CO-OP. DAIRYING.

Taranaki Daily News, 1 October 1921, Page 10

CO-OP. DAIRYING.

■ )fS IT A SUCCESS? •THE CASE FOR EFFICIENCY.: EOME STRIKING FACTS (Published by Arrangement./’ * A good many years ago, when the writer was landing at New Plymouth, via a surf boat, an ancient longshore mariner, while manipulating one of the oars, inquired where I Was going to. My reply, “New Plymouth,” elicited the further query, “What for?” When I answered, “To try and make a living,” my questioner carefully considered matters, and, after expectorating a quantity of tobacco juice over the side, remarked, “More fool you! There are too many of u* here already!” Upon landing. I afterward* found this reflected the general attitude of many of the residents towards new arrivals, and for year* it was a joke outside the district that it was necessary to be somebody’s cousin, brother, or, at all events, some relation, to have a reasonable chance of making a start. Thi* was a good many years ago, so one might reasonably hope that such an attitude towards new enterprises or arrival* had been buried, but a leading article appearing in a recent Taranaki paper gives rise to the suspicion that a trace of the old joke still survives. It is to be hoped that the article was written on the spur of the moment, and is not a considered opinion. If it is, then it says little for the intelligence behind it. What makes the criticism more than passing strange is that it should be published in the columns of a paper that claims to be one of the oldest established "proprietary” concerns in the Dominion. Time and time again have I read with interest articles from the same pen setting forth in glowing terms the advantages that would accrue both to the community and any enterprising individual who was prepared to invest money in your rapidly rising town and port. A CENTRAL MANUFACTURING STATION. Partly influenced by these appeals, partly by the oft-repeated remark that it seemed wrong to send Taranaki cream outside Jie province for manufacture, and more so by the advantages your hydro scheme offered to cheapen the cost of manufacture, which under their system would revert to their clients, the Fresh Food Co. decided to convert their receiving depot into a factory, thus hav- z ing the advantage of a manufacturing plant at both ports, namely, New Plymouth and Wanganui, and so enabling them to handle the Taranaki cream more quickly and economically. Now perhaps it is only coincidence, but the Fresh Food Co. had scarcely started building when the above mentioned article appeared. I would point out that in nearly every.case the proprietary concerns which the paper is inclined to warn farmers of, started operations by dealing with eream from districts that had either been neglected or in many cases deserted by the so-called co-operative concerns. A BEAUTIFUL THEORY.

Tn theory co-operation is perfect, but it seems to have become a dead letter to many directors of factories situated on a good road the moment that it is suggested that a helping hand should be extended to men in the back districts who are up against the disadvantages of' back roads and rougher land. To the discredit of so-called co-operation many instances could be cited in Taranaki where big concerns have cut the painter of small outlying creameries as soon as it was shown that, the difficulties of carting, etc., increased the working expenses of the more unfortunately situated follow settlers. These latter did not want the cream, and openly said so. Home separated cream was a* a red rag to a bull to many managers, who, of course, imbued the directors with their own ideas, namely, that it was not possible to maintain the quality of New Zealand butter if they had to handle it. This erroneous idea has been easily dissipated. The home separated cream certainly requires more care and expert knowledge than some, managers are able to devote to it, but the Fresh Food Co. and other proprietary firms have shown that, with their experience and the latest appliances, they are able to hold their own as to quality, and their season’s pay-ou*-in nearly every case demonstrates their sales on the open markets must be/more than satisfactory. In marked contrast to this the proprietary firms readily bought cream from practically any distance, giving out-back farmers thousands of pounds that would never otherwise have reached them. There are hundreds of farmers to-day who will bear out this statement, and would dread the day they would have to rely again on the often shown selfishness of the miscalled co-op-erative system. HELPING THE UNDER-DOG. T repeat that the proprietary concerns started their operations among the neglected. and, in .some cases, the deserted men *in the back districts. By careful business methods and sound finance, they are appealing to hundreds of farmers all over the province, who are yearly becoming more dissatisfied with the mis-called co-operative methods. The farmer today. having paid a high price for hi* land, having to face heavy rates and taxtion, and, in many cases, to pay the ruinous rate of ten per cent, on stock, compounded three or four times a year, cannot be blamed if he is compelled to turn away to firms that, recognising he requires every sovereign to help him tide over these strenuous times, give him a higher progress payment and fairer pay-out and make their final bonus payments promptly instead of keeping him waiting indefinitely, often well into the next, rca'on, before he gets his haulearned money, often in the meantime paying heavy interest on his own liabilities SOMETHING WRONG WITH CO-OPERATIVES. Surely there must be something radically wrong when old-established companies, having been in existence 25 to 30 years, are not able to help their suppliers, many- of them returned soldiers, just starting, over one awkward year. Is it bad management, bad finance, or just selfishness, that is slowly but surely undermining the co-operative system on which Taranaki started to build up her prosperity? The article in question states that it is many years since the farmers started box-making (and 1 may add “storekeeping, etc/’) and suggests that, they may not regret it, but if Truth Cambist’s criticism is correct reI garding some of their ventures it > ; sorry tale, and *>uould teach farinais

