THE DAIRY INDUSTRY.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LVII, Issue 219, 23 February 1915, Page 3

THE DAIRY INDUSTRY.

PLEA FUR ELAL CO-OPEEATIOX. To Hip Editor. '[ Sir,—The item re tin- quality of the | Moa factory butter appearing in the | [ News recently should set dairy men all , over t'ne province thinking, and thinking deeply! How is it that the whole' of Tarauaki's produce is not included in the encomium thus given to an individual concern. Is there nothing to lie gained for the producer in having thr output of the whole province deemed irreproachable? Will such an improvement ever be attained under the present system, and would not the amalgamation of butter fxetori'.'!} rvm't ir. the attainment of sttch a desirabilityWhen I wrote former articles on this matter, one of the arguments used against the proposal was that cream could not be carted any distance: that the supply of cream from, dut-stations would be a detriment to the uniformity I claimed the amalgamation would bring about, and although T quoted evidence of the Taieri concern, and the big Auckland business, an element of doubt still clung to the minds of the scoffers. The Moa is a concern that runs several creameries, the cream bcitf c-rted per horse teams to the f'"' 1 ' " ! yet the manager (more pc can produce. an article that is denied irreproachable in the stiffest market possible. If that isn't a knock-out to the cream cartage contention, what is it? llo'.v can uniformity in quality of butter oe brought about Mulder {he present svxtem? Further, is not the amalgamation of the butter factories Into one big concern the only means? Will some of our "crack" directors or others who have the interest of the industry at heart, and who on every occasion possible advance all sorts of reasons for improvement. come out now and tell the public that the scheme I advance for the betterment of til:> industry and o? resultant benefit to the producer is other than I claim it to 1>»? Will they tel' the public that if. is not possiW" of accomplishment. and win - ? Will th?v show the producers th' lJ ill" salaries ';f factory managers en being reduced to the status of a creamery manager will not save a heai) of moiw straight away and put the labor problem of the butter industry on a firm and secure basis? Will thev show that the upkeep of skimming stations (or. if you will, cream receiving stations) compared with that of big factory buildings will not result in thousands being saved? Will they deny that tin* establishment ~f central works would save hundreds in fuel, in office expenses, and in wear and tear of machinery? Is it because so many directors will lose a little "picking." or the chairmen their annual tips and emoluments that we have the "hang tire" position? And. if these things result in saving, the benefit must go to the producer. I liken the dairy industry, in one sense, to that of a business man who put up with a ramshackle building : n the early days and as businers grew and the town grew, kept addin!.' until it was found that the upkeep of the structure ate up the profits, and it was thought best to pull the whole show down and erect up-to-date premises with every modern convenience and room for extension. That is the position of the dairy industry at the present time: there is nothing satisfactory abov.t the structure—the producers are constantly finding fault, first at one factory, then at another; the "pay-out" doesn't compare favorably with the other fellow's concern and a consequent migration ensues; the tests are umniisfnetorv at times, and of a consequence producers, because there is an element of doubt, are disheartened, and bring dissatisfied and'disheartened is not of a benefit to the industry as a whole. Amalgamation, ■villi tin- inevitable inde-'endent- t,"st. ; ng.! depend upon it, would settle that matter, wouldn't if? Then, again, the manager is thought too strict, and suppliers go to choc*" or some other fni>!«srv —and so on. Talk about encouragim: the dairy farmer, where does ii re?ne iv? The fuel bill of a factory en''- down to creamery running must result in saving. and as in a few years coal will have to take the place of wood, this item must be seriously considered. Under amalgamation, the fuel land >1 straight at the works practically, and the cost split up over such a large quantity handled ' under one roof will lie correspondingly lightened to all—is that not so? We have at present under the name co-operation a number of factory companies. We find others cutting tip miles of road through passing the nearest factory for some paltry reason or other. The,-., is no stability, no pull together, and yet it is called co-operation. Under amalgamation with its consequent improvements all such j trivial affairs would come to an end, j and a satisfied, willing-to-extend-all-wavs producer be evolved. The produce now going out under a diversity of brands would go as "Taranaki." and the best dairying province south of the lin ' would conic into its own, and that will i never eventuate under anything else but amalgamation and concentration. Ui conclusion, I might say that the contention as to butter applies with equal force the bacon industry. The nroducer is not- going to get all flirt,'shou'd eorne to him until he g, J s and concentration at «... p () r!, and the sooner he starts about the matter the better for the present and future well-be-ing of those on tlie land as well as the province and the country g r, n rally. 'We have to produce cheaper, and at the same time the best possible article, else substitutes for our produce will take Mich a hold that the small farmer country will have to adont other user., n:id the po-itien 1,1,* flt may Mlit all the idd-timers who have the idea that co-operation rs it is at nresent is perfection, but we must advance the same as other businesses do, and to i no the matter for a'l titer rml put the industry mi a (inn basis can only b» done V.- th" adopt inn of the method I advocate.- 1 am. etc.. is. SIMI'SOX, Durham road.