PRICE OF MILK

Taranaki Daily News, 4 June 1934, Page 8

PRICE OF MILK

ENGLISH FARMERS COMPLAIN CONTROL SCHEME. MR. T. BAXTER HECKLED. The arbitrators’ award fixing the summer price of milk in England at Is a gallon has raised a storm of protest on the part of the producers concerned. The recently organised Milk Board has also shared in the criticism. Indignation meetings have been held in many of the counties concerned, and at Newport, in Monmouthshire, the chairman of the Milk Board, Mr. T. Baxter, was shouted down. Mr. Baxter is' known to New Zealand producers, as he visited the Dominion last year in connection with the dairy produce quota proposals. In Hampshire the board was criticised for the “weak way” in which it put forward the case for the producer during the arbitration proceedings. Voices were raised in argument and protest at a Newport meeting of Monmouthshire milk producers, called to protest against the summer price of milk fixed at one shilling a gallon by the arbitrators, reports a recent issue of “The Farmer and Stock Breeder. Interruptions at one stage grew so general and frequent that Mr. Baxter, raising his voice in order that it could be heard above the hubbub, declared: “Judging by the way you dre questioning me, you may think that I am some official from London. I am a farmer, exactly like yourselves. I have never had the slightest interest in any other business. My father and grandfather were farmers; you are not shouting and screeching at an official, but at a man like yourselves, who is trying his level best to improve the conditions of farmers in general. I am not even a paid man. Ever since the milk marketing scheme was passed I have left my home on Monday morning, usually getting home late on Friday night. I think some " ~ou at th back are inclined to think that I am a paid official and that you have the right to shout at me.” ADVICE TO PRODUCERS. “I know many of you are up in arms against the results of the scheme,” continued Mr. Baxter, “but I am going to ask you to stand by the scheme . . Several voices: No. Throw it out. i Ir. Baxter: Well, what is th; alternative to throwing it out? A number of voices greeted this coun-ter-query; one raised above the rest declear “You don’t want any marketing board at all.” Mr. Baxter: You have to get your member of Parliament to do that, and you haven’t got a dog’s chance of getting the House of Commons to do' anything in that regard unless you are prepared to regulate the product at home. I can only advise you to stand by the scheme and by the Farmers’ Union, nationally and in the county until the powers-that-be give the board more powers. Voices: They let us down. Mr. Baxter: I agree. The appointed persons (the arbitrators), in fixing this price, have let us down. A voice: The milk board did that. “A LEAP IN THE DARK. ' Mr. Baxter: The milk board have not done it. I have told you what the board tried to get. But it was taken out of the milk board’s hands. What we have to do is to ~et more power for the milk board so that it an have the fixing of prices. . • While Mr. Baxter was answering a series of written questions at the end a producer pointed out that there had been “some talk of starting depots to take the surplus milk from the large towns.” Mr. Baxter: The scheme started only in October last, and you expect factories to be up in November. We are levying a farthing per gallon to pay for these things, and part of that is for administration. Strong criticism of the' board was voiced at the annual dinner of the Nidderdale (Yorkshire) Farmers’ Union branch. Mr. R. W. Addison, chairman of the West Riding County branch, said that from his experience the scheme was a failure. It was only by a small majority that the West Riding executive decided to recommend their members to give it a trial, an 1 he wac never more surprised in his life than when 95 per cent, of farmers voted for the scheme. He had been led to believe that farmers desired some degree of seurity, yet none could say but that the scheme was a leap in the dark. “END IT, OR MEND IT.” Mr. Addison criticised the board for failing to take action against delinquents. As it was at present, the scheme was unworkable. So far as the West Regional Committee was concerned, it had been nothing but a farce. It certainly had no power, but sat in an advisory capacity, and the outcome of its advice was such that it might as well never have met. Unless the regions were given more power, and the board took into consideration the varying costs of production between one part of England and another, the scheme was no good to them. Major Hills, M.P., said there were two ways of dealing with the scheme —end it or mend it. In his view the latter course was the better. Much criticism of the milk board has been voiced in Kent. One result was that the villagers of Chartham, close to Canterbury, were supplied for several days with free milk. This was due to the action of Messrs. Nethersole and Champion, of Burnt House Farm, who decided it was useless to carry qn their production with the new prices. It was decided, therefore, to cease operations and to sell the herd . _ over 30 dairy cows. Before the day of the sale the milk was given away to those who chose to take it. SALE OF HERD. Messrs. Nethersole and Champion have sent about 100 gallons daily to Canterbury for several years. “In March we were selling at Is 2d per gallon,” Mr. Champion said. “Then the arbitrate, s took off and with transit and other expenses we were left with only about Is. Now we find that we shall only have 9d or lOd left, and we have proved it cannot be done at f s price. ' We acted as we did as a protest against the scheme, and if it is not altered you will see similar happenings all over the country.” When the sale was held bidding was slow. Cows for which the partners paid £2B to 30 in the autumn fetched only £l2 to £l4. The feeling is expressed throughout the country that if something is not done immediately to better the position of the producer the scheme must collapse.