SKIM-MILK v. WHEY.

Woodville Examiner, Volume XXV, Issue 4454, 17 January 1910, Page 2

SKIM-MILK v. WHEY.

TO THE EDITOR. Sib,— Mr Charmley is evidently a man of many parts. Once he says he minds his own business, and straightway pokes his nose into old cheese vats, and says someone stole someone else’s milk and water supply, like the whipped boy who howls when another takes his apple. Does it ever occur to our friend that it is always the crawler who loses his apple. The brave boy fights for it, and, if beaten, puts up with it. Now, Mr Charmley has a public duty to perform by blowing his own trumpet and getting a cheap advertisement for his bulls. The cheese people have been waiting patiently (as our friend started this racket by squirting whey at us, and we returned it by one in the eye) that Mr Charmley would think it his duty to shout for The Examinee staff for the fearful amount of work they did for us to shout handsomely (never mind the public duty), but as our friends’ pockets are tight while their tongues are loose we could for shame’s sake wait no longer, and so made up a guinea to buy a few bottles of—well, say printer’s ink, which (not the printer’s ink) please accept. As our friends of the skim milk persuasion are highly pleased with their butter and pig prospects (especially the latter), they no doubt will rush in now to outdo us and subscribe two or three guineas for The Examiner staff, and when Mr Charmley pays for that bull ad., why, Sir, vou will all be rich and happy and remember the milk and whey era ot Woodville for ever. But that public duty, Sir, I can’t get over that! Isn’t it | grand our friend working his eyei balls out for nothing. Another y time he tells old farmers when to I send pigs to market; another ' time how to get good herds of ; cattle, and showing what miserable scrubs some people keep, and he is specially sarcastic on me Here, Sir, the fun comes in, though, for if mine are scrubs, : what are his own ? Our friend owns Mr Hutching’s old bull, and I own seven of Mr Hutching’s heifers by that bull. Those heifers had calves by Mr Morley’s old purebred Jersey bull, and are in calf by him again. Then I have a purebred Jersey cow and heifer calf by a pedigree bull, and many of my 36 cows have a good dash of Jersey. So it looks if my herd are scrubs, Mr Charmley’s are scrubs too, and Mr Hutching’s as well. I milk all the yearround. Ten of mine are springing now for winter dairying, and last month I milked 25, which made the chubby little cheque of £33 18s 9d—test 3.7 and 3.8, and now 3.9. Not bad for scrubs, was it ? Mr Williams spoke pretty plainly of Mr Charmley’s cows, but he may have robbed the cows to pay the pigs. If the figures are correct, our friend should give that trumpet a rest. A neighbor of mine averaged £ll per cow last season on low tests, and expects to do better this season, especially if that fat bonus cheque_ comes along, which no doubt it will. By the way, our friend keeps a discreet silence about his majestic pig cheques just now. That report in The Examiner of the meeting at Kiritaki was a bit of a snorter for our pig friends. What does the farmer get for pigs, and what does the company make? If Mr Charmley went to Australia, like I came to New Zealand a few years ago, how would he start a good herd of cows ?—by breeding evidently from nothing, for where would his cows be, and if he wanted good ones he must pay for them. Of course, 1 can breed them now, and do so, and did twenty years ago, when I paid as high as forty guineas for a purobredbull. I must have been thought a fair judge, too, when they got me to act as judge for dairy stock. To prove it is not merely blow, I will be pleased to judge a dairy cow or bull by points against Mr Charmley at our next Show, if he chooses.—l am, etc..

H. A. Roseneeldt. [Mr Rosenfeldt’s cheque has come to hand, but we haven’t the haziest notion what to do with it. —Ed. Ex.]; TO THE EDITOR. Sir, —It was not my intention to again write you on the above question. Unfortunately, these discussions, instead of having the desired effect of drawing opinions from the farming community, often lead to personal reflections by the writers on each other. A new Goliath has entered the field under the name of E. Wil--1 Hams. His only excuse for doing , so is that the discussion has not ■ been confined to the waste product of dairy factories. Firstly— He champions Mr Rosenfeldt’s figures as accurate. Secondly— He flatly contradicts Messrs Wright and Charmley’s veracity, Thirdly—He extols his own virtues as a cheese-maker, and his intention to lick creation by his results in Woodville. Fourthly— He attributes to Messrs Charmley, Wright and Brown knowledge they have certainly not asserted in any of ttyeir correspondence, viz,, the price cheese ynll fetch on the English market. Fifthly—He in r troduces a factory's balance-sheet for the past six years, and on top of this asserts that the suppliers to this factory realised from their bye-product values not far behind Mr Charmley’s figures, which figures, however, he previously asserted were the veriest moonshine. Sixthly—He tells qs about Carterton as a cheese centre. Surely, Mr Editor, this is quite a I

new subject? Seventhly—He pcK's on to state the worst cows at Dalefield are better than the best in Woodville, but his authority, the expert tester of the Association, does not uphold this view in the reports published so far. Eighthly —He harps on land values here, and deplores its low values compared with the Wairarapa. As our best lands here are selling from £BO to £B6 per acre, I don’t think the district would benefit by any rise in value without produce, also corresponded by enhanced prices. Ninethly —He deplores the pessimistic spirit of the inhabitants, and in spite of warnings by old-timers, determines to sacrifice himself for the benefit of Woodville, and the salvation of the district. Lastly—He informs us the cheese factory has come to stay and to grow. I am not aware that anyone has written anything about it one way or the other. Except that on one occasion someone interested predicted the early demise of e/ery other dairy institution except the one he represented, and as the creameries were to be the defunct, I presume the writer’s interests lay in cheese. Finally—As to my previous assertion re the average milk taken to make 2|lbs cheese, I append the figures of the following factories, 1908-1909, taken, from the New Zealand Dairyman: Riversdale, 10.351bs milk to lib of cheese ; Merrivale, 10.33; Kaponga, 9.94; Tariki, 9.80; Dalefield, 9.80; Parkvale. 10.70.

That .Mr Williams’ efforts last year went better is pleasing to note, and that this year he intends improving on his last year’s figures will be of material interest to those concerned. One small grain of information bearing on the subject matter of discussion I glean from Mr Williams’ letter, viz., that many of the best cows at Dalefield were reared on whey with a little meal. Probably the worst were reared on skim - milk. If whey has the effect of producing the best cows, we may look to some improvement in the herds of Woodville in the near future.

Wishing butter, cheese, whey and skim-milk a very prosperous 1910,1 waive my adieu with thanks to the Editor for his insertions of my letters,—l am, etc., W. Brown, Maharahara, Jan. 13.