FAT CONTENT OF CHEESE

Taranaki Daily News, 3 September 1928, Page 13

FAT CONTENT OF CHEESE

RESULT OF LOWER STANDARD ; COMPARISON WITH CANADA. ‘fit appears to have been common knowledge that higher yields of cheese per pound of butter-fat are obtained from low test than from high test milk, and therefore the scientific finding that Friesian, Ayrshire and Shorthorn butterfat is worth more for cheese-making than Jersey butter-fat has not, apparently, been seriously disputed, stated Mr. P. O. Veale, 8.A., M.Sc,, at the annual meeting of the Federation of Taranaki Dairy Factories, at Hawera, yesterday. Continuing he gave the following as the consequences of lowering the New Zealand standard of fat in cheese: “However it has been contended that to advocate lowering our fat standard for cheese to 45 per cent, in the dry matter is pernicious advice for the reason that it would destroy English confidence in the quality of our goods. The fallowing table shows the standards at present laid down by the laws of the principal cheese producing countries of the world:—•

Whole milk cheese: Minimum percentage of fat in dry cheese. —Australia, New Zealand and United States of America, 50; Canada, Netherlands, Denmark, Switzerland and Minnesota, 45; South Africa, 40; California, 30. There could hardly be any serious complaint against our action in adopting a standard already obtaining in such countries as Canada and Denmark which have a reputation for dairy produce possibly superior to our own. It must not be supposed that, if the New Zealand minimum standard for cheese were lowered from 50 to 45 per cent, of fat in the dry matter, the immediate consequence would be a universal approximation to the bare minimum. Figures taken from a recent bulletin issued by the Department of Agriculture of the Dominion of Canada show that the average fat content of Canadian cheese is well above the minimum, although, at the same time, lower the average of New Zealand cheese. Over 400 representative samples of cheese from all provinces of Canada were analysed in the years 1924-26 and were found to contain on the average 51.77 per cent, of fat in the dry matter, i.e., 6.77 per cent, higher than the minimum prescribed by the regulations. There is no reason to believe that fat percentages in New Zealand cheese should not similarly remain comfortably above the minimum, but at the same time, the lowering of the minimum would allow the export of much good cheese which at present is illegal and barred by our regulations.

FAT STANDARD TOO HIGH. We may be entirely in accord upon the principle that we have worked up to a quite unnecessarily high standard in the fat content of our cheese, and that large sums are to be saved by reverting to a standard which is cheaper to attain and being more satisfactory to our consumers, will result in equal or higher prices. There are many who feel that something should be done at once and the question of standardisation of milk has been freely mentioned as a palliative for the present state of affairs. It is here that we begin to tread upon really dangerous ground. One correspondent has accused me of being prejudiced in this matter, and has said that “it is more than time that the old bug-bear ‘prejudice’ died a sudden death in the consideration of this matter.” I am heartily in accord with this gentleman in his latter statement. I am convinced that, by a proper application of the standardising principle we eould make a cheese perfect in flavour, body and texture, superior in fat content and food value to the products of our competitors, but I feel it my bounden duty to warn the industry of the prejudice which exists, not in my mind, but in the minds of the people the world over, against a cheese, however good, which is made from anything other than genuine whole milk. My friend to whom I have already referred has very correctly said: “And if that silly not-whole-milk argument cropped up at Home, let the Dairy Control Board prove its mettle—use its power of advertisement and fight the foolish argument down. We could still claim to be 5 per cent, higher fat grading than that of our more successful rivals, the Canadians, and, if put to it, the Dairy Control Board could, by analysis, probably prove that eur cheese would bo equal to, or better than, that of any brand whose promoters chose to challenge the quality of our goods.” Without doubt this would be ideal if it could be realised, and I sincerely wish, for the sake of the New Zealand dairy industry, that I could honestly believe in its possibility. As an indication of the strength of the prejudice which would be exercised against our proposed standardisation scheme, allow me to quote the definition of “skim milk cheese” contained in the Dairy Industry Act of Canada 1914 as amended in 1923. After expressly providing that skim milk cheese must be branded and sold as such, the Act states: “Skim milk cheese means cheese made by or with the aid of the substance commonly known as skim milk, or milk from which any eream has been abstracted, or milk to which skim milk has been added.” I will therefore ask the question as a note of warning: “How could we adopt any process of rtandirlisation and avoid falling within the definition of ‘skim milk cheese’ as understood by the legislature of Canada, and, indeed, by the large majority of the distributing trade and cons im -ig pub.de of England?” QAULITY MUST BE UPHELD The danger of having our cheese so stigmatised has been clearly expressed only recently by prominent buyers of our produce in Great Britain. These remarks are so well put by the chairman of directors of the Mangitoki Dairy Company that I take the liberty of quoting rather extensively from his last annual report: “The importance of quality has been emphasised by certain -gentlemen in the distributing trade in England, who had interviews with the directors during the year, and in seeking information regarding ways and means that might be adopted to overcome the undoubted losses that arise from manufacture of cheese from hightesting milk in the autumn, we have been cautioned that, should any scheme for overcoming these losses commend itself to us, we must first make sure that the good name of New Zealand cheese should not be prejudiced thereby. I fact, some of these gentlemen have gone further and have told us that,

rather than interfere with the present system, our endeavours should bo to obtain a premium for our cheese by advertising the quality. Standardteation of tests of milk for cheese-making baa been put forth as a remedy, but, although such a remedy may commend itself to us at this end, it is the effect that such a system, on bcca .jing known, would produce on the consumer to the detriment of our produce, that is the important factor; for, we are assured, were such a system to be adopted in New Zealand, our cheese would immediately be classed with a low priced, part skim cheese already offering in limited quantities on the English market.” We may take it, therefore, that the danger to the good name of our produce caused by the popular prtjuaice against te use of skim milk, even in against the use of skim milk, even in very limited quantities in conjunction with a very rich milk, is a real danger, Although I believe that, with proper scientific control over the application of the process and over tire final composition of the product, there is not the slightest foundation in fact for the prejudice, whether on the score of flavour, or body, or texture or food value.

I trust therefore that I have made it clear that I have an open mind, and that I shall welcome any feasible suggestion which is capable of remedying the present state of affairs without doing harm. I have the deepest concern for the welfare of the industry, and desire to evolve a state of affairs which will bring increasing prosperity to the producers. We have taken many years to arrive at our present position, and we must not imagine that conditions can be radically changed in a few days or weeks. Producers will bear in mind, that no attempt should be made to hustle their leaders into an ill-advised course of action, and that, if any changes are proposed and adopted, they will be the result of deep careful thinking coupled with accurate scientific experimenting, and that they will have as their objective the greatest ultimate benefit for the man on the land,