THIRD EDITION. NEW ZEALAND BEEF

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LIII, Issue 16364, 11 June 1927, Page 15

THIRD EDITION. NEW ZEALAND BEEF

IMPROVING THE INDUSTRY ADDRESS BY ME. JESSEP Instancing the backwardness of the New Zealand beef industry and its gradual decline in recent years, Mr. J. L. Jessep, vice-chairman of the New Zealand Meat Producers' Board, made a strong plea for the rejuvenation of the industry, in an address he delivered in the .City Hall this afternoon. This is the first of a series of addresses Mr. Jessep is giving throughout the Dominion.- Mr. Chas. Matthews, Cook County Council chairman, presided over a gathering of about 60 farmers. Mr. Matthews, m introducing the" speaker, said Mr. Jessep had paid visits to England in 1922 and 1924, investigating' the marketing position. Ml'. Jessep had also practical experience in hreaking-in country and therefore had experience both in production and marketing. Mr. Jessep said his, subject was of nation importance and 'particularly to the East Coast of the North Island. It was a, common saying that the whole prosperity of the Dominion was from primary production. This was true, and if there was any check given to this it would be felt' throughout the whole country. Production must be increased in view of the greater burdens being placed on the community in this land. The unemployment problem was due to lack of prosperity in the country. Unless the country ' could absorb the surplus labor unemployment relief would go on perpetually. This absorption of labor relied on the ability of the farmers to cope with it. At the present time there was insufficient, coming from our exports to keep the conn try prosperous. We must find means of increasing production in the country. " PROSPERITY DEPENDS ON PASTURES." Practically the whole of the prosperity of the Dominion depended entirely upon the pastures. In very large areas of the North Island they could not maintain the pastures without proper stocking. On sheep land the sheep ate out the finer grasses and left the rest. Sheep land therefore required a certain number of cattle, but the farmers would not do this if the beef industry did not pay. If they could do something to stimulate the cattle-raising industry they would get at the source of the trouble.

The .question of deterioration of pastures w*s largely a, North Island problem, although it was a trouble the South Island also was now facing. The maintenance of the pastures must tie attended' to if they ( -\Vere to keep Up the fattening of good sheep and lambs. At the' present time they were 2000 beef bulls short of what; they were five years ago. The dairy herds, of course, had increased, but these cattle were for another purpose. The following export figures for beef taken over the last five years showed ihe urgency of the matter: 1932-23 season ... 125,083 head. 1923-24 season ... 80,707 head. 1924-25 season ... 114,637 head. 1925-26 season ... 53,898 head. 1926-27 season ... 30.000 head/ ♦Estimated. The average killings for local eonsumption, added Mr. Jessep, were: 1295, 26-1,000 bulls and cows, 25,000 calves; .1926, 283,000 bulls and cows, 48,000 calves. The Italian market developed well until two years ago, but' since then inroads by the Argentine with cheap labor conditions had swamped New Zealand'. On the London market also New Zealand could not expect to produce beef against the Argentine's low labor conditions: Because they were thrown off the overseas markets, the local prices should not he fixed on a par with outside costs brought down by cheap labor. FINDING A REMEDY In suggesting a remedy he referred to the Pftterson scheme in connection with butter manufacture in Australia, and suggested that a similar scheme I>C adopted in the beef industry in New Zealnnd. Tf such a scheme wore .Vlopfed in Now Zealand it would have cost last year* £07,000, but this" could lib returned by extra production by the improvement of pastures. It was impossible to maintain the standard of living unless the main industry was flourishing. A bonus of id per lb. or 4/2 per 100 lb, would have cost the country last season only £07,000. This meant 10/- per head on cattle killed for local consumption. Can this ' Jic- found? The problem must be met. It Was only oho* problem among a number of others. Costs had been rising steadily nild the value of investments in the soil had b?cn decreasing steadily. It was no use Saying that the Scheme could not be done. Production must be increased, and if the scheme would increase production it, should be supported without going into details. The Meat Board, Mr. Jessep stated, had given the proposal much thought, and it need now only be backed by the farming community. "You can burn down the cities," he said, "and leave, the farms and the cities will spfiiig up agaiit, but destroy the farms and the grass would grow in the streets of the cities." He asked for unanimous support of the principle of the proposal. YIEWS OF FARMERS. Mr. Field said that by cold storage in London, the producers were losing 25 per edit, at this end. There had beefi less beef shipped because the producer did not have faith in the board. Mr. Orahftln said the. proposed subsidy would amount to a, little over £2 a farmer. If they continued with subsidy proposals, where were" they to stop? Although the number of beef cattle was grojwing less, their place was being taken bv dairy cattle, which were more profitable, tie could not see that the Meat Board had brought forward a. good case at all, as, if the beef industry could not ".stand on its own bottom" if should go. In any ease, I he money used' for subsidy would not he outside money. Mr.' H. Kenway agreed with the previous speaker. Mr. Jessep: Will dairying solve the problem of the deterioration of pastures? Would the average farmer graze dairy cattle on the land? He found thai the fanners were not.. He hated subsidies. and he hated protection, but they had them. Every single article they used on the farm was protected to the hilt. The riourc'fl of prosperity was on the farm, and the fanners were suggesting to dry *ip the source. They had in New Zealand a most intricate system of protection. Subsidies" were not desirable, but bow else \ve.r,> they to face the- position? New Zealand could not compete with the WoTlct as long as they carried the licavy burden of protection as against the man who carried none. COLD STORAGE. Regarding cold storage, Mr. Jessep said ho had advocated this. The Meat Board hud an option oii a splendid site and Averc 1 proposing to erect a store and it was Only how that the merchants word beginning to negotiate. Tlie cold slriragfi the board proposed to erect would cost £1,000,000 and they

