DAYLIGHT SAVING

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVIII, Issue 17, 19 December 1927, Page 6

DAYLIGHT SAVING

From at least one quarter strong objection has come to the principle of “daylight saving” enforced by Mr T. K. Sidey's Summertime Act. Strangely enough, too, the objection emanates from the one district in which the daylight lasts longer in the summer months than elsewhere—Southland—for, as most people are aware, the nearer the equator the shorter the day becomes, because sunset is succeeded in the tropical and sub-tropical regions by little or no twilight. At a representative meeting of Southland dairy farmers held a few days ago, we are told that “strong exception was taken to daylight saving,” because the putting forward of the hands of the clock has resulted in a lessened milk yield, owing to the cows having to be milked earlier than formerly. One farmer is reported to have said that he had weighed the milk taken and found “the. cows averaged a pound less in their production of milk per day under the new hours, the cows not .being ready for milking at the . advanced afternoon hour.” Hi’s statement would seem to have fitted in with the experience of other farmers present, for, “by 44 votes to 3 the meeting passed a resolution urging the abolition of the scheme.” The lost production is a serious matter, and goes to demonstrate the absurdity of the idea that Nature may be made to conform to the wishes of man to vary her immutable laws without something being displaced in the balance. This appears to us to be more particularly the case with attempts to prolong the day beyond its natural limits. A dairy fferd which has been accustomed to be milked at regularly fixed hours, is likely to go back in yield if milked earlier or later than usual. That appears to have been the case in • Southland, and probably there are dairy farmers in this district who > are labouring under the same•' disadvantage of a reduced yield. When the Summertime Bill was before Parliament it was urged that those who objected to its. provisions should give daylight saving a trial. It fryas tried in Australia and dropped even more suddenly than it was passed, and it is quite on the cards that actual experience of its working in New Zealand may cause it to be dropped here also. Another matter that appears to have been overlooked by the supporters of “daylight saving” is the effect it has upon young children, the longer day acting prejudicially upon a child’s health, in that the child does not get the same hours of sleep, for even young children have no liking for being put to bed in broad daylight, as it is now necessary they should be. If the school hours wex-e altered from 9 a/m. to 10 a.m., as has been done in some schools, the difficulty might be got over; but even then the average household arrangements would, be considerably upset, as the children would be taking their breakfast and lunch, or dinner, at different times from their elders to permit of their sleeping in longer in the mornings. The “Standard” has repeatedly urged that all that the daylight saving advocates have sought after could easily be obtained by mutual agreements between employers and employees as to the working hours 1 of the' day without, the dislocation and inconvenience caused to those who prefer to keep to and find the old standard time more suitable. The question of the utility,, or otherwise, of the present innovation will have to be raised again next session, when Mr Sidey and his fi-iends hope to see the Summertime Act re-enacted, and permanently installed as the custom of the country. It is for those who are suffering loss and inconvenience to meanwhile voice their objections to the scheme, and to demonstrate by their experience of the actual working the undesirability of renewing it.