BOBBY CALF INDUSTRY

Kaikoura Star, Volume LVIII, Issue 22, 17 March 1938, Page 4

BOBBY CALF INDUSTRY

BETTER ORGANISATION DESIRED. MEETING TO BE CALLED. At the mouthy meeting of directors of the Kaikoura Co-operative Dairy Company on Wednesday, March 9, a memorandum was received from the Hon. W. Nash, Minister of Marketing, dealing with the hobby calf industry, and asking that a meeting of dairymen be held to take a ballot on the question of a national co-operative system. As this question was discussed at length at the Dominion Dairy Conference, we publish the Minister’s circular and the discussion in order that dairymen may be conversant with the question when it comes before the meeting to be held on Monday, March 28:— “Arising out of a resolution passed at the recent Dominion Conference of the New Zealand Dairy Board, I convened a meeting of a committee of representatives of the Government, the New Zealand Dairy Board, the New Zealand Farmers’ Union, and the New Zealand Co-op. Pig Marketing Association, to consider and recommend to me a plan for the better organisation of the bobby calf trade. “I informed the committee that, before submitting any plan to Cabinet for consideration. I would require to he satisfied that the opinion of the dairying industry was substantially in favour of its adoption. “The committee advised me that though in the past the competitive system had led to prices being paid that were sometimes in excess of the real value of the product, this consideration was outweighed by the advantages of a more orderly system that would return to farmers a true market value and would effect considerable savings in transport and other costs. “The committee recommended a plan as follows: —The New Zealand Dairy Board to be empowered to organise a national co-op-erative system of local pools for the collection and disposal of bobby calves and all bobby calf products. The powers which would he required are: (1) To define local pool areas: (2) To oraginse management committees in the pool areas: (3) To supervise and control the operations of the pool committees in arranging collection and transport services, and in the disposal of calves and all calf-products to the best advantage of producers within the individual pool areas; (4) To recommend the making of such levies as may he required to meet the costs of administering the plan: (5) To have such other powers as may be necessary to give full effect to the plan. “The committee considered that it this plan were adopted, the pool committees would act in their own districts as the agents of the Board, and would assume full responsibility for the operations of their pools. The New Zealand Dairy Board would, in practice. intervene only if :• condition of emergency arose, when it v. ’hl he in a position to assume full control of the operation- of any pool. “Tf the plan is endorsed by the dairying industry, and approved by Cabinet, the method by which the necessary authority would be v, ’ in the New Zealand Dairy Board would be by delegation of powers under the Priamry Products Marketing Act, 1936. •‘I would appreciate it if you would submit the contents of this letter for the urgent consideration of a special meeting or meetings of suppliers of your company. The opinion of the meeting or meetings should be taken on a motion to adopt the resolution attached, and the result should be conveyed to me with a statement of the num-bci-s voting for and against, under Illi’ certificate of the chairman of the meeting. All meetings should he called at once, so as to enable action to be taken immediately the i views of the industry are known. In any I ease the resolution and details of voting | should reach later tlinn Marell 31. ■■tn the event of it being found to bo impossible to arrange for the holding of meetings which all your suppliers ran conveniently attend, it will be sufficient if your company will send to eni-h supplier a ballot paper in terms of the attached resolution, and certify to me. over the signatures of the chairman and secretary, the result of the DISCUSSION AT DAIRY CONFERENCE. The position in the bobby calf industry was traversed at some length, being brought up in remit No. 28. which read: ‘‘'That this meeting heartily approves of the suggestion made by the Minister of Agriculture that the Dairy Board be given control of the bobby calf industry, and that the Government be urged to establish the necessary regulations at the earliest possible moment.'’ Mr Begley (Heretaunga) said that it was his responsibility to move the remit, and in the light of the statement made by the Minister of Marketing the previous day he could not help but feel that it would be unwise to pass it. The Minister of Agriculture’s statement had been well received because the conditions obtaining in the bobby calf industry were deserving of improvement, but Mr Nash had touched upon a note of warning when he said that the industry within itself was bristling with problems that presented many difficulties. He thought it would be unwise to pass the remit without a knowledge of those problems. Further, the Minister had indicated that he was not at all disposed to hand marketing to the Board. He did say, however, that any voluntary effort, would receive the support and careful consideration of the Government. He invited the industry to put in a voluntary scheme, and he proposed to move a resolution which he thought would meet the position: “That a committee of two members from each Ward be appointed with powers to co-opt with chairman of the Dairy Board and the Director of Internal Marketing to examine the position of the bobby calf industry, and to make representations to the Government as to what should be undertaken for its general improvement.’’ He thought the Board would be happy to be divorced from anything concerning the bobby calf industry. They would be able to get a body of men who were well versed in the peculiar difficulties obtaining in both islands to study the question. Then they would get a solution of the problem. He felt that the resolution he had proposed would meet tin* position in a much safer way than the resolution on the order paper. Formation of District Pools. Mr Seifert said that this was a remit he intended to say something on. and he should have used his influence to have it turned down. He intended secoding the amendment. The bobby calf business had been on a fairly bad footing, in fact, it bad been v.ery unsatisfactory, but it was well known that last season producers in some districts, feeling that

