YIELDS AND TESTS.

Taranaki Daily News, 8 October 1925, Page 6

YIELDS AND TESTS.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —Mr. Taylor, in his letter pubin your issue of the 25th ultimo, In reply to mine of the 19th, has at «*ast proved himself an adept in the art of side-stepping. In my letter I asked him, per medium of your valuable columns, two definite questions, one for proof of hia statement regarding yields, the other as to the general method followed by dairy companies in reading the tests. The latter question is by far the more important of the two; in fact, it is the real pivot around which the whole matter revolves, and unless Mr. Taylor can answer it in. a dear, unequivocal manner the rest of the arguments which he has advanced must fall to the ground. In common courtesy he should have answered these questions before asking others, but seeing that he evidently cannot answer—which, by the way, is only what I expected—l will proceed to supply him with information of which he is apparently in urgent need. First, he asks me are Van Slyke and Publow etill up to date? Well, I can inform him their work, “The Science a.nd Practice of Cheese-making’’ i« recognised as a leading authority on the cheese-making business, and is used as a text-book by the greater number of cheesemakers to-day. Then, again, he questions regarding the difference in yield between a certain company averaging 2.57 and Van Slyke’s average of £.<£>. I might use hie own tactice, and reply that I may be able to explain thia when he explains the difference in yield between the factories he mentioned in his letter numbered 1 and 2 with yields of 2.7 and 2.8 respectively.

He writes of the Dairy Division investigating in one of the factories, and also of check weighing in another. It should be quite apparent to even the ignorant that the Dairy Division were at least, like myself, sceptical as to the bona tides of the obtained. As ? rule, they are loth to interfere in what is generally recognised as a domestic matter between the companies themselves. Then he attempts to instruct me by telling me that the best cheese in the works at a certain period in the spring contained up to .38 per cent, of moisture. Well, taking his figure for granted, and assuming that the whole of the season’s make contained a level percentage of .38 per cent, of moisture, then Van »Slyke’s average yield on a 4 per cent, test would be increased from 2.65 to 2.576, which still leaves a very considerable margin to be accounted for.

He speaks of the progress made during eighteen years. Need I remind Mr. Taylor that milk has not altered appreciably in regard to milk solids, that is, in ratio to butter-fat, during that period. that although there may be and no doubt were losses of solids, fat and moisture iu the times of which he speaks, yet at the same time I would point out that only the milk solids, plus a small amount of whey solids, -can be made into cheese. The balance is just plain whey, or moisture, as it is termed, and although it plays a very important part in making the yield, yet. as I have explained for the benefit of any one who might be misled by statements about moisture content^this is liable to be over-stressed, as shown by the fact that on Van Slyke’s figures of 2.65 yield for 4 per cent, milk, the cheese containing 37 per cent moisture, if would take another 5 per cent., or 42 per cent, of moisture, to bring the yield

up to 2.7. I think that Mr. Taylor, egotist though he may be, would hesitate to make a statement that at time of grading, which would be at least fifteen days after the cheese was made, that the cheese from the highest yielding factory he has mentioned would give an analysis of 42 to .43 per cent, of moisture. It may be just pure coincidence but the difference of two points in test would just make up the difference in yield between 2.67 and 2.80. In any ease, it is something for him to explain by facts and figures, and not by bluffing or trying by accusations of ignorance to belittle those who are desirous of altering the present loose methods by substituting some form of control. Truly, here is an opportunity for the Dairy Control Board to use their ideas Und their power in order that some sys-te-n should be. evolved out of the pres•'it confusion. Let them initiate a stem whereby the butter-fat shall be cLQcked by an independent reliable official, the te®ts. to be read from the bottom to the top of the butter-fat columns in the test bottle, which certainly was intended by Dr. Babcock when he invented his fajuous method of measuring the butter-fat. If Mr. Taylor looks up the issue of the Dairy Produce Exporter for August 29 he will find that the editor commented on my remarks regarding yields and tests at the njeefing he mentioned. The comments are not unfavourable, but, of course, in Mr. Taylor's opinion, he would be one of the ignorant ones, because he differs from himself. Also in the same paper will be found part of an article by Mr. Duncan, the well-known dairy company secretary of Hawera, in which he says: “The overrun is immediately influenced by the accuracy of the weights and teste of the cream or milk'’; also as pari of the same article: “Thus the supplier might think that he was getting a better pay-out, when in reality although he got a better price, he got it on a less quantity of butterfat, and, other things being equal, lie would be no better off than if his correct test bad been given to him. Thus we find that, in regard to factory payout, * things are not what they seem.’” Exactly, and what applies to overruns applies, and with the same force, to cheese yields, but perhaps Mr. Taylor will argue that Mr. Duncan is equally ignorant with myself. Need I say that I am confident that many chairmen of dairy companies recognise that the present lack of control of the raw material is far from satis’factory, that any manufacturing business should have gome way of assessing the amount of the raw material that is received, by them, and that no manufacturer should have the sole right to measure the-raw material or butter fat as he likes, and to manufacture what amount of the finished article he pleases for that is the position of the dairy industry to-day. I am certain. Sir, that had the commercial part of the industry been en l tirely in the hands of proprietary interests, the Government would long ere this have been compelled to take action and to apply the regulations appertaining to weights and measures to the supply of milk and butter-fat to the dairy factories, and I am convinced that it is only the fact that the average cooperative dairy company does not buy their raw inaierial but receives and

manufactures only for their own sliareliolders, that has prevented strict and stern measures being taken. The Government, of course, did make a halfhearted effort to deal with this matter about two years ago, when they passed an Act providing that the overruns and yields should be audited, and that the sample bottles should be held at factories for a period after testing. It also provided for entrance to factories by inspectors at any time with power to test the samples. Why was this done? Perhaps Mr, Taylor, with his lofty assumption of superior knowledge, can a newer. That the methods at present followed have been the cause of a great deal of injustice cannot be gainsaid. Every supplier is entitled to all the butter-fat his milk contains, and every manufacturer is entitled to credit for the quality and quantity of the finished article, but in the present race for quantity it might happen that the quantity might be the limit of a manufacturer’s conscience, and I suggest to Mr. Taylor that he has ample scope for investigation elsewhere (as is shown by the remarks of Mr. Duncan quoted earlier in this letter) without attempting to malign a small company which has made the rather dangerous (?) experiment of attempting to run on honest lines. —I am, etc., T. WILLCOX. Rahotu, October 3.