Kiwi meat consumers need a lot more variety

I REFER to your article concerning Dr James Wilkes’ research into New Zealand’s red meat industry (ODT,

21.12.20).

He claims that the model of marketing red meats here is ‘‘outdated and commodity driven’’.

From the point of view of a consumer, I would agree and add that I am dismayed at the lack of variety available to the consumer.

Why, for example, is veal almost unobtainable in this country? Why does it not figure in the menus of just about every restaurant from the top of the North Island to Bluff?

In the past, veal was produced in ways which rightly attracted accusations of animal cruelty. But that no longer needs to be the case.

What is now called ‘‘rose veal’’ is as ethically produced as any other meat product. One producer in Napier offers veal but production is tiny and the high costs to the customer limit sales. And Napier is a long way from Dunedin.

Yet, veal is regularly encountered throughout Europe as well as in Australia. What is an Italian restaurant without a cotoletta a la milanese, or an osso bucco? How can a German or Austrian restaurant offer a wiener schnitzel with no veal?

In my view, the substitutes commonly used here don’t offer the same culinary experience.

Perhaps other readers, or meat industry leaders, can explain why veal is almost an unknown commodity in this country.

Julian Faigan

Roslyn

Regenerative farming

IT is generally accepted New Zealand has led the world in pastoral farming thanks to scientific research.

But there happens to be a sea change into this millennium, what with global warming, intensification of land use and increasing use of artificial fertilisers, insecticides, herbicides and so on to boost production.

It’s all about what our soils are capable of producing and added costs to keep up production. And, in the end, water quality.

From what I have read, there appears to be considerable savings in costs of artificial fertilisers and chemicals by several of the farmers who have opted for regenerative systems, and without undue loss of production.

From what I understand, those who practise this system of farming aim to build up soil structure, its micro organism activity, tilth and earthworm populations.

This is apparently achieved through added plant varieties and clever grazing systems. The corporate farmer would take a bit of convincing.

Regenerative farming, if taken up nationally, is obviously going to affect the multinational shareholders of fertiliser and chemical corporations. I wouldn’t be surprised if they would apply some pressure on government to forestall too much enthusiasm for any system cutting into their profits.

I believe good research into new systems of farming should be seriously looked at by all involved. Jim Childerstone

Hampden

[Abridged]

Rugby

RICHARD Hutchison (Letters, 21.12.20), in reference to professional rugby players, seems to have overlooked several points.

These players are grown men and women, adults responsible for their own actions. They are not forced to play rugby to earn a living; they choose to play with the associated inherent risks of a contact sport.

They are represented by a players association in all aspects of their employment, including health and safety, remuneration, and so on.

If the players want to play and train less, this goes hand in hand with reduced player incomes.

Maybe these players should become better informed of the risks of their chosen profession and take responsibility for their own choices in life instead of being part of the blame culture of modern society. Larry Frost

Milton

[Abridged]