WHEAT GROWING

Dominion, Volume 10, Issue 3084, 15 May 1917, Page 6

WHEAT GROWING

Sir, —To combat some, to my mint), erroneous impressions relative to this question, and, in support of the contentions favourable to the- increased cultivation of wheat at the present crisis, I venture to seek the favour of your space. It is very noticeable that only from districts not primarily interested emanates any opposition of any import. In order to view the position correctly, it is necessary to understand the conditions in the various districts. For instance, Southland is particularly suitable for growing oats, but_ its climate does not suit wheat growing. North Otago and Canterbury have a large area of land which is specially suitable for wheat growing, but not similarly so for oat growing. It is well known that grass land in those districts requires to be broken up every tKree years to get the best results. Tlfo farmers grow wheat because they

know it is the most suitable, and gives the best result for their labour. Now, if iii their system of rotation of crops they can in those districts grow wheat profitably, with a measure of protection from outside dumping, why should they be discouraged from doing so? Should not, rather, every encouragement be given to the producing of our foodstuff supplies? The principal wheat areas of iNow Zealand are in Canterbury and North Ocago. Fully two-thirds is grown in Canterbury, and shipped partly as flour from Timaru and Lyttelton. Much <M triat flour is loaded to-day at Lytteltofl and unloaded to-morrow in Wellington, one of the largest distributing centres of the Dominion. This is surely preferable to bringing flour 1400 miles from Australia? Tt is suggested that New Zealand should import wheat ana LT'st it here; but it is the country w'.ch holds the wheat that dictates the terms- . ~ To-day the Australian wheat is held and controlled for the benefit of the farmers by the Government, which quotes a lower price for flour than for wheat, in order to encourage its own flow-milling industry. The best answer to fliose who think that the loaf would be cheaper from imported wheat is to he found in the acknowledgment of the Minister of Agriculture, when he ad- ! mitted that could lie have got wheat I at 4s. or anything like it he would lint be urging farmers to grow wheat. The ['Australian papers give the quotations for export of wheat to New Zealand as ss. 6d.. Melbourne; but it has to be taken in the form of flour. This quotation, plus freight and charges, excluding duty, equals 6s. 4d. landed in New. Zealand ports. The suggestion that the farmer can do better than growing wheat for the ■Empire is capable of much argument, but lacks proof. To-day the Empire's need is ships to carry, the food, of wrnc'n we have an abundance m store only waiting for the ships to carry it away. Thus somewhat illogically the suggestion to import our annual requirements, say, 6,000,000 bushels, of wheat from Australia, by diverting the ships from the greater service in the Empire's nocd is urged. The argument in'* favour of sheepbreeding, as against wheat growing, is seldom backed by 'evidence conclusive when the prcsen't price of stock and the guaranteed price of wheat is fairly considered.

The crucial need is for more wheat. Turning to statistics, we find that in 1916 New Zealand reduced the area in wheat and oats, as compared with the previous year by 208,247 acres, _ and sheep shows a decrease of 678,154 in the South Island over the same period. Tho figures for cattle are .not yet available for comparison, but observation and inquiries made when travelling through Canterbury and North Otaeo Turiiisli no evidence of any appreciable increase in those districts. It is only too evident that, a very considerable area'of the South Island is to-day unproducttve. From the sheep returns it is also fair to assume that ■ more n sheep are killed than are bred. Apparently we are growing enough feed to fatten more sheep than we .arc breeding, and so any suggestion to grow more feed is absurd. Are we not, therefore, faced with this position: that a large area of the Soutli Island must be unproductive till tho Government takes action, say, to prohibit the export of ewe lambs, or enemy submarines stop the export of mutton? The Government's proposition for dealing with the position as it exists at present is rather to be commended than adversely criticised, and it is doing well to encourage in every possiblo way the growing of wheat, and especially on parts of the land which would otherwiso be unproductive.

All the world over the countries will be wise to cultivate to the fullest extent of the possibilities of their lands and climate sufficient wheat for liome arid New Mealand will be wilfully culpable if it no (lecta to do so. —1 am, etc.. R..K IRELAND. Oaniaru, May 7, 1917.