MANGOREI DAIRY COMPANY.

Taranaki Daily News, 19 August 1921, Page 8

MANGOREI DAIRY COMPANY.

THE ANNUAL MEETING. PAST SEASON S WORKING. The annua! meeting of the Mangorei Dairy Company was held yesterday, when there was an attendance of about 180 shareholders. Mr. A. Morton (chairman of directors) presided. The directors’ report stated: The quantities of milk and cream received, and the figures in connection therewith are set out hereunder, the two previous years figures being also given. Milk received: 1921, 11,487.7421ba: 1920, 11,648,4251b5; 1919, 11,486,5691b5. Butter-fat contents: 448,9201b5; 461,9261b5; 458,7761b5. Average test of milk: 3.9 per cent.: 3.96 per cent.; 3.99 per cent. Cream received: 366,4741b5; 332,630b5; 353,9G7lbs. Butterfat contents: 132,3131h5; 122,7801b5; 132,5471b5. Average test of cream : 36.1 per cent.; 36.91 per cent.: 37.4 per cent. Rutter made: 688,1671b5: 687,0311b5; 695,145 |bs. Over-run: 18.39 per cent.; 17.5 per cent.; 17.51 per cent. Lbs of milk to each lb butter; 22.01; 21.79; 21.61. During the year £64,587 Ss fid has been paid to suppliers, being equal to 26.GG pence per lb of butterfat. The sum of £369 has been wrtiten uff for depreciation, and out of the balance in band it is proposed to pay 4d per lb on all butterfat supplied during the year, such payment to be made on August 18, and to make a further payment equal to not less than 516 d as soon as a final settlement in relation to the Government subsidy on local butter sales has been obtained.

On the credit side the trading account in the balance-sheet showed a total from butter gales, stock and buttermilk sales, of £84,631 Is Id. Payments for milk amounted to £64,587 Ss 9d; wages and salaries, £2191 16s 6d; working expenses (boxes, cartage, fuel, etc.), £3503 2s 9d. The balance carried to profit and loss was £14,348 13s Id. Management expenses were £2552 Ils: export charges £664 5s sd; balance available for payment to suppliers, £10,913 18s fid. j In moving the adoption of the report and balance-sheet the chairman reviewed affairs in connection with the dairying industry generally. Touching on the working of the company he said that expenses in certain directions had increased considerably, but they were in a very good financial position, and thoroughly satisfactory in this respect. The motion was seconded by Mr. Frank Mundt. In reply to a question the chairman said they had only reached 15.39 per cent, in overrun uow, which was a good figure compared with many other factories. HOME SEPARATION SUPPLIERS. Mr. Baxter asked why the company did not pay out an extra farthing per lb to home separation suppliers. The chairman replied that so far the directors had not decided to do so. If they were going to reduce the expenses by offering a premium to cream suppliers he was quite willing to do so. If they could close one or two creameries it would be a z good proposition, but so long as the working expenses remained the same ho could not ! see the advisability of adopting the course mentioned. Another shareholder said he thought the chairman had missed the point: the question was not as to whether they should offer a premium for home separation, but whether justice was going to be done to the present suppliers. He thought they were being '‘milked” for the benefit of the whole company. Air R. W. I). Robertson said it seemed that this question of home separation was becoming a burning one as far as tin*, company was concerned. He said he had made investigations as to what was being done in other districts. He quoted a factory in the Marton district whose cost of gathering the cream was .55d per ib. That was what might be regarded as the cost of running their creameries. On the other hand, the Mangorei Company's creameries had cost at the lowest 1 2-5 d per lb. There was an extra IVid for the suppliers if they went in for home separation. Mr. Robertson put forward further figures, and said that his enquiries had elicited that the cost at another factory was 2-3(1 for cream collection. Companies adopting this policy were also holding their own against proprietary concerns. He thought his figures were fairly conclusive that it would not cost, more than %d per lb of butterfat to do what the creameries

were doing to-day. It had been argued, and, he thought, somewhat unfairly, that if they closed the creameries and all went in for home separation, it would depreciate the value of the land in the district. He did not think such a result would follow. Their aim should lx*, to Jiavc a modern, up-to-date butter factory, with home separation, and a radius over which they would operate with motor lorries. Speaking of bis experience in Australia, Mr. Robertson said It was a common argument in that country before the war that the “cocky” saved £ J per cow by home separation.

