WHEY BUTTER.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1488, 10 July 1912, Page 8

WHEY BUTTER.

TARATAHI CO. UNFAVOURABLE TO

The question of whether or not a whey butter plant should be installed was discussed by the shareholders and suppliers of the Taratahi Dairy Co. last week, Mr. AW. Fisher presiding over a gathering numbering some ,twenty-five persons. The chairman pointed out to the meeting that whey separation was no longer an experiment. The Kaupokonni Company—a company ten or twelve times the size of their own—pronounced it an unqualified success, and this year had netted .£4OOO from v.'hev separation, and an additional .£2OOO from the'skimming of'the starter. Ivaponga factory had had two years with a similar proportionate profit. Several smaller factories had also installed plants with success. He had'figured out the ■position very carefully on this season's milk supply, arid on the Dairy Commissioner's methods of calculation, which, according to Ivaponga and Kaupokonni returns considerably under-estimated the profits, ho considered that, the Taratahi returns from .wliey. butter for this season would have, been about .£375 at !)d. per lb., or „£166 at lOd. per lb. • The. extra annual expense in connection with separation would be at the outside .£IOO to ,£llO, the difference between that, sum and the net return from sales being actual profit for the suppliers. Replying to a question as to the effect of the separation on the feeding finalities of the whey, the chairman said he had made very particular inquiries on this point from both. Kaupokomii and Kapnnga factories, and he had been assured oil every hand that the whey suffered nothing from the process. In his ompion it would probably bo depreciated in fe?diug value- a little, but the answer to this was that butter-fat was no* the cheapest article to feed pigs on, and that a shilling's wnrth of wheat would go much farther than a shilling's worth of butter. Mr. Chas. Reid seconded the motion. He had read' a good deal of whey semiration, and he was thoroughly convinced that there was money ill it. Mr. Alfred Daysh spoke strongly against the motion. They had gone in for pigrearing. and were making a success of it. The butter in the whey which they ■proposed It extract-was the chief-feeding property of the whey, and if they decided to separate (lie whey, they might as well throw the residue, down the drain, for if they continued to feed their pigs on it thev -would moke a very grave mistake. Their niV-rcaring scheme would be ruined, and their outlay on nlant lost. He minted extracts from a, letter, from Mr. Ellison, the National Dairy Association representative in London, which he (the speaker) construed to mean.that whey butter had not been a success. The chairman considered ■ 9d. to be about the price they would net. whereas he (Mr. Davsh) considered they would be lucky to get fid.,-and lose their piggery profits to set it.

Mr. R. Sevmour considered* the time was premature for installing a whey separating plant. Let them stick to their nigs, keen their expenses down, turn nut a pood chese. and thev would be doin«? a tjoorl thin? for their suppliers. Wh?v butter might he a good price at present, because hoth butter and cheeso were at such an abnormal price. The conditions at. Home were responsible for this. Peonle would buy whey, butter and margarine because creamery butter was too expensive. Let the. prices decline, and where would the whey butter and margarine be? They would be unsaleable. Mr. AV. B. Allen also spoke against tho prnnosal. The motion was nut. to tho meeting, and lost, only five of those present voting in favour of it.