DAIRY INSTRUCTION

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 172, 22 June 1926, Page 4

DAIRY INSTRUCTION

THE BLOCK SYSTEM. APPROVED BY COMPANY REPRESENTATIVES. Since the Kairanga, Awakuri and Rangitikei Dairy Companies some tli'ree years ago combined to share with the Agricultural Department the cost of an expert dairy, instructor, to aid their suppliers in their farming methods, the movement has grown apace. To-day, in the West Coast area between Marton and Paraparaumu there are three such instructors working for three different groups oi companies. As, however, these officers only serve the scattered suppliers oi tlieir own group of companies thej often pass by suppliers of another officer’s district to reach one of their own dairymen many miles away. At a recent conference of dairy factory directors and dairy division officers at Palmerston North it was decided to hold a further meeting to discuss a more co-operative scheme in the direction of all the companies at present employing instructors,. dividing fffie big Marton-Paraparaumu district into three conveniently defined blocks. The instructors would keep within the boundaries of those blocks and'thus no two or more instructors would touch tlij same territory. A meeting of dairy company representatives to consider the matter was held in Palmerston North yesterday afternoon, Mr P. Hansen (Awakuri) presiding. THE SCHEME EXPLAINED. The block system was explained in a circular letter sent out to dairy companies and set out the position as follow : (1) The “block system” means briefly that the area from Marton on the north to Paraparaumu on the south, be divided into three blocks numbered 1,2 and 3. (2) All dairy farms in each block to be inspected irrespective of what factory is being supplied. (3) That the three instructors at present employed be each given one block. , , , (4) That the cost be pooled and charged to each company by the Agricultural Department on a butterfat basis. . (o) The area to be divided as follow: No. 1, Mr Edwards’ block, to include the factories from and including Otaki to Shannon with the exception of Paraparaumu and Te Horo, tlie suppliers of which are working under registration, and CG Shannon and Levin suppliers on Foxton side of the Manawatu river, giving a total of 834 suppliers. No. 2, Mr Scaddens block, to include all factories in the immediate vicinity of Palmerston North, through Manawatu Gorge and down to Foxton, giving a total of I'2 suppliers. No. 3, Mr Boyd’s block, to include Rangitikei down to and including Newbury, Kairanga branch factory and the cheese factories between Himatangi and Rongotea, giving a total of 780 suppliers. (7) The estimated cost of the above scheme, including all expenditure to the companies, works out approximately at 3s 8d per ton fat, .02d per pound ,of butter-fat. For yoiir information we may state that a similar scheme is working satisfactorily in South Taranaki at a cost of .0193 d per pound of butter-fat. (8) The proposed superfine grade and differential payment for cheese and butter makes it the duty of every factory director to see that his produce is superfine, and we believe that the mutual good feeling existing between the dairy farmers and the farm dairy instructors will, with the valuable' assistance the instructors can I give, tend towards the desired result. CHAIRMAN’S SUPPORT. Mr Hansen, addressing the meeting at the outset, traced the “instructor” movement from its local origin. There was, he said, now that there were three instructors in this West Coast region, a deal of overlapping in each other’s work. The instructors had proved of great value to the industry, and it was now proposed to institute in the district from Marton to Paraparaumu, which had adopted the “instructor system, three defined areas, or blocks, within the limits of which eaclv of the three instructors would work, avoiding any of the old overlapping. The arrangement would, of course, be dependent upon an acceptable agreement between the groups of contributing suppliers. Mr A. A. McKenzie, a. Palmerston North officer of the Dairy Division, explained the scheme as set out in the circular letter, emphasising the waste of time and money caused by instructors overlapping one another’s districts. A total cost of 4s per ton of fat, including £2OO per year car allowance for each instructor was, he thought, reasonable, and if acceptable to all the factories interested would enable the adoption of the block system. Under it one instructor could, for instance, serve all the suppliers along one road, instead of several officers having to visit it. Only three factories had definitely refused to “come in”—Makowhai, Taikorea and Bainesse. Two others were uncertain, but it was hoped that in time all the companies in the district would cooperate and take advantage of this valuable Government subsidised scheme. BETTER EFFICIENCY.

