TESTS OF DAIRY COWS

Southland Times, Issue 23677, 28 November 1938, Page 7

TESTS OF DAIRY COWS

To The Editoi Sir, —I am in complete agreement with the views of your correspondents, J. Graham and “Dairyman,” also with Dr Ritchie Crawford. The Government has provided milk for schools and it deserves the congratulations of all parents. I am a strong believer in children drinking milk and plenty of it—provided, of course, it is good, natural milk and not pasteurized. Pasteurized milk is more difficult to digest than fresh, and New Zealand tuberculosis specialists declare that after pasteurization treatment of five bacilli, three were still living. I believe that milk as it comes from Nature’s laboratory is milk at its best, incapable of being improved upon by man. Milk in any other form ought not to be called milk at all and should be really sold under some other label, or at least called “prepared milk.” Time and Tide, England, in 1931, stated: “More bacteria have been found after pasteurization than before.” In Scotland it was found that calves fed on fresh milk increased their weight by 10 per cent, more than those fed on pasteurized milk, and the fresh milk fed calves had better coats and were more able to resist disease. The calves fed on pasteurized milk showed a much higher tendency to contract tuberculosis. Dr J. A. Goodfellow as quoted in The New Zealand Herald says, “Pasteurization destroys the iodine content, changes the calcium so that it cannot be absorbed and has a constipating tendency.” Dr Telford (Can-

terbury) in 1935 stated that the whole process is bad, and should be abolished. We give milk to our school children to supply what is already deficient in their food. By pasteurizing the milk we defeat our own ends by destroying the desired elements. Furthermore, it is quite possible that we are increasing a trouble already existing in New Zealand —malnutrition; for it seems that pasteurization and malnutrition are to some extent linked together.—Yours, etc., BACK-SCRATCHER. November 25, 1938. BRITAIN AND GERMANY To The Editor Sir, —The last straw we are told once broke a camel’s back; and for this reason I venture to attempt something of an answer to the opinions on politics, patriotism and pacifists, as expressed from time to time by your correspondent, J. P. Dakin. Am I wrong in picturing your correspondent engrossed in the Book of Judges or in the History of the Knights of the Round Table? It is difficult otherwise to account for bis attacks on men of the reputation of Dick Sheppard or on the Peace Pledge Union. Criticism of the action of Mr Chamberlain seems the easy way of tackling the international situation, but it leads to no constructive conclusions. To say that the abandonment of Abyssinia, Czechoslovakia and China is a result of applied pacifism is to quote scarcely a half-truth. Certainly the British Prime Minister refused to take the alternative of war, but any pacifist who knew how to do justice to his cause would deny that this resulted in either the loss of our honour or in the betrayal of the Czechs. Surely there is no basis for a policy, as tried by Mr Chamberlain, of following up the announcement of mutual agreement among the Powers with the launching of new “defensive” measures. Caesar, I learn, burnt all his boats, from battleships to smallest dinghy. This method of peaceful solution will undoubtedly be the harder one to practise in particular cases, but every effort in that direction will be a step towards true peace as opposed to the mere truce of 1918. It seems unreal to one of the younger generation that we have not applied the facts that means determine ends, that war cannot enforce peace, that one does not use an axe or a crowbar to mend a watch. Millions have died in wars to end wars; we admire their courage, but cannot agree with their reasoning. We are all striving then for the same end. Many would die with the sword uplifted and death rather than dishonour their choice. We, on the other hand, would question the necessity of a sword against a German or a Japanese who is fighting for reasons identical with our own and who might probably be our best friend if we knew him better. Finally may we agree to differ in the best of goodfellowship. Provided our views are sincere they are entitled to respect from others, no matter how divergent conclusions may be.—Yours, etc., H. L. ARMSTRONG. November 26, 1938.