LAMBS’ KIDNEYS

Dominion, Volume 16, Issue 88, 10 January 1923, Page 6

LAMBS’ KIDNEYS

. MORE FROM MEAT BOARD’S SIDE — MANAGER ASKS WHERE AGITATION BEGAN The following statement was made to a Dominion representative yesterday by Mr. John Eraser, general manager for the New Zealand Meat Producers’ Board: — “Of lato we have heard of all sorts of things which aro likely to happen if the New Zealand Meat Producers Board persist in their determination not to allow the exportation of lambs 421 b. and under which do not retain the kidneys and kidney fat. “It is always interesting to look at a position ‘from the other fellow s point of view,’ and the following facts will probably cause farmers to wonder what is really at the bottom of the whole affair, and why there should be such an agitation at this particular moment: , “(1) Most of the works m the North Island have for years left the kidneys and kidney fat in all lambs irrespective of weights, whereas as far as the regulation goes it is optional ts regards lambs weighing over 421 b. “(2) Last month (December) in the North Island, buyers have been giving in the Hawke’s Bay, Wanganui, and Wellington districts, lOd. per lb. for prime lambs, the kidneys and kidney fat being left in all lambs irrespective of weights, the farmers getting the additional weight represented bv the kidnevs and kidney fat. the difference in return to the farmers between kidneys left in lambs and kidneys taken out is equal to id. to id. per lb. That is, a grower getting lOd. per lb. with kidneys and kidney fat left in is getting equal to 10id. to IOJd. per lb., ns compared with kidneys and kidney (at taken out. “(3) In Canterbury last month (December), buyers have been offering 9jd. por lb. for prime lambs, and some tvorks are taking out all the kidneys and. trimming the kidney fat, the farmers being paid on the weight of lamb after tho kidneys have been removed and the kidney-fat trimmed. “It has been asserted that lambs with kidneys removed will fetch more on the London markets than if the kidneys were retained in the carcass. If there is anything, in this assertion, then, with the additional value of Canterbury quality, the farmers in Canterbury should get lid. per lb. for his lambs, whereas lie is being offered only 9}d. per lb. “(4) Certain freezing companies m the North Island made good c.i.f. sales of lambs with the understanding that the kidneys would be removed. When they afterwards pointed out to the London buyers that the kidneys must bo retained in the lambs, the London buyers raised no objections. (5) The largest exporter of lambs from New Zealand has given instructions that the kidneys and Kidney fat must ba left in all their lambs. particular company has probably the biggest connection in Great Britain, and has in the past handled thousands of lambs with the kidneys and kidney fat left intact. The representative of this company would not ask to have the kidneys left in his Canterbury lambs if he thought he would get less per lb. at the other end for them. “(6) Mr. Jessep has made a thorough investigation of the position at the other end before advising the board in the matter. He describes the present agitation as being ridiculous,' in view of the numbers of lambs containing kidneys which already come on to the market from New Zealand. Ihe following are extracts from advices received from him : — “ . . Majority large retailers and Smithfield salesmen express the opinion that it is an advantage to have kidneys left in lambs. The only objection being in the case of an overfat lamb. This applies more particularly to Australia, as New Zealand prime lambs do not proportionately show excessive fat inside.’ “ ‘ . Largest private dealer in Glasgow, who is a large buyer of Canterbury lambsy states emphatically would leave them in. ...’ “Mr. Jessep, whilst in Manchester, met a very representative group of meat men from r.he north of England, who were interested in direct shipments to Manchester. These men. who represented such towns as Birmingham, Nottingham, Halifax, Huddersfield, and Leeds, on being asked if they had any objection to kidneys being 'left in lambs, were quite unanimous that there wa« no objection to the kidneys being left in. ‘ . “(7) As regards the question or taint which has been raised: the Gear Company and Nelson Bros., are two of the oldest firms in the frozen meat business ; both these companies have done a great deal of research work in tho trade, and have for years shipped all lambs irrespective of weights with the kidneys in, and have had no complaints regarding taint. Besides these two companies, the majority of the North Island companies follow this practice. . “Considering the difference in climate between the two Islands, there should be no difficulty in the South Island companies doing likewise. “(8) All tho Argentine and Patagonian lambs are shipperl with the kidneys intact. All Australian lambs, except heavy weights from some factories, arc also sent forward with the k'dncvs retained in the carcasses. There appears to be no difficulty in Australia, despite the extreme heat. “In the last copy of the ‘Pastoral Review’ (November), the London correspondent of this paper sums the position up regarding the opposition from the London end as fodows: “ ‘Although a good deal of parade has been made of the opposition said to be forthcoming against the proposal of the New Zealand Meat Producers Board that nil kidneys and kidney fnt are to be left in frozen lambs exported in the coming season. I cannot find that there is any sol’d body of opinion arrayed against this proiected, action on the part of the producers “After reading this statement from tin independent source I can only reiterate what I have already said at the beginning: What is at the bottom or it all? Is there anv real opposition in London,, or is it all emanating from New Zealand?”