The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1934. BRITISH BEEF.

Evening Star, Issue 21667, 12 March 1934, Page 8

The Evening Star MONDAY, MARCH 12, 1934. BRITISH BEEF.

Spkakixg at Liverpool last week, Sir James P.arr advocated that English and New Zealand fanners should combine mutually to increase prices and regulate production. He was referring particularly to butter, and he expressed surprise that English housewives (particularly in the North Country, which is well served by Hull as the nearest port to Denmark) prefer Danish butter wholesaled at 98s per cwt (including ,15s Customs duty) to New Zealand butter at 70s. The answer is not difficult —lnnate conservatism and intrinsic quality. After a few hours’ run across the North Sea Danish butter arrives absolutely fresh, and its barrel containers, as against boxes, appear to suit the retail trade. Its consistency suits the saving northerners, for a pound of it “goes further” in spreading on bread. And it would be foolish to maintain .that the quality of New Zealand butter is what it used to be before home separation became practically universal. Moreover, the record of the Dairy Export Control Board since its inception is not altogether one of ordinary businesslike studying of the requirements of our customers in Tooley street or in the homes of the people. Now that the greater part of the New Zealand wool clip has been disposed of, producing interests have time to give earnest attention to the latest development in export activities—the shipment of chilled heef to Britain. The proved success of the new process is evidently disturbing Home beef growers, who discern merely a change in the oversea source of chilled supplies—from Australia and New Zealand instead of the Argentine. According to

the London ‘ Daily Telegraph,’ British farmers are losing GOs on every beast sold. Experts in the industry are baffled at the failure of the cuts in imports to affect Home prices. Moreover, the increases in the dominion imports partly offset the quota reductions from South America. Under the Ottawa agreement there was an understanding that New Zealand beef would be approximately the same as in 1932-33, but Now Zealand sent CO per cent, more in the year 1933. Canada also undertook to keep down her exports of live cattle to the level of the first quarter of 1933, yet the imports for January, 1934, alone were nearly twothirds of the total for the whole of the first quarter in 1933. ft is even suggested that, imported lied should he subject to a levy to ensure a guaranteed price for home-grown British beef. The situation is made the more piquant by a statement which was made by Sir Edmund Vcstey in a recent interview in Melbourne. Sir Edmund commenced active business life as an office boy, aged twelve and a-half years. He grew up witli the organisation which lie controls to-day. He has been fifty-five years in this business, and bis brother. Lord Vestey, has been sixty-two years in it. “ I suppose you wonder why f delay my retirement,” lie asked. “ Well, when we started wc did hope to make enough to provide for declining years, but our responsibilities are now such that retirement seems to be out of the question while we arc able to continue. You see, our organisation is owned by 35,000 shareholders, whose average holding is £4OO, and there are 30,000 employees, whose interests are linked up with our own.”

Wc have at intervals quoted in these columns from articles by Mr S. L. Bensusan, for many years one of the most authoritative and interesting writers on British agriculture. In 1928, long before the Ottawa Conference, a wave of pessimism went through the farming community in Britain, and Mr Bensusan’s analysis at that time suggests that there are points of similarity in conditions on the land in Britain and in New Zealand. He wrote: “ A farmer in a big way of business told me he had been forced to send stock to market under an assumed name because if his creditors had known ho was short of money they would have pressed him to the verge of insolvency, possibly over it. Bankers, dealers, auctioneers—all the people who give the farmer credit —reduced facilities and sought to cover themselves last year; the loss of confidence proved disastrous. This year, 1928. when the sun shone with a good grace and the earth was found to be rotating on its axis in the old familiar fashion, confidence reappeared and would probably stay if it were not for the market and the motor car. These play a very large and very sinister part in agricultural life to-day, a part unknown before the war. The farmer, though ho is ruined, keeps his car. lie can give you a dozen reasons why he could not farm without it, why he saves money by its use, and there is no occasion to doubt his belief in his own assertions. But he seldom tells you that the car serves to take him to as many as three markets in a week. When he used a horse and trap one market sufficed; and would suffice now so far as buying and selling are concerned. Unfortunately, perhaps, the temptation to know what the other man is sending in and what he is making of it is well-nigh irresistible. Happily there are always those who stay at homo and fight their way through ; their example saves as much of the situation as is recoverable. In the midst of men who have lost courage and are losing everything else, the shrewd, clever minority are making money.”

Writing after Ottawa (in January, 1933), Mr Bensusan evidently had little trust in the Government’s efforts on behalf of agriculture. At that moment Mr Walter Elliot had just succeeded the placid Sir John Gilmour at the Ministry of Agriculture, and the present Minister cannot be accused of lack of energy and initiative. Whether ho is going to make matters better or worse still remains to be seen. Mr Bensusan wrote: “It is not by marketing schemes, large or small, uor by pig councils, eminent or eloquent, nor by restriction of imports, nor by bounties on wheat that the resultant problem can bo met. Agriculture can be saved by the State, and the State saved by agriculture. The position that persists to-day is founded chiefly on the fear of 1 Whitehall interference.’ The ordinary dyed-in-the-wool Conservative, even though ho be a farmer who could not to-day pay 10s in tho pound, feels safer in his insolvency and independence than he would if he were under control for the benefit of the nation and for his own security. How long lie will continue to avoid the logic of hard facts remains to be seen, and how the State is to steer successfully between food taxes and profiteering is further matter for wonder.” As to the people and interest which sought the new Minister’s ear. Mr Bensusan wrote: “ Either they are-for the farmer, and demand larger measures of protection, or they are for the townsman, and demand what they are pleased to calHEreetrade, though the only freedom that really attaches to it is that which is given to middlemen, combines, trusts, and similar organisations to exploit the farmer at one end of the scale and the consumer at tho other. Everything done in the past year has created ill-feeling and aroused controversy Tho farmers are not satisfied: tariffs raise the price of feeding stuffs, tithe strangles the smaller men. On the other hand, the townsman is still exploited. . . . Tho

meat position is as confused as any other. So soon as restrictions were announced prices fell in the exporting countries, and were raised over here. It was market manipulation and nothing else, the big interests combining to make money out of the state of confusion. To-day English bullocks do not fetch 5d a pound on the hoof. It is abundantly clear that the general effect of restriction will bo increased profit for the market manipulators, because the State lacks the courage to control the interests that are really in charge of the nation’s food.” This is plain speaking, and constitutes an argument against tho suggested levy on imported beef to provide a guaranteed price to the British grazier.