Board seeks response to killing-fees cut idea

Press, 18 February 1984, Page 28

Board seeks response to killing-fees cut idea

The Meat Board has written to all freezing companies in New Zealand seeking their response to a suggestion that killing fees for all stock be reduced by 5 per cent. A member of the board, Mr M. R. Barnett, told an executive meeting of the meat and wool section of North Canterbury Federated Farmers in Christchurch yesterday that the letter was written earlier this month to all freezing works.

The chairman of the meat and wool section, Mr R. W. Davison, had said he was looking for reductions in freezing works killing charges at the end of the wage and price freeze — certainly not increases. Mr Barnett’s comment indicated that the board was prepared to make a very substantial effort this year to get reductions in killing charges. In the letter to freezing companies, the board chairman, Mr A. M. Begg, drew attention to the continuing decline in the real income of meat and wool farmers and contrasted it to the profits made in recent years

by meat companies. Board staff are now understood to be working on details of arrangements which would give farmers some indication of the market value of their sheepmeats. The current export schedule masks this information by quoting supplementary minimum prices which, for the benchmark grades, have not changed much for two years. Fully itemised killing sheets, showing schedule prices, killing charges, supplements and levies, were urged by Mr Davison. Mr Barnett agreed that pressure should be placed on freezing companies to get them to amend their computer programmes to give much more information on killing sheets to farmers. Mr Davison also said he was angered by the quick recourse some sections of the meat and wool industries had to penalties or discounts. He specifically mentioned the foreshadowed discounts for trimmer grades of export lambs and deductions for seedy pelts on woolly and shorn lambs.

“It would brighten my life considerably if someone would come to my gate and say that he would pay a premium for a certain type of lamb or wool. Then I would produce it,” he said.

Several meat and wool executive members mentioned their disappointment that meat companies had begun discounting seedy pelts on shorn lambs as well as woolly lambs. It had been suggested that freezing companies were on shaky ground legally when they deducted penalties for seedy pelts on the basis of identifying seed only in wool. The answer was to de-

velop systems whereby pelts and slipe wool could be identified in fellmongeries as coming from the producers who had submitted the sheep for slaughter. Appropriate and meaningful discounts and premiums could then be applied. It was suggested that meat company drafters be made to work a bit harder and give some indication of the likely wool pull and possible seed damage deductions before lambs left the farm. Mr Davison said it was clear in all this discussion that farmers had to take a greater interest in what happened to their sheep at the works.

A past meat and wool

president in North Canterbury, Mr E. W. Turrell, who is also chairman of N.C.F. Kaiapoi, Ltd, a freezing works, said that a reduction in stock numbers in Canterbury, a much better season and more killing chains operating had combined to make this a competitive season for freezing companies.

But unless farmers made maximum use of their own company, the farmer-owned N.C.F., the maximum possible downward pressure on killing rates could not be applied.

N.C.F. also wanted farmers to take up the remaining shares being offered in the company.