MEAT QUOTA

Evening Post, Volume CXVIII, Issue 32, 7 August 1934, Page 14

MEAT QUOTA

HOW IT MAY AFFECT FARMERS

(To the Editor.7

Sir, —One of the most serious problems facing New Zealand, and particularly tlie New Zealand farmer today is the proposed limitation of export of all classes of meat to Great Britain. The grower who is most vitally concerned of all those interested" is at present very- much in-the dark as to the proposals now "going discussed by Cabinet and tho Meat. Board. As one interested both in the growing of meat and the marketing of it, I would welcome some discussion in our Press from growers and exporters in the., hopo that some useful light may bo thrown on tho problem which must bo faced in the near future. There appears to be only ono clearly-stated demand from Great Britain today, namely, a quota restricting' meat of several classes, possibly all classes, to an average total hot exceeding tho export tonnage for the year 1931-1932. Even though we take the greatest ■ export season in tho last ten years tho problem is still the same and we must restrict production now or in the very near future. ' ' . '

What tho effect will be is fairly obvipus to the grower. The individual farmer must say to himself: "I have increased my flocks of sheep, pigs, cows, cattle by subdivision of my land into smaller areas, rotational grazing, use of ensilage, hand feeding, etc., and tho free use of fertilisers, and by whatever other means it has paid me to uso to increase my carrying capacity. I have .250 acres oi land, and I now find I can increase my returns by setting apart a few acres for pig growing. I have laid out capital in erecting sheds, yards, etc., and have bought sows and boars in preparation for future increase in pig farming, I was told that this country could iind a market in Great Britain for 1,000,000 pigs, and I have mapped out my plans accordingly. What am I to do? I presume my last year's output of fifty pigs will bo' reduced to forty-five under a.lO per cent, quota, although I have already, made preparations to produce 200 pigs next year. My capital outlay is wasted. I will employ fewer men, and, as I cannot increase my mutton and lamb production, I may as well save the cost of manures, do less fencing, and do with loss labour." The above may be taken as tho view of one farmer but there arc other farmers who require an outlet for veal, cow beef, and ox beef, which are all to be restricted or in some cases, prohibited from exportation altogether. There aro large tracks, in New Zealand on which beef must be grazed to keep tho land in fit condition for. the farming of sheep and lambs. What is to bo dono with this surplus beef'? /It is to bq' hoped that theso problems aro well-knowii and will be well considered by those handling the problem of tho quota. They should bear in mind that a quota moans loss of employment, a. greatly-reduced consumption of fertilisers, and production brought to a standstill. ' . .

Is there any alternative to this serious state of affairs 1 lias the British Government ever intimated that it would accept all New Zealand meat or even several sections of it under a

duty?. Mas such an offer been declined by the authorities, and if so, why" Let us visualise tho effect of a duty levied by Great Britain on all imports of meat with a view to subsidising her owii growers. A duty would • give British producers, protection, and at the same time a subsidy on their own production, and, surely, if such protection (subsidy and duty) were insufficient for tho British meat grower, the British growers aro not farming intelligently and economically! Now, a duty of, say, £d-pdr lb on imports of lamb, mutton, and pigs; }d per lb on beef and veal, levied on all imports, including New Zealand produce, would provide a subsidy for the British farmer based on the importation of meat into Great Britain from all sources for tho year, 1D33 of £6,000,000. T.t might be well to noto further that on Great Britain's total importations of bacon, hams, . and pork, New Zealand's share in 1933 was 14,000 tons compared with tho total importation of this product into Great Britain of 528,877 tons. New Zealand ■ would be- paying her proportion of that subsidy, but our export trade would not bo killed, and the effect would be to turn our. growers to the production of produce that it would pay them •to grow,' leaving the natural law of supply and demand, weather conditions both hero and in other parts of tho world, oponing of other markets, increased consumption, and lower values, to all play their part in naturally adjusting conditions to world requirements. One noticeable factor of the qudta system has, to the mind of the writer, a great drawback in that it is undertaken with the idea of raising prices to the consumer. This must mean a great reduction in the consumption of meat, especially by the poorly-paid consumer. On the : other hand, a duty levied on meat would leave the door open" for . certain classes' of cheaper meat -to' enter Great Britain and so fiirthe needs of the great army of unemployed p and lower-paid workers in Great Britain.

■Presuming "that tlio'grower in New Zealand had the right to select a quota ov pay a duty on meat exported to Great Britain it might be well to consider the effect on the returns' for various classes of meat, namely:— Uccf. —Boneless beef has been' sold this year at 2d per lb, and. even less, freight paid to Great Britain. Cow beef has been sold, at lijd to 2-idper lb. Ox beef from 2£d to 2Jd per b. A duty of :}d per lb on beef would make little or no difference to the buyer, and it is possible the exporter would receive a slightly higher price in periods of scarcity which would far more than compensate for the cost of the duty. Lamb and mutton.—Prices for both classes of meat have been very payable during 1934, and if reduced by a duty of Id. per lb would still bo payable. Pigs.—New Zealand returns on pigs during 1934 have been > the highest for many years, the price of pork in London ranging from ud to 6Jd per lb, and the production of pigs would still be payable under a reduction of Id per lb. Any quota on pigs would be a disaster to New Zealand which is only now beginning to increase its output. In conclusion, I consider that if the British Government would givo us an open market on the basis of a duty the proposal'has so many points in its favour that it should not be put on one side until every possible means have been considered to obtain it. Under a quota our producers must face, very soon, a system of control involving a mass of detail, organisation; and expense with results probably a great deal worse than those obtaining under a duty. If a duty will give our growers access to the British market they will be free to increase or reduce their output or class of meat in accordance with what it pays them to produce; it will leave the intelligent, energetic grower a free hand to adjust his production to the requirements of the trade. Actually-a quota means in effect a duty collected on the meat exported and paid to the owners of the meat produced but not exported, but the method of adjusting matters will bu very complicated and can never be fair to all producers. Finally, a quota j means unemployment and. stagnation of tr;ule nnd effort. —I am, etc., .SCOT. I