NEW ZEALAND FARMERS' DAIRY UNION, LIMITED.

NZ Truth, Issue 750, 1 November 1919, Page 4

NEW ZEALAND FARMERS' DAIRY UNION, LIMITED.

Twenty-sixth Annual Report and Balance-Sheet.

Just confining oneself to the above document, and leaving- out of consideration anything 1 contained m previous balance-sheets issued by this company, "Cambist" has to admit that the matter before him leaves nothing for favorable notice. As a matter of fact, the whole performance provides too much matter for criticism, to give him pleasure. It is wonderful to observe how backward the report is m giving the usual information which suppliers of home separated cream obtain from the ordinary co-operative dairy factory. In this case the company admits it has manufactured for the season covered by the accounts over 35a tons of butter, of which 190 tons were sold to the Imperial Government, and the balance, .say, 163 tons were disposed of m the lbcal market. From this bald statement the present writer assumes that all of the first grade butter went to the Imperial profiteering Government, while the balance sold here probably did not reach the grade required for export.. New Zealanders are queer people. They are so obliging. It is the habit of these State educated persons to eat up all of the rejects from the freezing works, and slaughterhouses; and to accept with Christian gladness the inferior grades of butter, the blended muck and the stuff that tastes like fish. In this case the butter sold on the local market may have been a very high grade, and if that be the case "Cambist" would like to know why that ,I'act was not set forth m the report of the company's operations. A well-managed dairy factory takes pride m quoting the grading they earned for each season. This concern says nothing at all upon this important subject. Another thing that seems to require some explanation is the omission of the price paid for buttezvfat during the period covered by the accounts. What did the suppliers receive for their butter-fat for the year ended m June last? It seems that the iisual dividend was paid, and that a further payment of l%d to suppliers was recommended. This bald way of treating- dividends and payments to suppliers is so vague that the sooner the suppliers recognise its futility the better it will be for all concerned, save perhaps, the men behind the company who "rake of£" the profits m the business. The profit and loss account tells us that some one was clever enough to go.uge out of the company £465 for commissions on local sales. Considering the latter were only 163 tons, one would like to learn why over £2 los per toil WAS " CHUCKED AWAY " m this manner. On looking over the balance-sheet no one can gather how the capital account is made up, for there is nothing to show the nominal value of the shares. The very respectable sum of. £15,365 stands as the amount paid up, out of an authorised capital of £17,500. The sum of £483 stood as owing to milk suppliers for June, the month to which year ended, while other creditors came to £2073. In the latter sum is included money owing to the National Bank on two separate accounts. <>n the assets side, the sum of £(»4;}3 stands as owing by debtors on loans. The report indicates that this sum has to do with the loans granted (,o suppliers. It is ot* course a profitable business as all money lending is. Besides it gives the company a firm grip over the borrowers, and ensures that cream will be forthcoming when the lorry calls at the homesteads of these people. However, this is all right. The company ' does not call itself a co-operatlye one, and "Cambist" will not venture to say that it is. . It Is a great pity that there are no statistics furnished from which one could compare its operations with purely co-operative concerns.