Egmont A. and P. Association’s Jubilee Show SHOW’S EARLY HISTORY (Cont’d.)

Hawera Star, Volume LIII, 7 November 1933, Page 13

Egmont A. and P. Association’s Jubilee Show

SHOW’S EARLY HISTORY (Cont’d.)

only £SO was given in special prizes, so that the secretary’s earnings from this source were only £5. The president (Mr. J. It. Lysaght) reminded members that they had met chiefly to consider how the deficit of £3O or £59 was to be met. Mr Fantham moved that arrangements be made with the bank so that all outstanding liabilities could be met. This was carried, and it was decided to hold a special meeting on January 15, 1887, to consider the financial • position. The decision arrived at at this meeting was that members of whom there were 60, be asked to contribute 10s each. The amount so received would, with a few subscriptions to come in, cover the deficit and give the Association a fresh 8 WIDER ACTIVITY SUGGESTED. Some members in those days took a wide view of the duties of Agricultural and Pastoral Associations, and Mr. Babbage moved at the meeting just referred to that arrangements be made for holding monthly meetings, at which members should be invited to read and discuss papers on agricultural and pastoral matters. Though what seemed to be very sound arguments were advanced in favour of the motion, which had the support of Mr Fantham, who seconded it, it was rejected. Another motion by Mr Caverhill that a Farmers’ Club be started under the auspices of the Society was also turned down. A decision was arrived at by the meeting to hold a rain and ewe fair Commenting on Mr Babbage’s pro posal, the “Star’’ said: “Why should not an effort be made to make the association the means of spreading knowledge about agricultural matters, of stimulating a taste for experiment ing and giving the results of individ ua7 observations and experiments' to the general body of farmers ? The only argument, or rather the only objection made to the proposal was that of expense, but the expense would not, or need not, exceed £5 or £lO a year, so that there was not very much force in that, especially when there was reason for supposing that such a step would popularise the association and lead to an increase in the number of members. After the chilly receptions with which Mr. Babbage’s motion was met it would require some courage to raise the question again, but we hope someone will have the courage, because unless there is a revival of interest in the association very greet success cannot be hoped for.”

receipts at the gates during the cur- • renev of the lease, and further would hand over the money due to him from the above source to the society, to be ' given by them in special prizes in any way they might think fit, provided tho Jockey Club would do tiie same with the money to be paid to them for the use of the buildings, etc., or in the event of the Jockey Club not agreeing to the above proposal lie would be prepared to forego his claim to the 10 per cent. for the first two years. The cost of removal of the present "yards and re-erecting them on the racecourse, the committee estimated to be at least £3O. The amount oi' money the society would have to make up this year in the event of their shifting the show ground, over and above what it would cost to hold the show on the present site, would be, saj, £45, viz., cost of removal of yards £3O, amount to be paid to Jockey Club £lO, amount to be paid Mr. Fnntham, say, £5. The committee recommended that for the present year it would not be advisable to remove the site of the show ground. This report was signed by M. Hunter, D. Buchanan, Fred Riddiford, W. J. Caverhill. An amendment to a motion that the report be adopted was that the next cattle show be held on the racecourse, subject to Mr Fantham granting the right to hold the show free of the charge of 10 per cent on gate money for a period of five years, and also the right to remove all fixtures by the association during that period. The amendment was negatived and the committee’s report was adopted. At the meeting it was stated that the net liabilities of the association were £37 10s, and it was decided that the secretary forward to all members in arrears a circular requesting payment within fourteen days and stating that it was under the consideration of the association to sue for arrears. FOURTH ANNUAL SHOW.

