THE LOWGARTH EXPERIMENT.

Taranaki Daily News, 25 August 1931, Page 13

THE LOWGARTH EXPERIMENT.

(To' the Editor.)

11 Sir,: —I have read with considerable interest the reports of the discussion at the Lowgarth factory annual meeting and the report of the summing-up of Mr. Lawrence on the question of high and low testing milk. I want to make my position quite clear on this matter. I do not want to renew the breed controversy; that is passed, and we have got to get down to tin tacks and do as Lowgarth is doing; do a bit of investigating for ourselves. In closing this part of the discussion I • might say that I consider the present unrest in the industry is primarily due to the stupid and damning statements made about th© industry by those within. J there-. ! fore welcome the true co-operation that ' this trial has apparently started upon, but I am puzzled by the report of the speech made by Mr. Johnson, in which :he is reported as saying that if the

• Jersey milk proved the best he would become a Jersey man, but if they were satisfied that their test was too high ami was therefore losing them money, he would expect all the suppliers to realise that fact. Just what did Mr. Johnson mean? Having put all the cards on the table himself, I take it he would expect the high testing men to do the : same, and as this trial will be very liberally quoted when it is all over, I ■ take the liberty of warning our good friends that if the trial conies out some-

what incomplete it may bring about dis- ’ ruplion within their factory and within . the industry. I am prompted to these remarks by the summing-up of the industry on the experiments at Tokaora, which was considered by the low-testing advocates a. very fair trial from their point of view, but what did the industry as a whole think of,it? Nothing, as far as visible results have since shown. I have read carefully Mr. Lawrence’s summing-up of the position, and, as the report states, he has given much study to the question from the high authorities. Now, I don’t know just who the high authorities arc, but consider the best guides to our operations and investigation are the annual reports of the yearly working of our own. factories dealing with millions of pounds of milk, working under every-day conditions. If ! we. do. that we will he on safer lines than' laboratory trials. But if we do that the findings are against the 'very full report of Mr. Lawrence so carefully - compiled. I will not go very fully into his figures, but shall just say that he suggests that the more fat.over a certain amount is no value from a cheesemaking point of view and is an economic waste. I trust Mr. Lawrence will not mind my suggesting this is quite a wrong summing up. You sell butterfat - as cheese because in the final table in the . report this gentleman suggests that the fat-cascin content milk combined should be paid for, and, moreover, his report clearly proves that if this combination was used as a, basis of payment the high-testing milk would produce the most money. And it is because of this

factor that the wide world value of milk is its butterfat content, and there is no other system at present in sight. May I suggest that no trial will ever be any real value to the industry until we take the economic value into consideration, and that is just where the high-testing milk comes in. The real value of milk from a cheese-making point of view is the amount of milk to make a pound of cheese, and we only pay on a butterfat basis because of its easy use. I will support this statement

uy uiawnig your readers arrenrion io this fact, quoting Lowgarth and Whitecliffs factories. It took 9.181 b. of milk at Lowgarth to make a pound of cheese • with a 4.21 test. It took only 8.691 b. of milk to make a pound of cheese at Whitecliffs with a 4.4 test, with the result that the Whitecliffs factory, situated 20 miles from the railway, with excessive price of fuel charges in comparison, is able to pay out equal to the Lowgarth factory, with twice the amount of milk received. Another factor I should like to point out, and why we. cannot pay on a pound of' milk basis, is the remarkable variations in the ’different workings at factories. They are little understood, I am afraid, and depend on the manager somewhat. It

took Lowgarth 9.181 b. of milk to a pound of cheese with a 4.21 test; 9.08 Hillsborough milk to a pound of cheese with 4.48 test; Bell Block, 9.23 milk, 4.38 test; Whitecliffs, 8.69 milk, 4.4 test. And so with the yields per pound fat. Another factor stressed by Mr. Lawrence is that low-testing cheese will absorb more moisture. This factor alone has too .much <1:0 s9,i;with the. deterioration of our cheese, but that good cheese .cap be t , high-, testing milk' is amply borne out, more

so than ever this year. The high-test, grading factory at Moturoa : this year had an average test of 4.7, and the figures, supplied by the Dairy Division to the chairman of the Beil Block factory amply prove that the higher testing milk of North Taranaki had 9.43 per eent. finest against the South Taranaki 2.3 finest. Bitt the greatest factor of all for us to study is the splendid set of figures produced for the first time this year by Mr. H. Baily, secretary of the Group Herd Testing Association, New Plymouth, in which ho shows that almost without exception (and contrary, to all previously accepted, ideas) the highest-testing cows had also the highest milking averages, and I am just, a little afraid this economic factor alone will counter any other conclusion our friends at Lowgarth may come to.— I am, etc.,

W. J. FREETH.

Ngahiwi, Pukearuhe