Britain’s Vigorous Agriculture Today Threatens Our Economy

New Zealand Journal of Agriculture, Volume 97, Issue 2, 15 August 1958, Page 90

Britain’s Vigorous Agriculture Today Threatens Our Economy

A WARNING that the performance and potentials of the British farmer in meat production threatened not only our national economy but the way of life of the New Zealand sheep farmer was given by Dr C. P. McMeekan, Superintendent of the Department of Agriculture's Ruakura Animal Research Station, in a paper he gave at the Ruakura Farmers' Conference Week recently. As the result of his visit this year to Britain on an Underwood Fellowship offered by the British Agricultural Research Council Dr McMeekan was able to study British farming conditions and to observe the sweeping changes which have taken place in agriculture in the United Kingdom in the last 20 years. His conclusions regarding the effect these changes are having and the programme he considers should be followed to overcome the problem facing the New Zealand meat industry are set out in his paper below. Another paper which he gave at the conference about the impact of British milk production methods on our dairy industry appears later in this issue.

NORMALLY a discussion of British meat production would be of but passing interest. Our climate is so different, our techniques so specialised, and our production pattern so limited that the British farmer with his widely diversified farming systems has been remote and somehow unimportant to us. Today the picture has radically changed. Today, as never in history, his performance and potentials threaten not . only our national economy but our own way of life as farmers. For this reason this address, along with its follow-up to dairymen,

is probably the most important I have ever been called on to make. You are well aware of the reality of the current price depression in dairying—a situation due in no small measure to the rapidly expanded dairy industry of the United Kingdom. I would not be meeting my responsibilities today if I failed to impress on you the comparable dangers to New Zealand sheep farmers inherent in existing and potential meat production programmes of Britain. Present Production Pattern . While at Cambridge School of Agriculture from mid 1936 to the end of

1938 I was able to see most phases of British farming. Though the visit just completed was all too short to see and learn more than a fraction of what I would have liked, it was possible in 4,000 rural miles to observe the fantastic change that has occurred in the British agricultural scene. For the change is fantastic. Twenty-two years ago British farming was just beginning to emerge from the great depression of the 19305. Millions of acres were either derelict or poorly used. Buildings, farm equipment, and general facilities were in bad shape. Methods were antiquated. Farm, labour was poorly paid and relatively inefficient. Tuberculosis, contagious abortion, and mastitis in

cattle were rife. Pastures were neglected and contributed but little to livestock production. Grass silage was known mainly in text books. Lowyielding Shorthorns dominated the dairy world. Cows were still milked by hand. Imported foodstuffs provided two feeds out of every three of all farm animals. Research stations were few in number, poorly equipped, and understaffed. Above all the net

profitability of farming as a national industry totalled a mere £SO to £6O million a year. (1) Despite all this I learned to admire the tenacity of the British farmer, his deep love of his land, and his really high output in the face of great physical and economic handicaps.

Today British farming has to be seen to be believed, its incredible production performance closely studied to be appreciated. Today almost the whole countryside presents the appearance of well nurtured pasture and crop land. The romanticist’s description of Britain as one large, well-tended park has never been more apt. Derelict lands have been brought into cultivation. Wheat, barley, oats, vegetable crops, and pastures now grow where weeds, brush, and copse once ruled. Farm buildings have been renovated and modernised. New buildings designed to do old jobs in new ways are commonplace. Methods are up to date. Mechanisation is at an extraordinary high level. Farm labour is much more highly rewarded, and its versatility much greater. The major cattle diseases are under control.

Pastures have so improved and the efficiency of their utilisation so stepped up that Britain can justly claim to be approaching her once honoured position as the world’s leading grassland country. Unbelievably to anyone knowing the conservatism of the English stockman, the Shorthorn in England has been displaced by heavier milking foreign breeds. Artificial breeding controls the destiny of the country’s cattle. Home-grown materials supply most of the food of livestock. Artificial fertilisers, particularly nitrogen, are used at an ever-increasing rate for both crops and pastures. Mechanised chemical warfare on weeds is highly successful. The grain drier has revolutionised cereal production, making it relatively independent of harvesting weather. Research stations have been multiplied many times in number and staffing and their facilities are unbelievably good. Government expenditure on research exceeds £5 million a year and private enterprise also invests a tremendous amount. The whole scene is one of a vigorous, prosperous agriculture.