The fourth annual show was held on November 30, 1887, and it was estimated that there were 2000 persons on the ground. According to a statement by the president (Mr Lysaght; at a meeting of the general committee on February 2, 1888, the financial position was regarded as satisfactory. Starting with a debit balance from the previous year of £49 8s 3d, they had. at the time of the meeting, liabilities amounting to £46 13s 4d outstanding, against which there were £lB of available assets, leaving a liability of about £29. The assets included £9 worth of hurdles, besides £2O worth in hand from the previous year, so that if the hurdles were sold * they would start next year with yards valued at £75 and a clean sheet. The list of subscribers showed considerable augmentation, and the accession of strength to the association, coupled with its improved financial position, should, the president said, encourage other •settlers to join the ranks. The question of a site for the show was again brought up, and on the motion of Mr. Bayly a committee was appointed to report on the best site. This committee met on May 22, 1888. and they agreed that practically their choice rested between the old site and the racecourse, though a 10-acre paddock near the railway station would have been suitable .if available. After discussion it was decided to recommend the holding of the show on the Egmont racecourse in futpre, as it was held to be more convenient for visitors and exhibitors of stock, and offered better accommodation for ladies and children. The cost of removing the yards it was proposed to meet by’ collecting as many £6 lees for life membership as possible. A report was drafted and steps were taken to obtain offers for the Racing Club and Mr Fantham was favourable to the change proposed. The report was presented at the annual meeting of the Association on June 29. Mr Dive stated he had authority from Mr Fantham to say that he was willing to execute a lease as suggested by the solicitors who had been consulted. There was a very keen discussion, in which a good deal was said about the association’s liability in regard to the lease from the Borough Council and the rights to sub-let. Eeplying to the president, Mr Dive said he was authorised 1 by Mr. Fantham to say that he would grant a lease, as suggested, to the A. and P. Association direct, the Jockey Club to approve of the terms. The lease would be for 90 years, the first five of which would be free, Mr Fantham collecting 10 per cent, of the gate money after that. A motion in favour of the racecourse was carried by 18 votes to 11.

MOVEABLE SHOWS. On June 23, 1887, at the annua: meeting of the association, Mr. T. Robson moved that it was desirable to hold 1 shows annually at Hawera, Manaia and Eltham in order to strengthen the financial position of the society and popularise the institution. The seconder was Mr. D. McLean and after a free and full discussion, in which non-members were allowed to take part and were also given the right to vote, the motion was rejected by a large majority.*"' From a remark made by Mr York© at the meeting, it seems that there was a proposal at that, time to hold the next show on the Hawera racecourse. It was raised as an objection to a show at Manaia) that it would be most difficult to gel people to first rail their stock to Hawera and then drive them to Manaia by road. As for Eltham, it was stated by Mr Quin that there was not sufficient, population there to ensure a payable gate. A suggestion was madthat the site of the show be fixed at the racecourse, but it was generall agreed that an enquiry ought first to be made as to the cost of shifting the yards, and as to the suitability of the racecourse for a show,, etc. Messrs. Hunter, Oaverhill, Buchanan and Biddiford were appointed a committee to enquire into the possibility of establishing yards at the racecourse, the committee to report at a. meeting to be held a fortnight later. Mr. W. J. Caverhill was appointed secretary to the association.

The report of the sub-committee re garding shifting the show ground was presented at a meeting held on August 13. It stated that the committee had interviewed the racecourse trustees, who had consented to allow the society the privilege of using their buildings, etc., for the sum of £lO. to be paid annually, provided that Mr Fantham would consent to give a sub-lease to the society, releasing the Jockey Club from all responsibility. Mr Fantham had consented to give a sub-lease to the society on the following terms: That he he paid 10 per cent, of the

(Continued top of column next page.)

