DAIRY INSTRUCTION

Manawatu Standard, Volume LIII, Issue 14, 14 December 1932, Page 9

DAIRY INSTRUCTION

sharing the cost. MANAWATU COMPANIES. A special meeting of the Manawatu and West Coast Dairy Association was held to-day, when Mr W. M.' Singleton, director of the dairy division of the Department of Agriculture, addressed a gathering of the farmers and dairy company directors on the question of dairy farm instruction, the speaker being extended a welcome by the chairman, Mr A. C. Broadbelt. Mr Singleton explained that his desire to 1 meet those interested in the industry had been brought about largely by the withdrawal of one of the companies in the group which, while not affecting his department, had the effect of increasing the cost of the dairy instructors to the other companies. Reviewing the history of the block niovement, he stated that the agreement permitted either the association or the department to withdraw on giving six months’ notice, but the companies had taken it that they as individuals could withdraw on giving the necessary notice. There were some unsatisfactory features about the system as operating and ho suggested that each year a meeting should be held about the month of December to review the position and to ascertain the intentions of the participating companies. It was unnecessary, he added, for him to stress the value of the dairy instructors, but he did desire to stress the necessity for factories to aim at a high standard of quality at the present time more than ever before. Mr Sawyers, a departmental officer, outlined the cost to the individual factories as a result of the defection of the company mentioned when based on the returns of butterfat for the 1931-32 season. The withdrawing company had paid £93 and this sum had to be distributed among the other companies, although there was a prospect that the expected increased returns would not entail the increase estimated. Mr R. Davis (Mangawhata Company) supported Mr Singleton’s contention that quality should be aimed at and that it was necessary for the supervision to be continued. Mr N. Campbell (Awahuri- Company) also maintained that the inspection was highly advantageous, for tne presenting on the London market of some inferior produce would do harm to New Zealand produce as a whole. He sincerely hoped that the withdrawing company would come back again. Mr Singleton stated that there was no reflection upon the withdrawing company, the meeting had been called merely to consider the course of. action to be taken as a result of the defection of that company. Representatives from the Cheltenham, Rangitikei, Rongotea, Bainesse and Whakarongo companies supported the present system and a motion that it be a recommendation to the companies in the block to continue the scheme was moved by Mr Davis. Mr Campbell seconded the motion, which was carried. Mr Davis further moved that a subcommittee consisting of Messrs Broadbelt, Campbell and Davis be set up to consider ways and means of improving the system. Mr Robin (Bainesse) seconded the motion which, when put to the meeting, was carried. At the request of the meeting, Mr Devine consented to confer with the sub-committee. Mr Singleton stressed the desirability that companies should carry the scheme through the season and, that it be after the annual review, that a company desiring to withdraw should give notice of its intention, which .would take effect the following winter. Mr Knudsen advanced the suggestion that unless notice of withdrawal was given before January 31, the company would, perforce, have to continue with the system through the following season. The speaker moved that the contract in the group be amended, so that it became obligatory to the company to give notice, before January 31 in any year of its, intention to withdraw from the farm inspection system the following season. Mr Purcell (Cheltenham) seconded the motion and when put to the meeting was carried. The chairman, in thanking those present for their attendance, expressed the hope that some benefits would result.