CALF SUBSIDY

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 68, Issue 5944, 17 May 1944, Page 4

CALF SUBSIDY

FARMERS CRITICAL OF SCHEME BUILDING UP DAIRY HERDS The Government’s proposal to assist the building up of dairy herds in the coming season by paying a subsidy of £1 a head on all heifer calves above five reared in a herd, the subsidy to be provided on the basis of two-fifths from a levy on bobby calves and three-fifths by Government contribution, was strongly criticised at the middle ward conference of the Dairy Board in Palmerston North. A resolution was adopted urging that the subsidy should be paid instead at a flat rate on all calves raised for dairying without any levy on bobby calves. Referring to the Government’s scheme as outlined by the chairman of the board, Mr W. E. Hale, a delegate, asked what was going to happen while people were waiting for the calves to come into production. Mr Hale replied that if the Minister of Agriculture had given any consideration to the scheme put forward two years ago by the board, heifers would have been coming into profit during the coming season.

Mr J. Kyle said it was not the farmers’ fault that heifers had been killed as calves two years ago. They had been pushed into it. “What are we going to do now to produce more next season, when it will take two years and a half to have the heifers ready?” he asked. “It can’t be done. I think the board is hampered by having to deal with men who are thicker-headed than I am. We are called clay hods, but when a difficult position arises which we are not able •to help, we are asked to do the impossible.” The ward member, Mr A. Linton, said the board realised fully the difficulties in increasing butterfat production next year, but there were one or two things that might be done outside an increase in the actual eow population. The board had thought of creating some organisation through the dairy companies and asking it to accept some responsibility for collecting data about cows that might be slightly above what might be considered a good productive level, so that an effort might be made to have them retained in production next year instead of being culled. It would also be necessary to treat the problem as an individual one and use plough and agricultural methods a little more. “If we don’t accept individual responsibility, then we won’t get increased production,” he said. “Do you think £1 a head after five calves is fair to the small man as against the big man,” asked Mr Kyle. “No,” replied Mr Hale. “I don’t like the present scheme any more than you do, but it is much better than the Government’s original scheme, which we told them was unworkable.” Mr Linton: If we can we will get this scheme reviewed. It was imposed on us. It was not tire board’s original scheme, which began with the first calf, not the sixth. We pointed out to the Minister a number of glaring anomalies. Any scheme which doesn’t continue equity between the big and small farmer is wrong.

A voice: Why did you agree? Mr Linton: We didn’t. Mr Hale has told you it was imposed on us. A delegate asked whether the Government had decided on a purchase price for heifer calves. Mr Hale replied that the 2500 heifers io be taken on to the Lands Department farms were to be paid for at £3 to £5 10s in February or March of the coming year. There was no purchase scheme. The Government had originally suggested that it would purchase surplus calves in September, but the board told them that was no use. If the farmer wintered his calves he would find some way to carry them on.