DIFFERENTIAL PAYMENTS

Taranaki Daily News, 27 May 1933, Page 9

DIFFERENTIAL PAYMENTS

WHEY BUTTER AND QUOTAS DEFINING FACTORY DISTRICTS. NEED TO MAINTAIN QUALITY. FARMERS’ UNION DISCUSSION. Differential payments on butter-fat, the need for defining dairy districts by law, prohibition of export of whey butter, and quotas were ajnong matters affecting the dairy industry that were discussed at the annual conference of the North Taranaki executive of the Farmers’ Union yesterday. The opinion was expressed that quality must be maintained. DIFFERENTIAL PAYMENTS. “That the Dairy Act be amended so that all differential payments on butterfat shall be on a percentage basis to conform with the reduced prices now received for butter-fat,” was a remit submitted by the Okoke branch. The mover stated that the half-penny deduction when butter-fat Was about eighteen pence per pound represented a very small percentage reduction as compared with to-day, when some factories were advancing as low as 2Jd per pound. In that case a half-penny represented 40 per cent. The quality had improved as the result of the half-penny reduction in the higher price. Speakers stressed the necessity for doing anything that would have the effect of improving the quality of the raw material, which it was recognised must be kept at a high standard. Mr. J. Browning (Tariki) pointed out that under the regulations a supplier had to keep the water at a certain temperature. With tank water it was impossible to keep at the required temperature, and many farmers could not afford to put down a bore. He held that the fund derived from the penalty should be utilised to assist suppliers to improve the quality raw material. Mr. Sorenson said that quality must be kept as high as possible, so he saw no objection to the imposition of the penalty as far as cream was concerned, because that was graded on the senses when received at the factory. With milk, however, it was different, as that was graded only once every ten days by mechanical tests, and according to the grade on that day the whole ten days’ milk was graded; This might inflict a hardship. Mr. M. Davis said that if he thought the method of grading was perfect he would hot worry,, but at present there was a grave doubt as to the accuracy of the grading methods. He strongly favoured the. motion. There was a difference between milk and cream. Mr. J. H. Paulger (Tikorangi) said that with milk the grading was on a senses test plus a mechanical test. He had no objection to a penny differential payment between first and second, as they did not want the- second. Mr. Clemow said that if the fund were utilised to. assist men whose produce was not up to the mark, it would be practically a premium for farmers not to effect improvements themselves. Mr. A. E. Devine said that the halfpenny deduction when butter-fat was Is 6d per pound caused the quality to improve so much that less than one per cent, of second grade was supplied. The remit was carried. DEFINING DAIRY. DISTRICTS. That each dairy company’s district be defined by law, was another suggestion made. Moving the remit Mr. J. B. Carr (Okau)’ said that such a scheme would eliminate all competition, and would result in considerable improvement in quality. If districts were defined a supplier would have the option of supplying either a butter or a cheese factory. If something were not done it would not be long before they would have farm dairy instructors introduced throughout New Zealand, which would cost at least £22,000. Boundaries would eliminate the dissatisfied supplier. Mr. Butt (Uruti) said such a scheme would assist managers in dealing with their suppliers. Mr. W. Hall (Huirangi) said that under the new regulations a supplier could not change his factory during the season. Mr. J. M. Bryant (Mokau-Awakino) said that his directors had regarded suppliers not as inspectors but as friends, and as a result the quality of the cream supplied had improved. Mr. W. F. Phillips (Waitoitoi) supported the remit. Mr. N. B. Fletcher (Huiroa) said that the remit if carried would create difficulties in backblocks districts, where there were no factories and the cream was forwarded by train to various factories. Mr. W. J. Maloney (Omata) said that there would be hardship and difficulty in enforcing the scheme in districts where there was only a cheese factory, and small farmers wished to send cream to a butter factory. Mr. R. B. Sutton (Inglewood) said that at present the only bit of freedom the farmer had was the right of deciding where he would take his milk or cream. He suggested amalgamation of factories. Mr. J. H. Paulger Said that if put into effect the position would bristle with difficulties. It would, moreover, tie a farmer up to the one factory for ever. Mr. E. Hellier (Lepperton) pointed out that it would entail hardship to compel farmers who had taken up shares in one factory to face the additional expense of joining another factory. Mr. W. T. McCaw (Kaimata) said that the Farmers’ Union was opposed to the bolstering up of industries that could not support themselves, so he did not see that they could consistently support the remit. The remit was lost by a considerable majority. EXPORT OF WHEY BUTTER. “That the Government be again asked to prohibit the export of whey and second grade butter” was moved by Mr. A. Busing (Mangorei), who stressed the necessity for the whole industry to pull together in such an important matter, even though it might appear at first sight that it would prove detrimental to the interest of a section of the industry. Mr. B. A. Richmond (Midhirst) in seconding said that if the Government stopped the export of anything but the finest butter and cheese they would satisfy the British consumer. Dairy factory directors would do the rest. He pointed out that at present second grade raw material could be made up into first grade produce, and vice versa. Quality was what was required, and would do away with the necessity for a quota. Mr. W. J. Maloney held that it was in the interests of the cheese people to have the export of whey butter stopped as the prices of cheese and butter rose and fell in sympathy.

Mr. M. Davis pointed out that whey butter was a subsidiary industry of cheese manufacture, and if controlled properly would help the industry. If its manufacture was stopped, there was a danger that the cheese people might turn over to the manufacture of butter. They must therefore be careful not to do anything that would have a boomerang effect. Whey butter should certainly be controlled, but not prohibited. He quite agreed that second grade butter should

not be exported, as it should not be made. Mr. k L. D. Hickford (Okato) said that cheese factories would certainly oppose the remit, as there was a definite market at Home for whey butter, which did not come into competition with other butters. What was it intended to do with the whey butter otherwise? He pointed out that his factory manufactured £3OOO worth of whey butter last year. Mr. C. H. Sorrenson said that whey butter was a big asset to New Zealand. If its export was prohibited, the English pastry maker . would not use creamery New Zealand butter in its place. Denmark used a lot of margarine at home, so that it might export its butter. Mr. Paulger took exception to margarine being exempted from the operations of the sales tax. He thought steps should be taken to replace some of that margarine with whey butter. The president said that, the graziers were interested in margarine, as it was made out of fat;

Mr. Clemow said that whey butter was now handled by one firm in England and came only to a small degree into competition with other New Zealand butter. Moreover when it did it realised within 2s or 3s of the best creamery butter. Mr. Betts said that if whey butter were clearly marked it would not interfere at all with creamery butter. The remit was lost.

“That any restriction on the export of dairy produce from the Dominion should be strenuously opposed until every other avenue has been explored,” was the text of a remit moved by Mr. Hall, who said that his branch was strongly opposed to the introduction of any quota. He reminded farmers that only one-third of the quantity of fertiliser was being used this year, and that would bring about a contraction in output. This was seconded by Mr. M. T. Trotter and carried. “This branch strongly opposes the introduction of the quota or such like system unless pressure is brought to bear, and then such quota to apply to second grade and whey butters,”' was moved by Mr. A. Busing (Mangorei), and was carried after an amendment by Mr. Trotter that the words whey butter be struck out had been defeated.