mm MAKING

Hokitika Guardian, 6 October 1928, Page 6

mm MAKING

■'■ ~... •• •. ; HIGH iV: LOW. ‘ ■■ ■ ' ;.v ' . v '' . - H .-- \ . ./.• ~ r “~' ' • SO>p. ECONOMIC FACTORS. *' ' . - v . . ■ |V; / *• ; - - During *‘an .address. at . New Ply- - mouth • ori Sjepteipber, 21', Mt, ,E\ J • FaVecett:, farm, economist of the Department of Agriculture, touched, on the; question of' high v. low, testing jriilk- for ■ cheese-making. the , outset. Mr Fawcett said he had no personal interests in. the different breeds other • than from a

purely analytical , viewpoint. Milk, of course, was. the raw material used, in the manufacture and the cheese was the - finished product. This being so, the milk, value had to be assessed and butter- fat was accepted, as, th,e basis fbr„ thus -purposed At the. same time it- was. qnly an arbitrary , method of arriving- at the. .value of, the. milk for oheese-making 'purposes, Whether it was a. fair method or not- did not concern, at .the present time. American' and Oanadiap. authorities believed, that it was.

There were certain/ statements which might be made in reference to breeds but he „didcrot, wish to introduce such a, discussion. The; only way to compare breeds, if they must be,- compared, .-where, milk, was.- devoted ‘ to cheese was to. discover the net rethfn./to. the., farmer per unit of capi-tal-outlay, 1 after capital, production, manufacturing, distribution and marketing expenses had been deducted. iCJonstant. conditions over all breeds were. necessary, if., such a test be made, and- tests- would.have to be conducted under. different sets of conditions to determine the. breed- most suitable under. differeAt environments. All costfe&must. he related to chsese, and not to butter fat. ~

“The question of what type of animal shall be usecl. to convert grass in.fco cheese must be studied from the viewpoint of production, manufacturing and. marketing costs, maintenance of capital outlay being given due-consideration,” said Mr Fawcett. “The. breqd of; cows commonly used in New Zealand for the conversionof grassr y.intp cheese, are Jersey, Shorthorn, Friesian and Ayrshire, and these represented the typically high and low butter fat content animal. Tak'ing?'vthh. pureb'reds of these.: particular Foebds/. :(itad they 1 would have noticed that ..the discu'ssion; which had taken place had been between purebreds), they, would find that the C.O.R. tests since 1912.. showed that the averageJerseys was, 515 per : cent.: Shorthorn 4.02. per cent, Friesian 13.52: per cent, and Ayrshire 4.09 per cent.. The statement that milk of a low; test, would give more cheese per lb of :.LbnttOT v fat/Was^qitite- : i;ight>.it —had' \h een proved time after time, but there was alsn. another statement which was quite true, so much so that a standard had been. accepted for it. and --that was ' that high testing milk would.-‘give A; greater amount of cheese per lOO.lbs than would, low testing milk. The .standard (an American one) which had been adopted was as folteVsFrTfiFep' per-bent ' milk; 8.31 b of cheese ; ; per ; 1001 b milk; 3.5 per cent milk < '9,451b of, cheese, per IOOWj milk.; *4'.per cent milk, 10.61 b of cheese per; .IQOlb imiikf-'A.S per cent milk, 11.751 b: of cheese per 1001 b milk; 5 per cent , milk, 12.91 b. of cheese per 1001 b milk: 5:5 per cent mills, 14.051 b of cheeseper 1001 b milk. ' .

‘‘lf -all breeds produced the same amount of milk per cow, the breed having;>the highest test would be thet Tbest to use, provided food consumption were equal and the grade of cheese resulting was not affected; detrimentally. But we know that alt hpeedsf :do .Wot 'produce the same amount of milk per cow, and that ‘the feed'consumed By different breeds in the production of 1001 b of milk Varies- : also. Coming back to the CfO.'lfc-tests we find that the Jerseys produced on an average 80221bs of milk, Shorthorns 10,8091b5, Friesian-} 13,4391b5, arid Ayrsliires 10,6521b5:. Convert that into cheese and you will; fiiid that the - Jerseys produced' equal! to 112718 s of cheese per cow, Shorthorns II4f>lBs; Friesian 12701bs and| Ayrshire lloSlbs. And now we- come; to the crux of the whole question,; ■and that is the food* consumption of; ' food* per cow per libs of mi Ik Con.: but; ter Unfortunately we have no. data?;/.{fhicli (v-gijyps 'the// ‘ fconsumption.j and'- so We have' to go to our friends; the Americans. Acording to the Jersey .j'|JtiHej;ip-tof ; ' September 26, 1923,1 tarried out at St. Louis; h toi determine the lbs of food consumed! per lb of cheese produced, and it was shown -that Friesians consumed 17 per cent more feed for the same ‘atnoirrit pf- cheese than- did Jerseys. : Itf' i ”'#Wulcl’ .appear that . Friesians will, produce 1&7 J per cent imore cheese per animal than will: the Jersey, but this is-more than compensat-■ed‘--f6f ' irp the ’ fact ; that. the; Friesi an consumes 31'.7 per cent more food: par head than /dhes, .-.the . Jersey. This givestthe- .Jersey a clear 14.5-iper cent better utilisation ■ of food than the Friesian'l\fr -Fa-wcett stressfed the fact that these were American experiments arid, that?; be did not know the toffdJtions ’surrounding the tests, but according to,, results quoted the carrying ' capacity, of a- given* area of iequal quality and equally wolf managed land is' therefore in the ratio of 6ls*Jterseys to Friesians; or, 7325 to 63501 b of cheese, showing an advantage’ to the- Jerseys o-f 9751bs from the sairie area, on the figures quoted. •Another little- point he would like to rffeiitidn ‘was the manufacturing co'sts. Jf ‘ ode 'factory was receiving wholly

high testing milk then its costs would <not; be so great as another factory dealing, wholly with low. testing milk because 40.3 per cent moro bulk of Friesian milk would require to be handled to produce the same amount of clieese compared with Jerseys. Shrinkage was another matter. Ho found'that in the season 1926-27 clieese manufactured from milk testing lower than 4 per cent, the average shrinkage was 3.16 per cent, whereas the cheese made from milk testing over 4 per cent, was 2.95. From 55 factories in Taranaki 41 of them in the 1926-27’ season gave the. average test of their milk at from 3;9 to 4.1. There was not, one factory had a test above 4.4 for that particular year. The grading results , wore the highest in the case of 12 factories which had. an average tost of 4.1 and tnose with an average of 4.2 and, 4.3 also produced a higher grade cheese than any of those with a test below 4.1.

In conclusion Mr Fawcet said it would appear that our. reputation has been-built up on service and quality. It did not seem- practicable to make high grade cheese from either very high or very low grade milk. For 55 cheese factories in- Taranaki during the. 1926-27 season, the highest average; test was. 4.4 per cent, b.f. (It was:appreciated that this was-an average test and did; not* indicate the monthly, variations). It would appear, therefore, that no factory was wholly supplied with all high or all low testing; imilk, but that a mixture had been used. So long as a farmer had the herd! which suited him and suited his land, the . mixture resulting from mixed herds, would appear to be sound for making purposes under present 'conditions. Therefore a breed controversy was not warranted, as the quality, of our cheese is not affected detrimentally.