OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 25 March 1943, Page 3

OTHER PEOPLE’S IDEAS

PRICE OF FAT CATTLE (To the Editor) Sir—Mr Gordon Laing picked over my fat bullocks last week and stated that they were the best straight line he had ever handled. He took 38 out of 42 bullocks, and they averaged 731 lbs. Not one animal was overweight, there were no “seconds,” nor were any of them bruised. They came off atony land, a mile or so below the freezing works. The results as far as these bullocks are concerned show what can be done with the class of land on which they were grazed by a proper system of manuring. Now, Sir, the price received in the Dominion for fat cattle is disgraceful. In Australia buyers pay from 39s to £2 10s per hundred pounds in the yards for fat bullocks. In Britain on December 1 the fixed price for fat stock was 70s per live cwt. for to l beasts, which would be equivalent to at least £5 10s per lOOlbs dead weight. Such cattle are bought in the yards and the purchasers take all the risks, such as disease, bruises and the dangers attached to droving. A month ago I sent in 19 fat cattle to the freezing works. There were 15 hindquarters and 5 forequarters overweight. I am wondering if it is a common thing for one hindquarter to be heavier than its mate. I lost nearly 3s per quarter over it. The hindquarters were only 131bs overweight. Now, Sir, if Mr Barclay or the Meat Board can get one of the leading butchers of Wellington to state in writing that he,would prefei’ a forequarter of beef, at per pound, weighing, say, 2091b5, to a hindquarter, at per pound, weighing 2151bs (or even up to 2201b5) I will give £5 to the Salvation Army. The thing is absurd. —I am, etc., WM. RAYNER. “The Cliffs,” March 22. EGG CONTROL (To the Editor.) Sir, —It was reported in your columns recently that a meeting of egg retailers was sparsely attended; this should not be regarded, .as an indication of satisfaction with, or indifference to, the present form of control. The small attendance must have been the result of insufficient notice. At least one representative was not aware that the meeting was being held until after it was over. That the present position is not satisfactory is evidenced by the fact that at the end of last week certain shops were still selling eggs nine days after the last distribution. Said distribution, it is estimated, averaged one egg to five residents; a week earlier it was only half that. Obviously, eggs sold towards the end of the week were either not obtained from the floor, or the distribution is not equitable. While any form of restriction is irksome, it is less so when everyone is on the same footing. In this instance, if no one has eggs, no one has any advantage; if one has, and the others haven’t, the latter are immediately penalised. If, as is suspected, eggs are being bought on what is termed the “black market,” those not so purchasing are placed in a seriously damaging position through no fault of their own. but as a result of their competitors’ illegal action. The public should, remember this, and the regulations should be enforced. The persons responsible for control in this district have given the matter considerable thought and attention, they are courteous and anxious to have things running smoothly. Unfortunately, their powers are limited. In the writer’s opinion the position will not be satisfactory until (1) No producer can sell eggs except to the board direct, thus doing away with the ridiculous provision whereby certain shops can purchase eggs on the “understanding” that they send all their purchases to the floor and then receive their quota. (2) No producer can send eggs out of the district. Surely control should begin at the source. (3) Back door trading is stopped. At present those in a position to do so can purchase unlimited quantities privately while neighbours less advantageously situated, have to go without. In conclusion, it could be further suggested that proportionate releases be reconsidered. I, for one, do not think our overseas visitors really want priority over hospitals, etc., or to deprive women and children of anything. Lend-lease may be a different matter. —Yours, etc., “EGGLESS.” Masterton, March 22.