DAIRY INDUSTRY

Stratford Evening Post, Volume II, Issue 226, 22 April 1933, Page 3

DAIRY INDUSTRY

u J Meeting at Okato POWERS OF DAIRY BOARD I About 100 people attended a meeting j held at Okato last night to consider the i report on the dairy industry drawn up j by Messrs. H. O. Stavcley, W. Thomas, j A. Drake and W. K. Morris, Oakura, and j endorsed the previous week by a meet- j hag of Oakura farmers. After a long J discussion in which it was made appar- , ent that some of the recommendations j of the committee did not meet with general approval- a motion of endorsement j of the report was carried with half a j dozen dissentients. Answering a question about the method ; of election of the London board proposed by the committee Mr. Thomas said it | was not proposed that the London board j should be compulsory. It was merely a [ suggestion that would be mr.de to the j London merchants- \

Mr. R. B. Fleming expressed the opinion that the board as at present constituted had no control over the industry internally. That was the weakness. There was no controlling head, for ihe Minister was subservient to political dictation. The Control Board had no jurisdiction in New Zealand and should with the Dairy Division be formed into one body absolutely free of political control. The board had no price fixation policy, though there was control of shipments. Without some body handling the regulation of shipments there would not be obtained the confidence of goodwill of those in England. He thought therefore that the board was not invested with sufficient powers. There was a lack of co-ordination between the various organisations active in the industry. All units of control should be co-ordinated under the one head, preferably the Control Board.

Mr. Smith asked if it was not a fact that subsidies for herd-testing, which the report condemned, had not been abolished.

Mr. Fleming said he understood that Was so.

Mr. Crosby said that British farmers were receiving low prices for their milk. That could not be caused by the Control Board, which he thought could not be blamed for the prices of New Zealand butter. "Not, a Bad Deal" Mr. Smith pointed out that English butter was selling at Is and New Zealand at lOd, so that New Zealand, he thought, was not getting "a bad deal." Mr. E. Larking quoted a case of a shop in Britain which obtained excellent results in the marketing of New Zealand butter. That could be done by the Control Board, but it had not been done. In that, he thought the board was at fault. British papers, Mr Sims said, showed that the British farmer was having difficulty ;n marketing his own produce. New Zealand could not hope to do any better.

I Mr. W. Larking condemned the attitude | taken up by some of the speakers who j had expressed doubts that New Zealand ; could do nothing. It was no use sitting back, he said. A move hrtd to be made in,some direction and the committee had attempted to make a start. He referred again to what could be done in the storing and marketing of New Zealand ! produce in Britain. Until there were differential payments for milk there would be no improvement in quality, Mr. Crosby said. Improvements in methods had to come if quality was wanted, and it was no good talking about the goodwill of Tooley Street without supplying the quality. Mr. W. Larking, a member of the committee appointed at the Oakura meeting, said improvements in methods were certainly needed. He suggested, for instance, that, the farmer without good milking shed equipment should be assisted monetarily to obtain better facilities. Whatever was done the farmer could net obtain to-day the quality of cheese that was obtained years ago, Mr. McCabe said. He "attributed the reason for that to the class of cow. The cow which produced milk suitable for butter did not [ produce milk suitable for cheese. j The committee, said Mr. Thomas, took j the attitude that it did not know which ] breed was suitable for cheese and butter j making. But the committee claimed the farmer should know and that the Dairy Division should have found out.

Stability of Cattle A"3iscussion ensued upon the question of breed and of high and low testing milk, but Mr. Fleming said that so long as the scientists in New Zealand differed on the question the farmer could not hope to know which breed was most suitable. One of the greatest obstacles the industry had to overcome was to regain the confidence of the buyer in Britain. He suggested that the only way to do this was to give to the buyer the article of the quality he wanted. By that he meant to suggest that the grading of New Zealand produce should be done in Britain. It seemed to him the only solution. He attributed the main difference between the prices for New Zealand and Canadian cheese to the lack of confidence of the buyer. The buyer would have that confidence if he knew he was getting a first-class article graded when it reached Britain.

Mr. W. Larking repeated his suggestion made at Oakura for the reconditioning of cheese when it reached Britain. He supported what Mr. Fleming said. Mr. Staveley emphasised that those in Britain knew better than those in New Zealand what should be done in the marketing in Britain. He again criticised the Control Board for not obtaining the results it could have.

I Mr. Fleming asked in what the present) ''system of disposal of produce differed from the methods existing before the Control Board was formed. Before the producers had been able to do what they liked with their produce, Mr. Staveley replied. The board tried to force New Zealand produce on the market at a fixed price and they lost the goodwill of Tooley Street. Mr. Fleming claimed the methods of disposal were still exactly the same. The board to-day had no control over disposal and distribution in Britain, though a certain amount was spent annually in advertising. He did not think there would be any advantage in subsidising the efforts of British merchants to dispose of produce. Mr. Thomas suggested that the diirerence in the prices for Canadian and New Zealand cheese was not due to the quality of New Zealand but to the fact that British merchants were antagonistic to the New Zealand Dairy Produce Control Board.

Underselling by certain firms which were weak financially ar»d had to unload quickly what they bought was stated by Mr. S. Hawke, another member of the committee appointed at Oakura, to be the reason for the fall in prices. Support for the committee's recommendation that the Control Board should be in supreme control of the industry in New Zealand was expressed by Mr. Hill. He also supported the election of a board from the merchants in Britain, and ho

congratulated the committee on the action it had taken. Mr. Smith suggested that in view of the criticism of the Control Board two members of the board be invited to attend a public meeting to reply to the criticism. A motion on these lines was carried. A prolonged discussion took place on the question whether various recommendations of the report should be omitted, but finally the report as a whole was approved.