CAUSE FOR DISSATISFACTION

Putaruru Press, Volume XXI, Issue 1239, 17 July 1947, Page 6

CAUSE FOR DISSATISFACTION

BOBBY CALF PAYMENTS Federated Farmers ’ Views Farmers generally find considerable cause for dissatisfaction in the operation of the bobby calf pool account and of the manner in -which the farming industry is treated in relation to the price paid out for bobby calf skins, according to Federated Farmers of New Zealand. The bdbby calf pool absorbs the difference between the cost of production, which is held to be 241 d per lb, and the 32d per lb which farmers are allowed to receive for their skins. That permitted price c-f 32d per lb the bebby aalf federation—the national organisation of the various district pools—is bound to accept by virtue of the existing stabilisation agreement. The tanners buy their skins for 16.18 d par lb and the difference between that amount and the 24id is paid from the Consolidated (Fund Last season, however, the skins not handled internally amounted to approximately 680,000 and sold at 48d per lb and more. The difference between the 32d paid to the producer and that 48d per lb went into the bobby calf pool and is, therefore, temporarily withheld from the dairy industry. The bothy calf pool account has to-day a credit of some £780,000.

Tanners’ Subsidy Originally the tanners were allowed a subsidy on only 50,000 skins. That number has now been increased to 250,000. The position is, therefore, that the dairy farmer last year was compelled to accept 24id per lb for 250,000 skins which were worth 4Sd per lb with the average skin weighing 4*lb. That represents a loss of approximately 9s a calf, or a payment of 9s a calf below its true value. In other words, the dairy industry has lost a direct payment of £112,500. Most farmers are antagonistic to the generous subsidy paid to local tanners. It seems, to them, unfair that local tanners get skins for the low price of 16.18 d per lb, while British tanners must pay up to 60d per lb for the same quality skins, freight them to Britain for manufacture, and raturn as manufactured goods subject to customs duties, etc. The local manufacturer of leather goods seems to bo in an enviable position. If the New Zealand farmer is to be paid only part of the value of his produce, in order to maintain the stabilisation policy, he would prefer a more equitable deal being given to the British buyer and manufacturer. Otherwise our protestations of a desire to help Britain as a nation seem a shallow mockery.