FOOD OUTPUT IN BRITAIN

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28524, 1 March 1958, Page 9

FOOD OUTPUT IN BRITAIN

Factors Involved In Expansion Fears are sometimes expressed that expansion of food production in Britain, particularly ih animal meats, may threaten our markets for surplus meat production.

Mr D. G. Reynolds, the new instructor in agriculture in the Mackenzie county, who returned to' New Zealand late last year from a visit to the United Kingdom, Canada and the United States, said the other day that it tfrould be quite feasible for Britain to produce very much more of her meat requirements, but it was questionable if it was in her interests to do so. An economist had said that by a process of subsidisation Britain maintained her agriculture at a level conducive to the best overseas selling, standards for her own secondary industries. In simple terms this meant that Britain was most unlikely •to produce to the extent where New Zealand, for instance. Avas unable to earn a sufficient income to buy the products of British motor and other industries.

With a population approaching 60 millions Britain was forced to produfce a fairly high percentage of her own food requirements in order to be able to compete on favdurable terms for the balance of her needs, he said. When it was considered that Britain was little different in area from New Zealand it was very creditable that she was feeding up to half her total population. Big labour Force The big labour force on British farms Was something that always impressed New Zealanders, said Mr Reynolds. While the efficiency of some of this labour might at times be open to question there could be no doubt that the end result was a far greater production an acre which was after all the ultimate Criterion. “We in this country are proud to have the greatest ’ output per man and having a relatively low density of population this may be very laudable, but certainly it will not always be the case,” he said.

In the sheepfarming industry. Mr Reynolds said the whole accent in Britain was on meat production rather than wool. While it was known that in Britain there were breeds of sheep of very high prolificacy it was well to remember that even the Romney performed to very good effect in England with percentages of well over 145 common. 'Jit is questionable whether we in this country might be better to attack some of/our management techniques in handling the Romney rather than changing or modifying the breed,” he added. More than 35 breeds of sheep were represented in Britain’s sheep population, which was now approaching 23 millions, but only 14 of these were in common usage.

Mr Reynolds said that one of the most outstanding differences between New Zealand and British farming was the severe climate with which the British farmer had to contend. Under the most ideal climate he had to face five and a half months of winter and in parts of the highlands of Scotland the winter period could last UP to seven months. The results of these conditions were that the British farmer had a larger capital outlay in making provision for housing stock and it was necessary to use heavier rates of all types of topdressing to get the maximum from the land during the growing season. Grassland Farming In terms of intensive grassland farming, Mr Reynolds said that Britain differed from New Zealand in that her farmers were unable to rely to the extent that their New Zealand counterparts did on the use of legumes to supply nitrogen. They used much heavier rates of topdressing than were ever contemplated in New Zealand. Dressings of up to 2cwt of nitrogen were not uncommon together with several hundredweights of phosphate, potash of basic slag. Further grass did not supply the same percentage of total feed as in this country and far greater reliance was placed on crops like kale, mangolds, greenfeeds and various concentrates.