something would have to be done, had formed pools of their own. Ngarua was the first, and it hardly had a fair spin, because it started after the trade had already commenced. However, the results turned out very satisfactorily. The position he took up was simply this: Year after year, and month after month, the powers of operating their own business would be taken away quickly enough. He would certainly sooner see the Dairy Board in it than the Government. What they wanted was a bigger nett return. On the operations of the pools last year he knew that they had ’got a better return. He had got about 8/- per calf up till the time the pool started, but the pool price was well over 11/-. It was no use people saying that if you were not in the pool you still got the same price, for that was an old tale. The people handling calves outside the pool naturally put up their prices also. The point was that he could not see how the Dairy Board could put them on a more .satisfactory position than they were now. They had to consider the whole of the country, and he did not mind doing that. They never lost much when they looked at things from the national point of view. Mr C. -I. L’arlane asked whether the remit had been withdrawn. Testing the Wishes of Conference. Mr Murdoch said that he had accepted the amendment to see whether it met the wishes of the Conference. They would remember that al the ward confrent-e in Stratford an approach was made to the Board to go thoroughly into the business, and at the previous year's conference the Board submitted a reply that the time was not opportune to proceed. Later a further approach was made to the Board, and an approach was also made to the Minister of Agriculture by the Farmers’ Union. He would draw their attention to this fact, that the Minister of Agriculture and the Minister of Marketing were diametrically opposed to their views. The Minister of Agriculture thought the Board was the best body, and he said he was prepared to give the Board the authority. He further indicated that he hoped to put proposals before Cabinet to get legislative authority to establish pools—voluntarily if they wished—but there had to be a final authority in the hands of the Board so that there would be somebody to act. Now they had the intimation from the Minister of Marketing who indicated that, hr thought his department should do the handling of the business. As a Board, they did not feel they could go into it unless it was on the lines suggested. That was their line of thought. They did not want to be antogonistic. but they fell that if they had to carry the baby they wanted to carry it their own way, head up, rather than heels up. So far as the Board was concerned, if it were to be in the business, it wished to have control. Mr Hayward said that the amendment meant an additional committee, whereas the thing would be looked into and looked into until it was time that action was taken. There was not so much in the bobby calf business as they had been led to believe. He definitely thought that the best plan would be to carry the original remit. The Board should handle it firstly in an advisory capacity. When it came to selling the meat, he thought probably that could be better done by Hie Dairy Board than the pool. The mam principle, he said, quite definitely should be that the Dairy Board did the job through committees in ’ each district. If Mr Seifert got over 11/- for his calves he did remark ably well. The Springdale pool, in which the calves averaged 641 b, netted 9/11. If the Marketing Department had to do the job. the machinery would cost more than tho halves were worth. District pools proved LOP per cent, successful. Formally moving the remit. Mr Begleg said he disagreed with Mr Hayward’s remarks. There was more in the bobby calf business

than appeared on the surface. If pooling was got on a national basis they would kill competition in the. field. He thought that was what the Minister had in mind when he said that they might drive other interests together. At the present time those interests were out in the field, and were buying in an endeavour to keep their works busy and thus reduce costs. If they were to have control, let the Dairy Board he the controlling authority. not the Government. He had no doubt about that, but he did think that an independent committee was the best way to arrive at a satisfactory conclusion. He hoped, therefore. Conference would turn the remit down, because it was dangerous. Mr Hayward .seconded the remit. Board Should Handle Business. Mr .John Fisher (Southland) said that in 1926. at the South Island Dairy Association Conference, he had formally moved that the association take over the bobby calf business. It was then in its infancy. As a result of that resolution, the pool was formed, and that pool bad operated since then. With tho exception of three years, when Borthwick's went iuto the field, they had the handling of all the calves in the province. During those three years costs went up, and the number of calves handled by the pool decreased. Maintenance of voluntary pools was necessary. About 1927, with the assistance of Mr Arthur Morton and Mr Dickie, a national pool was formed to handle, tho selling of the bobby calves. After three years’ experience of tho national pool the various freezing companies came into the picture and commenced active buying. Without legislative authority the same thing would happen again, unless it was put into the hands of the Dairy Board. He judged that Mr Nash would overcome the difficulties by tacking the hobby calf business on to the butter business under the marketing authority. He did not think that was the wish of the dairy industry. The farmers themselves were responsible for many of the difficulties. They were disloyal to the pools, and as soon as a buyer came and offered 6d above the ordinary price he got the business, until now they had established the right of various people to be in the business who were not I in it at all at the start, that was the various freezing companies. They could not overcome that except by national supervision. He believed the Dairy Board was the right authority to handle tin? business, and the full experience of the pools would be available to the Board. From that they could build up a great institution. He thought the resolution proposed was in the right direction. They had certainly been a little side tracked by Mr Nash the day previously, but on the other hand they had the statement of the Minister of Agriculture that he favoured the Board doing the work. Where the industry was unanimous in its desires, then it carried on to success. If they showed a sufficiently strong determination to have this business in their own control, they could show that it could be done as a national undertaking, and that the Board would make a success of it. If they were strong enough they could safely leave it to the Board. Success in Southland Due to Sympathetic Freezing Works. Mr Young (Southland) said that he sup-

