L. HANSEN.

51

I.—loa.

and improve its output by the means which nature can provide. That is a direetiem in which tho Governme-nt might with the machinery at present at its disposal, givo valuable aid if it wore se> inclined, charging the cost to the industry, of bourse, not to the community. Action on these lines would bo less fraught with possibilities of friction than to pursue tho attempt which is now being sedulously made to bring the industry under cast-iron military discipline- in respect to marketing. And, as Mr. Sanson has suggested, the results to be lookeel for are infinitely more beneficial than any which may be oxpeoted to flow from the setting-up e>f a Board of political nominees to gamble*with the fanners' produce. Improving the Dairy Industry. Mr. L. Hanson, manager of tho Kiwi Dairy Company (Limited), Christchurch, writes as fe>lleiws : I have road with some interest an article from ono of the local factory-managers regarding the proposed dairy-pool finance, and the estimated percentage of advances to dairy-farmers, should the Dairy Control Bill become law. Now, with regard to this particular article, the whole thing is simply a waste of words, inasmuch as it does ne>t deal with fundamentals. Even supposing the Dairy Control Bill would possibly bring us in Jd. ]ier pound more for our produce, it would cost that amerant for its management, and the returns to the producers wemld be nil. Let us therefore get de>wn to the root of the matter-—the dairy-farmers. It is absolutely essential feu-the progress of the industry—especially as far as Canterbury is concerned—that we procure bettor-class elairy herds. This can only be demo by introdueing a high milking-strain of bulls. If wei can produce 2701b. of butterfat per- oow instead of IfiO lb., as the cows in Canterbury ta-day SOT producing, it would mean an asset to the: industry of e>ver £10,000,000, spread e>ver the whole e>f New Zealand. Cantcrbiery is the Mecca eif New Zealand. Wei produce the finest weieil, mutton, anel beef, and we alse> have a poultry industry ahead of any either district in the Dominion. We produoe, too, cereals anel potatoes for the wheilo eif New Zealand ; but the dairy eeiws, I regret to state, owing to the poor milking-strain used by the farmers, show the lowest receirds for the Dominion. As far as Canterbury is cemcemed, the dairying industry is the erne which is meist neglected. We, as a ceimpany, are prepared to go out to assist the farmers in procuring sires eif a high-milk-produeang strain, which would, in three years' time, increase the production according to the number of geioei sires introduced. It is only a matter of time when there will be, on tho British market, a very fierce competition in the butter industry, and by going to tho assistance e)f the dairy-farmers financially and educatumally—as to the desirability of using the bewt sires, the care of cows and calves, and the selection of feed giving tho highest nutriment—we shall be doing something of lasting benefit to the industry. Tho pork industry can be made a very important industry for Canterbury. We have the facilities, and without a doubt can breed and produce the finest peirk and bacon for export to Great Britain. Every year thousands eif bushels of cereals are rejected which could be utilized for fattening-off the pigs. We understand that at the present time the Canterbury Frozen Meat Company are buying pigs from the farmers feir export, and they are to be congratulated on the steps taken. Nevertheless, it is a very dangerous matter to ceimmenee exporting peirk to the British market unless it be properly fattened and of a type acceptable to the British consumers. Most of the pork in Canterbury and elsewhere is fattened off with slop feed, and hence it is wanting in firmness, colour, and flavour. Slop-fed pork twists anel turns when being fried, is tough in texture, and if kept for any length of time turns sour and becomes green in colour. For British cemsumptiem properly fattened pork of a desired hrecd is required. The Danes at the present time are exporting 55,000 hogs per week, and the pork ineiustry in that country has superseded the butter industry in £.s.d. May I suggest, sir, that it only requires the assistance of your pen in conjunction with the industry to bring prosperity to emr Canterbury farmers. The Farmers' Dnion have feirmed a dairying committee, and we sincerely hope that the Press will weirk in conjunctiem with tho dairy factories and all whei are taking a live interest in this vital business in promoting a competitive interest amemgst the dairj'-farmers and in fostering the formation eif testing associations, the grading of cream, and the appointment of dairy-farm instructor's. I wish to make a correction with respect to the evidence I have given, sir. I made the statement that Mr. Grounds was not present at the Council meeting. I was misinformed, as Mr. Grounds was present at that meeting. 16. Mr. Field.] Assuming the large factory exercises one vote only, what would be the result if the thirty-eight factories that did not vote had voted ?—I could not say, because Ido not know how many of the small-factory directors had only one vote, or whether they would be for the pool. 17. Mr. Hawken (Acting-Chairman).] You say that you do export butter ? —Yes : three thousand boxes or more. George Gtbson examined. (No. 14.) 1. The Acting-Chairman (Mr. Hawken).] Do you wish to make a statement ? —Yes. I am a director of the Rahotu Dairy Factory, and appear on its behalf. It is my privilege as well as my duty to appear before you in direct opposition to the proposed Dairy Control Bill as a representative of the Rahotu Dairy Company, and also on behalf of other individual suppliers of the factory. A meeting has been hold, the matter has been placed before them, and without exception they are all against the passing of this Bill. I think the Committee will readily agree that this is a position one has some reason to be proud of, as the evidence that has been submitted to the Committee indicates that there are not many cases where the suppliers to a factory are unanimous on the subject. I have been some thirteen years only in this country, and part of that time—twelve years—l have been the director of a factory. Previously I was a farmer in the Old Country ; so that I can look at the question from a dual standpoint. I wish to give you not only my own personal opinion, but, as far ,so I can, the Opinions of my fellow-directors and suppliers. In fact, if it had not been for my duty at the company and the suppliers—working-farmers—l would still have been on the farm trying to forward the production of the Dominion. My suppliers—l am here to speak directly for them—wish to call attention to the methods which have been adopted in rushing this Bill along. lam not so much concerned with the non-carrying of the Dairy-produce Pool Bill last year, but I do wish to stress the point which has been raised as to the hasty and rush methods followed by the promoters in presenting the scheme to the public. My suppliers heard that after the Committee had considered the Bill last year the promoters considered it dead, and if the Committee on that occasion did not foster that idea they certainly never contradicted it, and naturally the great bulk of the suppliers thought that was the end of the matter. It was therefore somewhat of a surprise when it was found that the Bill had come to life again. In the circular issued to all dairy companies, signed by Mr. Grounds and Mr. Brash, marked " Confidential and not for publication," it was stated that it had been decided by the Dairy Council to press forward and secure the passage of the Bill, that the question had been before the dairy companies for some considerable time, and that no doubt it had