CORRESPONDENCE

Taranaki Daily News, 8 June 1922, Page 2

CORRESPONDENCE

The dairy pool. (To the Editor.) Sir, —At last we have been favored with a brief official summary of the doings of delegates, who attended the meeting in Wellington for the purpose of forming a compulsory dairy pool. Mr. Brash says he thinks it will be of public interest to let us know the result, because there seemed’ to be some misunderstanding . about the character of the conference. There is, however, little in the report that we did not already know. The little gathering must have been a very happy one for we are told they were unanimous on all the resolutions. We all expected that. The South Island members, however, appear to be holding back probably to see what is going to happen. Compulsion is a thing we don’t like and it will be no surprise to hear that the South Island will refuse to be drawn into the pool. It is to be hoped that factory directors have given the proposal serious conflideration. In many cases no doubt, meetings of ‘ suppliers will be held, but the average farmer does not give these things much thought, and usually whatever the directors recommend is carried, so the responsibility really rests with, the directors. If this compulsory dairy pool is forced on us and if it should prove a failure it will not only ruin hundreds of dairy farmers, but will also have a very serious effect on the finance of the whole Dominion. I believe in progress, 1 hope I am not an alarmist, and I do not wish to throw mud. at the promoters of this scheme. I -believe their intentions are good and give them credit for' at least trying to do something for us. I have no time for the man who is always finding fault, but never does anything himself. This discussion will do good, though I do not think the proposal will be carried. We are promised a saving of one half per cent, (or £60,000) at this end, but what is it going to cost us to save this £60,000? There is to be a board of directors and a clerical staff at. this end, and as they will be new to the business there will be many mistakes made. We are going to send three of the biggest men we can find and another staff to London to took after the merchants at Tooley Street —the men with the experience, the cash, and the brains. Mr. Goodfellow told us we were not going to throw these merchants over but make use of them. Very complimentary to Tooley- Street, but if our representatives follow Mr. Goodfellow’s example in trying to hold up the price, where will oiir £60,000 be? There is this about it, we would never be told, and as we would all be in the same boat we would have no way of finding out. It is proposed to make a levy of one and a quarter per cent, on the gross returns. This will amount to about £150,000 per annum and the hope is expressed that very little will be required after the first year. We can take this for what it is worth, but we know what generally happens. The levy is to be credited to the share capital of the individual companies. This seems to me a weak spot in our co-operative system. The individual supplier or shareholder has no claim. He may put £5O or £lOO into the concern, but as soon as he ceases to supply the factory he loses what he has paid for; he can neither sell his shares nor get interest on his capital. Are directors justified in forcing this levy on their suppliers at th: present time, not knowing what the result may be? It is claimed we will get other benefits through the pool such as cheaper freight, insurance, etc. We should be able to get these through the National Dairy Association. It is well supporte<l by dairy companies, and should be able to do as much as the proposed poolfll Our present marketing system may not.be all that we desire, and no doubt there is room for improvement, but we know where we stand, and, so far, the agents have never failed us on the 20th. It is just a question whether our interest and commission charges will not be heavier under the proposed scheme than they are at present. Any attempt to hold prices will mean more expense, and, in the end, we may find ourselves in the same position as Mr. Goodfellow, and 'be forced to sell. It seems to me we are starting at the wrong end, or, rather, we are taking too big a leap. There .is plenty of room for improvement at this end. First of all on the farm. ' We do not pay enough attention to breeding and feeding. How many dairymen are there who could give the yield of. their individual cows? I think I am safe in saying there is not one farmer in a dozen who feeds his cows as they ought to be fed. If we would give proper’attention to breeding and feeding we would increase our output by fifty per cent., or even more. Then there is a great leakage at the factories, not because our managers do not do their best, but because we do not send the milk in the best possible condition. I pointed but last year, when speaking on the need for inspection of dairies, that by increasing our yield, and improving the quality, we could get an increase on our exportable cheese alone of £168,000. Yet. we neglect these things that are within our reach without any extra expense, to try and manage the business twelve thousand miles away, and which we. know nothing about. The greatest need of the dairy farmer to-day is not an extra levy on his monthly cheque, but a reasonable amount of cheap money. If | the interest charges remain at the rate ! they are at present much longer it must spell ruin to many farmers. It is to be hoped that the movement to establish a Cn-operatiVe Bunk will be pushed along nnd soon become an established fact. I Sir, there are other matters that might i be discussed, but I have already taken ; lup too much of your, valuable space. In 1 conclusion, let me say. when we have made a success of the business at this , end, we might look further. In the • meahtime mv advice is: Let the dairy pool alone. —I am, etc, J. A. KURTH. Barrett Road. New Plymouth, June 2, 1922.