BUTTER PRODUCTION.

Taranaki Daily News, 4 June 1918, Page 3

BUTTER PRODUCTION.

| LOSS ON LOCAL SUPOMES. SEMOUiS POSITION I'O'K FACTORIES. Wellington, May 31. The dairying season having ended, a correspondent got into touch with representatives of the butter producers who are supplying the New Zealand market, with a view to finding -ut whether any arrangement was fixed between the exporters and local suppliers to bear jointly any losses caused through having to provide for the New Zealand consumption at a lower price than that obtained for export to England. No arrangement lias been effected, and the producers for the New Zealand market consider that tftie arrangement—or lack of arrangement, as they prefer to put it—has meant a loss to them of close on half a million sterling. This appears to be really a- small matter compared with the situation the local-production factories are faced with in competition with factories taking supplies for cheese. The latter give the suppliers so much more for their butter-fat that it is evident that the industry is faced with a problem which must be settled before next season, if production is to go on smoothtly. Comparing their position with that of factories supplying the Imperial Government. the local factories in the Dominion show that during last season they have licen nt a disadvantage of fivepence per pound. It is worked out in the following way:—British control price, f.o.b. New Zealand, Is 10d. New Zealand local price, Is sd.

This difference of fivepnnce ia estimated on a local consumption of 10,000 tons, to amount to £400,660. It is also pointed out that, although the New Zealand free on board price was Is lOd. tlie English wholesale price was 2s 3d, and the retail price 2s Od- Where does the difference go? Those who are in the trade have, of course, an exact idea of the cost of landing butter in London, and they state that, allowing for the profits, discounts, and charges of transport, handling, and insurance, the landed price is 208s per ewt, or Is 10d per lb. There is a promise to divide up lmlf the surplus, but as the Government has made no mention of results yet, the-(producers are hoping that tlie National Government leaders will give tlhe matter prompt attention when they are in London. If there is a divisible surplus, the local supplier will he at a still greater disadvantage. The return from cheese supplied to the Imperial Government last season resulted in an average payment to the producer of 2s per pound for his butterfat. The return to the supplier whose butterfat went to make butter for t'he New Zealand market was Is 5Jd. Is the supplier of local factories likely to continue to send milk to these factories when lie can get O'/jd per pound more for butterfat when made into cheese This is a proiblem which has to be settled, and its existence shows, at all events, that, compared with other lines of primary production, at least one section of the farming; community is not as well treated as the majority of the others. It .has been suggested that the plan of the Canadian Government would remove the anomalies of the situation. Mr. Ruddick, Canadian Dairy Commissioner, has written to New Zealand nt&ting that the Dairy Produce Commission v/bicli has ibeen making purchases in Canada for the Imperial Government has fixed the price of first-grade ohceae at 23 cents per pound. It then proceeded, with this as a basis, to fix prices of sffher butter-fat products—condensed milk, butter, and cheese. "The object in view," states the Commissioner, "is to secure such a parity of prices that no unfair competition will arise between the manufacturers of condensed milk and the manufacturers of cheese to secure the patronage of dairy fanners."