What of performance? (1) Compared with their prewar record United Kingdom farmers are now producing over Si million tons more cereals, nearly 2 million tons more sugar beets, and over 1 million tons more potatoes. On the livestock side the extra milk amounts to over 830 million gallons, the extra eggs to over 4 million tons. Meat production outstrips prewar levels by over j million tons —-| million tons more pig meat, | million tons more beef, and 17,000 tons more lamb and mutton. The value of the current total output of agricultural products adds up to the staggering figure of

Programme for the Future

'T’O surmount the immediate difficulties facing the New Zealand meat producer Dr McMeekan suggested in his paper that consideration should be given to eight points. He said:

From my experience of recent years in Britain and other countries, I believe that the production dilemma facing us must be regarded logically as a two-phase one—a short-term and a long-term problem. Time does not permit any discussion of the latter on this occasion nor more than a brief statement of my views on the former. These are advanced in the hope of stimulating thought and action and as an expression of my own faith in the solid future of New Zealand farming.

A realistic programme to handle the short-term problem must involve at least the following considerations:

rfl Holding the United Kingdom lamb market at about 14 million head; keeping the weight down to 32 lb.; selling on scales to guarantee this; instituting a premium grade of Down 2’s from which overfat carcasses, are excluded; abandoning other Down grades; penalising overfat carcasses at all weights; stepping up efficiency by increasing lambing percentages; reducing ewe flocks proportionately to make room for an expanded cattle population; eliminating hydatids and thereby increasing income and removing what is becoming fast a damaging advertisement for New Zealand meat.

UH Continuing to exploit, but much more vigorously, the Canadian lamb market by. high-level industry cooperation with Canadian producers by planned marketing and intelligent advertising. Canada can skim off any surplus otherwise likely to depress United Kingdom realisations.

Tgl Taking advantage of the present international political climate, the present local meat shortage, and the valuable opening gambits of the secretary of our farmers’ federation to make a renewed but high powered approach to United States sheep producers and particularly Californian growers for similar cooperative exploitation of the huge potential lamb market of that country. This approach must embrace all interests at the highest level—Government, meat board, exporter, and farmer power to negotiate and to spend money if necessary to institute the trade. The time is now. ' - .

□□ Organising all interests Government, shipping, exporters, local traders, unionists, and producers—to develop over the next 5 years an export chiller trade with the United Kingdom of 10,000 carcasses a week—--4 million a year. Planning on a contractual basis with farmers so that this target can be doubled in the following 5 years. This capacity is technically feasible and the time to tackle it again is now.

GU Cooperating with the dairy industry to this end by exploiting the great and cheap source of saleable beef inherent in the national dairy herd. Diversion of this product to local markets if eventually desirable as and when adequate supplies of beef type cattle are developed.

DD Achieving this extra meat output by taking up the slack on existing farm lands by better farming and by speeding up the development of undeveloped country to the maximum attainable rate. Using if necessary the “production grant”, system of the British—never direct subsidies—to initiate and consolidate this production drive, a fair and reasonable approach, since it is vital to the whole community that our exchange balance be restored and built up if living standards are to be maintained.

ryi Stepping up applied research in volume and quality by realistic appreciation of its basic needs. At the risk of being accused of selfinterest I firmly believe that this exporting country, in this technological age, cannot afford to relax for a moment its search for greater efficiency if it is to survive in this competitive world.

["gl Avoiding, above all things, a standstill policy— policy which would label us as politically, technically, and morally bankrupt with no rights to the land we are privileged to own. Despite the difficult man-made economics of the present we must not forget that the population explosion now confronting us will mean that the world will have 6,000 million people—twice as many as now —in a mere 40 years. The dangers of standing still are obvious.

£l| thousand million. Impressive as these figures are, much more impressive as a measure of the change in rural prosperity is the net profitability of farming today. For the current year this is forecast as £360 million, a figure over six times as great as that ruling in 1938.

These great changes were of course triggered off by the Second World War. More home-produced food was essential if people were not to starve. The way in which available powers of State and people were channelled into food production is a separate story. Of much greater interest and importance to us is the way in which the greater productivity obtained at that time has not only been maintained, but is being still further increased. What are the forces operating now that the wartime pressures are nearly 15 years past? These are threefold: the political climate, the subsidy system, and the basic ability of the British farmer.

The Political Climate

Politically the British people see nothing inherently wrong in providing a protective umbrella for their farmers. Though the defence argument may not be as strong as it was, the balance of payments, the cheap food, and the social arguments are still sufficiently persuasive to guarantee the continuation of support for home agriculture. In brief, it is argued that more home-produced food means less imported food and a larger overseas exchange balance for other trading activities. More homeproduced food guarantees cheaper food, since a shortage in total quantity caused by low local output could increase the cost of supplies from Commonwealth and foreign sources.

