SHOULD WE PASTEURISE

New Zealand Mail, 8 February 1900, Page 4

SHOULD WE PASTEURISE

But a short time ago makers throughout the colony were told that the only way to captivate the London market was to adopt the system of pasteurisation, jyia to give to the London trade aa article indentical with the Danish. Hie Danish butter, we were led to believe, had conquered the English market and to successfully compete against it we must imitate their system of manufacture, the main point in which was pasteurisation, the adoption of this method resulting in a colourless butter of clean, mild but uniform flavour. The advice came not only from the experts of the Department, but from leading firms on the London market. The result was that factories went to the expense of putting in pasteurisers, though from a variety of reasons these have been seldom used for the work for which they were originally intended, the principal reason being that there was no expert in the colony—a regrettable fact, but none the less true—at liberty to. instruct makers in the correct working of the principle. Pasteurisers, in consequence, were either laying idle in factories or else used mainly as heaters. Makers are still of the same unsettled state of mind, and will be until they can know from authoritative sources whether pasteurisation is necessary or otherwise; and, if necessary, whether the additional price to be secured will pay for the cost of pasteurising. In their quandary makers naturally look to the Dairy Commissioner for a decided answer to the questionwill pasteurisation pay? And we appeal to him to inform makers what should be done in the best interests of the trade. If pasteurisation will secure for us the great consideration of clean and uniform flavour and so obtain for us better prices then let our makers have every assistance in the carrying out of the principle, but if it is necessary and indeed a drawback then let us know decidedly, and so obviate the necessity of factories going to needless expense. We are moved to make these few, remarks because we read in the evidence of Mr Lovell—given before the House of Commons Committee, reprinted in our last issue—that pasteurisation is a mistakeand again in a paper by Victorian, experts and reprinted in this issue—that pasteurisation /is necessary. It is certainly true that the people whose word should be taken are those working on the London market, who, consequently, know exactly what is required by the consumer. This being so it would naturally seem that the adnoe of such an authority as Mr

Lovell—admittedly one of the very best authorities on the London market — should bear considerable weight, but the question presents itself—was the pasteurised butter which Mr Lovell received from this colony pasteurised in a proper manner? That is, were all the details of the system properly carried out—correct temperatures mtmvtainecand the right starter used in order to secure the desired flavour? Of course Mr Lovell also maintained, that Danish butter is insipid by reason of it being pasteurised, and if this is so (admitting that the Danish system is perfect) pasteurisation is evidently not essential if the best class of goods are to be turned out. Still, we have heard so much evidence to the contrary that it is imperative we should have decided information from the Dairy Commissioner as to whether it is desirable or not that pasteurisation should be adopted, in the manufacture of our -uitter. ’We await his authoritative declaration on the matter with interest.