THE STOCK EMBARGO

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVIII, Issue 19953, 10 November 1934, Page 15

THE STOCK EMBARGO

DIVERSE VIEWS The farmers of New Zealand appear to be just as much at cross purposes as ever regarding the proposed removal of the embargo against the importation of live stock from Britain. At numerous meetings of sections of the Farmers’ Union (at which breeders of purebred stock have invariably been in a small minority) resolutions have been carried “by large majorities” protesting against the lifting of the embargo. At meetings of members of breed societies some make one decision, some another, and others are about 50-50. The average farmer is understandably actuated by a blind scare at the mere thought of the possible introduction of foot-and-mouth disease, but that is not to say that he understands the breeding issues at stake, or that he is in a position to judge the probability of the dreaded disease being introduced. At the Farmers’ Union Conference in May it was stated that “New Zealand does not need the importation of new blood,” and that “the royal road to success was by constructive line breeding.” To declare that New Zealand does not need any more imported blood is certainly to pay a tribute to the high quality that has been developed in New Zealand. The statements are contradictory, nevertheless. In many cases the policy of constructive line breeding is the very reason why the importation of fresh stock is absolutely necessary if the best results are to be obtained. The loose violence with which the opponents of importation sometimes express their views really needs to be checked. For instance: “It is all nonsense to say we want fresh blood in the Dominion; we Can breed just as good cattle here. We know half the breed goes down the throat.” Perfect Safety That New Zealand could with perfect safety import from Great Britain cattle which had passed through the quarantine station there was the opinion expressed by Sir Arnold Theiler, the eminent veterinarian, in an address he delivered to members of the Legislature at Wellington. Sir Arnold is the ex-director of the Veterinary Service of South Africa. Particular reference was made by him to the question of foot-and-mouth disease. England, he said, could be considered free of that disease, notwithstanding an occasional sporadic outbreak. There were various policies pursued in the world for dealing with the disease, Sir Arnold stated. Switzerland, the United States of America, Great Britain, the Union of South Africa, and Ireland adopted the policy of stamping it out by describing a circle around the outbreak and slaughtering, not only the animals affected by the disease, but also the contacts. Other countries, while they might kill animals which were severely affected, endeavoured to nurse them back to health in quarantine.