GRADING OF CREAM.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 20389, 21 April 1928, Page 14

GRADING OF CREAM.

BREACH OF REGULATIONS. DAIRY COMPANY PROSECUTED. (Special to Daily Times.) AUCKLAND, April 20. The first cases of their kind to have .been brought in Auckland were those in which the Department of Agriculture proceeded at the Police Court to-day against the Taupiri Dairy Company, Ltd., on eight charges of failing to grade • certain wholo-milk cream received from G. Traill in accordance with the dairy regulations, in that such cream, being first grade cream, was wrongly graded as finest grade cream. ’Mr Leary, on behalf of the company, pleaded guilty to all charges. Mr Hubble, in opening the case for the department, said that the charges were laid under regulations under the Dairy Industry Act, 1908, these regulations having been passed in November, 1926. The object of the regulations was to improve the quality of the butter throughout the Dominion, and this was carried out by providing- for a system of grading at all dairy factories. Three grades of cream were defined by the regulations—finest, first grade, and second grade. Further regulations provided for accurate grading in thpse three classes by a duly licensed grader, whose license was subject to the control of the Agricultural Department by the same regulations. Differential payments were made at the present time, finest cream being worth id per lb more than first grade, and first grade Id per lb more than second grade. There was a further-provision in the regulations for the submission of statistics from each dairy factory to the department monthly. In this case, said Mr Hubble, two men carried on' farming in partnership near Hunua, one partner sending cream to the defendant company and the other sending to the New Zealand Dairy Company. The partners were somewhat surprised to find that what they considered the lower grade cream sent to the Taupiri Dairy Company received a higher grading and a higher payment than the better quality cream sent to the other company. As a result of this unusual position an inspector visited the Taupiri Dairy Company’s premises in Quay street and checked the books covering the period over which the charges wore laid. On comparing the graders stage book with the office book in tae presence of the company a manager it became obvious that cream which had been graded apparently in the stage book had been raised A grade in the office book in a number of cases. In seven instances cream entered in the stage bock as first grade had been entered in the office book as finest grade, and in one instance a similar change had been made from second grade to first grade, ihe company was particulax-ly at fault because the grading in the first place was apparently done in accordance with the regulations. Later, said Mr Hubble, the alterations were made deliberately for some object, probably with a view to inducing wider custom. The defendant company had deliberately moved up the grade of cream in the eight cases that had been detected. It was, of course, extremely difficult to detect faulty grading, added Mr Hubble. Mr Leary said that if the case was lett as stated by the prosecution it would appear as if the quality of the butter was being lowered, whereas the contrary was the case. It must be obvious to the court that in the grading of cream there would bo borderline tests. It , was. a matter of universal comment that grading was not consistent. The way in which grading was done in these cases affected the company only. Too much cream was graded for the purpose of determining the payment to be made to the producer. He contended that the first grade and finest grade cream were mixed together and the product was graded by a Government expert as the finest butter. He was not attacking the regulations, but the •grading of the factory was perfectly innocent. The real reason why a producer was sometimes given a higher grade was because it was desired to encourage hardworking suppliers. These producers were given tke benefit of the doubt when the grading was on the borderline. He submitted that the offences were purely venial. The regulations were somewhat unreasonable. Mr Hubble said that if the dairy companies acted as Mr Leary suggested they might act and grade irrespective of quality-, then some suppliers would not worry to keep up the quality, and those who did would certainly have a grievance. The Magistrate (Mr \V. R. M‘Kean) said the offences had been admitted. He could not be sure that the company would pay more for the cream than was necessary unless it had some reason for doing so.’ Tlie dairy companies should know the regulations well. It was the duty of the company to observe those regulations. The company was convicted on each charge and fined a total amount of £4 10s, with £9 10s in costs.