Sheep-Branding Views Challenged

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30873, 6 October 1965, Page 1

Sheep-Branding Views Challenged

(Parliamentary Reporter) WELLINGTON, Oct. 5. Views expressed by the Director-General of Agriculture (Mr D. N. R. Webb) in the agriculture section of last Saturday’s edition of “The Press” were challenged tonight by Sir Basil Arthur. “1 am ready to concede,” he said, “that branding of sheep in New Zealand is costing the farmers about £2 million a year, and it is imperative that branding with paint and anything else that will not scour must cease as soon as possible. However, the sheep farmers of this country have been waiting for over two years for the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research to produce or recommend some satisfactory means of identification before the ban on branding took effect on October 1. “The only alternatives Mr Webb has to suggest are ear tags or ear marks. Both of these systems have been tried and, though proving satisfactory in some parts of the country, they have been discarded in others as unsatisfactory forms of sheep identification.” In South Canterbury a large number of farmers had tried those alternatives and reverted to branding as the only positive means of stock identification. Farmers who brought stock in from varied sources and from different areas had found similar earmarks, Sir Basil Arthur said. The problem of marking

twin lambs had also to be overcome, and it was to be hoped that some satisfactory marking pencil or soft raddle would be developed. “Mr Webb states that ‘the Lands and Survey Department

with more than a million sheep under its control had ceased branding some time ago, and that its clip was in great demand because of its freedom from brands.’ He goes on to say that ‘figures of

losses of stock on department blocks came well within the range of those on private farms.’ “In fact, he even goes so far as to say that their losses were less, and losses on department blocks were proved, as sheep on these blocks were counted each year by two independent persons, and losses were thus definitely established,” he said. STOCK LOSSES I feel that it should be pointed out, however, that the Lands and Survey Department has been greatly concerned about stock losses from some of their blocks. For the farm trading year ending June 30, 1963, they lost 101,073 sheep out of 1.9 million head carried. One-third of these—33,o6l, valued' at £77,904 —were written off in the Appropriation Act, 1964, as abnormal deaths and missing. The balance—6B,ol2 were normal deaths. One block near Taupo (Tuhingamata) lost 5000 head, and in spite of extensive police investigations they have not been accounted for,” Sir Basil Arthur said.

“During the following year, a different /block Aratiatia, had 3047 sheep unaccounted for, and they will have to be written off in the Appropriation Bill, 1965, when it comes before Parliament.

“In a letter to me dated February 4, 1965, the Minister of Lands (Mr Gerard) had this to say: ‘I am deeply concerned about the loss of stock on Aratiatia which cannot be positively explained. However, the department will be on the look-out for further information relative to the case, and the steps taken to revise check procedures should assist in keeping a closer control over livestock generally.’ “It is reasonable to assume that, if these missing sheep had been branded, the police may have been able to trace them,” he said.

Mr Webb’s enthusiasm to discourage wool damage through branding was to be commended, but his statement regarding losses by the Lands and Survey Department did not measure up to the facts, said Sir Basil Arthur. “Sheep farmers do not wish to wilfully damage their wool, but they cannot be expected to refrain from taking steps to identify their own stock. “As yet no satisfactory alternative to branding has been discovered. It looks as though 1966 could well be an open season for sheep stealers,” he said.