MARKETING OF EGGS

Press, Volume XCIX, Issue 29235, 20 June 1960, Page 16

MARKETING OF EGGS

Statements i Challenged' A statement in The Press' ’ by (Mr W. Gray) on egg mirtettet and production has beat de-, scribed as “totally misleading” committea (Mr E. H. Schofield). Mr Rcbofieldaaid that other stateflMgtg Mr Gray were opep to He askefi on what grounds Mr Gray sai<| that the Egg Marketing Author * tty’s estimate of eggs sold illegally was too high, or that the number of eggs produced in New ' Zealand was lower than the authority thought Referring to Mr Gray’s state- , meat that pessimism in the poultry industry about over-produc- ’ tion was unjustified, Mr Schofield said that pessimism in the industry was less than it was earlier in the season when even the worst fears of the industry had seemed fully justified. Although consumption had risen considerably throughout New Zealand, , 343.000 dozen more eggs were pulped this year than last year. Ontward Transfers Mr Gray’s statement that egg ! consumption and production were almost equal in Canterbury was correct, said Mr Schofield, but only if outward transfers were included, which for the year ' ended April 29 were 26,000 dozen more than last year. “Practically the whole of this increase was due to the Egg Marketing Authority’s policy by which Canterbury producers were relieved of the penalty that would have been incurred had those eggs been pulped. “Another statement by Mr Gray that no eggs were being imported from other centres is totally misleading,** said Mr Schofield. “It implied that other districts had been required to supply the area when it had been short of eggs. Mr Gray could not, I feel sure, give one instance in the last 10 years when such a course had been necessary.” When Mr Schofield’s comments were referred to Mr Gray he said that the matter was purely a domestic one in the industry.