CHEESE STANDARDISATION.

Putaruru Press, Volume IV, Issue 148, 2 September 1926, Page 6

CHEESE STANDARDISATION.

NEED FOR REFORM. Demand and the Law. Just why human beings try several wrong ways of attaining an objective ' before striking the right. one is a psychological problem that has not yet I been solved, and the fact remains that ' although the finding- of the right way ! usually involves no more expenditure | of mental energy than does the folI lowing of wrong methods, man generally takes several fallacious courses j first. This preliminary general asj sertion applies to the particular case | in which Taranalci dairying men are seeking to remedy the surplus of fat in cheese by finding out, by experiment with various breeds of cows, whether there is a specially good cheese producer a breed of cow wliose milk is particularly suitable for cheese making. Experts differ widely on the point, no greater proof of which divergence of opinion is needed than the fact that the experiment referred to has been deemed worth while. The peculiar disabilities under which the cheese producers are labouring are solely due to well-inten-I tioned faults in the present legislation governing export cheese. The Act, although merely requiring that there shall be a minimum of 50 per ! cent of fat in the dry matter, that is, , th ' finished cheese, nevertheless also ! stipulates that there shall be no ex- j i traction of fat, even though the cheese j fat content may exceed the require- ' merits by seven or eight per cent, so that in a sense the Act is a contra- I dictory measure. From out of I these two restrictions two factors p-rise, both of which are detrimental to the industry, and one of them actually prejudicing the consumer against a quality of cheese that is superior in fat content. As the satisfaction of the consumer is in the last analysis by far the more importi ant consideration, since no amount of scheming can ultimately compensate for a dissatisfied consumer, that point commands priority of statement. Those whose business it is to retail the cheese to the consumers at Home tell us that the public do not want a cheese that has too high a fat content, a firm cheese being in demand, and it is impossible to secure a firm cheese when the percentage of fat is above a certain figure. In fact, it is well known that cheese made in countries where the New Zealand restrictions do not apply, and have a far content greatly below the minij mum permitted in this Dominion, brings just as high a price in the United Kingdom as does the seemingly superior New Zealand article, proving conclusively that our standard is not approved of by the most important people concerned—the consumers. This is a matter warranting very serious consideration, following by active measures, such as will be referred to hereunder. The second major factor is that the cheese producers are forced practically to throw away valuable butter-fat, since the percentage over 50 at the outside is not wanted; indeed, as shown above, the inclusion of this extra amount of fat is worse in its effect than if it were thrown to the pigs, for it would - at least be of some value in that direction, whereas its presence spoils the quality from the point of view of the consumers’ taste. Under a rational system this valuable fat would be extracted and passed over to the butter-making department, and in the form of butter it would realise about Is 6d per lb, as against only half that sum in the form of cheese—over-fat-ted cheese at that. Estimating this loss to dairymen, it would probably not be exaggerating to say that, in a high-testing average of milk supplied to a factory, the difference would be about lid per lb on the out- | put. V/hat the recovery of this amount would mean the individual suppliers may arrive at by a very short and simple calculation. Over the whole of the Dominion the total would assume colossal proportions. For a factory like Matamata, the difference in value would be about £4500 per annum. The Taranaki folk, as stated above, are going to “ try out ” the various breeds, of cows, and when they have done that, should one or two breeds be favoured, it will mean that many suppliers will require either to change their herds or the companies they are supplying; either alteration would be costly and quite impracticable in most instances, on account of agreements and other considerations familiar to those engaged in the dairying industry. (Continued in Next Column.)

The obvious way out is to secure a modification of the legislation relative to the manufacture of cheese, for the whole problem would be solved by a simple amendment to the Act, reducing the fat percentage necessary for export cheese, and permitting the extraction of the surplus fat for buttermaking. This could he done to the improvement of the product and if there is no logical objection to be raised. That the cheese producers should continue to lose the surplus fat content, up to 7 or S per cent, is sheer lunacy, a palpable case of good intentions run mad.

Producers must, however, bear in mind that none will help those who do not seek to help themselves. Let them hold meetings and pass resolutions, calling upon their respective members of Parliament to demand an amendment of the . offending legislation. They have a just and sensible cause, and one which, if and when given effect to, must benefit the consumers in the markets abroad, the suppliers to cheese factories in this Dominion and consequently the tradespeople and general community. The cheese suppliers have a clear case, and it is incumbent upon them, in the interests of all parties directly or indirectly concerned, to bestir themselves and take strong, definite and persistent action. —Matamata Record.