CATTLE STANDARDS

Waikato Times, Volume 124, Issue 20821, 3 June 1939, Page 27 (Supplement)

CATTLE STANDARDS

2000 YEARS OLD Why is it, asks Mr Boutflour, noted British agricultural authority and wellknown for his outspoken comments, that fat cattle which win a live class are so different from those that produce champion carcases ? He suggests that at fat stock shows each beast should have two judgments—alive and dead. Progress in agriculture has been rapid during the last hundred years in crop production, owing to the work of scientists. In animal husbandry the same progress has not been made. At one time not far distant a prejudice existed amongst farmers against science. This has almost disappeared except in some instances in animal husbandry. Stupid people are those who live in the dictum of what was good enough for my father is good enough for me. Such men are the followers of type in cattle, a standard set by our shows 150 years ago, based on standards set 2000 years ago. Earliest Standards For It was Roman writers who first set out standards such as back straight, rump level, barrel round, deep at flank and well ribbed, hide mellow and flexible to touch, long thin tail with good switch. Y’es, these standards were written by Palladius for the judgment of cattle as beasts of burden. Now let us turn to beef cattle. In a beef animal we want a beast that will fatten quickly and cheaply and provide the joints such as the public demand; therefore, the judgment should be based on elements of fact, and not as now exists. The fancy side has gone so far as to rob the system of any sincere standard of excellence. For of all the shows only at Smithfleld is there a carcase class, and only in this class are facts used for the purpose of judgment. But at Smithfleld there is t.he live class, which is still judged as cattle were over a century ago, and this class is purely fancy. The carcase class and the live class surely have the same object—the production of good beef. Then why do we have a different type of animal and why are they fed and managed differently ? The answer Is that one has to meet a sensible method of judging, and the other a farcical one. Judging Before Slaughter Farcical it must be, for some years ago a large number of live cattle judges were asked to judge the carcase before slaughter. If they had put the cattle in the right order they would have got 48 marks; 90 per cent, of the judges got less than 20. Whysuch a result 1 Was it because these men did not know good cattle ? No. Every one of these men could tell good from bad cattle. The poor results they obtained were due to the fact that all the cattle were of a class, that no inspection method whilst alive could differentiate between them. The same thing happens .under the bacon scheme; there is not one person who can foretell the findings of the grades before the pigs are slaughtered. Bearing the foregoing statements in mind, I therefore put forward, most seriously, a suggestion that the whole system should be altered. In future beef animals should be judged on a qualitative rather than a competitive basis. In other words, that prizes should not be first, second and third in the class regardless of merit of the animals, but that a first prize or whatever it may be called, should be awarded to every animal deemed to reach the necessary standard. Similarly there may be several firsts in a class or conceivably the highest award may be something lower than first. In such methods of judging there would be a relationship between the Government policy and the showring, and where possible that final judging should be done with the footrule after slaughter. So that all animals would have two judgments, alive and dead; for the visitors at the show learn nothing from the live animal unless they eventually see or obtain its carcase judgment; ahd furthermore they learn nothing from a carcase unless they have seen the animal alive. The best solution w T ould be for the animals to be show’n in pairs, both judged alive, and one slaughtered to show the carcase.