NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 229, 22 June 1921, Page 2

NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING

Sir,—ln your issue of June 15 I notice a letter on the national co-operative marketing scheme from a Mr. S. Turner, evidently stating the distributors’ point of view, and therefore not unbiased. Your correspondent suggests first applying the principle in New Zealand to. the marketing of locally consumed primary products. Ab our principal market is ihe Old Country, and tne prices realised there regulate the market here, it would simply mean putting the "cart before the horse.” I was unaware the world contained such whole-souled philanthropists, as according to Mr. Turner's own showing, the home distributors of our produce must be, when they continue in the business in spite of "4he enormous losses" sustained. As to Denoriginally a committee of Copenhagen merchants controlled the marketing, later tho committee consisted partly of merchants and partly of producers. Finally this committee consisted solely of producers—comment la unpccfissary. ■lt speaks eloquently for the principle. If after the "heavy losses sustained through fraud, alluded to by your correspondent, tbe system is still in operation, _and Danish butter has topped tho market for years,. although according to expert opinion our'butter is fully equal in quality. If the principle is sound, then why not apply it to all our produce. Co-operation is a growing force in the world to-day, and I can assure your correspondent the Dominion farmer is waking up to the necessity of attending to the selling end of his business. As to concentrating on more production, excellent advice, when the present price of wool 'is below tho cost of production end the majority of farmers were unable to sell their surplus stock this season. I am fully in agreement with what your correspondent says' in regard to the handling of our produce during the last few years, .that it has "caused a more serious slump than there was any necessity for.” If a national co-operative marketing scheme had been th operation before the war the united producers would have made n better bargain with the Imperial Government and could have exercised sufficient pressure to have prevented the muddlement in dealing with our commandeered products since the armistice. Your correspondent has raised innumerable bogevs, but not one single argument that the principle is unsound.— I am, ctc ’’ GRIMgDALE ANDERSON.

Maliau, • Pelorus Sound, Juno 17, 1921