Large Shearing Tallies

Otago Witness, Issue 1682, 16 February 1884, Page 14

Large Shearing Tallies

% TO THE EDITOB. SlB, — I see by your columns of February 2 that a correspondent signing himself "Manager" accuses me of misleading statements in regard to shearing tallies. " Man >ger" (who, judging from the tone of his letter, appears to consider himualf an authority on shearing matters) tells <us that he has had pretty exteaßive oxperiencej and found it a most uncommon thiug for a man to shear 200 ewes in one day under favourable circumstances, and that no man can do thatnumber and shear thorn well. His experience must have been in petty shedsi where good men are conspicuous by their" absence, for it is a wellknown fact that it is a common thing for a fast man to shear over 200 in a day, whatever ** Manager's" experience may have taught him. I noticed by the Australasian .some time ago that five or six shearers in Australia (a more particular Colony in regard to shoaiing than New Zealand) had each shorn over 200 in less than eight hours, to the satisfaction of those in charge of the shed. At Station Peak some years ago a map shore 275 ewes in one day. "Manager 1 " also says — " With regard to any other class of sheep than ewes these tallies are never heard of. It takes a good shearer to shear 100 sheep and do them well ; the majority of shearei'3 average about 80." These tallies are heard of in other classes of sheep. I know men who have shorn 20Q/hoggets in one day. " One hundred wethers is ,a small tally for a fast shearer ; 100 is nearer the mark. In reference to the sheep shorn by Hawke and others at Barewood, he evidently knows little or nothing about them, or he would not call them *' abject cra"wlers," and say they "hardly required shearing at all," as they were as good as the ordinary run of owes. He tells us that some men there who shear over 200 would not shear more than 120 fullwoolled sheep per day. These men would shear a long way more than that. As Mr Brodie explained in your last issue, Barewood did not belong to Mr troudfoot four years ago. " M&nager'B " wish to see a man who could shear wethers in two and a-half minutes will perhaps not be gratified ; but he will find men who can shear awes in that time, if he will only travel a little further. His remarks about correspondents writing on subjects they know nothing about are borne out by his,pwn effusion. — I am, &c, Yode Hyde Correspondent, February 12,

TO THE BDITOK. Slß,— l see in your issue of 9th instant that toy letter regarding large shearing tallies has roused the ire of Mr Brodie,' of Barwood station, and as he writes of "gross misstatements " and " wilful perversion o£ facts," I must, in justice to myself, reply. In the first place, I made no positive statement about the number of sheep shorn. I said I believed that certain shearers had shorn 240 sheep at Barewood in one day. My informant was shearing at Barewood last year, but it appears, from Mr Brodie's letter, that his numbers were exaggerated. I am sorry for this, as I wi&h to write nothing but what will bear criticism, I should never have mentioned Barewood or' any other place but for the sake of getting a reason why over 200 sheep were shorn 1 in one •day, and the reason is evident— the sheep were almost destitute of wool. Mr Brodie admits that one man shore 220 ; that was his highest tally, and his next highest is 186, a difference of 34 sheep. Why should there be so orach difference between the two highest tallies made by the same man If the sheep were not Cl crawlers ?" I know nothing about Barewood •** its stock, and have never even seen the D j •<*, and all remarks about ownership and what 4 Sft PP ened f our .Y ears a g°j are entirely irrelevant *■* c ma>^ er ' My letter was to correct a statem N *? t fc -; no dwbfc thoughtlessly written—by your t *«£ecoweßpondent about shearing these large n of she6 P «? onQ da yA Witness^ mor^j?** a read f "<>'« the Colonies, and it would m t pracfclc^ raan a very poor opinion of O^®*^^"*^* rule, are as good as any in . ltu !7?£ ld rr lf hQ saw statements pass unchallengt,. tn f nw^ a common thing to shear over 200 a ; ty ao f it seems absurd to read such a thing one W<^u and the next to be told that the clip in bul. And Buch a district was very good arid averaged '

6, or 8, er 10, or even more pounds of skirted wool per sheep. Mr Brodie says that anyone knows a first-class shearer can shear 220 fewes if he gets a good run of bare bellies, without either roughing or cutting. My experience is exactly the opposite of this. Old ewes are more easily cut than any other clas^ of sheep, and a man must take time to shear them even passably. They never look well no matior how they arc shorn ; but if 220 are done they must be both cut and roughed, Iwo Id liko to hear the opinion of one or two practical men from some of the Waitaki or Molyneux sheds. The question under discussion was one man shearing 200 sheep a day, and of course doing them fairly well. Shearing those old brutes that can hardly crawl out of the paddocks was not in the question at all, and which now adays are never seen on any large station. If anything I have written haß offended Mr Brodie or your Hyde correspondent I am sorry for it. but A cannot retract one word I have written except the numbers given aB shorn last year at Barewood. And I say again the average number of sheep a man will shear in Ofcago in one day is 80 wethers or ewes, Very fast or very slow shearers I don't take in account. Apologising for length of letter, I am, &c, Manager.