LIVE STOCK EMBARGO

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVII, Issue 158, 5 June 1937, Page 11

LIVE STOCK EMBARGO

VIEWS FOR AND AGAINST. SHEEP FARMERS’ OPINIONS. Conflicting opinions were freely discussed at the sheep farmers’ gathering which has been in session at Massey College since Wednesday when, at the concluding session yesterday afternoon,, Mr H. 13. Stuckey, of Dannevirke, gave a brief address on tlfe pros and cons of lifting the embargo at present operating against the importation of live stock from, England. Mr Stuckey openly expressed the opinion that there was much more to be said for the lifting of the embargo than for its retention but directly opposite opinions were also readily forthcoming. No motion was placed before tbe meeting, Professor 6. S. Peren, principal of the college, saying that it was the wish of the College Council that the college should in no way be associated with an expression of opinion on such a matter, as it was one of policy. The subject was a very serious one, said Mr Stuckey, who added that it was difficult to "find anything against lifting the ban. All the arguments against it were centred round the carrying of infection. If wc had the disease here it might be detrimental to a certain extent. The introduction of fresh blood was wanted by some—others said it was not necessary. It was also said that we had free and clean stock which were of a first-class standard and there was no reason to try to secure better stock. The points against lifting the embargo were few, but very vital to some people. The regulations in England were so drastic that there was no possible chance of having infection brought here in the live animal. Lhe British Government would not let any doubtful stock come out. Previous to the embargo, stock had come to New Zealand quite regularly, and there had not been even a quarantine station, though the disease had been in existence. Even if the disease came into the quarantine station it could not leave because the animals would be slaughtered. There was not the least doubt that wo had to import *new—and the best—blood to hold our beef and mutton standards and improve them. We had to meet competition of a very strong character. It was no good for u's just to remain where we were; we had to increase our standards at a faster rate than our competitors were doing. Those breeders who were importing very high priced stock were commanding a tremendous market. Instances' were a sale in Masterton and two in Wellington recently. The breeders wanted new blood in order to progress with their flocks. Further, it had never been proved that there was a carrier only of the disease, and surely that showed that we were safe here. Australia was quite prepared to take the risk of our imported stock remaining there for a period. The welfare of New Zealand depended on the fact that our produce, whatever it was, , had to bo of the very highest quality. !It was absolutely essential that our i produce be kept at the very highest ; standard. There were only a few breeders now who were importing, because they could afford to do so, but if the I embargo were lifted the importations | would be very much greater. Those men who were importing deserved , all the praise we could give them, because, besides advancing their own ends, they were assisting the whole country.

England was just as anxious as we were that we should import stud stock. Mr Stuckey added. We sent practically the whole of our meat to England, yet gave her nothing in return in the way of buying stock, at a time when the risk was so very small that there was really no risk at all. Wc should, by importing stock, help to provide a balance for the goods we were sending Home. ARGUMENTS AGAINST.

Mr H. B. Tennent (Auckland) said it would be. disastrous if we had the disease here. The germ had not yet been even isolated, and its life history was not yet known, despite the fact that thousands of pounds had been spent on investigations. So it could not be said, by any means, that “there were no carriers.” Our stock now' was vastly superior to the stock that the great breeders of England had commenced operations /with. M r e were expecting, when importing, that sheep which were suited to England would do

exactly the same here —on the other side of the world and on very different soil. Jersey Island had not imported stock, yet led the world in butter producing Jersey cattle and had not had foot and month, disease. The Australian Merino sheep had not gone back because of the lack of importations. The Merinos there .were the finest in the world and had been developed to suit their It was quite illogical to suppose that stock would remain the same under a different environment. Our types were now becoming suited to that environment, and to import stock was to throw back that development for several generations. At recent Royal Shows it had been shown that the winners, in many cases, were those who did not often import. We Jia.cl improved on originals, and m the period of the embargo cattle exports had increased by 800 per cent., those for horses by 100 per cent., and those for sheep by 400 per cent. Did tliat show that our stock was going back? Great Britain herself even had an embargo against all iinportsiiions of stock from countries having foot a.nd mouth disease. In recent years the breeders there had not imported stud animals. If we had the disease here we would lose much of our export market in meat and stock. Even though we did not buy stock from Great Britain, per head we bought, more of her other goods than any other country. All imports of live stock from countries having the disease should be absolutelv barred and the export of our stock should be encouraged in every way.

OPINION CHANGED. Mr J. E. Hewitt (Mangamaire) said lie had opposed the lifting of the embargo, but lie bad now been converted to tbe other view. Veterinary and medical men had assured him that any animal, to be a. carrier, must have contracted the disease itself lirst. fc>o stringent were the regulations that no animal, having been affected, could ever leave England. While he was in favour of lifting the embargo, he advocated that 'there should be an absolute insistence on the tightening up of the regulations in New Zealand. Mr J. C. Field (Gisborne) said that the scientists knew nothing of the life cycle of the foot and mouth disease germ. A German scientist had found that the virus would live for seven months. In Switzerland, keeping the cattle out of the market for as long as a year had not proved effective. The disease had lived longer than that. In France it ha.d cost the farmers £5,000.000 a year. Britain was spending £250,000 a year for compensation for stock killed owing to the disease, and Cali for nia Iliad spoilt £fl to eradicate the disease. Could New Zealand stand that cost? We could not afford to run the risk. We had a clean country and its value lay in keeping it so. To have foot and mouth disease here would end all scope lor the New Zealand breeders who were exporting animals. Mr Gordon (Taihape) pointed that stock were coming into New Zealand all the time from Great Britain in an unsatisfactory and roundabout way. Mr Lloyd Hammond had advanced a scheme which would improve that. Such a scheme was on the right lines. On the Continent there were no steps taken to check the disease, said Mr Stuckey. He would be in favour of importing only stock from England, all of it to come through the quarantine station. It was a fact that there had been no case of foot and mouth disease exported to Australia or New Zealand. “There have been very grave suspicions,” said Mr Tennent. Dealing with submissions by Mr Tennent, Mr Stuckey admitted that we had evolved a type of Romney sheep which suited our conditions. He did not think we could improve that. Me had also evolved the Comedale. to say that the Southdown was in the same category was impossible. We had to look to the English market for improvement in that direction. At the moment, wo could not produce sufficient hicdi quality Southdown sheep to meet the demand. We had to take what risk there was, if there was one, to meet the competition of our rival exporters. We had to hold our own or else go under.” The same arguments applied to cattle. We had not sufficient really outstanding sires, although we had plenty of good ones. Another speaker said there was very little risk of infection through a.nimnjs, but there was risk in importing bulbs (with earth), and fodder. The Devon breed of cattle was one which might be of great value to New Zealand yet we could not import it from England. Tn closing the meeting. Professor Peren asked, as already indicated, that no motion be placed before it as the subject was a policy matter ami the Mn«sey College Council wished that the college keep absolutely aloof from all expressions of opinion of that kind.