FACTORS IN CHEESE YIELD

Taranaki Daily News, 24 July 1929, Page 10

FACTORS IN CHEESE YIELD

STATEMENTS CRITICISED HIGH PERCENTAGES CRITICISED MR. J. B. RICHARDS' ARGUMENTS. Cheese yields and their relation to production of output figured largely in 'the annual address given by Air. j. B. Richards, last year’s chairman of the Stratford Co-operative Dairy Company at Monday’s annual meeting. “Suppliers,” said Air. Richards, “would remember that two years ago the directors commenced investigations into the vital question of yield. On his taking the chair, it was obvious to him either that the management did not know its business or else other dairy companies were getting away’ with something. It seemed to the speaker that on the face of it suppliers were losing from Id to 14d per lb of fat supplied in the low yield secured by the company. He felt that if he could rectify that condition he would be doing something worth while. In the preliminary phases of the investigation he could not believe “that everyone was out of step but our Jock,” that other high yielding companies were right, and that the Stratford company was wrong, and the fact that other companies were securing yields that enabled them to pay out l£d more per lb than Stratford gave rise to serious consideration. At the first meeting of directors at which he presided he told the general manager that he was not pleased with the yield. The manager replied that a better yield was not in the milk. The directors followed the matter up, and all sorts of analyses were made month after month. INFLUENCE OF SKIMMING. About this time the speaker was appointed to the executive of the Federation of Dairy Companies, and at each meeting he used to ask other members how their companies managed to get a 2.7 yield. “I got some weak and washy replies,” ho said. “I was told that it was done by skimming, and was so impressed by the emphasis placed on this process that I came home like a dog with a bone. Subsequently I found that the bone had no meat on it. “At the Wellington conference I ventured to suggest that the question of cheese yield was one of the most important matters affecting this industry, and asked if there were one man present who could tell me how to get a 2.7 yield from milk testing over 4 per cent. There was silence, but the conference practically admitted that big yields were an impossibility.” UNANSWERABLE ARGUMENTS. Still following the matter up and exploring various avenues, Mr. Richarus said that he came to the conclusion that after all “most were out of step but our Jock.” Finally, he took up that line of argument, which he had placed before the industry in the Daily News. He thought his arguments contained therein unanswerable. It was simply that the fat that went out of the factory came from suppliers’ milk. If it could be proved what proportion of fat went out of the factory and balance that figure with what came in, a pretty good line would be obtained oii the operations of any particular factory. Speaking to factory managers at Patea, Mr. Gwillam, of the Dairy Division of the Department of Agriculture, stated that months of cheeking. had shown that an average of 35.6 per cent, of fat only was contained in cheese passing through the stores. The amount of fat in cheese was thus given, and it only remained to discover the losses. It was perfectly clear from the Tokaora experiments, and from other investigations, that fat losses in cheese manufacture were not less than 9 per cent. A comparison of various dairy company balance-sheets showed that the Stratford company was short crediting its suppliers to the extent of .9 per cent, of the fat actually supplied, while other companies ranged upwards to .9 per cent. Individual percentage of short crediting coincided in each case with the yield obtained. MANAGERS ENDORSE OPINION. In another column of figures he imagined that the percentage short credited at Stratford was the same as other companies, and the result showed that in no case then, would the variation in yield exceed .01 per cent. “I thought it desirable that these facts and figures should be published and those supplieis who have followed the matter will remember that the first effort to disci edit fhc figures came from the chairman of the Eltham Company, who said his fat losses were only 7 per cent.” ..However, it was perfectly obvious from the Eltham company’s balance-sheet that fat losses on three items alone amounted to 8.13 per cent., and finally Mr. White admitted losses up to 9.4 per cent. It was then unnecessary for the speaker to prosecute the controversy any further. His contentious could not be ig nored and, in the main, the ideas set out in Mr. P. 0. Veale’s latest report were the same as the speaker’s own. Factory managers met in Hawera to discuss that report with Air. Veale, and passed a resolution in agreement with the views expressed therein. The position now was instead of only “our Jock being in step” there was the scientist and all factory managers agreeing with Jock. “I make bold to say that the day of the big yield is past, ’ he said. EXAGGERATED CLAIMS. Air. Richards then turned his attention to the question of over-run in butter manufacture, challenging the published statement that a certain company had legitimately secured an overrun of 25.126 per cent. Butter, he said, was required by regulation to contain not less than 80. per cent, of fat. This meant that out of 801bs of fat, providing none was wasted in butter-milk or°left sticking to churns and vats, 100 lbs of buter could be made. Hence, on the over-run claimed by the certain company, 801bs of fat would make 125.1261 b of butter, which was absurd.

“Without being irreverent Mr. Richaids claimed that the miracle of the loaves and fishes was no more a miracle than an over-run of 25.126 per cent. ’ This sort of thing is annoying. Here is the Dairy Division allowing a statement o this nature to pass unchallenged, and the ordinary supplier may be forgiven for accepting the possibility of such an over-run, when uncontradicted statements like this appear in the Press. “Further than that, skimming has been going on for years, and I am satisfied in my own mind that it must have been within the knowledge of the Dairy Division that some of the huge yields claimed by individual companies were impossible. “Wliy has the Dairy Division not said so?” he asked.