Pastures Past: When NZ milking sheds made headlines for the wrong reasons

New Zealand dairy farming and milking sheds have come a long way since the 1930s. Pexels / Cottonbro studio

Kem Ormond takes a look at the world of farming back in the day.

New Zealand’s milking shed conditions were making headlines in the late 30s and early 40s and not in a good way.

Issues ranged from a supposed lack of standards in hygiene, to a farmer’s children being made to work for free.

Even the Aussies got involved.

One “prominent Australian agricultural authority” refused to drink milk with his evening meal after inspecting a milking shed in 1941

The Palmerston North Metropolitan Milk Board thought Te Awamutu milking sheds still weren’t up to scratch in 1948.

Thank goodness times have changed, along with the standards of New Zealand’s milking sheds.

Australian authority

Agriculturist speaks out

Cleaner milking sheds

Patea Mail, February 12, 1937

A prominent Australian agricultural authority making an investigation of the dairy industry in the Dominion on behalf of the New South Wales Government, has much to praise when speaking of grassland farming in New Zealand, but there was one thing with which he was not impressed, and that was with the milking sheds of the country.

After inspecting the milking shed of one prominent farmer one day he absolutely refused to drink milk at the evening meal that night.

In speaking to the writer, the Australian visitor expressed his surprise that in a country where grassland control was so admirably carried out in so many cases, and where he had seen pigs kept under ideal conditions, that milking sheds in too many cases could hardly conduce to the production of clean milk.

An article from the Patea Mail in 1937, on an Australian agricultural authority who was unimpressed with New Zealand's milking sheds. Image / Papers Past / National Library of New Zealand

In milking sheds

Employment of children

Te Awamutu Courier, January 17, 1941

The employment of children in milking sheds was the subject of some comment by the chairman of the Manpower Committee (Mr R. Coulter) during the hearing of appeals in Tauranga on Wednesday.

One appellant stated that he thought he could carry on if his hand were called away to camp by getting his four children to help in the milking shed.

When discussing this particular farmer’s difficulties Mr Coulter stated that he was concerned about the employment of children in milking sheds.

It would be all right, he stated, if the children were strong and healthy, and he stressed the need for care in this direction.

He asked the appellant in this case that if he should find he could not carry on, he should immediately communicate with the committee.

Conditions in sheds

“Department of Agriculture not satisfied”

Raising of standards

Te Awamutu Courier, April 26, 1948

Conditions in many milking sheds in New Zealand were criticised at a recent meeting of the Palmerston North Metropolitan Milk Board.

It was considered that this constituted a major problem for the Department of Agriculture.

A member of the Board said the Department was by no means satisfied in many cases, but it was impossible to close down sheds without seriously affecting production.

A medical practitioner member of the Board asked why there were two standards for milking sheds — one for those supplying to dried milk or butter factories, and a higher standard for those engaged in town supply.

The condition of the sheds was only part of the question, he contended.

Was the Department checking on methods used in milking sheds?

Another member said that the Department was trying to improve both methods and shed conditions.

There was a suggestion that a points system could be introduced allotting rewards for cleanliness and efficiency of method.

The point was made that there was insufficient incentive for the farmer to go to any lengths to ensure that his product was first-class.

Handling charges were so high and transport costs so great that if a higher price were paid to the farmer the milk would cost more than the consumer could afford.

- Source: Papers Past