MEAT FOR BRITAIN

Ashburton Guardian, Volume 60, Issue 247, 26 July 1940, Page 7

MEAT FOR BRITAIN

SAFEGUARDING THE PRODUCER. ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD. The stops taken by the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board to safeguard the interests of the producer during its negotiations with the New Zealand Government over the purchase by the British Government of the Dominion’s production of meat, are detailed in the hoard’s annual report, covering the year to June JO, 1940. The board has placed its whole organisation and resources at the services of the Government.

“Immediately upon the outbreak of war the board placed its whole organisation, both here and in London, at the disposal of the Government, and the hoard pledged itself to help the Government in every way possible in its war efforts,” states the report. “From the first week of war the ooaid 1 was closely associated with the negotiations between the New Zealand Government and the United Kingdom Government for the purchase and sale of New Zealand meat. The hoard was consulted throughout the negotiations, and was fully represented on committees relating to prices and procedure. “The 1938 prices (which’ were slightly better than 1939 realisations) were suggested by the United Kingdom Government, and after acceptance by the New Zealand Government in principle, became the- basis of subsequent discussions and final agreement. Purchase f.o.b. “On the question of precise point of purchase, it was suggested by the Imperial Government, and accepted by the New Zealand Government, that purchase in the main should be on f.o.h. terms. The prices at f.o.b. were arrived at by taking London prices and deducting the latest peace-time costs between f.o.b. New Zealand and delivery ‘ex store’ London. In other words, the United Kingdom Government at once accepted responsibilities for war-time increases in costs of freight and landing charges. “Although the shipment of beef in chilled form was discontinued upon the outbreak of war, it was arranged in the purchase conditions that meat normally shipped as chilled should he paid lor at chilled rates even though it were now sent frozen. It will be noted that the prices secured for ewe mutton will ensure better returns for the hill-country farmer. “After a series of conferences between! the Ministers for Marketing and Agriculture, members of the Meat Board, and meat trade representatives, the marketing procedure to be operative during the period of Government purchase was embodied in a letter addressed by the Hon. IV. Nash, Minister for Marketing, to the chairman of the Meat Board. “The board was most insistent that the procedure should provide for the continuance of the ‘open door’ so that if a farmer is not satisfied with the prices offered, ho can sell direct to the Government, subject, of course, to reasonable minimum quantities. It is of vital importance that the producer should retain this right. Companies’ Operations. “The board is at present engaged witli the Government in considering the scope and procedure of. an audit of the freezing companies’ operations, both as regards freezing services and buying operations. In connection with the prices being paid by exporters and freezing companies for the various classes of fat stock from time to time, the interests of the producers are being closely watched by the hoard, which regularly examines costings taken out in respect to lamb, wethers, ewes, beef and pork. “The weight of wool is arrived at by means of returns collected every week by the Primary Industries Controller from every freezing company, showing the weekly pull of wool from lambs and sheep in respect of each company and its separate exporter clients. The latest advices relating to the pelt and hide market are taken into account. Costings are then worked out by the board, based on the respective, weights, grades, etc., and allowing for the varying charges for slaughtering, bagging, freezing, etc., to f.o.h. in the different districts. This enables the margin left to the operator or freezing cpmpany to he ascertained after payment for the meat by the Marketing Department, on the basis of the prices agreed upon with the British Government.

“In the disposal of the various byeproducts of the industry, tho board has also had many discussions with the Government with a| view to seeing that everything possible was being done under war conditions to protect the interests of producers.”

MR DUNCAN’S SPEECH

DENIAL CAUSES SURPRISE. HAMILTON, July 25. Meat producers and members of the industry who attended the meeting at Cambridge on Tuesday were surprised to-day that Mr T. A. Duncan (chairman of the Meat Board) had, according to the Minister for Marketing (the Hon. W. Nash), denied certain statements reported by the press to have been made my blip. Several Waikato producers Were able to confirm the accuracy of the report <of the meeting, stating that their interpretation of Mr Duncan’s remarks was that, as far as he knew, no information was available as to the meat products required by the British Government.

A shorthand report of Mr Duncan’s remarks which arei in dispute is as follows: —“I am perturbed about the meat position. It makes mo wonder whether the information came from Great Britain. I am not even certain about the 10,000 tons of pork one has heard so much about. T. ha.vci never seen the cables. I feel that the- British Government will not take more meat from us than they have done in the past. The list does' not include meat, and it is

one of the tilings wen have to clear up. We do not want to rush into things if the British Government does not want it. It is strange that a. cable has never been sent to our hoard. It makes me doubtful on the matter. (Do they really want it? It is very alarming to me. I assure you there is no indication that the Government will give preferential shipping of meat products.” Authorities in tine pig trade have pointed out that Mr Duncan ' referring throughout to pork, apparently meant bacon, as farmers have been asked to produce more bacon, and definitely not pork.