MOISTURE IN BUTTER.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XLVI, Issue 14146, 23 August 1909, Page 6

MOISTURE IN BUTTER.

CHARGE AGAINST A COMPANY.

RESULT OF "AN INADVERTENCE."

CASE TO BE REHEARD.

A.: the Police Court on Saturday before Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.M., the New Zealand Dairy Association was charged with exporting from" the Dominion on February 20 last certain butter which contained more than 16 per cent, of water. Mr. Selwyn Mays conducted the prosecution, whilst Mr. A. Hanna appeared for the defence.

Mr. Hanna, in entering a plea of guilty, stated that there were extenuating circumstances which he wished to explain. Tho offence was committed in February of this year, but it was not reported to the company till some time afterwards. The whole of the butter manufactured by the association was sold under certain brandsone, the "New Zealand Dairy Association," within a circle, and the other, the " Anchor," also within a circle. The particular quantity in regard to which the information was laid comprised 10 boxes only, and was not shipped under either of these brands, but under another registered mark, No. 109. The Magistrate: Are all these facts admitted? Mr. Mays: Some of them we admit, and some of them we can't, refute. Herbert Pacey, secretary of the New Zealand Dairy Association, stated that the association's output last season was 1975 tons, of which about 1000 tons were exported. The only brands exported were the " New Zealand Dairy Association" and the " Anchor," both of which were registered. The butter in regard to which the charge was brought was made from damaged cream at the close of the day, and was sent down to Auckland for pastry purposes. There was a glut of pastry butter on the market at the time, and it was put in with other boxes and sent to England for what it would fetch. The factory manager did not intend it to go to England, and the man who packed it did not know where is was going. At this stage a fac-simile of the brand or. the box wwass s produced. The Magistrate : Who is responsible for painting on the boxes "Pure butter?" Why didn't you put " Made from damaged cream?" Witness: Our people in England were fully apprised of the fact that the 10 boxes in question were made from damaged cream. But why not put it "For pastry purposes only." The man who put that on the boxes should have put the truth. It was not "pure creamery butter?" Anything is "pure creamery butter" that is made from cream at a factory. Mr. Hanna: When did you first learn that it was damaged?— it was shipped at Wellington, and was en route to England. If you had received a communication beforehand would that butter have gone to England at all?— Certainly not. When we got word we immediately wrote to our clients in England, and instructed them to withdraw it from sale.

•' I think you have been complimented by the Dairy Commissioner on the way in which your butter is made?—He has stated that our system of manufacture of table butter would not permit of an excessive amount of moisture being incorporated. What did he say in regard to this case? He admitted it was an inadvertance. He said so to Mr. Spragg (manager of the association).. In reply to further questions, witness stated that the association always made exhaustive tests of its butter. Last season the average amount of moisture contained was 12.9 per cent., which was well under the maximum 16 per cent. That was for table butter only. The other butter was not made for export. It was only made for sale in Auckland to biscuit factories, bakers, etc. ' , Mr. Mays: I think that on December 9, 1908, you made, a shipment of butter that contained 16.17 per cent? Witness: If Mr. Cuddie says so I suppose we did.

And Mr. Cuddie wrote to you?— But he did not say what butter it was. He did not say that it was this 109 butter. We could not understand Mr. Cuddie's report, because it was different from ours. We had no means of challenging his statement.

Mr. Mays then read the letter, which ran as. follows —

A sample of butter taken from a consignment received at the stores from your Pukekohe factory was analysed at New Plymouth on the 9th inst., and found to contain 16.17 per cent, of moisture. You will observe that this is slightly over the legal limit, and I would point out the necessity of guarding against any. excess over. 16, per cent.; in fact, it would be unwise to work up to this, as it is a very difficult matter to regulate the moisture in tutter to within 1 or 2 per cent. I presume that you are now using the combined churn and butter worker, and this will probably account for the high moisture contents in this case. There has been quite a lot of trouble in this connection at other factories this season, and I am anxious to prevent any butter leaving the Dominion which would lead to a prosecution at the Home end. for it only requires one or two cases to be taken 115) by the authorities there to seriously affect the good name of New Zealand butter. My reason ■ for bringing this matter under your notice is purely in the interests of your company, and of the dairy industry generally, and I trust that steps will be taken by your managers to prevent any butter being sent in for shipment which contains more than 16 per cent, of moisture. Mr. Mays : Is that the letter Witness: Yes ; but I would suggest that you also read Mr. Spragg's reply. The reply was read, stating that he (Mr. Spragg)' was surprised at the report, as their over-runs, even when full allowances were made for losses in manufacture, did not indicate that they had excess moisture in their butter. Other teste had also been made which were of the same effect. The boxes from which the samples were taken, were taken haphazard from stacks of boxes, shipments being made to the freezing chambers 'on December 3. The letter added that the company was not using a combined churn and butter worker in either of their factories. Mr. Mays : That letter should have put you on your guard ? Witness : If the Department had given us full advice then we should have been able to trace it to the factory at fault. Mr. Cuddie was very good to you. He should have prosecuted you then, and perhaps we should have had an end of it. Do you say that you did not ship a fairly good quantity under the 109 brand?—We shipped about four tons during the whole season, and had we known that this trouble was on we would have put it into the destructor rather than have sent it. Now, as a matter of fact, have you not had report after report that your boxes were oozing with moisture? —In regard to what? Your "Anchor" and "Dairy" are all right. That is admitted ; and it can go forward to the world. But have you not had grade note after grade note complaining that moisture was leaking and soiling the boxes?—l saw some in the freezing works yesterday where that applied. This is entirely unfair. There are technical points here which require explaining. I am not a dairyman, but I understand that even with only 12 per cent, of moisture the boxes would still leak. But should this not have put you on your guard?—No; we had tests made, and ■we could not find any sample going anywhere near 16 per cent. That applies to our standard brands. We do not, of course, test pastry butter, and if we had known that No. 109 was the butter at fault there would have been none of this. Mr. Mays : Did you test the eight boxes on February 10, or the 10 boxes sent on February 20, which form the subject of this prosecution ?—No ; as far as I know, we did not. It was all an inadvertence. After some further evidence Mr. Hanna said he would withdraw his plea of guilty, and go into the whole matter de novo. The caso was then adjourned till next Mond&v- .-■ ..;._.:-. :: __ ...... A. ..." .■'.■'■'■ '■' :-■". '•■■•.'■. "