N.Z. PRODUCE AT HOME

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1671, 11 February 1913, Page 10

N.Z. PRODUCE AT HOME

LECTURE BY MR. W. D. LYSNAR,

PRICES, HANDLING, AND OTHER MATTERS. (By Telegraph.—Press Association.) Gisborne, February 10. Mr. W. D. Lysimr who has just returned from a- visit to England on behalf of tho New Zealand Producers' Association, delivered n lecture under the auspices of the association. In order to give practical demonstration of the wav in which-New Zealand prices were ko'pt at a low ebb, Mr. Lysnar produced and quoted from charts of prices issued by different London firms for. 1909-10-11. New Zealand mutton, he said, was better than Scotch mutton. In 1909 Scotch mutton was up to 7Jd., while New Zealand wa9 down below 3d. In 1910 Scotch mutton was up to BUI. a pound, and Now Zealand 3jd., and for one day only 4 5-Bd. In 1911 Scotch mutton averaged G|d., and New Zealand 4Jd. During all this period retail prices remained practically the same.

"The reason is," said Mr. Lysnar, "that the Scotchman is there to look after his rights and the New Zealander is not."

Tho market was rigged to suit buyers at Home and not to suit producers. If tliey allowed that condition of affairs to go on they were not doing their simple duty to themselves or to the Dominion. The Smithfield market prices were fixed, by the weakest holder. The objection raised by tho speculator that nearly all meat was sold at this end, and that therefore producers should not interfere, was not well founded. Figures showed that over 50 per cent of the meat.in tho North Island was shipped on owners' account.-; He asked: "Are not those who do ship, and would ship if belter' facilities aro available, entitled to consideration?" Ho claimed that the dairy, and other producers were entitled to some consideration. The meat buyers had not a total monopoly of the export trade. This year tho great bulk of the dairy produce wa3 being shipped on • factories accounts. These factorv owners should not bo denied better facilities because tho meat speculator objected. Tho conditions under which wool was handled was most unsatisfactory. Bales were dumped on open wharves, and tho wool was left for days, and sometimes weeks, with tarpaulins on it. The dumps were broken,.and it remained in that condition waiting for' barges. The wool was often made wet on the -wharves, and sometimes by leaking barges. The producers thus got a reduced price as a result, and did not know' it. He had 43 bales for. sale in London whilo ho was there, and was curious to fee them and satisfy himself that they were not in good condition. He was advised that they were all right, but when, insistent was told that he could not see them, as they 1 did not know where they were. . lie told Mr. Shelton to look at'tho bales, and see whether there! was anything wrong. He had samples of wool with him now, and had a note, signed ,by tho head salesman, to say that it was damaged 'by barge water in.going up tho Thames. The bottom of the hold was sodden. He fonnd that he had apt 3d. a pound less for cno bale alone that was damaged, as compared with the undamaged bales c,f the snnio brand. Tho agents said it was inferior class Df wool, but he knaw that it was clean fleece, a-11 of it. The charges on wool in London were almost as great as tho freight from New Zealand to London. Last year the wool-brokers raised their-charges by 50 per cent., as many' would find out when they, got their accounts in.' The., producer, Mr. Lysnar said, could not do better ; tlinu utilise Liverpool'for their wool. Tho consolidated charge was 4s. 4d„ and ss. Gd. for London, and 2s. tel. for Liverpool. They had facilities to', show 20,009 bales fit a sale, in Liverpool, and sell it in a day. • Thev were prepared to put Wapping dock sheds at tho disposal of New Zealand. Thero was,a depth of 29ft. of water there, and thero" would be no charge for carting or hand trucking, and it was connected by rail to Bradford. Ho quot<?d tlio Hon. T. Mackenzie's opinion- \ipon 1 tna relativo merits of London ond Bristol. Mr. Mackenzie's opinion was that lie' could'not "sufficiently express his dissatisfaction with tho handling of the meat that was handled at some of tho Port of London Authority's stores. The condition of the meat was far from what it ought to bo, to use no moro severe term. He could not refer to tho attitwje of tho dock authorities regarding th& construction of stores and tlio improvement to shipping required at the South-West India Dock, which undoubtedly was the most convenient for Smithfield Market. In addition to the Albert and Victoria Docks being much further away, the traffic, was far more congested. It was almost impossible at times for the vans to mako any progress at nil. the handling of meat being in a way that could not be other than detrimental. Speaking on behalf of the New Zealand producers, he would say that the conditions there would not be much longer put up with. Then, referring to the facilities at Avonmouth and Bristol, tho High Commissioner stated that he was" much impressed with tho advantages Avonmouth offered for the'handling and distributing of refrigerated and, cool-chambered .'produce. He'was particularly well satisfied with tho dock equipment, and tho cold storage available, and was apparently convinced that so far as tho distributing of New Zealand produce is Concerned, much of the Midlands and more still of tho west country, could be covered with advantage from Avonmouth. Referring to tho question of insurance 1 , Mr. Mackenzie stated that, so far at any rate as Avonmouth is concerned, he is of opinion that shippers might rest content with insurance against total loss and break down-in : tho ship's refrigerating machinery, which ooiild bo done,, lie says, at one-fifth of the present rate. 1 ' .