Most of the Co-operative cheese manufacturing companies of South Taranaki have adopted a standard form of published accounts. This innovation was the result of action taken by r the Federation of Taranaki Cooperative Dairy Factories with the object of providing a more reliable comparison of the results of the operations of companies than '‘had been possible previously’. The Federation in 1925 set up a committee of the secretaries of the companies, and a standard form of accounts was agreed upon. The division and allocation of the costs and charges in a uniform manner, and the presentation of the statistical information in regard to. butter-fat test and cheese yield • n a standard basis- make, reliable, comparisons' 'possible,' provided’ allowance is made for certain factors which are not revealed in the financial accounts, hut which have a most important bearing on the factory “payout.” The “payout” to cheese factorysuppliers depends oil three factors, as follows: i

1. The sale price of the cheese 2. The manufacturing and marketing costs and charges.

3. The cheese “.yield,” or weight c.f cheese made to each pound of butterfat received in the elioesemaking milk.

In regard to the sale price of the cheese, it can be said that the consignment returns from the leading Tooley Street firms will not slio.v any great variation over the whole teason. There is uniformity in the marketing methods, and standard terms and conditions of sale, which make for the equalisation of returns. Thus it is found that variations in consignment prices over the whole season rarely amount to Is per cwt. A price variation of Is per cwt. on cheese would represent a “pa.vout” variation of approximately ,32d jor lb. butterfat.

In regard to manufacturing and marketing costs and charges, there must always be considerable variation All cheese manufacturing eompau.es do not work under the same eom’itions and it is found that costs are influenced by- the following factors:

(a) The output of the factory, corresponding to the turnover of an ordinary trading business. An increase m output makes for m* re economic manufacture by a con sequent reduction in overhead ciiarg.es.

(b) The situation of the factory and its facilities. Factories chve to the railway or to the grading ] oit have the advantage of lower transport costs. In addition, some nnivoi factories have better and more up-to-date plant than have the older factories.

(c) Efficient management, u«i'l tho reduction or elimination of factory Josses.

BY G. A. DUNCAN

In regard to the cheese “yield, ’ it will be shown that there is much variation between neighbouring companies and that the “yield”'is the most important factor in determining the butterfat “payout.” In dairy factory- administration, yield in cheesemaking means “the number of pounds of cheese made to each pound of butterfat contained in the cheesemaking milk.” Thus if the pounds of cheese made, be divided by the pounds of butterfat contained in the cheesemaking milk, the y-ield figure is obtained. Milk received for cheesemaking is paid for by dairy companies at per lb. butterfat, in accordance with its butterfat content Thus the pound of butterfat becomes the natural unit of production in cheesemaking as in butter making, and manufacturing results or “yield” calculations are determined on that basis.

can be definitely- marked, it will be found that there* are variations in yield of milks with the same butterfat test, and that one factory may have a higher y-ield from the lower butterfat test, terfat test, than another has from a 4.4 per cent. test. These variations (assuming weights and tests are correct) are due to fluctuations in the composition of milk. The difference in cheese y-ields from milks of high and low butterfat content is shown in the following table: © 5 ■ 3 % $ Pi S <u a rtf co o <8 p Pi 5 . o <D £ 0J ... -4-a O -"O ° Ctf pH t— »0 2"O \ "3 © io ° S O S 3 O rA OI | C/2 •"© A2 C2 r-H 'S 2 © Ps © 1 Ph t-h o G 3 ' CP ° *H O O te- IQ ■*-> oi cl © O '? Ph -P PH I *H %■* CC '-t** S ~ g, £ ■

The foregoing table shows the higher yield from the lower butterfat test, and shows also that more cheese can be made from a given quantity- of lngli test milk than can be made from tlife same quantity of lower test milk. In practice two yield calculations are made, one being the gross yield, calculated on the factory packing weights of the cheese, and the other being the net yield, calculated on the sale weights of the cheese. Comparisons of manufacturing results are made on the basis of the gross yield, but for the purposes of assessment of the pay-out to suppliers of milk, the net yield* (gross yield less actual shrinkage or shrinkage estimated at 2£ per cent.) is used For instance: If the gross yield were 2.48, the net yield for purposes of payout assessment would be taken as 2.42, this figure being 2.48 less 2£ per cent. The cheese y-ield is influenced by- the amount of moisture incorporated in the cheese, and within certain limits the moisture content can be controlled by the cheesemaker. Normally, the spring and summer cheese is lower in fat content and higher in moisture than the autumn cheese. There is no regulation setting a limit to the moisture content of cheese, and the amount incorporated should be that which naturally is retained in the cheese when well made. The cheese yield from milk containing 4 per cent, of butterfat is approximately 2.63 with a moisture content in the cheese of approximately 36 per cent. If, in manufacture, 39 per cent, of moisture is incorporated in the cheese, the yield is increased to approximately 2.71 Hie increase in yield from 2.63 to 2.71 is equal to a payout increase of about ,40d. oer lb. butterfat.