that they can make more money by improving their farms and herds than by allowing their directors to monkey round with their hard-earned money, tackling outside venture* which they had neither the knowledge nor time to successfully carry through. It is often asked how it is!possible for a, proprietary concern to pay out as well and often much better than co-operative factories 1 It seem* a very easy question to answer when you read the various annual reports of the yeax v s working of co-operative companies. Many of the little admissions and omissions would not be possible with a well-managed concern, yet the farmer goes on cheerfully, more or less, paying for them until he gets tired of things and throws in his lot with a proprietary company. PATHETIC INSTANCES. Quite recently an old gentleman, a chairman of a co-operative factory, mentioned, according to the newspaper reports, that the suppliers would have received three thousand pounds more for their labor had not a telegram misfired. Another excuse—that the fuel bill was 50 per cent, higher than it ought to have been. How long would a proprietary firm countenance such a thing, or how long would they retain their clients or own banking account? Surely, if a man takes on the responsibility of being a director or chairman of a business concern, such as a factory is, he might reasonably be expected to be in evidence when a deal involving the profit or loss of three thousand pounds is on the board. It should not occasion any surprise when reconstruction was hinted at as being necessary after 29 years’ working if many little misfortunes of this ■kind had occurred, but some of his unfortunate fellow suppliers were certainly surprised when he pleaded with them to stick to co-operation. What for? A HOME FOR THE NEEDY. Another easy answer may be found when the supplier at another factory asked why the wages bill is between two and three thousand pounds higher than the previous y ar, in spite of the milk, supply being two million pounds less. The explanation has almost a Gilberton touch about it. It appears that a number of apparently dissatisfied suppliers left to go to a neighboring factory, and a lot of labor was kept dn, waiting pati ently for their return. It i* to be hoped that the seceder* did not do so, as those remaining behind have so far only received about Is lOd for their butter fat, with a promise that there is more to come hy-and-by. A number of suppliers have again left, thia time to go to proprietary firms. It is to be hoped that*a lot of labor will not again be retained awaiting their return, a* this is not likely to happen, as they are now supplying a firm who have made a good progress payment, and have also paid out last year’s bonus weeks ago. NO HELP FOR THE SOLDIER BOY. ’

Another instance may be cited where a number of returned soldiers wanted a small advance on their own produce to help them tide over some of the difficulties incidental to starting on the land. Rumor has. it that they are now paying interest on this accommodation to a local loan company, as their own directors could not see their way clear. The proprietary concerns often help returned soldiers over a little difficulty much easier than the above. Yet again, a factoiry was built during the war while material and labor was at almost prohibitive cost. The result is that a man joining this factory is asked to take up one share for every 33 l-3rd pounds of butter fat he supplies, making • a tax of, say, op each cow to pay this. One penny for every pound of butter-fat is deducted from his cheque. Even when the shares are fully paid up they cannot be of much value, as they are not interest bearing. He is indeed p. ing a heavy premium for joining a co-operative concern. AV hen one considers the above items, sees the waste machinery around some of the factories, notes the expensive buildings put up in war time, and studies some of the reports and balance sheets, the answer to the question as to why the proprietary concerns pay their clients best, is very easily answered. COMPETITION SHOULD BE WELCOMED. Men having the well-being of the Taranaki farmers at heart should welcome competition if it will bring, as it is doing, a better return io them for their labor. Co-operation is a high ideal, but it certainly seems to be falling into ovil ways. 'Every herd that goes over to a .proprietary concern should onty serve as a much needed tonic. Eliminate the spirit of selfishness that is always so prominent, and it will help a lot to meet the strong, vigorous competition that has come to stay in the shape of the Fresh Food Co.. The fact is that, under the businesslike methods of the Fresh Food Co. farmers receive all the benefits of co-operation, in the true sense of the word, without its losses and responsibilities. That is the position in a nutshell. It is the difference between efficiency and careful management, and inefficiency,, Jack of business knowledge and training. For that reason home separation and proprietary manufacture of dairy produce have come, to stay.