THE DAIRY BILL.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3001, 25 September 1908, Page 7

THE DAIRY BILL.

MEETING OP FARMERS AT MAUKiOEVILLE.

.NUMBER OF CLAUSES 08, , <, JECTED TO. , - -- r A representative meeting of dairy banners frum all parts of the disvtrict was held in the Foresters' Hall, West Mauriceville, yesterday afteriuoon, for the purpose of discussing the provisions of the Dairy Bill now tef"ie the House. Hie chair was occupied by Mr E. Petersen, who referred to the arbitrary nature of some of the clauses included in the Bill. He maintained that if it became law it simply meant .(.eatb to the dairy industry, for the ■average supplier milking from t«vtncy, to thirty cows would simply Le compelled to give up dairy farmii g. lie rtieirtd to clause Bas an ins I .anc«j of the hardship that would be inilivjteJ upon dairy farmers, particularly thote with limited areas. • Under clause 8 it its provided taut no cowshed or building where ■ cows are kept, or milking yard, or stock yard used in connection with ' ithe milking of cows, shall be within thirty feet of any utable, fowl run, calf pen, etc.; every cowshed in wmch more than tix enws are to be milken at either the morning or evening milking, and which is not provided with sufficient stalling accommodation to hold all the cows v at one time, shall have either (1) •JT a yard sufficiently large to hold all the cows brought in at any one time for milking, attached thereto, -but divided therefrom by a partition o. ,cuce, tho iiuor of such yard to be propeily cuicreted or paved; (2) a yard of such as aforesaid situated at least thirty feet from such cowshed, and connecitu tiurewith by a racf, the floor of which id properly concreted or pav>d. Such conditions as these, he contended, meat a complete disorganisation of the present buildings on practically, eveiy larm in the district, whilst in many instances the changes demanded wure ticable, owing to the insufficiency of fl«t land on some of the holdings. The question of concreting yards and luces, as clemanaed,\ was also a serious one in such localities as Mauriceville, where the necessary /r-mte'iiils were lacking, and which would have to be brought long disUlKOi)i in« concreting carried out at the Mauriceville Factory had cost i,o less than twelve shillings and sixpence per ysrd, the gravel for which had tu be ctrced all tho way from the Ruamahanga river. Then again, clause 29 provided that no dairyman shall, except in the case of dairy cows'brought into a cowshed for milking or housing, permit any animal or any t poukry or pigeon to enter or remain in any cowshed, milkhnuse, or other building used in connection with the handling or storing •of milk, and they were liable for permitting any cow, calf, or other animal to oe at large within thirty ieet; of any cowshed. The whole trend of the Bill was to k'ill the small dairy farmer, for in Mauriceville, for instance, wherß the areas ranged from forty to one hundred acres, it would be ruinous to comply with the intentions of the Act in its present foim. Farmers did not object to cleanliness and inspection being insisted upon, but drastic laws which had to be conformed to, and for a : 4 breach of which heavy fines were inflicted, were both harassing ana discouraging. . t . Mr E. W. Neilson maintained that tthe Government were simply courting disaster in the proposed legislation. Tho average dairy farmer could be ;relied upon to observe rules in the conduct of his dairy, which made for •cleanliness and the obtaining of the •best results. The Mauriceville butter had always secured the top market irates. The inspectors appointed had expressed their satisfaction with the condition in which the milk reached the factory, and he failed to see the necessity of further harassing the dairy farmer, who bad already quite enough to put up with. ( Mr H. H. Hillas, in the main, supported the remarks of the Chairman, but agreed that there was room - for improvement in many dairies. The propbsed Act, however, went I ■quite beyond the bounds of necessity, , i and the objectiorable clauses should' ■be taken exception to. Aft;r other speakers had expressed -their * opinions on the matter, the clauses were taken one by one and •discussed by a committee of nine set up for the purpose. It was decided to communicate with the Stock Com mittee, now taking evidence on the •proposed Bill, protesting Bgainst Clauses 1, 9, 14, 20, 24, 29, 30, 31 and 33 in their entirety, and to portions of Clauses 8, 19, at.d 27.