FARMERS AND MEAT PRICES

Dominion, Volume 9, Issue 2613, 9 November 1915, Page 8

FARMERS AND MEAT PRICES

' A PROTEST. (To the Editor.) ■ Cir,—ln reference to the, deputation . which waited oil tho Prime Minister at I'almerston, anyone reading tho report would conclude that the committee of farmers who met the Prime Minister were satisfied with his explanation, whereas the very opposite was the I 'case; not one member of tho comluittco was satisfied. Probably the impression arose from the fact that the interview was limited to time, and after '. the Prime Minister had made his remarks; there was no time left to discuss the matter, as he had other duties • to attend to. The contention of the farmers remains unanswered, and it is this: That there is_ too niuph difference between tho price paid for the meat at this end and the price the consumer lias to pay at Home. For instance, take lamb sold f.o.b. here at sd. and Sid. .This meat lias sold consistently throughout the season' on the London "market' at 7id. to B}d., a difference of 2d. to 3d. per ill. Tlio charges before the Government took control amounted to Id. per lb. That is for freight, port and selling charges. AVhen l , has the difference gone?- _ _ ._ Tiie Prim© Minister informed lis that the charges had gone up. Who agreed • to these charges being raised? Certainly. not the farmers, who own the business that the Government commandeered. They have never been consulted in the matter. The Prime Minister seems determined'to keep down the price of moat, so.far as the-sellers are concorned well and good so long as he keeps down the shipping companies' freights, tho Port of London charges, and speculators!' profits likewise; Treat ovcryone alike, we say. Don't let the big concerns exploit tho nation at a ■ timo like this. 1 believe that the dissatisfaction . that. undoubtedly exists amoug farmers arises solely from the fact that tho Government; as soon as ! they assumed control of' the business, gavo concessions to the big concerns that wo have been fighting for years. We -contend that they (the Government) have injured our; business by so doing, and that it- will "take us years to get the charges rcduced to a normal level again. In reference to the figures quoted by tho Premier comparing prices paid to farmers before and since tho war started, we never raised the question of prices paid to farmers at all excepting that we expressly stated that we did liot expect any more for our meat at present, provided tlioit consumers in the Old Country got tlie benefit. ' ' Seeing,, however, that these figures as -to' comparative prices have been quoted, I say deliberately that they are a most unfair set of figures to use. They convey a totally wrong impressionj as an analysis of the figures will at once ' ehow. Working out the increased prices ■ paid to farmers since the war started, on the figures • supplied by the Prime Minister, you will find that ore mutton : and lamb the increase quoted amounts to - 44 per cent. On beef it is 100 per ■ cent.,, and the Minister remarks: "I I don't say this increase is not justified, but I say that it is a fair increase." Now, I bought fat stock for a freezing company the year 1 before the war started, aud tho prices paid to farmers were: Lamb 145., wethers 205., ewes : 175., all standard weights. As there \ are no standard weights for cattle, I cannot quote beef values on the hoof. The average prices paid by the freezing- companies last year were: Lamb 165., wethers 225. 6d., ewes 19s. Thisseason the buyers inform me that they have instructions to give Is. more for owes and the same price as last year , for tho others. ; Farmers know that- these prices are correct, and that they represent an ill- .- crease of 12} per cent, on ■ the prices i paid before the war started.;/There is. J

i a difference of 30 per cent, between the 1 two sets of figures, or nearly a million and a half in value.' I will leave it to •tho farmers to judge whose figures arc correct. Tho statement by _ Mr. Massey that the 40 per cent, increase in freight (nearly £300,000) granted to shipping coriipitnies by tho Board of Trade will p not como out of our pockets does not affect tho position. Either wo here or the cousumor at Home must pay it. In conclusion, I quote the resolution passed by the I'ahnerston meeting:— "That in the opinion of this meeting it is necessary that tho whole question, of the commandeering of our produce and shipping should be carefully and impartially investigated l by the authorities, arid that a committee be set up to assist and act . in . the matter." Tarn, etc., OSWALD HAWKEN, Chairman of the Committee. Hawera, November 8.