THE PRICE OF MEAT.

Press, Issue 11564, 22 April 1903, Page 5

THE PRICE OF MEAT.

SOME INTERESTING FIGURES. (BT Ofß SPECIAL IIEPOETEja.) Truly, as a Christchurch butcher remarked, the expenses of life are creeping up. Unfortunately, it is life's absolute necessaries which have developed this tendency most strongly. Bread, meat, fish, fruit, have all increased in price at one season or another for temporary causes, and forgotten to come down to any real extent when those causes have been removed. Then the napless consumer, seeing each separate portion of his food in danger of being snatched from his mouth by harpies whose precise identity he only suspects, has been wont to cry to the baker, to the fishmonger, to the fruiterer, "Who is responsible for this?"' Follows a chorus of "Not I," supported by a thousand weighty arguments tending to shift the responsibility upon anyone in the world else. But a case has been prepared against the butchers which is more difficult to answer. Figures carefully compiled by a representative of "The Press" show forcibly that the present charges for meat are not only oppressive, but most unreasonable and unwarranted. They are famine prices, charged in the butchers' fat time. The figures 6how the wholesale price oi meat. as sold to the butchers, now and two years ago, the amount paid for by-products to the butchers, now and two yeare* s ago, and tho retail price for every article of meat charged by the butchers at "the same periods. They show this:—Tlie vendor of meatpays, "to-day, the same, average price for hi J lambs, "slightly less for his .ewes and wethers, a halfpenny a pound more for his beef, and a fraction more for his porkers, than he did two years ago. He gets considerably more for all the by-products The table of subsidiary profits will show this most conclusively. And, in spite of this, he has raised the retail price of tlurty articles of meat out of thirty-six, and lowered it in no single case. Here are the- figures, taken from the auctioneers' books for typical weeks, and from the quotations of leading butchers themselves: — WHAT THE BUTCHER CHARGES. This is what the butcher charges the customer: — Price per lb. April, 1903. April, 1901. Bee£- • . Sirloin ... ... 7d Cd Rump steak ... 9d 7d Best ribs GJd 5d Back and top ribs 5d 4d Thin flanks ... 3d 2d Thick flanks ... Cd 4id Top side Cd 4Jd Brisket 4d 3d Corned, round ... " 6d 6d Corned brisket (boned) 5d to Cd 4Jd Veal— Fillets 6d Cd Loin ... ... 5d 5d Shoulder 4d 3d Breast 5d 2Jd PorkLegs and hands ... 7d 5d to 6d Loins and bellies ... 8d 6d Chops ... ... 9d 6d Mutton— Sides , 3&d to 4d 3d Huid-quarteiß ... 4d to 4£d 3Jd Fore-quartera ... 3d to 3*d 2id Shoulders ... 4d 3d Legs ... ... 6d 4Jd Loins (trimmed) ... 5d 4Jd Loins (untrimmed) 4d 4d Chops ... ... 5d to Cd 5d Cutfets ... , ... BcU 6d Half legs ... 5d to 5d Neck and breasts ... 2Jd to 3d , 2d [ Lamb— | Fore-quarters .„ 5d 3Jd t Hind-quarters ... 6d 6d Legs ... ... 7d 6d Loins ... ... 6d 5d i SausagesPork 6d 6d Beef ... ... 4d 4d German ... ... 7d Gd Tripo Gd ' 6d [Th» 1903.'price* are,.for cash—booking customers aire charged differently, according to the manner in which the meat is cut.] WHAT THE BUTCHER PAYS. These are-the prices ruling in the Addington markets on tlie undermentioned dales, wlhioh have been carefully checked: — APRIL, 1903. Lambs ... 10s 3d to 15s Od, ay. 12s Gd Ewes ... 10a Od to 16s 10d, ay. 13s 6d Wethere ..." 15s 9d to 20s Od, ay. 17s Gd I Beef ... 24s Od to 27s Od (per 1001b) Porkers ... 26s Od to 38s Od 6d to Sid per lb APRIL, 1901. I Lambs ... 10s Od to 14s 9d, ay. 12s 6d Ewes ... 10s 6d to 17s (id, ay. 140 Od Wethers .. 17s Od to 19s 2d, ay. 18s Od Beof ... 17s Od to 22a 6d per 1001b PoTkers ... 20s Od to 32s Od 4d per; lb The minimum prices in each case will hold good for one set of butchers, the average for a second, and the maximum for the most highclass vendors. The contrast is the game. THE SUBSIDIARY PROFITS. This is what the skin 9 and fat, which the butcher also get a out of his carcase, realise:— APRIL, 1203. Butchers' lambskins 2a 6d to 33 Od, -ay. 2s 9d Butohers' crojebreds 2s 4d to 3s 2d, ay. 2i 9d Butchers' haifbrcda 2s 0d- to 3s 4d, ay. 2a Gd Butchers' rough fat (per lb) 2d to 2gd APRIL, 1001. Butchers' lambskins Is 4d to 2s Od. ay. Is 8d Butchers' orossbreds Is Gd to 2s 3d, ay. Is lOd Butcheois* balfbreds Is 9d to 23 Cd, ay. 2a Id Butchers' rough fat (per lb) 13d to 2d BUTCHERS' STATEMENTS. Tlie pressman, who showed these figures to geverai representative butchers of Christchurch and suburbs, received the following explanations of their lesson, the value of which everyone can judge of for himself: — Mr F. H. Steel, of the firm of Langdon and Steel, admitted, after some discussion, that, assuming tlie quotations given for 1901 to be correct, the increase in retail prices for beef and mutton was large and general, in comparison with the slight increase in wholesale rates for the former, and the actual decrease for the latter, during the last two years. The apparent discrepancy was of course enlarged, by consideration of *he greater sum obtained for by-products. Mr Steel denied that this last difference amounted to much. It would not have justified any reduction of prices. Beef had risen almost precisely a halfpenny on the pound. Mr Steel did not offer to explain why butchers had raised the retail price from Id to l£d on this account. He refused to consider the 1901 quotations with regard'to lamb, on the ground that lamb was never sold by the pound until last February. Mr Steel finally declared that he did not know anything about any of the figures. If anyone thought that butchers made large profits, let him start butchering. He did not think there was a plentiful supply of meat. By the firm of Messrs H. B. Lane and Son our representative's figures were not questioned. It was urged, however, that a great deal depended on the weight of animal bought for a certain sum. Recently all the heavy sheep had gone to Sydney,'and butchers had been obliged to take smaller sheep for the same money. The stockbought in 1901 were doubtless better and heavier. We were now sending more to South Africa than then. Moreover, the Arbitration Act had forced up wages, there was a keener demand on the part of the London market, and the more rigid inspection regulations necessitated an insurance payment of Is a head on every bullock. At the same time, this same insurance lessened the actual loss when stock was condemned. Certainly the firm were not making more profits than in 1901, and it was doubtful, on the whole, if prices could be reduced.

