Meat Diversion Savings Queried

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31830, 7 November 1968, Page 9

Meat Diversion Savings Queried

No objection could be raised to the South Island meat diversion scheme if it were in the national interest, but it must not be permitted to retard any new methods for the bulk handling of frozen meat that might be developed in the near future, Mr L. G. Amos, the chairman, said at the Lyttelton Harbour Board’s meeting yesterday.

He was commenting on the findings of the Transport Commission on the scheme.

The board had always felt that with the exception of delays caused by wet weather, mechanical loaders were not the answer to quicker handling of frozen meat, as each carcase had to be handled singly, Mr Amos said. This opinion was confirmed by the commission. “With the new methods of bulk handling of cargo gradually being introduced into the New Zealand trade at present, it should not be long before frozen meat will be exported in bulk direct from the works to the ship,” he continued. "Whether the development will go along the lines of the container or in some other unitised form only time will tell. “In the meantime the board must take all possible steps to ensure that Lyttelton is not detrimentally affected by the use of the smaller type of insulated railway waggons for the shipment of residual frozen meat through the port. If preference is given to Timaru for the larger bogietype waggon, shunting delays will increase at Lyttelton if the smaller type is used. ‘"To obtain a proper appreciation of the loading rates of frozen meat at the various New Zealand ports it is necessary to know the number of gangs employed at a particular ship and whether the ship is the modern type of vessel or one of the older ships which are normally programmed to load frozen meat at Lyttelton. The modern type of vessel has mechanicallyoperated top hatches which facilitate loading.”

“It is disturbing to read the evidence of the Conference Lines which in my opinion is not conclusive on;the costs saved and the ship days saved,” Captain A. R. Champion said. The lines claimed to have saved 200 days out of 518, he said. It was also said that 26,329 tons of meat had been diverted to Timaru and Bluff. The rate of loading at Lyttelton and Otago was not so far behind the mechanical loaders, Captain Champion said. A ship loading at Lyttelton could equal or even exceed the rates of the loaders at Timaru provided there was the same co-operation there evidently was at Timaru.

It had been shown that Lyttelton had lost 94,047 tons of cargo since the introduction of the diversion scheme, but only 13,000 tons was meat diverted to Timaru. “I am certain there has been an increased tonnage of goods other than meat at Timaru,” he continued. “If it had not been for the diversion scheme some other cargo would have been discharged and loaded at Lyttelton. Everything possible must be done to see that all cargo other than meat is channelled through our port.” Mr J. K. McAlpine said he was concerned to know what the shipping companies did with the days they claimed to have saved. Were the ships being fully used?

There had been cases of ships being held in Lyttelton waiting to get to a meat loader at Timaru or Bluff, Mr F. I. Sutton said. He wondered if the companies had balanced the days lost against those saved.