MACHINE AND CO-OPERATIVE SHEARING.

King Country Chronicle, Volume VI, Issue 459, 24 April 1912, Page 7

MACHINE AND CO-OPERATIVE SHEARING.

In opening a discussion upon tin: important question Mr. Packer, Col ton, S.A.. said :—A good deal has been said for and against machine shearing, some praising while other; ridicule" it. But there has always been opposition to all mechanica improvements, for old systems die hard, and hand-shearing has conn down to us from the early ages. On. thing is sure, and that is that ma-chine-shearing has come to stay. At it becomes more difficult every yea; to get capable hand-shearer.-—hi fact hand-shearers at all—it is nccessarj to look round for the n.wt bcsl thing, and that at present is ma chine-shearing, for wool to tc o any value to the grower must b< got off the sheep's back and put into the market expeditiously. 1 think the principal reason for the scarcity of hand-shearers is that many who followed it year aftei year were young men who were working on the farm at home, and in thi slack season put in a month or twe at shearing. Many of those mei have now homes of, their own, anc the young men of to-day have taker to machine-shearing. Thci work is not so laborious, and it is possiblt to make a much larger tally in th« season, which means a bigger cheque, Ono reason for adopting machineshearing is the more merciful was in which the sheep are used. Manj of the hand-shearers of to-day an very rough, and in their haste to make a tally the sheep are cut and tomahawked shamefully. With the machine that cannot be dons unless it is most carelessly handled. What most of us on the West Coast know about machine-shearing comes to us second hand* few (if any) having had experience. We have only one machine plant installed so far on this part of the West Coast, and the owner of it cannot speak too highly in its praise. In conversation he said that his sheep had recovered more quickly after the shearing, few losing condition, and the growth of wool was more even and denser. There was no chaffing the fleece by second cuts, and he would be very sorry to have to go back to hand-shearing. Many of the objections against the machines are purely a matter of prejudice, and many of the faults are traceable to the man behind the shears or running the gear too slowly. While we do not hear of anyone who has tidopted the machine going back to the old system, what troubles the small holder is how to avail himself of,- the machines. Large holders can erect a plant or engage one of the companies who are prepared to find all plant, men, woolclassers, etc., and deliver the wool at the Shed door ready for the market. The fact that the companies require the number of sheep at one shed to be not less than 5,000, debars small holders from availing themselves of the companies. This being the case the small holder has to look round for some other way to avail himself of the machines. This cculd be done; in thet same way as it is in Victoria, viz., by having a travelling plant for two stands or more, which is made in sections, and can be put up and taken down quickly. With a plant of this kind the shearing would he done so that the ownei could point out any faults or what he would like altered to the man' in charge of the plant. It would dc away with droving and having thf sheep penned up for a time. If thf small holders are to get best valut for their wool it must be placed upon the market in the most attractive way so that it may catct the buyer's eye, That can only b? done by making use of the most approved methods. The small holders can best do this by co-operation."

In the discussion that followed there was some difference of opinion as to the practicability of machineshearing under present circumstances, but the consensus of opinion was in its favor. Mr. P. P. Kenny read an, interesting letter from Mr. Coffee, y{ Redhill, stropgly advocating eooperation: