KILLING OF STOCK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20162, 24 January 1929, Page 13

KILLING OF STOCK.

POSITION AT WESTFIELD.

AUCKLAND FARMERS COMPLAIN

SYMPATHY IN CANTERBURY.

[BY TELEGRAPH. —OWN CORRESPONDENT.] CHRISTCHURCH, Wednesday.

A statement that years ago the farmers' freezing companies arose to combat the monopoly in the industry held by outside companies, and that the outside companies were striving to regain this monopoly and had paid more than lamb was worth last year to do so, was made at to-day's meeting of the executive of the North Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Farmers' Union.

The discussion arose from a letter from the Auckland branch of the union. This letter stated that the former Minister of Agriculture granted permission to make certain alterations to the Westfield works affecting offal accommodation only, on the distinct understanding that killing accommodation should not be increased. The latter had been Applied for, but was strongly opposed by the Farmers' Union, as the extra capacity would enable these proprietary works (Vestey and Company) to drive all competition from the market. In spite of the official prohibition, it was alleged that the authority to make alterations in the offal department had been used to extend killing facilities, and that 24 hooks had been installed. These would increase the killing capacity from 3000 to 5400 a day. There was any amount of space available at the works of the Auckland Farmers' Freezing Company, which would kill as cheaply or more cheaply than at Westfield. Most of the Westfield sheep actually passed the Farmers' works. "The contempt of Government prohibition displayed by the firm warrants the strongest criticism," the letter concluded.

The chairman, Mr. R. T. McMillan, Urged support of the Auckland Farmers' works. He said they had proprietary works financed by the farmers, and it seemed a pity that the fullest use should not be made of them. A Member: What is the attitude of the Meat Producers' Board toward the matter ? Has it considered it ?

Members could not answer this question. "If wo are not careful we will be in the same position as we were in 20 years ago," said Mr. 11. G. Parish, "and then we will be in uo end of trouble. There is no doubt that the farmers' freezing works have kept up the price of lamb, and once the other companies get the monopoly they will take back what they have given us in the past. There is not a farmer here but knows that lamb has been bringing at least a penny a pound beyond what it is worth during the past year. It was done for the purpose of getting control of the farmers' lamb.

"Consider what happened at the yard years ago. . Buyers from these companies were there and said they did not want the larnbs. Finally, one bought the lot and they divided them among them. I move that we support the Auckland farmers." Mr. H. Oliver: Wo are in sympathy, but the trouble is we do not. know the conditions. It may be that the farmers' works are not paying enough. Mr. Parish: There is no doubt the companies such as Vesteys are out to get the monopoly, and we must prevent that at all costs. I do not sa.v these works should not exist at all. I favour opposition in any concern.

The Chairman: T think it would be better to get Mr. Jones here and see what he can tell us.

Mr. G. H. Hassal: I think we t want more information. If the Government has given permission what can we do ? The same thing is going cn in Canterbury. It was decided to send a sympathetic reply to the Auckland branch and to ask for more information. The chairman was authorised to get into touch with the chairman of the Meat Board, Mr. D. Jones.