MILK FOR CHEEBE.

Waikato Times, Volume 110, Issue 18433, 14 September 1931, Page 9

MILK FOR CHEEBE.

(To the Editor.) Sir, —"Common Sense” In his reply to my letter of August 29, dealing with economy of feeding suggests that I am quoting from “ancient history." Nothing of the sort. The results of "feeding tests” quoted by me from Canada and the United; States ai#3 the latest and most thorough investigations carried out there. “Common Sense” asks for further .particulars regarding the 'Canadian test. Here are extracts from the official report:—"ln the Canadian feeding trials the number In each herd was: low testing breed 24 cows; high testing breed 13 cows. The average profit per cow over' the cost of feed consumed during the whole lactation period was: Low testing breed 130 dollars 33 cents (£27 3s Oid); high testing breed 88 dollars 86 cents (£lB 10s 3d).” The official'report states: “Tho high testing herd is Improved in quality but reduced in size as compared to last year. 4 The improvement has been brought about by rigid culling.” May I quote another feeding test carried ‘out in January, 1929, and based on a 7-day test or 14 milkings, at Newell, under the control of the South Dakota.. State College, United States: The three top cows were all of the “white milk” lower-testing breeds with profits of 4 dollars 26 cents, 3 dollars 47 cents, and 3 dollars 36 cents, over the cost of feed consumed. The best of the high testing breed occupied 9th .position with a profit of only 2 dollars 39 cents. . Butterfat producers: The Government official returns for 1930 show that the following first class certificates of record were issued: High testing breed 508 certificates, average production 466.781 b. fat; low testing breed 96 certificates, average production 528.041 b. fat. “Common Sense” Is sorely beset when he has to take less than one-fifth of the production records of the high testing breed to get a better average production than the whole of the records of the lowertesting breeds. I recommend "Common Sense’s” method to our New Zealand cricketers —let.them discard their low scores and base their averages on their high scores only. "Common Sense” surely has original Ideas on averages.

For information regarding the use of large breed bulls on tho smaller breed cows, I will refer “Common Sense" to the manager of the Piri Land Company, Orini: "For years past we have used large breed pedigreo bulls on grade high testing cows, and at no time has there been any calving trouble”; to Mr Henry Jolly, WaiukU, who has used large breed pedigree bulls for the past 20 years on grade high testing cowls with no calving trouble. I can give “Common Senso" any number of similar reports if ho so desires.

“Common Sense" quotes that “authoritative agricultural paper, The Dairyfarmor," on the question of payment for milk for human consumption in Ontario, Canada. Does “Common Sense” realise that milk for human consumption does not mean milk for cheese-making? And does he realise that the method of payment quoted by him pays a premium on the butterfat content of the lower testing milk? Payment on the basis of a standard price per 1001 b, for 3.4 p.c.-milk with additions ior deduction*! of .1 Iccnts (2d), for each one-tenth of one per cent* of fat above or below' 3.4 per cent gives the following payment per lb. of butlerfat, tho value of the milk being taken as 9d per gallon: 3.0 per cent milk, 27.3 d per lb. fat; 3.4 per cent milk, 20.4 cl per lb fat; 4.0 per cent milk, 25.5 d per lb fat; 4.5 per cent milk, 24.8 d per lb fat; 5.0 per cent milk, 24. id per 11). fat; 5.5 per cent milk, 24.0 d per lb. fat, —i.e., a premium of 3.3 d per lb. fat is paid for 3 per cent milk as compared with 5.5 per cent milk. I strongly advise “Common Sense" to lake a course in elementary arithmetic. There is an old saying that a man's greatest enemies are those of his own household, and

I would, therefore strongly warn "Comman Sense" to beware of the bull and the dairyfarmer. “Common Sense" goes to a great deal.of trouble in quoting authorities to show that casein is not of equal value to butterfat In cheese, and he assumes that the “white milk," lower testing milk suppliers are , asking that payment for milk for cheese-making ■should be made on a butterfat plus casein basis. That is not so—the method of payment they approve is the one recommended by Mr P. O. Veale. According to this scheme, the butterfat testing is retained, and production in terms of butterfat Is figured exactly as at present. The ratio of casein to fat is determined for each supplier, but is used not to modify the amount of production, but to produce a differential price for each supplier. Thus low testing suppliers having a high oaseln ratio In their milk would receive a higher price per lb. of butterfat In to the superior cheese-yielding oapaclty of their milk per pound of butterfat. For those suppliers whose casein ratio was the same as the factory average, the method would be identical with the “straight butterfat" method of payment, while those whose casein ratio fell below the factory average would be paid a proportionally smaller price per pound of butterfat. Accordingly the different suppliers are paid prices which vary according to the yielding oapaclty of their butterfat as follows: Low testing breed: Gasein-fat ratio, 0.69, payment per lb butterfat, 18.52 d x 69/65 equals 18.52 x 1.06. High testing breed: 'Casein-fat ratio, 0.59, payment per lb. butterfat, 18.52 d x 59/65, equals 18.52 x 0.91. Factory average: Casein-fat ratio, 0.65. The “pay-out” given in the final column would cause the following premium and deduction: low testing breed: Premium 18.52 d x .06, equals l.lid per lb. butterfat. High testing'breed: Deduction 18.52 d x .09 equals 1.66 d per lb. butterfat. Accordingly payments for September would be figured as follows: Low testing breed: Butterfat, 2164.81 b. , Payment (2164.81 b. at 18.52 d per lb.), £167 Is; premium (2164.81 b. at l.lid per lb), £lO 0s 2d—£l77 Is 2d. High, testing breed: Butterfat, 1628.31 b. Payment (1628.31 b. at 18.52 d per lb), £l2ss 13s Id. Deduction (1628:31b. at 1.66 d per lb), £ll 5s 2d.—£114 7s lid. The following statement compares the payments by three methods. The figures are calculated on the milk supplied to the Tokaora cheese faotory, Hawera, September, 1927, during the research work carried out by Mr Veale: Quantity of butterfat supplied, low testing breed . 2164.81 b. high testing breed 1628.31 b; payment solely on a butterfat basis, low testing breed £ 167 Is, high testing breed, 1 £125 13s Id; payment on the total I butterfat and casein content, low test- I lng breed £l7l 7s 4d, high testing ! breed £l2O 17s 2d; payment according . to P. O. Veale's suggested.method, i.e.j On the butterfat basis with additions ’ or deductions based on the casein-fat ratio, low testing breed £177 Is 2d, high testing breed £ll4 7s lid; actual realisations from - oheese for September, low testing breed £177 3s lid, ; high testing breed £lls Is 6|d. The lower testing “white milk" breeds ask that payment for milk for oheese-making should be based on the value of the milk for that purpose. Payment on the butterfat basis for butter- making is a perfectly equitable system, but payment solely on a but- . terfat basls. for cheese-making Is In- | equitable. It will be seen that by Mr Veale’s method the actual payment ( for milk corresponds almost exactly with the value of the cheese made from the milk.—l am, etc., J. P. KALAUGHER. September 10, 1931.