must be backed solidly by the fanner;. In .1922, the freight on mutton to England was 1 B-Bd, in 1927, after September 1, the freight would be 1.11 d., while the freight on beef would bo decreased by about half. By tho year 1930 the saving would he £1,009,000. Insurance costs"had also decreased, yet storage charges had not decreased. The maintenance of pastures was not being done. It is not a reasonable proposition to ask one section of tho country to bear the burden. Mr. 'C. Williams said frozen beef was not the most acceptable article in England, and how would the board get on with the increasing of supplies of an article for which there was no demand. MAINTENANCE OF PASTURES. Mr. Jessep said the main point was the maintenance of pastures. This year New Zealand beef had been bringing slightly higher prices than Argentine. Mr. O. E. Bicfcford suggested the subsidising of labor on the land and thereby getting increased production. Mr. Jessep said he knew Mr. Bickford to be closely connected with the freezing industry, but if there was no beef to f'recez there would lie no work. There was 100 much study of the effect and too little study of the causes, he said, and he suggested extra production which must benefit everybody in the country, providing work. Hecould not sympathise with subsidising wages. Mr. Field asked if there was a possibility of eliminating excessive charges from the time the hatches were lifted in England until tho time tho meat reached the cold store.

Mr. Jessep said the board had been fighting this matter. Mr. Stafford suggested inaugurating a scheme of selling the meat in the board's own retail stores. By this both the consumer and the producer would reap great benefits. Air. Jessep said he would not; care to enter into the question to-day. It was rather a big field to open up. There had never been a concentrated desire on the part of the farmers to bring this about. STORAGE CHARGES. In replying to a question by Mr. Bowen regarding how long it would take the board to institute cold stores of its own, Mr. Jessep said he hoped it would not be long before there was a reduction in the storage charges. Mr. Tr'afford asked whether the board was taking action to have the whole of the N.Z. chilled produce put through the 'cold stores once they were control* led by the board. Mr". Jessep said Ihe board was negotiating with the. largest of the merchants to get adequate supplies for the stores. For some they had legal binding agreements regarding much of the meat going from New Zealand. Mr. Field: Has there not, been a. representative in New Zealand urging cooperative marketing at Home? Mr. Jessep said a delegation from the co-operative wholesale people was in New Zealand some months ago looking over the field to see if they could obtain their own supplies, but he was not aware of their urging linking up with any concern in New - Zealand. To Mr, Riekford, jMr. Jessep said the board had been shipping small parcels of meat to Boston, Montreal and Vancouver to test- the markets there, and if there were openings' in these places the board would extend its markets, MEAT BOARD'S POWERS. Mr. Bonren asked if the Meat Board had power to. take 1 complete control of all meat shipped from New Zealand. Mr. Jesse)): Yes, x the board has the power. The chairman moved tliat as adequate stocking with cattle is necessary to pre. vent pastures' deteriorating and main tain production, this meeting of Poverty Bay farmers approve of the Meat Board's proposals to stimulate the export of beef and urge upon the Government to give effect to same. He suggested sending copies of the resolution to the Prime Minister, Minister for Agriculture, the Hon. K. S. Williams, and Mr. W. D. Lysnar, M.P. for tho district. My. G. Reynolds seconded the motion. Tile motion Was declared carried on the voices, a 1 small majority being against it. In acknowledging the meeting's support of the scheme, Mr. Jessep said that if there was ever a necessity for the farmers of the Dominion to stick together it was now. At the conclusion of the meeting. Mr. Jessep was accorded a hearty vote of thanks, which was earned by acclamation.