BUTTERFAT PAYMENTS.

Manawatu Standard, Volume LII, Issue 245, 15 September 1932, Page 8

BUTTERFAT PAYMENTS.

(To the Editor.)

Sir. —On page 2 of your Tuesday’s issue you published a review of the dairy industry and production in the .Manawatu last season. In this review you refer to an average payment tor butterfat over tire district, but in doing so you take into account wholemilk along with cream payments. There should be no confusion between cheese payments and butter payments. However, that is by the way. Our reason for writing is that anyone reading your article would get the impression that the Cheltenham Cooperative Dairy Company's payment for butterfat last season was the lowest in the district. As this is totally incorrect and entirely misleading, we desire to have the inference corrected. r J here are several of the butter factories mentioned in your review whose payment to suppliers did not equal that of the Cheltenham Co-operative Dairy Company for the past season. We do not propose to enter into a long explanation. Comparisons are odious, but in fairness you should get down to a common basis of calculation when taking into account the average payments for butterfat. There is only one way of calculating average' payments. i.e., the correct way —but ’ unfortunately this is not always followed. For instance, one of the butter factories mentioned in your article states in its annual report that its total payment for the last season was 11.t57d. whereas the chairman of that company at his annual meeting admitted that cream cartage expenses were included in the butterfat payments ! Hence the necessity of a common basis of calculation. Otherwise, the higher the cream cartage expenses, the higher the butterfat payments!

The variation referred to in your article in overruns of four butter'factories from 20.9 per cent, to 22.9 per cent, could make a substantial difference in the rate of payment, the high overrun being purely a matter of inflation. without any accrued benefit to suppliers. Hence this further reason tor a common basis for calculation purposes. There are other reasons, but these two factors will suffice to demonstrate how necessary it is to marshal all facts when calculating butterfat payments. Furthermore, it will be seen that the statement in your review of the average payment made by certain dairy companies in this district as II.TGd is a miscomputation. We should be glad if you will correct- any misapprehension in the minds of your readers concerning the above mentioned inference in respect to the Cheltenham Co-operative Hairy Co., Ltd. —Yours truly, P. B. DESMOND. Secretary, Cheltenham Co-op. Dairy Co.. Ltd. Makino, Feilding, September 15, 1932.