“We do not say that the cost will be less, but the block system will tend to a more uniform standard and better efficiency,” J. W. Smith, dairy instructor at Palmerston North. “It is only a matter of time before the block system will operate all over the Dominion,” he added. The chairman invited discussion, mentioning that Mr W. M. Singleton, director of the Dairy Division, approved of the block system in this compact district.

WILL BECOME COMPULSORY. Mr J. A. Nash, M.P., speaking for the New Zealand Dairy Union, cited that company’s experience of the great value of the dairy instructors’ work. The block system, he said, tended to further the Government’s aim of higher quality and a more uniform standard of produce. In fact, he tkdught that the time would come when some such method of dairy instruction would be made compulsory. He moved the adoption of the block system, with a proviso that the matter be left in the hands of tilt department for execution and any necessary amendments.

GENERAL SUPPORT. The motion was seconded by Mr Wills (Rongotea) anod supported by Mr F. . Manic (Ashhurst) and others, including Mr S. A. Rroadbelt, president of the Muimwatu and West Coast Dairy Companies’ Association. TJip.ro ensued a ireneral discussion as

I to how the suggested arrangement for ! one co-operative blook scheme would affect and would be viewed by different factories. “Supposing th'e factories do not adopt this system. Will one be allowed to go on as we are now?” asked Mr G. H. Stiles (Shannon Company). “That depends upon how many stand out,” replied Mr McKenzie. The bloclc system was ardently supported by Mr K. W. Dalrymple. Further replying to Mr Stiles, Mr McKenzie said that he felt sure that in time the block system would be com- ' pulsorv. If just now, though, Levin 1 and Shannon “stood out,” Mr Single- ' ton might or might hot decide to carry on the group affected without them. Mr Wall (Kuku) said that if the scheme was likely to be compulsory later on the companies might as well submit to it now. Mr A. R. Buchanan (chairman of the Kairanga Dairy Company) strongly 1 supported the scheme from a national point of view.

VIEWS OF SHANNON AND LEVIN

Mr Broadbelt, while approving of the general principles of the scheme, opposed the idea of the proposed block division, which in thp case of Ms company would mean “splitting up” his suppliers to place them under different instructors. He claimed that the Levin district block (No 1) as it stood was a compact and complete unit and should remain so. Mr Chrystall suggested that __ the scheme be adopted subject to No 1 block being left as it stood. Mr A. R. Buchanan made an appeal for broad-minded unity and deprecated Mr Broadbelt’s action as “splitting hairs.”

Ho was supported by Mr Hansen, who said that 22s per cwt increase in market butter values was largely attributable to the good work of the instructors. Mr -J. Chrystall objected to the scheme on the score of its cost, and refused to alter his view. He was one of two representatives of the Shannon company, the other (Mr G. H. Stiles) disagreeing with Mr Chrystall and suggesting that the scheme as it applied to No 1 group should be postponed until the Shannon company had been approached as a body for its opinion. It was stated by Mr Maule that the block scheme could hardly be any dearer than the old method, seeing that travelling would be minimised. If, said Mr Wall, such objections as were raised by Messrs Chrystall and Broadbelt obtained, the department might withdraw its subsidy. Voices: No. Mr Broadbelt suggested a belt from Otaki to Wellington and another from Otaki to Linton. If the whole scheme were given a twelve months’ trial, said Mr Smith, factories would riot revert to the old system. Finally, amidst applause, Mr Broadbelt withdrew his opposition on condition that the scheme be given a twelve months’ trial. “I. want the system, but I also want to keep our block as it is now,” he explained. ADc/PTION OF SCHEME.

Mr Nash’s motion that the block scheme be adopted was carried with one dissentient—Mr Chrystall, who, however, said that probably the Shannon company woyld come in too. The meeting cincluded with a vote of thanks to Messrs Smith and McKenzie.