Socially a healthy and prosperous agriculture at home is essential for full employment and desirable in terms of international prestige. However one might wonder how long the British citizen will continue to meet the very high taxation cost of farmer support and doubt that he will do so indefinitely, it is my impression that there are no signs as yet of any change in this political climate,

The Subsidy System

It is necessary to have a reasonably close look at the details of the subsidy system if one is to appreciate what we are up against. This year the total amount of direct and indirect aid will amount to £326 million.* (2) This figure averages £9OO per farmer, and is almost equal to the total net profitability of farming.

In an effort to reduce the total cost, and to stimulate increased efficiency, the Government reduced the total

amount . for next year by some £2O million at its recent price review and' altered its basis in respect to certain items. Guarantees were lowered to ' discourage . the output of further milk, wheat, pig meat, and eggs, which tend to. be in oversupply; they were increased to stimulate further beef output. . It should be noted . that the price-support programme, guaranteed 4 years ahead, calls for an annual review with no more than an overall permissible drop of 2| , per cent in any one year. This mechanism is being used today to stimulate increased efficiency in terms of cost of production.

It is instructive, too, to have a look at the way in which price supports and production aids affect an individual producer of meat. (1) Here it must be remembered that there are very few specialised meat producers in Britain. Beef cattle and sheep are kept as part of complex farming enterprises within which they may be of either major or minor importance.' If it is assumed that a farmer produces both cattle and sheep, he receives direct price support on fat cattle averaging 24 per cent of the market price. This amounts to approximately £lB per fat steer of 550 lb. carcass weight. His lambs carry a direct subsidy of approximately 21 per cent, averaging £1 13s. 4d. per 50 lb. carcass. His wool is enhanced in value by 21 per cent, or Is. per lb. Incidentally, the guaranteed price for beef is £l3 per 100 lb. carcass, for lamb 3s. 3Jd. per pound, and wool 4s. Bd. per pound.

This of course is but a small fraction of the picture. (3) If the farmer in question maintains a -type cow on hill country, he receives an annual grant of £lO. If she weans a calf to 8 months of age, she carries another grant of £8 to £lO for a steer and £7 to £lO for a heifer. If the calf is fattened, addition of the average beef subsidy of £lB brings the total amount of assistance to £36 per cow in a gross of £B9. Similar grants. may be made in respect to hill-country breeding ewes, the amount varying with market prices.

This meat producer is,' of course, not done yet. Should he use fertilisers in growing grass or fodder crops, his nitrogen carries a subsidy of £lO per ton, his phosphates one of £6 to £l5 per ton, and mixed fertilisers a pro rata rate. Lime carries a subsidy of 50 per cent. Should he purchase any grain for wintering, rearing, or topping off sheep or cattle, the cost is reduced because of the grain subsidies. Should he plough up a. temporary pasture that has been down at least 3 years, he receives a grant of £7 per acre, £l2 if the sward has been down 10 years.

These cover most of the direct aids, but there are many sources of indirect

assistanceproduction —which may also help the meat producer. Improvements to water supply and drainage carry grants of 40 and 50 per cent of the cost. Should farmhouses or cottages need renovation or replacement, they carry supports of up to £4OO each and a taxable write-off of 10 per cent a year. To one paying supertax, the net cost thus becomes one quarter of actual. The building of a silo brings a grant of up to £250. If the farm concerned is on hill country, special grants are available for eradication of bracken and rabbits. Thirty per cent of the cost of land reclamation can be obtained.

Even now we do not z have the full story. As emphasised earlier few men are specialised meat farmers; most produce grains, many produce milk, some add pigs and poultry. Since all these enterprises are integrated into the individual farm production pattern and since it is not practicable to cost any one enterprise independent of the others, our hypothetical meat farmer may also receive the subsidy assistance available for grain, milk, pig, and egg production to assist his overall profit-earning capacity.

Basic Farming Ability

In terms of basic farming ability the British farmer is good. Let us make no mistake about this. He is not perfect by any means. He has many weaknesses and his efficiency is low in many departments, but his performance in the face of severe climatic limitations speaks for itself. He is getting much more efficient. He is constantly on the watch for new ideas, which, despite his national heritage of traditionalism, are rapidly incorporated into his farming enterprises. I was intrigued to note the many ideas for new practices which he has obtained from us in the last 20 years. His interest in research is intense and many are fully aware even of our work in New Zealand.