Mr James Knight probably summed up the position with oil the fairness possible from the buteliers' point of view. Five months ago, he stated, the shortage of supplies caused by the Australian drought, and want of co-operation among themselves, brought the butchers to such a pass that many of them absolutely objected to serving customers. One man took to driving a cab alter closing hours. They held a meeting, and decided to raise the price of meat. Before that, wholesale prices had gone up, and they had neglected to do *o. At the present time, Mr Knight admitted, wholesale rates had gone down again, and butchers had not yet lowered their retail charges in proportion. Consequently, the position of the trade to-day was more prospero— than it had; been for a long while.

At the same time, the present prices were not so unduly large by any meAjj* as might appear from the bare figures. The expenses of life generally were increasing; in accordance with the Arbitration Court, an employee who, two years ago, would have been amply paid at the rate of £1 15s per week, must now receive £3 10s. The stringent laws of inspection now required the destruction of the whole carcase, where formerly only the tainted organ would have been sacrificed. Moreover, fre6h expenses loomed ahead, and it was doubtful how long the present, fairly prosperous condition of the trade would continue. For example, the City Council, after establishing abat-, toirs against the judgment of ail the butchers, now proposed to do their ajvn killing, at more than double the previous rate. On the whole, however, Mr Knight thought that in many cases retail prices were sure to go down soon, owing to.the greater cheapness of supplies. He would be in favour of the reduction, which could easily be altered whenever wholesale rates should increase again. OTHER OPINIONS. t Our representative approached tlie three following butchers without showing them any figures. He merely asked them what had caused the present prices, and if profits were unduly large. . Mr James Forrester, Sydenham, stated that retail charges were certainly greater than two years ago, but they had need he, for at that time all the butchers were losing money. The low prices then prevailing were not sufficient to pay expenses. Stock wis now a trifle higher than it was then. F§r instance, beef was about 7s 6d to 10s a hundred dearer, mutton was a shade higher, and lamb was about 2e 6d dearer, than the prices which prevailed two years ago (compare table). There were no two ways about the dearness of stock. The increase in retail prices was due to this cause, and to the increase, amounting to fully one-third, in wages. The new inspection was also expensive. During the last six montlis the Butchers of Christchurch and Lyttelton, excluding the Meat Company, had had about twenty beasts condemned at the Lyttelton abattoirs and at Belfast, the average value per beast being about £9. During part of this time tho insurance scheme had not been started, and afterwards many of the beasts were not insured, as they did not pass through Addington. Even supposing stock were no dearer than two years ago, the present retail charges would not be excessive, for at that time butchers were carrying on business at a loss. Chargies could hardly come down with fairness, as next month was the time when stock almost invariably rose. Even now it was hard to know where to go for a decent line of bullocks, and wholesale prices were expected to go up. Tlie chief cause of mutton being kept up was the large export of ewes. Otherwise, Mr Forrester believed the price of mutton would have been a penny a pound lower. This particular export trade, however, did not affect himself and high-class butchers so much as smaller firms, seeing that they bought very little ewe mutton. Mr S. R. Merrett, of the Christchurch Meat Company, stated that pork two years ago was 3id per lb, against 6id to-day, beef 20s to 22s 6d per 1001b, as against 27s 5d to 32* 64 to-day, sheep 12s to 14s, as against 20s to-day (compare table). But conditions were entirely different. There had been a great increase in wages, and ail other things were dear in proportion. On the whole the condition of the master butchers was not better than two years ago, though the price of meat was higher. Mr Merrett thought this put the matter in a nutshell. It was reserved for Mr John Kerr, however, who admitted that he had had a long experience of the trade, having been for twenty years with the late Mr Frank Hopkins, toput the climax upon these explanations. This is what passed between our representative and Mr Kerr. "Stock is up," Mr Kerr stated, "and prices are up equal with it. That is what caused the dearness. Stock is too high altogether. It is higher all round. It is pounds higher on cattle, and it is considerably higher on mutton and lamb. Yes (in answer to further questions), I believe that is the sole reason for the present prices. Of course, they would come down if stock were the same as it was two yeans ago. There would be no trouble about it" "When stock comes down again to that point?" queried our representative, "we can get a reduction?" "Exactly so-" Mr Kerr explained that the present scarcity was caused by export.