LIVESTOCK EMBARGO

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 53, Issue 3822, 16 October 1936, Page 7

LIVESTOCK EMBARGO

CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE ATTITUDE. AN ENDORSEMENT OF POLICY. Writing to a southern contemporary, Mr R. C. Williams, of Havelock North (H. 8. makes the following contribution on a subject of considerable importance to all farmers: Sir, —I would like, if I may, to comment on the debate by the Federation of Chambers of Commerce on the above subject as reported in your issue of October 8. In the first place the Hon. W. Lee Martin was commendably frank. He admits his Government has not yet bad time to deal with this question, as they have only been in office nine months. I take this to mean that the settling of the question does not involve enough votes to be worth while. Mi - Martin says we are primarily a dairying community, though he does admit that we export a certain amount of beef, mutton and lamb. Somebody should tell him that our rapidly expanding pig meat export is a sideline of dairying. I am thankful to say I am not a dairy farmer, but several of my friends are, and I am informed that a lot of dairy farmers would like to introduce Imported blood to improve their herds, and that the necessity for new blood In pig breeding is urgent. There can, of course, be no argument that our beef cattle require importations of the best British blood to build them up to the requisite standard, in spite ot the fact that several cattle of high quality have recently been imported by roundabout ways at greatly increased cost. The stock arguments used by advocates of the existing embargo are: (1) There is a serious risk of introducing foot and mouth disease. (2) That our stock are already so good that importations are unnecessary, and we should evolve a type suitable to our climate and conditions from existing stock. These arguments have been used so consistently, and the facts so persistently misrepresented, that a large number of farmers have actually been deluded into thinking the statements to be sound, including, apparently, Mr Martin. It is regrettable that Mr Martin did not apparently realise he was addressing a body of selected, not elected men, otherwise I am sure he would not have put forward such a fallacious suggestion that foot and mouth disease might be introduced by the live animal, as this myth has long been discarded by thinking people. Britain imports Friesian cattle from Europe, under proper restrictions, with no ill-effects; the Channel Islands also import pigs from England. So much for Mr Martin’s statement that England does not Import stock from countries where the disease exists.

As to the theory that our stock does not need improving, it must be realised that we have to supply our customer (Britain) with what her consumers want, not what we think they should have. We tried them out with standardised cheese, with lamentable results. The great majority of British consumers ot meat demand high quality, and are prepared to pay a premium to get it. British home killed meat is on the whole unsurpassed for quality, but the best New Zealand runs a good second in lamb and mutton. It we are to continue to enjoy that premier position in imported meats we must keep up the quality to the highest standard, and we must improve our beef. That can only be done by importing high class British sires and breeding the type and quality the British consumer is accustomed to, and demands. If our own stock is as good as some people would have us believe, then why do imported stock take so many prizes at tne shows? In any case, why should a dog in the manger attitude be adopted. By all means let them try and evolve a New Zealand type, but also let progressive breeders import if they wish to, and the results would soon show' who was on the right track. It would be interesting to know Mr A. A. Ross’s authority for stating that a large majority of the farmers of New Zealand had expressed themselves as being in favour of the reten tion of the embargo. I have been farming for some years, and I have never participated in any sort of ballot on the subject, nor have I ever heard ot one.

The arguments used by the mover and seconder of the remit that the embargo be removed were very ably put forward, and show that the gentlemen have a very complete grasp of the subject. The congress deserves the thanks of the farmers of NewZealand for introducing the remit and carrying it unanimously. The farmers of this country have put up with a good deal of interference in their business and unwarranted increases of costs from the present Government. It the embargo were to be lifted, I think the Government might rest assured that it would cost them very few, if any, votes, and they would be doing the country a real service.