IN DEFENCE OF MUTTON

Press, Volume XLIX, Issue 14829, 21 November 1913, Page 6

IN DEFENCE OF MUTTON

HIGH COMMISSIONER AND WAR OFFICE. AX ADVERSE DECISION. (FROM OCR OWN" CORBXSrOSDINT). LONDON, October 10. In view of the recent decision of the War OfJive to exclude mutton from the service rations of the British troops, the Hon. T. Mackenzie at once made a vigorous protest and vindication of tho food value of the New Zealand product. Writing to the War Office on September 12th, he said: —

"I cannot help feeling that the chums of New Zealand mutton to the favour of the men are such thac, in the ordinary course of events, it should meet witli' their complete approval, and although I am awaxo that contracts for tho supply of New Zealand mutton have been entered into, I should be glad to learn whether you are satisfied tnat the genuine proauct ol' the Dominiou lias been forthcoming. It is alleged that substitution takes place to a large extent, and one could understand the expressed dislike if the very interior mutton from another country had been supplied, while it is generally recognised tiiat New Zealand mutton, properly treated during defrosting, is equal in flavour and nutritive qualities to home killed.

''You wiil, I am sure, realise that the omission of mutton from your contracts may affect the public mind, and the omission, is all the more inexplicable in view of the fact that New Zealand mutton and lamb are year by year becoming increasingly appreciated as articles of diet by the consuming public of the country; it is this latter fact which leads mc to wonder whether a fair trial has ever really been accorded to New Zealand mutton."

The reply of the War Office stated that the matter had been carefully considered, and that the decision to discontinue the issue of mutton had been come to on account of the general preference of the troops for beef. It was added that tho meat supplied under contract had always been carefully inspected, and that no doubt was' felt that in the great majority of cases supplies had been up to specification requirements.

Tho High Commissioner , again approached the War Office, asserting his conviction that mutton from New Zealand is superior to any that may be supplied by other countries. .Such being his opinion, Mr Ulaesenzie added that he was "forced to the conclusion that, if New Zealand mutton has been objected to, it must be some'imperfection in the treatment either before or during cooking, which has prevented a full appreciation of its excellence, and ho would be very greatly obliged if an opportunity could be afforded him to test the matter by submitting New Zealand mutton, properly defrosted and cooked, for the approval of the men. Such a test would, of course, be carried out without expense to tho War Department." A reply was received on October Bth thanking' the High Commissioner for his offer, but stating that "as the decision to discontinue the issue of mutton had been come to after mature consideration, it was feared that it would be futile to accept the proposal, which would involve trouble and expense, only to prove what wns already universally accented as correct, viz., the <>xcellence of the quality of New Zealand mutton." . . "

..Not considering it advisable to lot the matter drop entirely, the High Commissioner has to-day addressed another, letter in which he says:—"lt -TS recognised that ; so far as this yearns contract is concerned the matter is closed, but the Hich Commissioner ventures to express the hope, that when next year's contract for the simply of meat to the British Army is' Under consideration, the high cmality rnntton and Inmb which New Zep'nnd is able to offer will not be excluded." .