ported the motion. As a member of the pool committee in Southland he saw one difficulty. There was no doubt about it—they must have some controlling body. He knew that the success of the Southland pool had been frequently referred to in the North Island. Why was it successful? Because they had a sympathetic freezing works there. Both works there. Both works refused to freeze calves for anyone but the pool. If they could have got the calves frozen, there would have been opposition. Mr Dunlop briefly referred to the success of the Southland and Wairarapa pools. The advance in Southland had been 10/-, and Wairarapa had paid 10/s*. Mr Wilson (Wairarapa) said that local pools were best, and in hi.s district they sold direct to one company. They found that only one freezing works was available, so they kept the business to themselves. They were able to keep cost of collection down to a minimum, and their costs had not exceeded 1/- for years .that covering collection and everything. There was a war in the adjacent district, and prices were higher than theirjs for a while, but they were lower, too. It was necessary to have some controlling authority to sell, and the Dairy Board should be that authority. Mr W. E. Hale (N.Z. Co-op. Dairy Co.) said that both Mr Young atid Mr Wilson had had some considerable experience in running the pool, and they had stressed the keynote. It was only last August that the exporters, after opening the season with a fictitious price, got together and announced that the price would he 6/6. for Jersey calves and 8/- for Shorthorns. Up till then the people in the Waikato had not been greatly concerned about bobby calves, but they wore content, because they felt they had been getting a fair deal. One group at Ngarua discussed the matter, and within a few hours decided to form a group and handle calves. Later some other groups were formed, and then they found that the various exporters were on the road, and were very nearly doubling their previous offers of 6/, and 8/6. It was on that account that the Farmers’ Union came and discussed this with the Dairy Board, who then went to the Minister of Agriculture who knew what was going on, and agreed that something had to be done, and said he would give authority to the Bott rd. lie appreciated the desire or the industry to handle its own affairs, and he would always be behind that, but it seemed that they must have protection from some body with powers to protect the individual pool. Whilst there were some who appreciated competition, he. personally, thought he would be better to have the real value of his product year after year than to receive fictitious price one year and he flogged the next. They must have someone with statutory powers to protect the pools, or they would disband. Both Messrs Young and Wilson had had considerate freezing works, but that did not operate over the whole Dominion. He therefore wanted to leave the thought with them that they must have someone to protect them. Must Have Committee to Assist Board to Get Powers. Mr Blyde (Taranaki) said he could not see why they could not pass both the resolution and the amendment. He was sure the Dairy Board had the industry behind it, but in view of Mr Nash’s statement, it seemed to him they must have someone on the job to see that the Board got the powers. They had disquieting reports as to what might happen when they got pools throughout the country. One of the reasons they had been able to pay out such good prices was that they had had competition. It was more than likely that the price next year would be lower than last year, and the farmer would blame the people in charge. If there was opposition between the Minister and the Board, the committee would get further than the Board itself could get. Conference did not meet for a further 12 months, and the thing could be let go so far as the Government was concerned, but with an active committee the Board would have considerable help. He took it that the committee would have the confidence of the industry and would be a help to the Board. Mr Sunderland said he agreed with the previous speaker. The Government would be required to give legislative power, and he did not think they would give that away, not the present Government. He thought they would get the same result by accepting the amendment. Mr Nash had said that he had more or less made up his mind that there must be voluntary pools. Mr Begley said that the remarks of the two previous speakers fitted in with his views. They wanted the committee to assist the Dairy Board to obtain the legislative powers referred to by Mr Hale. The amendment was lost and the original remit carried.