody has a right to their opinions of opinions. I must cut this short. Towards the end you -let yourself go into irrelevancy again; the 50 per cent, butter-fat basis for cheese did not come within the scope of the test. Mr. Veale referred to it incidentally. You concur with his opinion, though. We also do, but that matter can wait. Let us get on with this indispensible pay-out method and put it into force at once, or some suppliers will lose £SO before Christmas; but not Mr. Macdonald.

“Genuine Farmer”! I do not like you keeping company with rManager,” particularly after him stating that.looolb of 3.5 milk would make only 96ilb of clieese. We let him off with a caution on all counts.

“Old Farmer,” you are a kindred spirit! Can you help me to bring about the consummation of the revised payout now in the making? Your opinion coincides with fact -when you state: “I' do not think the average milker likes milking just for pleasure.” Some of them are wakening up to the fact that if they were paid the value of their milk for cheese-making they could choose their pleasures; but the Jersey men, holding the balance of power, ar* inexorable.—l am, etc., PRO BONO PUBLICO.