Opposition to Fat Stock Disposal Order

Manawatu Times, Volume 69, Issue 58, 11 March 1944, Page 6

Opposition to Fat Stock Disposal Order

Opposition to the Fat Stock Disposal Order, 1943, otherwise known to producers as the ‘ ‘ Stay-put ’ ’ order, was expressed at yesterday 's meeting of the Feilding branch of the Farmers ’ Union when a resolution was carried as follows:— 11 That in view of the great inconvenience and heavy losses suffered by primary producers from tho operation of the Fat Stock Disposal Order, this branch declares its strong opposition to the regulation and demands its removal before next season. * ’ Mr. li. U. Buchanan (chairman) stated that there had been considerable opposition to this regulation, which had proved detrimental to producers who had experienced losses when stock could not be taken at the freezing works. Zoning had been suggested as a better method, but he thought that this would prove too sticky. Assuming, under zoning, all stock in the district was drafted to tho Feilding and Longburn works, what would the Wellington works do? lie asked. He was afraid zoning would not work. As to the “stay order,” he said that the Meat Board had been unable to do anything about its removal unless it is able to convince the Minister of Marketing that it should be removed. The regulation was designed to save transport, but he doubted whether any savings had resulted. On the other hand it had resulted in a number of cases in heavy financial loss for producers of fat lambs. Describing the Fat Stock Disposal Order as a wicked and pernicious regulation, Mr. D. L. Younger said that he had been under the impression that the order had been suspended. Ho ha’d gathered from Mr. T. A. Duncan, late chairman of the Meat Board, that the regulations had been suspended. He was aware of the manner in which producers had suffered financial loss through the operation of the regulation which prevented a farmer from sending his lambs to any works he liked. He knew of a case where a farmer had his drafting held up for a month and lost heavily. It seemed to him ridiculous that a farmer could not get his fats away when ready and when another works could take them. Mr. Younger was under the impression that zoning would prove satisfactory and would save a lot of overlapi>ing. “There was nothing to prevent freezing companies from sending stock 100 miles away to another works for killing under the regulations and when this was done, as it had been, the farmer suffered the loss,” said Mr. H. A. Stewart. He knew of a case where stock could not be handled at the Feilding works and had been railed to Masterton. This had resulted in a loss of weight and a consequential financial ; loss to the producer, who was helpless in the matter. “The regulation had been created by a stroke of the pen by the ex-Minister of Agriculture.” declared Mr. B. McLeod, who suggested that producers would have to engage in a serious light if they wished to have tho regulation lifted.* He agreed that it was a most objectionable regulation. The Hon. J. 0. Cobbe mentioned a case 'whereby a farmer had lost £loo on a draft of lambs because of the operation of the regulation, which prevented the farmer from using a works which was within six miles of his farm and the lambs had to be railed 100 miles away thereby losing weight in transit. Mr. Y. B. Short considered that farmers should make a determined move to have the regulation lifted before next season. They should be quite frank about it and say definitely that they would not continue to abide by the regulation. “If we dug our toes in we could ignore the regulation,” he declared. “We want it eliminated,” said Mr. Younger. Mr. Short then moved the resolution quoted above and this was seconded by Mr. Younger and carried.