THE WEEK

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 24092, 30 October 1943, Page 3

THE WEEK

j THE BUTTER DECLINE Any doubts that may have existed about the adoption of a butter rationing scheme were removed by the Auckland report recently that up till the end of last month dairy production had declined so far this season in the.province by 28. per cent, This settled any possibility of the ippve being father s', ’.ved off. The trends in this direction have been internal as much as external. The decline in the number of dairy cows, the removal of experienced men from the dairy, farms, the increasing costs of materials; the policy of depressing the price of dairy produce against the advice of the Government’s own special tribunal, the drastic reduction in the availability of fertilisers and the devices introduced to increase the quantity at the expense of quality, and the cumulative effect these disabilities were having on the diversion of dairy land to , sheep and lamb production were patent to., most observers, and that not this year alone, but in the second year of the war. If these portents had been boldly faced then and the causes remedied there would have been much less cause to deplore the decline of dairy production by 23 per cent., Or the wholesale killings of calves, and the changing of dairy land to the raising of sheep' Such steps need not, nor would not have been, an argument against butter rationing, as the community will get along quite well on "what’s left,” which, according to one Minister’s comforting philosophy, is "what counts," but it would have meant a largely increased export to meet British needs. Almost simultaneously with . the introduction of butter rationing was the announcement by the Hon. Walter Nash that negotiations had been proceeding . between the Government and organisations overseas for increasing the supplies of phosphate rock. "If these supplies did come to hand,” said Mr Nash, “it would appear that the subsidy now being paid would reach £2,000,000." A 28 per. cent, reduction in ouf dairy production, it might be remarked, would represent about £6,000,000 in value. It apparently did not suggest itself to Mr Nash that in such case there was little need to mourn the extra million subsidy to firmers for fertilisers. It would come back three or four fold in extra production, also in preventing the fertility of the soil going from bad to worse, and probably in encouraging a great body of farmers to rebuild their depleted dairy herds. A North - Island country paper, is responsible for the st tement that the Minister is arranging with American shipping authorities to provide six or seven ships for freighting phosphate'to New Zealand. If this is the case Mr Nash will be entitled to the best thanks of fanners. In the meantime he should not grieve too much oyer the loss of that million—it will only be an imaginary loss if the phosphates come to hand. BRITAIN’S MEAT SUBSIDY In the year ending Mprch 31. 1942, Britain’s trade subsidies cost the country ■ £96,000.000, after setting off profits pf £11,000,000. This is. disclosed in a report of the Auditor-General. published, tfe’ a Paper, so ’the-figures are authentic. In view of the difficulties .that are confronting the New Zealand' producer id the limitation of prices for .a number of his products, the amounts paid out in England provide food for thought, Meat, -it will be noticed, • which is now providing the principal problem in New Zealand, cost just On £20,()00.000 subsidy in Great Britain. ■ ■ ' ■. The ; principal Items • were Cereals.— £38,108,577, In clud in g£29,327,078'1n —respect of payments to millers for stabilising the price of flour, £6,608,336 paid to bakers: In respect of bread subsidy,- and £ 1,393,665 in respect Of .a, subsidy Von, oatmeal. -V Meat and Livestock.—£l9,s9B,s77 consisting partly of an incentive to farmers to increase production, provided by the Ministry’s purchase price of animals, and partly of the loss Involved in keeping down, the Ministry’s selling price of meat. (The meat ‘subsiry amounts to lid per lb bver^ pH.), : •" . Milk.-££17,544,772. comprising the - cost of- (aV ■ the - i National . Milk . Scheme (£12,477,344), ib) rthe Milk in Schools Scheme (£1.883,753),.. (c) .premlCifns fpr quality milk (£1,807.2951, and td) reimbursement of the .deficits Incurred by the Milk Marketing Boards and , the Ministry of Agriculture; Northern Ireland, In regulating the prices and utilisation of 1 milk (£1,376,380). P0tat0e5.—£14.362,278 including acreage subsidy of £11,057,50 V paid to growers. BEEF OR MILK? Some time ago. it was reported by an Auckland Primary Production Council that a number of farmers were introducing beef bulls into their , dairy herds. This was plain evidence that instead of producing milk next year these herds would be producing beef. Only this week‘in Canterbury there have been .evidences of a similar trend. At Wednesday’s market more than half the entry comprised dairy cows, and probably a substantial proportion of these cows were still to come in. They sold at from £lO to £l7 a head. At this time of the year surplus milk, which is fairly plentiful, is worth 6d a gallon, such a completely unpayable price that dairymen have lost no time in exploiting the high prices prevailing for beef. Thus the maintenance of.dairy herds is faced with a further difficulty. At this week’s Aberdeen-Angus bull sale one West Coast dairyman who bought a bull told.the writer that he was using it in his Friesian herd to produce beef. From the meat viewpoint this might seem quite all right, but it is at the expense of the future milk and butter supply. The lesson is that the city is drifting towards a milk and butter shortage. Time goes on and local city suppliers are still waiting for the release of the Royal Commission’s report on the city milk supply, which was - promised for July. The former Minister of Agriculture early in September said that he did not think the report would be released until after the election; he had “not yet had time to read it,” Being a Royal Commission’s report and not subject to any alteration the necessity of him having to read it at all was not apparent, much less holding up its publication for a month to enable him to do so. Some of the reports that - have gained currency as to the cause of the hold-up in the publication are difficult to credit, but if the new Minister takes charge of his department with the same completeness and authority as his predecessors did some years ago these reasons will be overcome. Control over this matter would be a hopeful augury for the restoration of this most important department of state to the prestige and use and influence that it possessed some years ago. The new Minister has a golden opportunity to do this and farmers as a body will wish him well in such an endeavour.