BOBBY CALF POOL

Lake County Mail, Issue 8, 16 July 1947, Page 2

BOBBY CALF POOL

Farmers generally find considerable cause for dissatisfaction in the operation of the Bobby Calf‘Pool Account and of the manner in which the farming industry is treated in relation to the price paid out for bobby calf skins. The bobby calf pool absorbs the difference between the cost of production, which is held to be ( 24id per lb, and the 32d per lb which farmers are allowed-to receive for their skins. That permitted price of 32d per lb the Bobby Calf Federation—the national organisation • of the various district pools —is bound to accept by virtue of the existing stabilisation agreement. The tanners buy their skins for Ifi.lSd per lb and the difference between that amount and the 24-Jd is paid from the Consolidated Fund. Last season, however, the skins not handled internally amounted to approximately 680,000 and sold at 48d per lb and more. The difference between the 32d paid to the producer and that 48d per lb went into the bobby calf pool and is, therefore, temporarily withheld from the dairy industry. The bobby calf pool account has to-day a credit of £780.000 ; Originally the tanners were allowed a subsidy on only 50,000 skins. That number has now been increased [to 250,000. The position now is, therefore, that the dairy farmer last year was compelled to accept 24|-d per lb for 250,000 skins which were worth 48d per lb with the average skin weighing 4 Jibs. That represents a loss of approximately 9s a calf, or a payment of 9s a calf below its true value. In other words, the dairy industry has lost a direct payment of £112,500. Most farmers are antagonistic to the generous subsidy paid to local tanners. It seems to. them unfair that local tanners get skins for the low price of 16.18 d per lb while British tanners must pay up to 60d per’lb for the same quality skins, freight them to Britain for manufacture and return as manufactured goods subject to customs duties, * etc. The local manufacturer of leather goods seems to be in an enviable position. If the New Zealand farmer, is to be paid only part of the value of his produce in order to maintain the stabilisation policy, he would prefer a most equitable deal being given to the British buyer and manufacturer. Otherwise our protestations of a desire to help Britain as a nation, seem a shallow mockery.