Government spending on agriculture

Press, Volume CXI, Issue 32679, 7 August 1971, Page 16

Government spending on agriculture

The proposed importation of young bulls from France, announced in June by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr Carter), needs more justification than has so far been provided by the department. The department intends to import 35 young bulls of four breeds, none of which are represented in this county, and, after holding them on the maximumsecurity Somes Island quarantine station, to cross them experimentally with cattle of other breeds. The relevance of this project to New Zealand’s fastgrowing beef export trade is readily apparent. But two or three of the French breeds have already been evaluated in the United Kingdom and the records of those experiments are available to the New Zealand Department of Agriculture. The department could have imported semen, instead of livestock, to evaluate the other breed. While that evaluation was being carried out, Somes Island could be used to hold imported sheep, whose shorter gestation period and breeding cycle would ensure an earlier recovery from the considerable quarantine costs. ’

There is another, possibly more serious, objection to the importation of cattle from Europe. The stringent precautions taken on a maximum-security station will safeguard New Zealand cattle herds from any infection or contagion; no fears need be entertained on that score by New Zealand cattlemen. But cattlemen in the countries to which New Zealand exports livestock and meat—particularly cattlemen who might find it expedient to exclude imports from this country—will not be easily reassured. It would be prudent, at least, for the department to “ clear ” the Somes Island project with senior officials from importing countries before proceeding with a project which might prejudice future exports. The cost of this project has been put conservatively—at $140,000. The freight alone will cost about $750 a beast—the amount that the department is saving by curtailing the travelling of each of its advisory officers from 10,000 miles a year to 5000. As a result of that economy measure, highlyqualified and experienced advisory officers are now sitting in their offices trying to advise farmers by telephone or letter, denied the opportunity of visiting farms. Has the department got its priorities right?