QUALITY OF CHEESE.

Putaruru Press, Volume VIII, Issue 355, 11 September 1930, Page 6

QUALITY OF CHEESE.

EFFECT OF SEASON

Standardisation Not To Blaine,

The abnormal growth of grass last season was blamed by the manager of the Norfolk Dairy Company, Mr. A. 11. Meharry, for the fall in the grading of cheese in New Zealand, when asked for his views at the annual meeting of the company

on Thursday. “ I don’t attach any special blame to standardisation. 1 think the fault is mostly due to the exceptional 1 growth of grass,” said Mr. Meharry. I “ The decline in quality was due to circumstances over which there is no control on the farm or in the factory. There is no doubt cur quality did slip last year, but it was due to the abnormal season. That is what I put it down to.” The chairman of directors, Mr. S. A. Ferguson, formerly a member of the Dairy Control Board, said a large -quantity of modified cheese weiit on the Home market last year. The London manager of the Control Board reported that it should not be allowed to go on to the market, as it was creating an impression among buyers that factories were doing something with the milk which was not right. There was no objection to the standardised cheese, but modified milk cheese might be anything and it was having a detrimental effect on New Zealand produce. Mr. Singleton found the same thing when he visited Britain. The export of modified cheese had now been prohibited. Asked why so much modified cheese should have been made in the Auckland province, Mr. Meharry said three companies in the Waikato were practically wholly responsible. These companies were influenced by competition for suppliers and tried to make a large output.

Mr. W. F. Stark said suppliers were trying to produce best quality milk, but it was no use if the factories were going to make such a

large amount of poor quality cheese. There must be concerted effort in the factory and on the farm. Mr. Ferguson said modified cheese was not as bad for the reputation of ■-he industry as openness in cheese, i which was caused by the race for yield between competing companies. As to the effect of standardisation, he understood that standardised cheese was as popular with consum- | ers as whole milk cheese. Well- j made standardised cheese was equal 1 to the best full-milk cheese. It was 1 not branded as “ standardised,” but • as “ guaranteed to contain not less ! than 50 per cent butter-fat.” Mr. S. S. Fagan: Seme of those i articles in the paper condemning | i standardisation are merely propa- 1 i ganda. 1 A Member : But if you get j a glass of whiskey that is half water it does not tickle your throat the same. (Laughter). • Mr. Meharry: Admittedly the j quality of our cheese slipped back i last season, and the merchants at | Home have blamed standardisation I for this. j Mr. C. Stevenson, cheese instructor ‘of the Department of Agriculture, i was asked for his views. He said the latest reports were that Home buy- | ers were not keen on standarised i cheese, but he would not like to say | that standardisation had affected the I quality. Officers of the Department ; had made standardised cheese at a factory near Palmerston North, and shipped it Home without telling anyone it was standardised, and it had graded and sold well. “ There is no doubt in my mind that the ‘ rac.e for yield ’ is the cause of so much openness in cheese,” he added. “ You cannot get these abnormal yields and a good quality cheese as well.” Mr. Ferguson said he noted that Mr. P. O. Veale, the Hawera dairy scientist, had advised the use of lowtesting breeds of cattle, but the question was whether it would pay farmers to change over from their present Jersey herds to low-testing herds. He thought they should first of all improve the quality of their milk by grading and greater cleanliness.