Canterbury Lamb.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 19853, 14 February 1930, Page 8

Canterbury Lamb.

Mr Westenra's remarks on Wednesday about Canterbury lamb will already have created a certain amount of uneasiness in farming and commercial circles. It will indeed be a pity if they have not done so, since the importance of the subject <iould hardly be exaggerated, and the only thing really to be feared is the refusal of farmers to look the facts squarely in the face. Mr Westenra may be right and he may be wrong—the fact that he is himself a breeder of Corritdales is a sufficient proof of his disinterestedness —but it is not so important at this stage to say whether he is right or wrong as it is to realise how big a question he has raised and how much depends on its being met in the proper spirit*. It is not a question of asking Canterbury to turn its back on the Corriedale, whiph is not only its own creation, but one of its permanent sources of strength. On the other hand farmers must ask themselves whether the challenge of the Argentine can be met without considerable modifications

in their present methods of breeding, and there does not seem- to be much doubt that, if quality alono is to be considered, the Southdown cross has everything in its favour that Mr Westenra claims for it. Unfortunately the average farmer is not easily persuaded to breed for quality and for quality only. He knows that he can get a higher price for a light lamb than for a heavy one, but he can hardly be blamed for remembering that 46 pounds of lamb at Bid will, at least temporarily, put more into Ins pocket than 36 pounds at 9d. Mr Westenra's argument of course is that if they do not produce the right Weight, and the right quality, including the right shape and the right flavour, farmers will in the long run ruin the market altogether. If Africa, Russia, and Australia, as well as the Argentine, are going in for the Southdown cross, and are all "out "to give what Sniithlield wants," it is certain, he thinks, that Canterbury will be " left" if it persists in going its own way. Although Canterbury can be trusted not to be quite so foolish as to ignore the demands of the market on which it must live, Mr Westenra may be right in thinking that it is not adapting its methods quickly enough. The whole question is of such importance that farmers' organisations of all kinds should give it their immediate attention.