Newspapers Criticised For Rejected Meat Publicity

Press, Volume XCVII, Issue 28700, 25 September 1958, Page 19

Newspapers Criticised For Rejected Meat Publicity

Newspapers were doing the country a disservice by giving undue emphasis to reports of meat rejected by America, said Mr A. C. Wright to the provincial executive of North Canterbury Federated Farmers yesterday. If any meat in a shipment was rejected by America the newspapers said: ’Another Shipment of Meat Rejected.’’ Of all the meat shipped to America only half of 1 per cent, had been rejected. “I admit we should not even have that but that isn’t news ‘Another Shipment Rejected’ is,’’ said Mr Wright. Mr Wright, who was reporting on a meeting of the provincial meat and wool section, said that, in reply to representations on the banning of sheep with footrot from saleyards, a letter from the Department of Agriculture said it could not deal with the matter on a provincial level; it would have to be on a Dominion level. Sheep Dusting Farmers were wrong if they pressed contractors to cut prices for dusting sheep, said Mr Wright. The price could only be cut by reducing the quality of the material and that could have farreaching repercussions. It seemed.

from reports, that sheep were sometimes put through the dusting race too fast. “We have fought for years for this method of dipping sheep and we do not want to do anything which will nullify our efforts,’’ he said. Dairy Industry “Just where are we going from here? That is the question that is causing concern in the dairy industry,’’ said Mr W. C. Millar, reporting on a meeting of the dairy section in Wellington. It was evident there was no such thing as a guaranteed price. There was some question as to whether the industry was wise in accepting the present set-up and the dairy section was concerned about getting the feeling of farmers on whether they should divorce themselves from it. This was a big and difficult decision to make. Soil Testing A remit from the Sefton and districts branches,“that Federated Farmers press for the organising of more comprehensive soil testing by the Department of Agriculture’’ was adopted by the executive. Moving the adoption of the remit Mr A. T. Metherell said that his branch felt that it would be much better if soil tests were done through the department for it had the field officers who had the knowledge to relate the results of tests to the farm. The motion was seconded by Mr J. W. Carson. Mr D. A. Butcher gave notice to move at the next meeting “that action be taken to have soil testing divorced from the selling of minerals.’’

Mr R. G. Rainey gave notice to move “that Federated Farmers press for the issue of a certificate of analysis with all fertilisers.’*