THE DAIRY INDUSTRY.

Otago Witness, Issue 2318, 4 August 1898, Page 4

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY.

The purpose of the articles on the dairy industry -which have recently appeared in our columns was to call attention to the present unsatisfactoiy condition of the industry as compared wiih what rules in the countries with ■which New Zealand will have to compete. Mr J. li. Scott has criticised our contentions, and complains that Aye have not given the Government credit for the good work they have already done in connection with the furtherance of the dairy industry. But we were not dealing with that phase of the question. All reasonable - minded persons, we suppose, are willing to admit that the present Government have done a good | deal towards helping along a struggling industry, but that is no reason why they should rest on their oars and allow the industry to drift into a condition of chaos. Our contention is that during the past couple of years the Department of: Agriculture has not kept abreast of the times, in the face of what tiio neighbouring colonies are doing. We made no comparison between the dairy produce of New Zealand and that of the neighbouring colonies of New South Wales and Victoria, and even if, as Mr Scotx says, " neither the cheese* nor butter in New South Wales are nearly as good as in New Zealand," that does not prove that our methods are better than theirs. The difference in climate is a factor that must always tell heavily against the Australian colonies as compared with New Zealand. Our Government have had a couple of years' time in which to organise the dairy industry, and the fact that during the whole of that timo an attempt has been made to direct the industry from the office of tht; Secretary of Agriculture in "Wellington proves out 1 contention that the | department has failed to duly appre1 ciate the importance of the dairy industry. We have not aUempted in any way to disparage the work of the dairy experts at present employed by the department, as Mr Scott sccjms to assume, but if we have been correctly informed, we understand the experts themselves are dissatisfied with the position they are forced to occupy and would much rather have a responsible expert for their chief instead of taking their instructions individually from the Secretary of Agriculture. In the circumstances of the case the experts hays to act to a great extent upon their own responsibility, and feel that they would be relieved of a deal of worry and care if a responsible head were set in authority over them who could give them expert guidance in their duties. No further argument, we think, should be required to prove that in formulating this complaint against the Department of Agriculture we have not gone out of the way to make out a case. Then, as regards our coniulaint

that the Secretary. of Agriculture failed to grasp the situation when he hedged around with red-tape conditions the permission I'or the experts to lectura at tho winler show, Mr Scott asks, " X the secretary oE the Agricultural and Pastoral (Society wanted this assistance and the experts were willing to lecture, as your article states, why did he not ask the Secretary of Agriculture, whom ho saw every day during show week?" Purely Mr Scoxj: does not ask this question in seriousness, for he ought to know chat prior to show week some of the experts had declined to lecture on account o£ want of time to prepare, and therefore that during show week was too late to think of the matter. Had Mr Ujtciiie, however, telegraphed consent when first approached, arrangements could have been made with the experts before they left Dunedin. It was the delay occasioned through the Secretary of Agriculture insisting that arrangement 1 ? , were to be made through the department that caused a splendid opportunity to impart useful information to a number of dairy farmers to be lo3t, However, if that were the only shortcoming of: the department calling for comment there would not be much to complain about. Mr Scott is • wrong in assuming that our comments ; upon the remissness of the department ; were actuated by political bias. We { only voice the opinion of a large section of the dairying public when we ! say that the department has failed to cope with this growing industry in a ' manner commensurate with its importance. Mr Scott has apparently ! failed to grasp the significance of Mr l Soinsjf sen's action in declining to accept 1 the salary proffered him along with the ' position of chief dairy expert. It was ! not a question so much of a few pounds' j difference between the amount asked and the sum offered as of the principle at stake. Jf the position of chief dairy j expert is as important to-day as it was j formerly, then Mr Sop.Ey sets' could not J maintain his dignity and accept a less salary than the position previously carried. These are the chief points overlooked by our correspondent in his ' letter in Friday's issue. However, we are pleased to note Ihafc there is a j shaking of the dry bones, and in the , Dairy Tndubtry jßiil brought clown by I the Minister at the head of the depart- j ment many valuable provisions are } embodied for promoting the industry. | It is proposed to repeal " The Daily Industry Act, 1804," but the most important clauses are embodied in the new Bill. YVithin the compass of its 52 sections the Bill contains a number | of valuable provisions, which, if carried into effect, will do much to further the interests of the growing dairy produce ' export trade. Part lof the Bill deals with Ihc inspection and sanitation of dairies, and ample provision is nnde for controlling the product from the dairy farm to the market. Purl; ' II deals with advances to dairy factory companies, and if Parliament ' : sanctions the jwoposals of the Govern- ! ment a considerable impetus will be j ] given to the industry, for there are j j many country districts where dairy ■ 1 factories might be profitably carried j \ on, but the want of capital stands in j the way of starting them. If loans j \ from the Government on the security i of the land and buildings can be \ obtained, however, the initial difficulty \ will disappear. The amount, for which J ( the authority of Parliament is asked IeI c is not to exceed .£50,000 in any one | { year ; but a considerably less amount, j 1 we should think, ought to provide for j ! loar.s where most needed throughout j j the colony. But while attempting to , t encourage the dairy industry with one ! hand the Government should not crush I } it with the other. IE an impetus to the ]r i establishment of dairy factories is to bo j Jgiven through the medium of Govern- j i

to ment loans, there is all the greater need for having the industry thoroughly organised and managed by an expert well qualified in up-to-date methods.