Ntew Zealand full-cream cjlieese is made from whole milk and is composed of the cheese solids and butterfat contained in the milk. The composition of milk is not uniform, and milk with a high butterfat content is found to have a lower ratio of casein to each pound o'f butterfat than is the case with milk of lower butterfat content. For this reason, low testing milk wiH make more cheese to each pound of butterfat than will high testing milk. The higher the fat test of the milk the loiver the yield. Whilst this difference in the yield capacity per lb. of butterfai, of" low and high testing milks,

The incorporation of excessive inois-l ture in the cheese is definitely harm- 1 ful to quality, and any temporary gain to an individual factory by way of increased yield, will be more than offset by the lower prices which inevitably result from inferior quality. A study of the table given above will show the influence of the cheese yield on the butterfat “payout,” and | will show' also the unsoundness of anyt comparison of the cheese “payout” which ignores the relative butterfat tests aud cheese yields. It will be seen that each ICO lbs. of milk “A” contained S.olbs. of butterfat, giving a cheese yield o.f 2.7, and a gross value of cheese per lb. of butterfat of 1/4.2d. Each lOOlbs. of milk “B” contained 4.51b5. of butterfat, giving a cheese yield of 2.5 and a gross value of cheese

FACTORS WHICH INFLUENCE THE PAY-OUT OF CO-OPERATIVE CHEESE FACTORIES

per lb. of butterfat of l/3d. Thus, assuming that the sale price of the cheese and the costs are the same in each case, milk “A” should return the suppliers 1.2 d per lb. butterfat more than milk “B.” "Whilst it is admitted that the extremes of butterfat test and cheese yield shown in the theoretical example quoted will not be mot in any comparison of South Taranaki j cheese-making results, nevertheless j the principle illustrated applies in | actual practice as, will be shown. The following are the corresponding figures for two South Taranaki companies as disclosed by their published statements : © ■ -2 T +£ -© . > Ph tl « in 0 _© co oi P © rf l-l r-f f 3 M © o zA "© 3 2 S © Ph =4 3 . io s ctf fp IO r* © . 2 rf % g -g " § §? rA O c K • r~ 2 m "Z, r~ —i H -1 r—i « a <=> Ph s => o ra ° =5 3 3 ® «i ei "v £ 3 £ 72 o . o -g O 1J c 5 r ~*~' Cj 1 & b ? © © O ZJ ci zi r*i rH The foregoing comparison shows that assuming that the sale price of the cheese and the costs are the same in each ca-se factory- “X” should pay its suppliers .65d per lb. butteriac more than factory “Y.” The factories are dealing with milks of different character and consequently different cheese yielding capacity. Factory “X” has a butterfat test of 4.19 compared to the 4.49 of factory “Y”, and a yield of 2.611b5. of cheese to each lb. of butterfat, compared to the figure 2.49 oi factory “Y.” In these circumstances it cannot be expected that factory “Y” will pay- as high a price per lb. of butterfat as factory “X” and in any comparison which is made, factor.“Y” should be given the benefit of the ,65d.. per lb. of butterfat which represents the difference in yield A variation of .1 in the cheese yield is equal to .sd. per lb. oii butterfat “payout.” In cheese manufacture the makers should, and do, pay- attention to “yield,” but during recent y-ears the policy of all South Taranaki Companies has been to make no sacrifices of quality in the striving for a higher yield.

This short statement of the factors which influence the “payout” of co operative cheese factories will be concluded with a table showing the disbursement of the total proceeds oi sale of cheese: