Meat Output Pattern Change

Press, Volume CV, Issue 30953, 8 January 1966, Page 8

Meat Output Pattern Change

At a time when considerable thought is being given by the Meat Board, Federated Farmers, and the Government to marketing lamb in excess of the requirements of the United Kingdom market Mr H. A. Seifert, a spokesman for New Zealand-owned meat export freezing companies, seems to strike a timely note when he asks if thought should not be given to adjusting the pattern of production to meet market requirements.

Essentially, he says, the current situation arises from the anticipated expansion in lamb production and in that sense is justified. It is felt that for practical purposes the limit has been reached for New Zealand lamb on the United Kingdom market, and so it is imperative to develop alternative markets. Accordingly the idea is to shed surplus lamb on other markets, which initially, at least, will be less remunerative. This had posed the problem of how to finance such trading. The foundation of all this thinking is a wish to maintain the existing pattern of production in the sheep industry. This can be summed

up as a pattern of wool, lamb, and ewe mutton, and a little beef. Is it realistic, he asks, to plan for an ever-expanding increase in production from sheep farming without any thought being given to changing its pattern of production, at least in some degree? There are no problems in finding markets for beef and ewe mutton. To quote one exporter. “There would be no need for diversionary plans if farmers would produce the meats that we can sell worldwide. If they do not do that, plans could be costly and ineffective.”

Mr Seifert says that it will mot serve the long-term interests of farmers and of the nation to adopt some policy of diversionary marketing which would lull producers into a false sense of security and to prevent any spur towards changing patterns of production.

Beat Production Of the world’s 15 major beef-producing countries, he says, New Zealand ranks twelfth. The countries concerned produce 21,500,000 tons of beef annually. New Zealand’s contribution is about li per cent only. The volume of New Zealand beef exports in a year would suffice the American appetite for six days and that of the world for about one day and a half. Yet in spite of an excellent demand for many years New Zealand’s beef exports have failed to increase significantly. The country’s sheep flock, of course, is a great money earner when account is taken of production from both meat and wool, and it would be unrealistic to suggest reducing sheep numbers and turning pastures over to beef production as an alternative. It is not unrealistic, however, to propose the incorporation of a vigorous beef industry into the country’s sheep-farm-ing industry. But quite apart from the beef aspect, Mr Seifert asks whether New Zealand may not also be more flexible to its

lamb production. Why not use a proportion of the increasing national sheep flock for the production of special types of lamb? There is believed to be a great market potential in Europe for very young lambs and those around 221 b. It would appear to be possible to produce economically lambs of this type with sheep of a high twinning ability. After all, two lambs each of 221 b weight would return 88s. Even allowing for the possibility of some reduction in income from wool the result could be as good business, as producing one 55s Imnb from a ewe each season, or perhaps even better business.