The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-04-26 00:00:00

THE FOREIGN MEAT SUPPLY.

In an article on "The Agricultural Outlook," the
.Daily Telegraph says:
Agitation on the Government Cattle Diseases Bill
has not been sustained during the Easter Parliamen-
tary recess with so much vigour as might reasonably
have been expected, but it will be sure to revive as
the period approaches when the House of Commons
will have to deal with it in committee. No doubt it
has been remarked that working men of the trades
unions are not well agreed on the point whether the
interests of consumers are to be furthered most
by a rigid exclusion of all live animals from
foreign countries affected by foot-and-mouth disease,
with the object of shielding our home flocks and
herds from further contagion, or whether the theory
expounded by Mr. Forster, Mr. Arthur Arnold, and
those who agree with them is the correct one, that to
carry out this policy would have the effect of producing
a considerable rise in the price of meat. There was a
large meeting of trade unionists at Chelsea on Satur-
day week, in support of the Lords' amendments to
the Government bill, at which it was admitted that
the various trade societies of the metropolis are
divided on the question. Similar arguments appear
to have been adduced, as Mr. Duckham, Mr.
Chaplin, and other agriculturists have employed,
to the effect that only a small percentage of the
total meat consumed in the United Kingdom
is derived from those foreign countries which,
being affected by the contagion, would be
prevented, if the Lords' amendments were substan-
tiated, from sending live animals to this country.
On the other hand, there are other representatives
of the working classes who maintain the view that,
however small the increment of meat coming from
those countries may be, it is so necessary to fill up the
measure of supply that the loss of it would not only
be sensibly felt, but be sufficient to render beef and
mutton scarce and dear. The worst part of the
matter appears to be that both parties argue
from uncertain data and evidence which at the
most can only be deemed probable. A toler-
ably accurate guess may no doubt be made
as to what is about the total consumption
of meat per head of the inhabitants of the United
Kingdom, and as the Board of 'rade Returns
declare what the imports of live animals and dead
meat from foreign countries actually are the state-
ments Mr. Duckham has made can be substantiated,
at least, to the extent of showing that they cannot be
very far from wrong. At all events, those who have
been agitating on the other side have net thought
proper to deny the substantial correctness of the
figures laid before Lord Carlingford when the depu-
tation of British agriculturists waited on him the
other day. However, it would be much more
satisfactory if it could be proved by statistics
gathered at home what the annual production of
beef, mutton, and pork in Great Britain and
Ireland actually amounts to, as there would then
be no occasion to deal in guess-work or have the
slightest reason to doubt. Not that even this would
materially affect the point at issue, inasmuch as those
who contend for the Lords' amendments to be ex-
punged from the Cattle Diseases Bill admit the large-
ness of the home supply of meat, and the obligation
of consumers to feel interest in its promotion. What
they contend for appears to be that the entire bulk is
so very limited that consumers cannot afford to lose
the slightest portion, and they are seriously afraid
that if the importation of foreign t live animals be
considerably curtailed the deficiency will not be
fully made -up by an increase in the foreign dead meat
supply.
On the latter point there is a great deal of fresh
evidence derivable from the important statistics calcu-
lated to assure them. Australasian frozen mutton
cargoes have increased so rapidly during the past
twelve months, and there are such vast resources at
the Antipodes to feed the trade and expand it to
enormous proportions, that English fiockmasters are
beginning very generally to entertain the conviction
that the palmy days of dear mutton are gone for
ever. This commodity in the Australian colonies
and New , Zealand has been regarded as little
else than a waste product until the frozen
meat shipments to England were organised. In
the abundance of game, wild fowl, and more dainty
meats the colonists never were accustomed to utilise
any other portion of the sheep except the leg them-
selves, the whole of the remainder being boiled down
for the sake of the fat. To be sure, there was the
tinned meat enterprise, which for a brief period made
some considerable demands on Australian mutton ;
but this article failed to ensure satisfactory sale owing
to insipid flavour, occasioned, no doubt, by the over-
boiling considered needful to ensure preservation.
The frozen mutton carcases, on the contrary, do
not appear to deteriorate very much from the
original character of the meat. Most impartial
judges have pronounced very satisfactory opinions
as to its high quality, and there is one feature very
likely to ensure its favour in the eyes of the British
public—the joints are small, with a much less pro-
portion of fat to lean than a great deal of our home-
produced mutton. Australian frozen mutton usually
sells retail at the Metropolitan Meat Market at the
following prices: Legs, from 7d. to Bd. per lb.;
shoulders and loins, from 6d. to 6.41. ; necks and
breasts, from 40. to sd. per lb. Probably in other
parts of the metropolis and elsewhere these prices
are very much exceeded owing to middlemen stepping
in and absorbing for themselves most of the profits,
and selling the commodity almost as dear as English
meat.