Disastrous Effects Of New Fertiliser Scheme On Galatea-Murupara

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 11, Issue 91, 21 October 1947, Page 5

Disastrous Effects Of New Fertiliser Scheme On Galatea-Murupara

„ Case To Go Before Select Committee Probable disastrous results to Murupara-Galatea settlers in consequence of the Government’s removal of fertiliser subsidies were emphasised by Messrs. T. G. Cawte and W. S. Wilson, when they placed the settlers’ difficulties before the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Holland, the district M.P., Mr Sullivan, and a group of National Party Members at Murupara on Sunday. Mr Holland assured them that his party had all been impressed with the facts and figures brought forward. He urged that not a moment be lost in getting the evidence properly compiled to place before the Select Committee which is investigating the question on a national basis this week, and assured the deputation of his and his colleagues’ sympathy and support.

Blunder Alleged Mr HollaEnd agreed after hearing the representations, that there was a case for a national lime and fertiliser subsidy. It may be on freights, on prices, or on all the factors involved, but in his opinion it was wrong and against the interests of the country to remove all subsidies. He thought the Government and the leaders of the industry had made a blunder in assessing the effects of the action when it was contemplated. Farmers’ Losses Both Messrs Cawte and Wilson stressed the need of lime on light pumice country, a need which had already been the subject of comment by members of the party with farming knowledge. Mr Wilson said there had been about 15 Settlers walk off their land in the last ten years. The average farm in that locality, he said, needed to yield about B,ooolbs. of butterfat, but to get that they needed about 20 tons of fertiliser. The increased butterfat price represented, on the figures quoted, an increased income of around £45. The increased cost of the fertiliser was in the vicinity of £lO0 —showing a net loss to the farmer of £55 under the new freight arrangements. Leaders of the dairy industry who had agreed to the Government’s proposition were mostly on good land, and had looked upon the fourpenny rise in butterfat returns as being quite enough to cover the increased fertiliser cost, but still overlooked the fact that the farmer needed a rise in pay for his own time. He claimed to know of one farm where the butterfat production had dropped from 9,5001bs to 6,500 under the fertiliser rationing scheme which had cut back its allocation from 20 tons to 10.

Mr Holland said he quite appreciated how dairy leaders could have erred in believing that the 4d was sufficient compensation. On the average, it probably would be so, but Mr Wilson’s figures had convinced him that that particular district was on the wrong side of the average.

Mr Wilson then quoted figures to show that, at the rate of 3cwt to the acre (recommended by the Government), on land that carried one cow to three acres, adequate fertilising at present prices and freight rates was costing £6/5/- per cow. A Vital Matter Mr Cawte backed up Mr Wilson’s arguments, and added the statement that as soon as a farmer in that area stopped top dressing he was on the way out. Fertiliser rationing was a matter of vital concern to the 80 homesteaders in the Galatea settlement. Lime was essential to the lucerne crop, and on that light land, lucerne was the only insurance against a dry spell. Mr Sullivan said he regarded the figures produced as confirmation of the belief that there was a case for a continuation of the fertiliser subsidy.