BUTTER OR CHEESE ?

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 82, 3 April 1912, Page 6

BUTTER OR CHEESE ?

STRATFORD VOTES FOR BUTTER

Continuing his remarks at the meeting of shareholders yesterday the chairman, Mr Dingle, said that there were promises of big possibilities in the casein business, and perhaps in a year or two they would have firms offering to buy their skim milk • right out on ,a 2d per lb basis, and that would be worth for. Tie pointed out that 1 cwt of cheese could 'bo made from 451 b of butter fat, and even from less, on account of the moisture content being greatly increased now, whilst it took 97-Jlb of butter fat to make 1121 b of butter. On this basis, if cheese went up a shilling a cwt butter should go rip two shillings a cwt. When prices were falling cheese came down two shillings, for ever} shilling in butter, and then the clieescpicture: was not nearly so promising. He had seen it somewhere- that there was going to be a difference of 5d per lb l in favour of cheese between cheese-making and butter-making results. Others thought there would be a difference of probably 4d. For himself he did not know. But he pointed out that a gain of Id per lb of butter fat on the quantity supplied to this company meant a gain of £4678. A gain of 2d, £9736; 3d, about £14,000; and 4d, over £IB,OOO. It was claimed by the cheese advocates that the whey butter and starter butter would pay the whole cost of manufacture. He would not advocate making cheese a£ the small creameries. Cheese plants could be put iu at the larger creameries', and the cheese made and put in the hoops there and sent to the main curing room. Th necessary plant would cost about £12,000. Depreciation and all charges up to f.o.b. New Plymouth or Wellington would be 2d per lb fat. Then there were selling charges, freight, and insurance amounting to 9s a cwt. As to the mode of financing, this was very easy in the companies which had just changed tc cheese. Following-on-those lines, the basis of shares in this company, namely, one for every IGOlb of butter fat supplied, would be lowered to, say. 801bs. per share. Thus they would have- to take up extra shares and so much per lb. probably a ■ half-penny would be, deducted till they were'paid off.: • • . '

Mr Fustier read figures showing the approximate relative prices which would bo paid to suppliers for butter fat by butter and cheese companies, as follows

It was pointed out that in the case of Mangatoki there was differentiation between cheese and butter suppliers. The basis would have to be fixed here before the- cheese making commenced. lAi shareholder, on being informed of Mr Burgess’ experience that, with an extra expenditure of 5s per head ho could raise as good calves on whey as on. skim • milk, exclaimed “What rot! He can’t do it.” The Chairman: Several farmers have.had the same experience, and the stock inspectors -who have been Inoculating calves say the whey calves and the skim-milk calves differ very little.

(In answer to ,a question, toe cnairmail said profits of butter and cheese would always he pooled. T bus when cheese was “up,” and, butter

“down,” the butter-making, suppliers would be helped 3 and vice versa. io a further question, he said he was not going to compare cheese and butter prospects, but was inclined to favour those of cheese.

Mr S. J. Rawles moved that the company continue butter-making for the incoming .season.

Mr T. Webb seconded. If the casein business came off, they would bo better off with butter than cheese, taking the by-products into consideration. He urged his fellow-sharehold-ers to consider the matter of ealf-fced-ing and the relative values of skimmilk and whey/ Ho did not put much reliance on the statement that for 5s a head extra he could rear as good calves on whey as on skimmilk.

Mr Sangster thought land supplying cheese companies brought more than that feeding butter factories. Ho suggested that butter could be made at the beginning and end of the season. In answer to a question, Mr Dingle said the creameries would not lie converted into cheese factories. The latter would he erected intact, and the creameries would deal with the whey, butter, etc. The "Chairman said he was not as keenly opposed as he had been to cheese-making. But there was the casein business to consider. He did not favour allowing one creamery to ■\ make choose unless its suppliers desired—it was a co-operative concern, and they should stick together. Mr Mnrfell referred to the danger of dis-nnion if there were a big portion of the shareholders in favour of cheese. He hoped the “cheese people” would apeak out now, and accept the verdict of the meeting. Mr Wore moved an amendment to defer decision for a fortnight. Mr Steer seconded. The remainder of the discussion concerned calves and their feeding. The amendment was lost, and the t motion carried unanimously. Mr A. Brown, chairman of directors of the Midhirst Co-operative Dairy Company, who was present by invitation, said he claimed the chairman had not touched on one question.

Should cheese prices fall, then the ratio of the cost of production had to ■bo considered. Cheese at -15 s a cwt. cost 2d per 11) to manufacture, just as it did when worth 72s a cwt. Shipping charges were also heavy oil cheese. He could not see how choose was going to continue so much higher than butter. It would be determined by the amount of margarine made in the Old Country. He bad no sympathy for the proposal to erect dual plants, for as likely as not the com-, pany would be making butter when cheese would pay better, and cheese when they should be making butter. There would be as much difficulty in deciding which to make as there warnow in deciding how to market. As for casein, many people were of opinion that there was a big industry to be built up, for the uses of casein were multiplying rapidly. It was a fact that there were comparatively few centres for casein manufacture on account of the home separation vogue, of course, used all the casein in the milk. Casein was manufacture and was not a proposition for the cheese districts or home-separator districts, nor in districts such as Warea, Okato. and others where carriage was costly. This was one of the few big districts in which whole milk was being delivered in large quantities, and where there, were good freight facilities. He was of the opinion that-butter companies should hold on as they were going, and see what came of the casein business. It looked as if there was going to he a monopoly in casein production and this district was well situated to take advantage of it.

Mr Dingle pointed out that the charges after the butter left Now Zealand were 9s a cwt. for cheese, and 11s for butter.

Mr E. Marfell said there, was a danger of some shareholders leaving the company if the motion was carried. That difficulty could possibly bo: overcome. The fact remained that this season cheese had been a better proposition for the producer than butter. He considered that the cheese market would hold its own better than butter.

If there were strong cheese advocates at the meeting, let them speak now, or else, “for ever after hold their peace.”

Oj Qi 05 Ot CO '■+— 1 -<i O CO wcomcQwai t t t» • .London Price i* 1— 1 h-* 1-* H- 1 1— 1 i— * O H- 1 j-*-03 rf*. Crt i.-s b bo ix to O OJ 05 B 03 Should pay for butterfat H I- 1 H H H H O H H (O (O M OO J- 1 O « 05 t/3 ■ W g3 ■ &5 {/3 c« > Butter London Price p p 111 £ to S Should pay tS; °° t~j 2 £g ® fox- butterfat