FRUIT EXPORT

Evening Star, Issue 23368, 11 September 1939, Page 9

FRUIT EXPORT

A LIGHT CROP CONTROL BOARD'S REVIEW The New Zealand Fruit Export Control Board in its thirteenth annual report states that in accord with general expectation, the 1939 crop was much lighter than that of 1938, and as the result of the prolonged drought, the percentage of small sizes was even greater than in the large crop of 1938. However, whatever the crop lacked iu size and with some varieties in colour, that was more than offset hy the excellent flavour and keeping quality. The unusually heavy percentage of small sizes created fresh difficulties. The sale of 30,000 cases of large Delicious to Brazil had to be reduced to 17,000, and it was only by the inclusion of 25 per cent, of B sizes that even that reduced shipment could bo effected. _ Difficulty was also experienced in getting sufficient quantity of the preferred sizes to retain market connections and goodwill in Canada and the Continent of Europe. Though reduced quantities to those markets contained a percentage of the smaller sizes, even then there was the danger of adversely affecting the sales in the main market, the United Kingdom. That danger was safeguarded against hy forwarding all Continental shipments with the option of discharge in London, thus enabling the London manager to sell in the best market. SHIPPING PROBLEMS. “As usual,” continues the report, “ difficulty was experienced in arranging a shipping programme to synchronise with fruit harvesting. The dry weather, which tended to accelerate the receipt of mid. and late season varieties, led also to increased killing of sheep and a consequent demand for extra shipping space. The demand for shipping space became most acute, and the great uncertainty as to growers’ actual space requirements made the definite booking of space a matter of great importance and almost of national interest. Because the shipping programme did not at all times synchronise with receipts of fruit, the available cool store space had to be used to the utmost. This interfered somewhat with the use of these stores for local fruit, thereby causing inconvenience—specially at Motueka. However, storage in ordinary sheds was largely avoided. . “An unfortunate feature of tins season’s programme was. the insufficiency of direct loadings from Picton. Port Nelson, and Napier, as the result mainly of shipping companies having to give prior consideration to meat shipments because of the great con--gestion at all freezing works throughout the Dominion. During the height of the shipping season certain labour difficulties on several occasions interfered with the routine work in the Wellington waterfront. On one of these occasions a shipment of pears had to be retained within the hold of the coastal vessel for several days. When this fruit was discharged it was carefully inspected and 1.330 cases—mainly Winter Coles—were extracted as being too mature for export. During the disturbances to the routine work at Wellington the Anchor Company was most considerate of growers’ interests, and, at much inconvenience to itself, gave valuable service to the board. “ Otago district is severely handicapped through lack of sufficient cool storage space and lack of assembly de-. pots, but it is expected that both of these matters will receive the attention of the Government should it decide to take control of fruit marketing.” DOMINION PRODUCTION. The table below shows the estimate of apple production in New Zealand in the post-war years for which official figures are available. The years shown are those in which the crops are harvested, the 1930 figures relate to the 1929-30 season. The average weight of a bushel is approximately 421 b, and the crop figures are given iu thousands of bushels-

From 1928 to 1936, as these figures indicate, the per capita consumption of apples in New Zealand has increased from 381 b to 601 b. NEED OF STORAGE. The board emphasises the need for more cool storage space, and reports that it had negotiated with the Wellington Harbour Board for the erection of a large and efficient cool store oil the Wellington waterfront. “ The Harbour Board is prepared to do this, but stipulates that the Fruit Board contract must be endorsed by the Government, as they consider the permanency of this board is. somewhat uncertain. Government officials and Cabinet Ministers have considered this matter from time to time, but finality has not been reached. . One factor which influenced against final decision was the question of export loadings at Port Nelson, Eventually the Department of Agriculture arranged for a committee of all interests to investigate the possibilities of Nelson loadings, when it was found that even if the Nelson Harbour Board proceeded with fill its intended harbour improvements, even then the most that Port Nelson could hope to cater for was not more than 50 per cent, of Nelson's normal export crop. “ This estimate was on the assumption that the Overseas Shipowners’ Allotment Committee could provide the ships as, and when, required. The Shipowners’ Committee could not give this assurance as fruit constitutes a very small proportion of the Dominion s export needs, all of which have to be catered for, and loading operations arranged in the general interest of shippers may prevent Port at all times being used to full capacity. The main outcome of the department’s inquiry was the fact that Wellington would have to cater for at least 50 per cent, of Nelson’s export crop. In addition, Wellington is the natural loading port for the fruit from Marlborough. Wairarapa, and till the Napier port is ready, most of Hastings fruit. “ The total export figures for apples were the second highest on record, bein0 * exceeded only by the total of 1932, and it is obvious that but for the frost in Otago the total for 1938 would line constituted a record.” The future of the board appears to

be uncertain, for the report in review opens as follows: — “ In view of the political and economic developments within New Zealand. it is probable that this may be the last report on marketing to be issued by the board,”

Year. Crop. Year. Crop. 1921 .. 989 1927 .. 1,660 1922 .. 990 1928 .. 2,199 1923 .. 1,469 1929 .. 2,067 1924 .. 1.397 1930 .. 2,182 1925 .. 1,563 1936 .. 3,302 1926 .. 1,935 1937 . 2,902

LOCAL CONSUMPTION. c? 11 a • & d tp * . a vi g Vi ctf % a 6 % 1.8Jo 5® a I s 3 c o • 0.-^5 >* 7S pH -+J /C p. H ci <5 1934-28 1.751 475 1,276 38 1929 .. . 2,067 868 1,199 34 1930 .. . 2,182 1,194 988 1936 .. . 3,302 1,063 2,239 60