CORRESPONDENCE

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIII, Issue 20894, 25 November 1937, Page 4

CORRESPONDENCE

DAIRY POSITION IN SOUTH CANTERBURY To the Editor ol rhe fimaru Herald ’’ Sir, —After reading the comments of the various speakers at the last meeting of the South Canterbury Executive of the Farmers’ Union during a discussion on the dairy position in South Canterbury, I agree that Mr C. Ley’s remark, that there is not a single satisfied supplier in South Canterbury, is very near the mark. Mr W. H. Staniland’s explanation and previous explanations clear him entirely, but what we want to know is where the force is coming from? A few months ago a contract was let for milk for school children, but the authorities could not accept the recommended tender because the Ashburton Dairy Company felt that it could do better if tenders were called again. The Farmers’ Union described the Company as a monopoly. Where does the Company get the power to monopolise us and our wives and families who have to do the milking because of a starvation price in these times of ever-rising costs? I received my cheque to-day. It was Hid alb butter fat and no bonus as advertised to be paid out this month. Why? Is it because I am not a shareholder? According to Mr Nash’s statement the guaranteed price to the farmer should work out about 1/11. Who is getting the other 2d? Is it going to help pay for a monopoly, or is the big stick being used to compel us to buy shares in a Company that has lost the good opinion of many suppliers in South Canterbury? Time after time correspondents in your pages have asked this Company vital questions, but it prefers to play rabbit, feeling that it can do just as it likes. If Mr Dairyman does not like it he can either sell his cows and go on the unemployed or he can churn his butter at home and sell it on the local market. In the last few weeks I have read with interest the remarks of “Dairy Farmer” and “Billy Can” and others, and I would like to suggest to these men that we get together as soon as convenient and form a Dairymen's Association and thus collectively look after our own interests. Some years ago the Crown tenants were in a similar dilemma. The writer called them together and an association was formed, but not without some misplaced hostility on the part of some who should have backed us up. Anyway the Association won out. It managed to get things righted and today four of its foundation members, hold very responsible positions. Three are on the Land Board, and one is on the Rehabilitation Committee. Mr David Barnes, M.P. for Waitaki, is not a foundation member, but he joined up in the very early days of the movement and is now chairman of the Lands Committee in the House. I see no reason why a Dairymen’s Association run on similar lines could not do as good work. I lead rather a busy life but if there are others willing to help to do something for the dairymen, similar to what I did for the Crown tenants, would they please get in touch with me as soon as possible. I think the time is opportune to organise. I attach an outline of suggested objects for the Association. Other minds can add to them.—l am, etc., C. W. MARKHAM. Fairview Road, Timaru. November 23. [Enclosure] South Canterbury Dairymen’s Association, Inc., incorporated under the Incorporated Societies Act, 1908. 1. The name could be The South Canterbury Dairymen’s Association.

2. Suggestions regarding the objects of the association: (a) To foster the interests of all milk producers no matter whether it be town supply, cheese, or butter factory suppliers; (b) To try to revive the co-operative efforts of dairy farmers recognising that the dairy industry in New Zealand, in fact all over the world owes its very exLst-

ance to the co-operative efforts of the dairy farmers themselves; (c) The association to keep an ever vigilant watch on Government legislation as effecting the industry in any way, and to protest against all measures as are deemed to be injurious to any phase of our industry, protesting against such regulations which we feel are just fads, and no practical use to the industry; (d) To demand a price for our product in keeping with the costs of production, or the earliest possible reversion to a free market. In other words dairymen desire Government cooperative help as against the commandeer of their produce and the regimentation of all dairy farmers; in these days co-operative factories can be amalgamated and shareholders compelled to supply any factory the “Powers that Be" may deem fit. We believe that those best able to advise and control the dairy industry are those men and women who are actively engaged in the actual production of the milk; (e) Regrading of cream: We consider the present system both useless and unfair. Useless because first grade cream and under test cream make finest butter. Unfair because the supplier is often fined £d per lb butter fat when the fault lies with the factory not collecting the cream often enough, also carelessness after the cream leaves the farm. The cream should be graded before it is loaded on the lorry and comments given direct to the farmer to enable him to correct errors; (f) Testing: We stand for every day testing and if the farmer so desires, a check test bottle should be available to him so that he may have his sample tested by a fully qualified testing expert; (g) The association should from time to time cause to be elected committees to foster the special interests of the various departments of the dairy industry, towm supply, butter, cheese, also the bobby calf, and the pig industry or any other department that shall from time to time be deemed necessary in the interest/ of progress; (h) The association always to work in harmony and unison with all other agricultural bodies which exist for the encouragement and general improvement of the status and conditions of the man on the land.