DAIRY SITE—A REPLY.

Northland Age, Volume 21, Issue 16, 31 July 1922, Page 3

DAIRY SITE —A REPLY.

(To the Editor). Sir, — In "The Northland age” Jkted the lOth inst., Mr. C. Marsh writes some length against the proposal to a new dairy factory, and especially building it on the site at Awanui. appears to be a feeling among a that the present factory could be utilised for some time to come if slight alterations and adjustments were made. This supposition is quite wrong. The Directors of the Company went carefully into all phases of the question, with minds unbiassed. After careful and mature consideration they unanimously arrived at the conclusion that a new and more commodious factory would have to be built. Facts and figures showed conclusively that the output could be manufactured more cheaply at Awanui than Kaitaia. Mr. Marsh suggests that the opinion of an engineer or architect, or both, should have been obtained as expert advice on the matter. That idea is, I think, erroneous. Each may be expert at his trade or calling, but not expert in a matter of this kind. If is mistake to hold with a bull dog tenacity to hopes and ideas that may be wrong without looking impartially at facts. The present factory is too small to cope with the increased output. Parts of the J)uilding are practically in a state of collapse. A new factory must be built. The Directors of the Company and the majority of the suppliers have decided that Awanui is where the new factory should be. The figures and evidence adduced support that contention. Opponents to the scheme try to .criticise the figures, but make no attempt at compiling figures of their own that will show why the proposed new factory should not be at Awanui. Figures only can decide the issue. Unless critics can show that a saving can be effected by building at Kaitaia their criticism will be futile. The Directors of the Company are suppliers of cream to the factory. Their v interests are precisely the same as the w- interests of all other suppliers. All are working in the best interests of the Company. It is the nett proceeds that count. The only reason the Directors have for advocating Awanui, is because the butter can be manufactured there more economically than at Kaitaia. It has been shown that there would have been a saving of £33° on l ast season’s output if it had been manufactured at Awanui. If the Company builds at Awanui that saving will increase as the output 4 increases. On the other hand it is obvious that while we continue to operate where the factory is at present, the loss will increase automatically with the output. % This is a fact that our opponents must admit. If not they should tabulate figures that will justify a denial. It may have some significance, too, when we reflect that a new factory can be built in Awanui very much more cheaply than at Kaitaia. In support of his argument the writer of the letter previously mentioned, alludes to Kaitaia as being the terminus of the future railway. Surely he does not think that when the railway reaches Kaitaia the line will end there 1 I venture to predict that when the railway reaches Kaitaia the line will be pushed on to the port with all possible expedience. Mr. Marsh also speaks of the Awanui river as being muddy and tortuous. I would like to remind him that building the new factory at Kaitaia will not tend 4 to improve the Awanui river. It is the natural outlet for the western area, and a combined effort by all the districts interested would probably get the river very much improved. In conclusion, sir, let me state that this article is not intended as criticism of Mr. Marsh. He has expressed his views, and my respect leans towards those who do so, even though our ideas may differ. Thanking you for your valuable space. I am, etc., WM. ROSE. Awanui, July 22nd, 1922.