THE DAIRY INDUSTRY

Taranaki Daily News, 23 July 1929, Page 10

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY

STRATFORD CO-OP. COMPANY

THIRTY-FIFTH ANNUAL MEETING.

CHAIRMAN LOSES AT ELECTION.

A large number of shareholders assembled for the 35th annual meeting of the Stratford Farmers’ Co-operative Association, Ltd. (Stratford Dairy Co.) in the Stratford Town Hall yesterday. Mr. J. B. Richards (chairman of directors) presided. In moving the adoption of the report and balance-sheet (already published) the chairman advised that last year the payment in respect of butter was 18.06 d per lb., cheese 19.23 d, and casein 2.25 d. In connection with production, lie stated that 1,333,1051 b. of fat were supplied for butter-making. This increase of 82,1861 b. was equal to 6.5 per cent. For cheese manufacture 1,259,0451 b. fat were received, as against 1,156,0181 b., an increase of 103,0271 b., or 8.8 per cent. Oyer all there was an increase in production of 185,2131 b., equivalent to 7.7 per cent. From these figures it would be seen that the company had grown to large dimensions.

Tracing the growth in another direction, the chairman explained that in 1913-14 the total output of the company was 683 tons of butter. This year, if the output was represented in terms of butter for the sake of com-

parison, there would have been 1407 ions manufactured. Then there was an appreciable increase over last season, represented by 59 tons of butter and 131 tons of cheese.

The proof of good management in a dairy company lay in the cost of manuture. During* 1925-26 the cost to manufacture one lb. of butter was 1.63 d. The following year it dropped to 1.55 d, the next year‘to 1.41 d, and this year to 1.38 d. Such striking reductions in costs should appeal to .suppliers as highly satisfactory, and as evidence of good and careful management at the factories. The costs of manufacturing cheese had fallen from I.ooBd per lb. in 1925-26 to 0.987 d in 1926-27, 0.943 d the next year, and O.BBGd this year. COST OF MANUFACTURE. “As far as I can judge, we have about reached rock bottom in the matter of reducing manufacturing costs,” Mr. Richards said. . About two years ago the directors felt that costs* could reasonably be reduced, and their confidence had been borne out in - practice. Now, however, Mr. Richards did not wish to suggest that any further reductions of an appreciable nature could be looked for. Dealing with costs to f.o.b. which, it was explained, were based on lbs. of fat and not on lbs. of either cheese or butter, Mr. Richards mentioned that in 1926-27 the cost in butter manufacture was 2.55 d per lb. fat (not including the Control Board levy), and had fallen to 2.303 d (including the levy) in 1927-28 and to 2.24 d this year. It had to be remembered that there were influences outside the control of the directors that affected costs to f.o.b. For instance, apart from the levy, there was the harbour rate and freezing charges, the latter varying according to length of time the produce remained in store awaiting shipment. Under the circumstances the gradual reduction was extremely satisfactory. Similarly, the costs of cheese to f.o.b. had fallen from 3.51 d per lb. fat in 1926-27 to 3.24 d this year, last year being 3.43 d. Regarding the quality of the cpmnany’e produce the following figures relative to grading were read:— Cheese. —Total crates sent to Hie works 20,113, finest 4557 crates, or 22.6 per cent, of the total; first grade, 15,054 crates, or 74.8 per cent.; second grade, 502 crates, or 2.4 per cent. Whey butter.—Total at works, 1280 boxes. * First grade, 866 boxes, or 67.7 per cent.; second grade, 414 boxes, or 32.3 per cent. Creamery butter.—Total at works, 26,053 boxes; finest grade, 23,332 boxes, or 89.5 per cent.; first grade, 2721 boxes, or 10.4 per cent. Cream. —Finest, 85.4 per cent.; first grade, 13.91 per cent.; second grade, per cent. Cream testing under 35 per cent, fat, 3.80 per cent. “These figures will convince you that there has been a distinct advance in the quality of cheese at any rate,” said Mr. Richards. DISPOSAL OF OUTPUT. At last annual meeting, Mr. Richards recalled, shareholders had been asked to express an opinion as to the advisability of selling or consigning. Suppliers would remember his saying that there was a possibility of effecting a sale of cheese at 9£d up to the end of December, and, had half-a-dozen substantial shareholders expressed satisfaction with this price, no doubt the directorate would have prosecuted an effort to sell. Only one supplier, however, had spoken in favour of that policy, and the directors had not made a sale.

There had been no possibility of doing business in butter during the early pa”'t of the season at a satisfactory price. In August the directors passed a resolution that they would consider selling butter at Is 6d per lb. There were no offers at this figure, but for the December to May output an offer of Is 5Jd was received, which the directors turned down. Personally Mr. Richards had come to regret this action in view of the subsequent condition of the market.

At a later stage, an offer was received for a portion of the January and February shipments, but was not acceptable.

“I wanted to go fairly fully into the questions surrounding the disposal of our output, because of various rumours that have been floating arond blaming certain of the directors for failing to effect a sale at a good figure,” said the chairman.

He stated any matter concerning the disposal of produce had been the direct result of a majority decision of the di-'ctorate. f'o working account for butter