-and as a practical farmer I propose to make some observations concerning that excuse. Dairying is the foundation and backbone of good agriculture in any province of Canada or any part of the world. Forty years ago in the province from which I come-and I believe the same condition obtained in other provinces-private dairying was carried on. I shall make a distinction between public and private dairying, because up until about forty years ago only private dairying obtained. Then what might be described as public dairying came in.. When Professor Robertson of the Department of
Agriculture, a gentleman who I am suie is known to you all, came to our province what did he teach us about public dairying? We did not hear anything about butter making; it was cheese making, and only cheese making that we were taught. Cheese factories were established at intervals throughout the different provinces.
Why did we depart from the making of cheese and go over to the making of butter? As a farmer I shall proceed to tell you why. In the first place, when we began making cheese we sent the whole milk in cans containing fifteen or twenty gallons each to the cheese factories. It was there placed in big vats; the -curd was separated and made into cheese and we got back from those cheese factories a by-product known as whey. Coupled with the dairy industry in Canada is hog and poultry raising. The whey from the cheese factories returned to the farm was practically good for nothing. I believe I would be correct in saying that in connection with the raising of calves it would do more injury than good, and in raising hogs it is of very little use. That is my opinion of it, and I believe the minister would back me up.
Then we proceeded one step farther. We realized that we weTe finding difficulty in raising hogs and calves. At that time the making of butter in public factories came into vogue. We continued sending our milk to those factories in large cans. The making of butter however was different from the making of cheese. The milk was skimmed in the factories by means of a large De Laval separator. We got back from those public butter factories not whey but skim milk, a product which was considerably better for the raising of calves and hogs. That is why the change from cheese to butter production became popular among Canadian farmers.
Then we proceeded one step farther. About thirty years ago the hand separator came into use on farms, making it possible for farmers to separate milk each morning and evening. By that process the farmer had the by product right at hand-, and they were able to feed the warm skim -milk to calves and pigs. This procedure was found to be more advantageous to the farmers than the process of making cheese or butter in public plants. That is *why there has been a tendency down through the years for farmers to divert more milk from the making of cheese to the making of butter; they placed a very high value on the skim milk by-product extracted on their own farms.
As the minister gave the figures he indicated that the make of butter has steadily increased until it has reached the point where it has
almost become a burden. It is possible that we may be going too far, because while the output of butter has increased the make of cheese has steadily declined. As the minister indicated there is still a good market in the old country for cheese, in fact a better market for that product than there is for butter. The trouble is to get the farmer to return to the making o-f cheese for the reasons I have indicated. That is my excuse for supporting the bonus, a procedure which I believe will offer some compensation to the farmer for the loss of the skim milk by products. The bonus of one and a -half cents per pound will enable him to buy other food for his hogs and calves. I am sorry to have taken the time of the committee, but I thought I should place the explanation before hon. members and indicate why ,1 feel free to support the measure.
Topic: DEPARTMENT OP AGRICULTURE