Mr. Bowen pointed out that the market might fluctuate: if they turned the factory into a cream depot they would have no chance of turning into cheese .manufacture. Then casein might be a payable proposition in certain years. He thought both sides of the question should be reviewed. Mr. J. Kent pointed out that even if cheeae prospects were better than butter now the Mangorei Company would not be in a position to change over. The report and balance-sheet were then adopted. Reverting to the discussion on home separation, Mr. Kemp said it had been argued that the change advocated would result in a falling oil in the quality of the butter, but factories running on home Reparation had , advanced in the grade of their product. Pro- ; tiding everyone adopted home separation he thought that the present whole milk suppliers would reimbiuse themselves the first season for any extra outlay incurred. The proprietary epncerzis wore creeping in, and he thought they were getting the business because, they could pay ‘a little extra for the butterfat as they had no creameries. Their operations were increasing, and, if continued, the natural result would be that in a few years the cooperative concerns Would be of no use to the community. Mr. Kemp concluded by moving that it be a recommendation to tho directors that they pay out to the home separating supplier V-d per lb extra for his butterfat for the coming season. The motion was seconded by Mr. Stanton and supported by Messrs., J. Rowlands and S. Mr. Bowen suggested an amendment in favor of deducting L'l per lb from cream suppliers. The proposal was received with much laughter and a. good many interjections. Continuing, Mr. Bowen said he thought the suggestion was a sehcipe to split up the company. Albert Rond, Egmont Rond and Knimiro all worked whole milk, but were being asked to foster this scheme. A QUESTION OF QUALITY. supplier asked if it was not a fact that the Government experts condemned home separation. The chairman, replying, said that a few years ago the experts of the Dairy Division were opposed to home separation under the conditions then existing, but things had altered now, and they were now thoroughly satisfied with this method, as conducted by factories to-day. As regards quality, the'homesupplying factories turned out ns good an article as the whole milk factory. So far as J quality was concerned the company would lose ■ nothing by a change in the direction advo--1 cated. Their own figures proved this, as the j quality had been fully maintained, though they t had an increasing number of cream suppliers every year. They were second on the grading list to-day. Mr. Bowen: It is a whole milk factory that bus got the lead. The chairman: Yes; that is Midhirst. Mr. Gorney said that the resolution would give justice to the cream suppliers in tho meantime. Later there would be n possibility of getting electric' power, and shareholders might think fit in two years’ time to go in for home separation and put in electric motors. Mr. Hawkins asked Why the shareholders should be asked io pay the oregm supplier for what suited his convenience. He moved : as an amendment that those suppliers delivering cream u distance over two mi las from the

creamery or factory be paid ’jd per lb. * The amendment was seconded by Mr. TayThe chairman said that on last year's figures it would have cost the company £275 to pay all the home separation suppliers per Ib. There was, no doubt, sonic justice In it, and the increased overrun was due to the amount of home separation supply. What he was looking at was the result of the proposed action. If It was going to mean the closing down of the creameries then he was in favor of it. The amount involved in the original resolution was not very big. and was certainly fair, and he believed that the policy would result in an Increase of cream suppliers. It would possibly enable the closing down of at least one creamery. The proposal had beenput forward also on account of the competition from proprietary concerns, and he believed there was a good deal in this arguTlie amendment-was put and lost, and nn the resolution being put it was also declared lost. Mr. Peters than moved that the- whole comi pany go hi for home separation, tho motion being seconded by Mr. Robertson. An amendment was moved In favor of postponing tho decision tor twelve months, and ■it was carried by 4“ votes lo 3G. ELECTION OF DIRECTORS. The election to fill two vacancies on tire dirceiorate resulted in the return of the retiring members (Messrs. J. IL Rowlands and C. Marsh). Tho voting was: Rowlands 159, Marsh L".2 (elected), R. H. Ralsom lid and .1. Kemp 111. Mr. A. J. Tunbridge was re appointed | auditor. GENERAL. ! During a discussion on the question of dcpreelation the chairman said a speaker had ini erred that the present factory might have to be rebuilt shortly. While lie had intimated from time to time that the company would eventually have to face the question of rebuilding, he desired to point out that the. factory to-day was in a good condition, and would last at least, for another ten years.