Too Few Cattle On Hills

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31380, 27 May 1967, Page 8

Too Few Cattle On Hills

“There is no doubt in my mind that the hill country is grossly understocked with cattle,” said Mr J. O. Acland, of Mount Peel station, Peel Forest, speaking to last week’s formers’ conference at Lincoln. “By hill country I am referring to the wet belt of hill country running along the edge of the plains and going back to the main divide.”

“Of course there is no point in running cattle unless they are profitable but we think, and I hope I can prove to you, that cattle can be very profitable on hill country. In fact I think that the main reason for not running more cattle is due to our attitude—we just have not been thinking big enough. "The majority of hill country places do run a few cows but only 50 head or so. We thought we were well stocked, up when we were carrying one cattle beast to 10 sheep; but we are now carrying a ratio of one to six and it seems that the more cattle we run the more sheep we can run and we also get a greater profit from the sheep. Complementary "I think cattle are complementary to sheep—not in competition with them—and by running both better feed utilisation is obtained. “To develop hill country we have found that cattle in large mobs, say 200 in a mob, do the best job and while keeping the country in good order for the sheep they were also mating money. ... “If you have only 40 or 50 breeding cows on a large hill block they could not possibly cope with the job of development—or even of keeping developed country in good order. Even on a small hill property where, say 1500 ewes and replacements are being carried, I feel the number of cattle should be at least 200 head and there are not many places doing this.

"Another great advantage of running more cattie in hill country areas is that you get better labour utilisation as the busy times for sheep and cattie do not clash. . . .We still have the same labour force for 1460 cattie as we had for 850. I think this factor of labour utilisation is a very important part of cattle profitability. ... “People are often critical of cattle and say they are unprofitable but many times it is not the fault of the cattle but of the farmer who has not given his cattle a chance. . . .

“Over the last few years we have managed to get the steers to kill out around 5401 b at 18 months and have been returning about £4O a head, but to do this they must be fed on improved pastures and some winter feed. Some are doing better than us and getting them around the 6001 b mark.

"Our cull heifers are also sold in the autumn at about 20 months. Like our own heifers they are put in calf at 14 months and have averaged about £3B.

“Because we are not selling calves we are gaining the £2 a head that would normally go towards commission, yard fees and cutage to the new owner. The other advantage is that the calves do not suffer a knock back through being shifted from one place to another. “Our return per beast wintered is £l7 a head; but by having our 14-months replacement heifers in calf we should be able to bring this up to £l9 on today’s prices. A lot of people are doing a long way better than this.

"I think this is the way to work out on hill country whether cattle are profitable or not—not by comparing them with a certain number of sheep.

“Accepting then that cattie are an economical proposition I think there is much greater scope for them on our hill country because (1) you get better labour utilisation when running, both sheep and cattle; (2) you get better feed utilisation; (3) the hill will be developed quicker and grasses introduced at a faster rate by using cattie; and (4) by no means the least important is the fact that you do not have all your eggs in one basket “Therefore a property will return a greater net profit if it is running both sheep and cattle, but the ratio of one to the other depends on the individual hill country farm. Of one thing I am certain though—the present number of cattle carried on our South Island hill country is far too low.”