Let us have a closer look at his meat production, efficiency and methods. Though the meat animal accounts for only about one-quarter of his gross income and most of his land is used for other purposes, he does find room for nearly 5 million beef cattle, 12 million sheep, and 5 million pigs. (4) From these he produces more than 850,000 tons of beef against our 240,000 tons, over 200,000 tons of mutton and lamb against our 350,000 tons, and over 700,000 tons of pig meat compared with our meagre 40,000 tons, more than If million tons of meat or almost three times the total New Zealand output. (1)

Beef is raised partly from the offspring of single-suckled beef cows, partly from the fattening of Irish stores, partly from multiple-suckled or hand-reared crossbred beef dairy-

type calves, and partly from surplus dairy-type cattle. Calf rearing on milk substitutes is highly efficient, so that this spring one found almost every spare pen in shed or barn occupied by this class of stock. Reared inside on milk substitutes, grain, hay, silage, and roots, they go to grass in summer, and are finished indoors by heavy supplementary feeding during their next winter. Alternately they may be wintered more cheaply to finish on grass in their second summer. Grass silage plays an increasing role and the use of self-feeding systems for utilising it is proceeding rapidly.

Special pastures for beef are more widely used than ever before. In the main these are short-rotation leys of which the timothy-meadow fescue combination is favoured. Stimulated by heavy nitrogen dressings of up to i ton per acre, they yield a great bulk of high-quality fodder used partly in situ and partly as silage and hay.

Outwintering of cattle is proceeding as farmers learn to exploit specialpurpose pastures which extend the growing season and as they develop management methods to enable such swards to be carried through and used during winter. Lucerne-cocksfoot leys are used for this purpose.

In the main, however, the target of most producers is to get their cattle away fat as young, as possible so that finishing autumn-born calves inside in winter and spring-born calves outside on grass in summer is the objective of the more efficient farmers. Homegrown and imported grains still play a dominant part in the ration of fattening stock. To this extent production is expensive and its economy questionable except under the present price support system. Greater dependence on home-grown fodders is being keenly sought.

The minimum weight for price support and quality premiums in . beef cattle is 450 lb. dressed. Carcasses are down graded for excessive fat. A lightweight 500 to 550 lb. steer grossing £9O is the normal product. Crossbred beef dairy stock are of surprisingly high quality, calves realising £l3 to £2O each at birth. Even purebred Friesian calves command as ready a sale at similar figures.

Sheep production, except in parts of Scotland and Wales, is essentially a sideline enterprise, the potentials of which have not yet begun to be exploited. Today . the sheep is often the most profitable animal on a British farm. Sheep numbers fell drastically during the war because of their low priority rating. The national flock has now increased beyond its prewar level and is on the upgrade. However, the majority of individual flocks are still handled largely as scavenger units rather than as highly profitable enterprises in their own right.

Despite this sideline outlook, the British sheepman puts us to shame in

the lambing percentages he obtains. In England during the recent lambing, which occurred under heavy snow and a bitterly cold spring, I became very chagrined at the monotonous collections of twins in every field. Small flocks of 50 to 200 ewes, individual lambing attention, and provision of adequate shelter undoubtedly play a part in the 150 to 180 per cent lambing figures. But one cannot escape the conclusion that the inherent fertility of British sheep is far superior to ours.

The English sheep flock is kept primarily for meat and has been selected to this end. Wool is poor and very variable. Crossbreeding of a multiplicity of breeds is the rule rather than the exception. Rate of growth of lambs is phenomenal and much better than ours, the British lamb averaging 40 to 50 lb. carcass weight in the same time as ours take to attain 30 to 35 lb. Big framed, heavy conditioned ewes selected for high fertility and milking ability over many generations have certainly produced highly productive meat sheep. Lambing is extremely concentrated, being virtually over in 3 weeks. Dry ewes are rare and lambing losses low. Can we match these two examples, admittedly among the best that I met and was able to check?

1. 208 ewes lambing 3 quads, 48 triplets, 126 twins, and 31 singles total of 439 lambs or 210 per cent. This particular farmer’s target is a flock that will wean 300 per cent of lambs.

2. 401 ewes mated, 1 dry, 721 lambs sold — 180 per cent; lambs sold at average carcass weight of 53 lb., yielding a gross return of £6,400 or £l6 per ewe.

Undoubtedly we have much to learn from British sheepmen in this, the greatest weakness in our own fat-lamb industry. At the same time it is probably in the field of sheep management that the New Zealand farmer has most to offer his British counterpart.

