UPON WHAT LINES CAN COOPERATIVE DAIRYING EXPAND?

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXXI, Issue 3013, 9 October 1908, Page 5

UPON WHAT LINES CAN COOPERATIVE DAIRYING EXPAND?

(Contributed). No one can deny the grea': benefits derived from the establishment of dairy factories. The results are to be seen throughout the length and breadth of the Dominion. Up to the present great progress has been shown in the manufacture of cheese and butter until it is now almost perfect. With an assured return of from £7 to £lO per cow it is no wonder that the demand fir dairy land has increased, and prices for good land risen in value, the supply of land not being equal, to the demand. Land thut was formerly £lO an acre is now about £3O. and tie average land carries or.e cow to thiee acres. At 5 per cent, the former would mean a rtntil of 30s per cow, and the latttr 90s. When land was £lO per acre the gross return per cow after deducting rent was £4 10s. Taking the average factory rtturn per cow at £lO, and deducting 90s for rent the return per cow now would be £5 10s. This would show present day dairy-farming to be 20 per cent, more profitable than it formerly was when land was cheap. This is due chiefly, if not ent'uely to the improvement in the quality of our output, thd credit fcr which is due primarily to the Department of Agriculture and its excallent system of grading, and instruction to cheese and butter makers./

The great drawback to maintaining, the quality of the manufactured article is the condition' of the raw material and the Department of Agriculture recognising this is once again coming to the rescue of the farmer. Hence the present dairy regulations, which are being decried by the very persons they d*e sought to benefit. The pressure brought to bear in this direction* wiljf have the effect of retarding; One industry, and delay us in reaching the high position we seek to gain in the Home markets. At. the same time it cannot be denied that it is in many cases beyond the power of occupiers of small dairy farms to carry out the requirements of the regulations. They may not have the necessary funds, but whether they have or not, it is not considered good business to expend money on buildings out of proportion to the area of the land. To overcome this difficulty it might I be recommended to adjoining owners j to build a milking shed common to all. There would be difficulties to face in carrying out such a proposal, but they are details that would be studied out at a later stage. There is one method that might commend itself to the farmers. That is for dairy companies to erect their own milking sheds and charge interest on the cost, plus a sinking fund for wear and tear, to the milk suppliers who use them. Milking sheds owned by the dairy companies and fitted with the most approved milking machines would probably be a better method than a shed jointly owned by small farmers. The companies could buy the freehold of the land on which the milking sheds were to be built, and they would have a good security to offer against money borrowed tor the purpose. For cheese factories there would be no reason against conveying the milk morning and evening to the factory. For butter the milk could be separated convenient to the companies shed, and the cream delivered at the factories, the skim milk being convenient to the owners' delivery could be taken by them.