FARM AND DAIRY

Northern Advocate, 19 December 1928, Page 7

FARM AND DAIRY

PRODUCTION OF CHEESE

TESTING QUALITY OF MILK

STATEMENT CHALLENGED. 'Speaking at a special general meeting of the New Zealand Friesian Association held in Palmerston North recently, the -president, 'Mr -H. J. Marehant, (briefly spoke on the principal of the Hawera cheese experiment as shown in the report of the dairy scientist, P. 0. Vioale. ' Air Marchant then -spoke of the action of Air E. J. Fawcett, Farm Economist, Dr ipartment of Agriculture, who had at a recent meeting in New Plymouth made some adverse criticisms of the Friesian Mr Alarc'ifant said:

"There is another matter I feel bound to bring under notice and 1 do so with a great deal of reluctance. I refer to an address delivered at New Plymouth on September 21, by Mr E. J. Fawcett, who is attached to the Department of Agriculture ns Farm Economist. The advertised title of Mr Fawcett’s subject was "Some Management Factors of N.Z. Dairy Farms," and un,der that heading he gave an interesting survey of the costs of running a dairy farm. "It is, how'evier, the second part of his ad,dress I wish to refer to, in which he attempted to deal with a matter not mentioned in the advertisement, and certainly quite outside the work ho was officially engaged in. This subject was the values of high versus lo)vv testing milk for cheesemaking from a carrying, capacity point of view. Fortunately, he was frank enough to tell us at the outset that he was neither a practical man, nor a eheesemaker, and indeed so strongly was this brought home to the meeting, that a well-known Jersey breeder, who is also chairman of a dairy company, w T as moved to remark at the conclusion: ‘This gentleman (Mr Fawcett) lias told us he is not a practical man. He is purely a theorist, therefore, it is useless to question, and I don’t propose to do so. ’ :

“We are, however, entitled to question the propriety of a departmental officer ' being allowed to give public voice l to his personal sympathies. Of course, it is quite possible that Mr Fawcett was -merely giving expression to what he. f elt to be the official viewpoint, and that of coursel is another matter. In either ease we are at liberty to examine the data upon which his conclusions are based even ‘if both the premises and the conclusions are erroneous. First ,of alt the average tests for the various dairy breeds >S.O. test in New Zealand are taken to America to be translated into • pounds of cheese per 100 lbs. of milk, as determined by American standards. We are then brought back to New Zealaud to ascertain the average milk production of these same breeds* sO as to compute the amount of cheese the average cow of each breed would make if it lived in America. We are then taken back to America to consult a publication above all others, likely to be impartial. The purpose of consulting tire publication is to obtain its view of* the results of a feeding experiment between different breeds at the 'St. Louis Expositioaq a fixture that corresponds roughly to our A. and P. Shows here. Wo were not told —possibly because the lecturer did not know —that this long .disc red it ed experiment took place in 1904.

“We were finally brought back to New Zealand with the assurance that 6.5 Jerseys can be earned to 5 Friesians on the same area of land.

“Touching for a moment on the standard from which Mr Fawcett gets his yield of cheese per lOOlibs of milk, we (find in Van Slyke's work on page

20(! .a. table that- exactly -coincides with the figures quoted. We are entitled to assume, therefore, that they are the same. Van Sly he, however, takes pains to -point out that each type of cheese contained the same amount of moisture. 'Now Van Slykc knows, and the wariest novice could have informed Mr Paweott, that one o# the (big difficulties with high-test-ing milk is that cheese ma.de from it does not -readily incorporate thp amount of moisture it -should. No wonder our Jersey friend dismissed Mr .Fawcett as a theorist, and preferred to review Air Vcale’s work instead.

‘ ‘ Now ,we como to another and more serious aspect of this matter. I refer to the use that is 'being made of Mr Fawcett's (figures for propaganda. purposes. Now the possibility of this was immediately foreseen, and I promptly furnished full .details to Mr Ka laugher, who was in Wellington at the 'time, Mr Ivalaugher immediately placed the matter before Dr Reakes in a personal interview. The lecture was delivered on Friday, September 21, and the interview' referred to took place five or six days later. This was followed by formal letters of protest. ’A few days later, at a meeting in Taranaki, I also brought the matter before the personal notice of the Minister of Agriculture, Nov/ I want to stress the fact that no reply whatever has been forthcoming to our protests and wo do find the matter being .broadcast to the world. This places tlie department in an exceedingly unfortunate position, that must greatly injure its reputation for the even-handed impartiality we have a right to demand, unless the promptest steps are taken to publish a full and .convincing disclaimer. I expressly warned the Minister that should this material be used as propaganda, this association would take activ# steps to protect its own interests, and these steps your council (lias /esolved to take. In closing just let me illustrate the effect this «n,d other incidents are having on the public mind. I have here the "Taranaki Daily New T s’’ giving a report of a political address in Taranaki by the then Hon. O. J. Hawkeh. Mr Hawken was .asked point-blank by a man, I have' never heard of before, if there was any collusion between a certain breed of cattle and Oils department. This was followed by further remarks, from another questioner, as to tlie view’s of ■a high departmental officer on various matters of vital importance to the industry.

“I am given to understand, on reliable authority, s that 'Mr Fawcett has been asked to furnish a report to the -Department of Agriculture on, Mr Veale’S investigations into cheesemaking. It is very hard indeed to imagine anything more farcical. After openly and flagrantly slighting Mr Yeale’s work by passing it over in favour of data published in a partisan journal, about a subject ho was forced to admit, he knew nothing about, Mr Fawcett, it would so cup is to be given the opportunity of reviewing a work, which had he consulted earlier, would have saved him from a grievous and damaging error of judgment, 77