The Future

What of the future? This is the crux of this outline of British meat production, since it is future developments that can have such profound impacts upon our own policies. One view of the future pattern of British production is obtained from the recent statement of the Government in its White Paper on price supports. (1) Setting out official policy, this , lists as objectives of the new price guarantees:

1. The maintenance of a large arable

acreage something like the current size, but with more emphasis on

feed crops rather than wheat, 2. Greater reliance on home-produced

feed for livestock,

3. The production of more beef and lamb of the quality wanted by the

market, and

4. The production of less milk, pig

meat, and eggs.

Objective three (the production of more beef and lamb) is the one with special application to us. What are the prospects? Undoubtedly more of these two products can come from British farms.

The most significant fact about the present and future beef situation is the marked extension in the use of beef bulls on dairy cows for crossbred beef production. This year over 45 per cent more dairy cows were inseminated by beef bulls than last year. Half a million cows were so —over 35 per cent of the total dairy cattle inseminated. (4)

The full impact of this dramatic change will not be apparent until the 1960-61 production season, when the resulting calves reach the market as finished beef. To improve the alreadyhigh quality of such animals the Milk Marketing Board is co-operating with the Ministry of Agriculture in experiments to determine the best kind of bulls for crossing and is developing performance testing of beef bulls of different breeds as a guide to selection. Considerable pressure also exists for the introduction of the French breed, Charollais, as a method of stepping up the growth rate of crossbred cattle.

There is no question that these extra cattle can be fed. Improved pastures with greater seasonal spread, more silage production, extended use of self-feeding, more forage crops, and cheaper imported grains will guarantee this as long as the present price support system is maintained. At the same time informed opinion, for what it is worth, considers that . Britain is unlikely to produce more than 60 per cent of its beef requirements even with subsidy aid.

On the sheep side the scope for increased output is relatively much greater. This is a personal view, but one subscribed to by a large number of the more successful British sheepmen. The present national ewe flock is carried at the low stocking rate of 1 to 1J ewes per acre. Individual producers are up to the 3 to 4 ewe per acre mark now; some are as high as 6 ewes plus 9 lambs per acre over the productive period.

Once the British sheepman loses his fear of internal parasites, handles sheep not as scavengers but as key animals in his enterprise, develops better grazing methods, and learns how to manage higher stocking rates, flock numbers must increase. The increasing demand for lighter and leaner lambs which is beginning to affect even the home producer will reinforce this change. At the very least the national flock could well be doubled

with little trouble in a few years. At present qualified shepherds are hard to get, but one would be indulging in wishful thinking to imagine that this lack will prevent progress permanently. Both these trends toward more beef and more lamb meat are likely to be accentuated by the Current State policy of static grain production, less milk, fewer eggs, and less pig meat.

Of special significance to us as Britain’s main source of imported lamb is the threat of increased home production of this commodity. The most informed trade interests consider that the saturation point in lamb meat can be expected to be somewhere round the 20 million head mark. With over 14 million from us and 4 to 6 million from home we are very close to this now.

The idea of Britain as a bottomless market for our lamb must in my judgment be dismissed as a pipe dream. We must look for additional markets to cope with future lamb meat increases unless we are prepared to suffer the same fate as has already overtaken our dairy colleagues.

On the beef side the outlook is better. Despite local potential production most British meat trade interests believe that beef is our best bet for the future. All agree that if we concentrate on producing and shipping in an orderly, regular fashion chillers of the quality supplied last year, we could . become a major factor in Britain’s higher-quality meat trade. The present trends arid . political climate in respect to the traditional supplier, Argentine, are in our favour. Courage, imagination, initiative, and a new outlook on our . part are necessary now if this potential is to be exploited.

One note of caution must be sounded. A new factor of unknown significance has entered the British meat trade. With a current output of 10 million birds and a widely publicised target of 100 million a year the fast developing broiler industry, supported as it is by large-scale industrial enterprises, could make grave inroads in the market for other classes of meat. Present guessers suggest lamb will be more vulnerable than beef. If so, this points to beef again as a safer bet than lamb in our future thinking. References 1. White Paper Command 390: "Annual Review and Determination of Guarantees March 1958”. 2. “Ministry of Agriculture Official Forecast”, supplied by Agricultural Guarantees Division, 22 May 1958. 3. “At the Farmer’s Service”, Ministry of Agriculture, 1957. 4. Milk Marketing Board Intelligence Bulletin No. 119, 26 February 1958.

* Direct £2lO million; production grants £76 million; school and welfare milk £4O million.