ELECTRICITY FOR FARM USE.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIII, Issue 4464, 8 September 1922, Page 3

ELECTRICITY FOR FARM USE.

—,— KEROSENE AND ELECTRICITY. comparative prices. AS IT AFFECTS DAIRYMEN. At last month’s meeting of the Thames Valley Electric Power Board mention was made by a dairy farmer that his running costs for using a kerosene engine to operate his milking plant were considerably less than would be the case were he to install electricity. Board members, thougn not prepared at the moment to contradict the statement, expressed the opinion that the advantages of using electric power more than outweighed any slight difference in the actual costs. Since then opinions have been expressed, through the medium of the press and in conversations with dairy farmers, that the difference was too great to ijiduce many dairymen to sign up for electric supply. At Tuesday’s meeting of the Power Board the following informative report on the subject was made by the manager-secretary, Mr R. Sprague. It has been stated that the Board’s power charges for milking machine motors jn certain cases compare unfavourably with the cost of running an oil engine, and one ips.tance has been cited where a farmer using kerbsene was able to do his milking for the season for. about £l7 whereas the Board’s charge for this work would amount tp about £3O. This farmer has been interviewed, apd the following figures obtained from him are as near .as he can estimate: Forty weeks’ running at ope tin of kerosene per week at 8s 6d; £l7 per annum. Lubricating oils, 6 gallons at 8s , £2 8s per .annum. Engine repairs, piston rings, 103 per annum. Cleaning, 2 hours a month at Is 6d; £1 7s per annum. Methylated spirits for heating burner, Is per month; 9s per annum. Starting time, 1 hour per week at Is 6d; £3 per annum. Cartage, say, £1 per annum. Grand total,. £25 14 s per annum. This engine has been well looked .after and is particularly light in operating expenses, which,'however, is far from being the gejiera]. rule. In spite of the apparent extra cost of electricity this paticular farmer has no .wish tp go back again tp the o’l engine. In most cases it. has, been proved that electricity supplied .under the Board's schedule charges compares? than favourably with the totaJl Cost of operating oil engines, and in many cases considerable savings have been effected. In addition the farmer has the advantage of light in the house at very reasonable rates, and the monetary value Of .this convenience c,an hardly be assessed. Investigations in a large number cf cases ip the Board’s area indicate the post of milking by electricity at. the Board’s present rates is approximately about 75 per cent, of the cost of milking by oil engine. Convenience and cleanliness are two very important items upon which it is difficult to set values, and this is where the electric motor is preeminent. If butter-fat is to be graded superfine cleanliness in the milking ■shed is absolutely essential In more than one case ip the Board’s area the consumer has obtained superfine grade for his butter-fat since installing an electric motor, where previously he did nbt obtain better than first-class when using an oil engine. The difference in payment by the dairy companies is %d per lb in favour of superfine as against first-class. In fixing the charges for power for these plants two points had to be considered: fl) Rate charged by the Public Works Department for power purchased from them. (2) Capital and maintenance charges on the reticulation and equipment. The power required to run a; 2 h.p. motor, .such as is used on milking plants, is purchased by the Board from the Public Works Department at a cost of about £2O per annum. The Board retails this power to the farmer at a minimum rate of £2l per annum up to a production of 70001 b of butterfat, equivalent to a herd of, say, from 30 to 40 cows. An additional charge of l-3d per lb is made on each Oib of butter-fat above 70001 b per annum. The farmer who has only a much smaller herd can take advantage of one of the selfcontained plants, now * on the market, for which the Board has a minimum charge of £7 per annum. , It is only because all loads do hot come on at the same time that the Board' is able tp supply .farmers at very little more than the rate which the Board has tp pay the Public Works Department, and if is this diversity of loads which pays capital and overhead charges on the Board's /‘lines and equipment, .and looses in transmission and distribution. Capital charges form the greater proportion of the total charges, and the greater number of consumers connected to the mains the less the capital charges will amount to per head and the sooner can any reduction be made in the price of electricity. It is therefore in the farmers’ own interests that‘they obtain power as soon as it is available, and the response which the farmers in the Thames Valley area have made indicates that they appreciate this point. COMMENT BY BOARD MEMBERS. The chairman said he was perfectly satisfied that the average farmer could not get as good results as the one quoted by using kerosene. Mr Thomas asked if the farmer quoted had extra assistance in his shed, thus enabling him to hand-mihe a 'large proportion of his herd. Mr Flatt said the report summed the matter up very clearly, and it should be published in fairness to the Board. Adverse reports had been published broadcast. Mr McCormick said that if the farmer had approximately 100 cows he must have a six-cow plant. Mr Robinson said for 68 cows be averaged one tin of Laurel kerosene per week with a 3 h.p. engine. His engine was a very economical type. The

isc of electric power improved ‘.he quality of cream as against dairies using kerosene engines. Mr Anderson said there was co need to worry, as there yere far more applications for power for milking plants than could be supplied promptly. The chairman said he hoped users would keep accurate recor.ds. Mr McCormick commented that the farmer quoted was an exceptional case,