MARKETING OF EWES

Wairarapa Times-Age, 26 January 1939, Page 9

MARKETING OF EWES

ADVOCACY OF PATTERSON SCHEME MR. L. T. DANIELL’S PROPOSAL. MEETING IN MASTERTON YESTERDAY. “The whole trouble with New Zealand sheep farmers is that for so long we have permitted the export price to rule our internal market,” stated Mr L. T. Daniell, when contending at a meeting of the Farmers’ Union and the Sheep Owners’ Federation yesterday, that serious consideration be given to the Patterson scheme as applying to ewes.

It was decided that the scheme be submitted to a select committee of the Farmers’ Unipn and the Sheep Owners’ Federation for further consideration and investigation. Mr Daniell said the price for fat ewes today was 9s as compared witn 18s last year. The price of meat in the shops, however, was the same, irrespective of the drop in price. It had been estimated that a fall of Id a lb. in wool meant a loss of £1,000,000 to the Dominion growers as a whole. A drop of Is in the price of ewes meant a loss of £160,000 to Dominion breeders, and the fall this year of 9s had meant a loss of £1,500,000. The serious cloud on the horizon was the prospect of the Empire Meat Council succeeding in cutting our meat quota. In that event, the price of ewes might be 4s instead of 9s.

PROBLEMS IN RURAL FINANCE.

Breeders were facing a problem in rural finance which was a very serious one. The first step to stop the slide was to assist the black-face man, who was facing an enormous depreciation on the ewes he must dispose of. If the rot could be stopped there the position might be ameliorated and the result would finally reach the hill country man. Heads of local stock firms agreed that the position was serious and that something should be done. It was essential that the black-face man should be put on a sound and not a speculative basis. It had been argued that the scheme would mean Government control and he agreed that it was a point that would have to be watched. During its successful operation in Australia in the last fifteen years, there had been no Government interference with the scheme. PRODUCER CONTROL WANTED. “We want producer control without statutory authority,” remarked Mr. Daniell, who added, “The sheep farmer is the only unprotected unit in the community. It is a pity that the drop of 9s should have been allowed to happen and smash men this year without us doing anything. It is a ridiculous situation. We have lacked co-op-eration. I am not married to the scheme and if you can find a better one I will support it.” Mr Daniell said that the policy of the Government was that one man’s costs were another man’s price: Generally, it was expected that the blackface man would reimburse himself this year. But the question was, who was he going to reimburse himself from? He was expected to reimburse himself from the ewe man, but he was already working below the bread-line. If a levy of 4d were put on the reimbursement would not come from the hill country farmer.

In moving that the Patterson Scheme as applying to ewes, be submitted to a select committee of the New Zealand Farmers' Union and the New Zealand Sheep Owners' Federation for further consideration and investigation, Mr Daniell said that if the scheme was in operation for only one year the levy would be returned and the industry would not be permanently 5 poorer and might be a good deal better off. It was a scheme that should be given reasonable consideration.

A POSSIBLE WEAKNESS.

Mr J. C. Cooper said Mr Daniell had gone thoroughly into the scheme and he could not pick any holes in his case. Perhaps the only weakness was that the sheep farmer was being asked to help himself instead of receiving public assistance the . same as many other sections of industry. Mr A. H. Falioon said the scheme had distinct possibilities. If the price of the 2/ million ewes sold internally could be raised, the price of other ewes would also go up. Nearly everything we used and wore today was subsidised and he would like to see the scheme further considered. Mr A. McDonald suggested that in his figures Mr Daniell was taking an exceptional year and he thought thej should be worked out over a period of years so as to avoid price fluctuations. In reply, Mr Daniell said that poim would be covered by stabilisation. Mr McDonald pointed out that the black-face man had built up the New Zealand export lamb trade and that today white-face lambs were receiving practically the same price as blackfaces. It would be most unfortunate if the black-face breed wore lost. Something would have to be done to help the black-face man. After some further discussion, the motion, seconded by Mr Hugh Morrison, who presided, was carried.