Taranaki Herald. THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 1909. MOISTURE IN BUTTER.

Taranaki Herald, Volume LV, Issue 13993, 26 August 1909, Page 2

Taranaki Herald. THURSDAY, AUGUST 26, 1909. MOISTURE IN BUTTER.

Whilst every credit must he given to the Department of Agriculture for its efforts to maintjiin the good name of New Zealand butter by endeavouring to prevent the export of any in which the amount of moisture contained is greater than the sixteen per cent, permitted by the law, some exception may be taken to the course of procedure followed in pursuance of this object. Those who have read the extracts we, published yesterday from a leading Loudon firm of produce dealers to their local representative ou this question of moisture in butter will not need any further explanation of the position at the other end, but to the uninitiated we may explain that sixteen per cent, having been fixed as' the maximum moisture permissible at Home, where the authorities take steps to refuse entry to butter which only slightly exceeds that percentage and to prosecute where the excess is oue or more per cent, over the maximum allowed, it is. rery essential for the credit of New Zealand's dairy industry that no attempt shall be made to place on the London market any of our butter which exceeds the limit of sixteen per cent. Last year the limit was frequently exceeded, hence the somewhat drastic measures now being taken ' by our Government to secure thjftt it shall, not occur again. The prosecution here, by not pressing for Tnore than a'nominal'penalty, mid the magistrate by inflicting only a small fine, quite rightly treated these offences as merely technical. The butter which, was the subject for prosecution ' in two cases was shown to have been of excellent quality when it reached London, and no complaint came from the purchasers there, while in the third case the moment it came to the knowledge of the exporters that the butter contained excessive moisture steps were" taken to intercept it before it left. Xew Zealand. Under the circumstances the fines were rightly only nominal, especially as the costs were fairly heavy. Admitting the desirability of preventing the export of excessively moist butter, however, it yet seems that two or three individuals, who apparently erred in all innocence, should be made to pay for advertising the existence of the law bearing on the subject. On the question whether it rests with an exporter to prove that his butter did not exceed the limit or with the prosecution to show that it did we have nothing to 6uy* that is for. the lawyers to argue and the court to decide. But there are two or three features of the cases which may be discussed lere. Of tke three cases the first was against an exporting firm, who purchased farmers' butter and were about to export it, after it had been graded, when they were notified at the last minute by the department that it contained excessive moisture. They took immediate steps to stop the export. They could do no more than that, nevertheless the department proceeded against them and the magistrate had no option but to fine them. In the second case the defendant was a farmer, owning a private registered dairy. His butter was graded first-class and realised the top market price. Yet six months later he is made a victim of the order that butter makers must be notified through the courts of the "\istence of the law. This farmer ami others like him are placed .it a disadvantage in that their output will not warrant them in putting in expensive refrigerating machinery <» in employing an analyst to examine their butter for moisture content. In the third case, the most legitimate of the three, perhaps, it was a factory company which was proceeded against, and there was less excuse to be offered, although the company's breach was apparently due to accident. Hut what we complain of if that these people should, for offences which were unwitting and of an exceedinly mild t\pe in themselves, be made e\.unples of for the sake of the industry. The object of the department — to advertise the regulations ttnd the determination to enforce them — might have been attained more effectively, more cheaply, and more equitably by an official notification to every re-

gistered factory in the dominion that after a given date every breach of the regulation would b» the subject of prosecution. This would be sufficient warning to makers and exporters that they must take steps to see that their butter did not contain excessive moisture. It is an anomaly that one official of the department should give a certificate that a certain box of butter is of the highest grade and that subsequently another should declare that it is unfit for export. One remedy that suggests itself to the layman is that the grader, whose experience probably enables him to detect at once whether the moisture content of butter is dangerously near or in excess of the limit, should refer all doubtful butters immediately to the analyst, to have the point determined at once. If it is found that a maker persists in overloading his butter then steps should be taken to enforce the regulation through the court. The only alternative to this, it seems to us, is that all exporters must employ an analyst to see that the Butter they handle does not contain excessive moisture. It is a matter of very great importance to this district, and it is necessary that some amendment of the regulations shall be made as early as possible.