Farming column

Hokitika Guardian, 25 November 1933, Page 8

Farming column

DOMINION PRODUCE EXPORTS

HIGH EXCHANGE ASSAILED

Strong criticism of New Zealand’s dairy produce export and exchange policies are contained in a letter from a correspondent to The Grocer, a London publication.

“The Australian Dairy Produce Control Board, in conjunction wi.h the New Zealand Dairy Board, at .a meeting held in Sydney On April 20, h:e rejected a proposal by -qur Ministry of }Agi’iculture, to restrict .their, butter exports to Great Britain iby 6 per cent., states the correspondent. ' “And so the great butter slump has got' lo continue. ' There is 4it<l, e doubt that the eatur.atjon point of consumption' has.'been reached, no, matter how much lower prices may descend. “This action by the colonics speaks

volumes, as they cannot be satisfied with the present prices. What then, is their motive in. trying to preveuii our Minister of 'Agriculture from putting his house in order? “The 6 per cent, restriction was not excessive, and the immediate result! would have been the stabilisation of the price of butttr gomewhefe near its economic value. Our colonial friends would have received the same quantity or moi’e of our English money for a less quantity of butter, and at the same time they would have been lending a. hand to the farmer iin Great Britain.

“One can only come to the conclusion that they would rather do the Old Country a ‘thick un' than a good turn.

“New Zealand seems to be the ringleader in this rebellion against cooperation, as it is common knowledge that the Australian Board was ready to agree to a 6 per cent, quota. “New Zealand, by inflating her currency some 15 per cent, against us. caused very heavy. losses on goods pur-' chased from her after the Ottawa'Contfepence. Was this fair trading? ‘ : l

“Where were our politicians and financial experts at\ Ottawa to allow the omission of clauses covering currencies?’’ CONSUMPTION OF BUTTER.

New Zealanders have eaten, more butter since the onset of the depression, according to the Agricultural Department’s report. It would 'be interesting to know whc*lier the people have cut down in other directions. At any rate the result has not been serious since latterly statisiics show less malnutrition and a healthier population generally than in more prosperous years.

The lowered cost .factor -has also been responsible for fin enormous

expansion in Great Britain's consumption of butter. Low prices, unwelcome, as they are, have raven the markets from a ruinous glut of supplies.' Producers are >cc->i>rj , enng a local marketing scheme, but in proceeding should be careful not to overlook t-hig sensitive factor of consumption. Purchasing power is not as elastic as it used io be. BUTTER-FAT AVERAGES.

Mr iSingleton, Director of the Dairy Division, Wellington, reports in the Journal of Agriculture that so far as dairy herd testing in New Zealand is concerned, ground lost in 1931-32 was more than regained in 1932-35. More cows were tested, and the average butterfat production a cow raised. During the last season 286,051 cows were systematically tested, an increase of 26,197 cows over the previous season. The average butterfat yield a cow for the season in review was 255.571 b, an increase or 18.701 b over the 1931-32 average. Mr SmgretoU that the markecr increase in average production probably lies principally in climatic conditions ; h u increased use of fertilisers in the autumn of 1932 must have exerted some influence. Improvement fn dairy farm methods, and the educational influence of herd testing had to be taken into account.

Last season’s figure of 255.571 b of butterfat was the highest reached in the history of herd testing in New Zealand.

The Government subsidy for the 1932-33 season was £6OOO, and will be distributed at any early date; The subsidy for thi s season is £SOOO, and is to be reduced by £IOOO a. season until it .automatically expires.

HERD TESTING The ground lost in 1931-32, so far as dairy herd testing in New Zealand is concerned, was more than regained in 1932-33, both from the point of view of the number of cows tested and of average butterfat production a tested cow. During the past season 286,054 cows were systematically tested under one or other of the recognised herd testing systems, this total -representing an increase of 26,167 cows, or 10.08 per cent., over the 1931-32 total of 259,857 cows. The average butterfat yield a tested cow. was 255.571 b. an increase of 18.701 b over the 1931-32 average of 236.871 b butterfat. .

NEW ZEALANU WOOL

FIFTH PLACE

New Zealand as a wool producer had a third place within the Empire and fifth in the world with an output in 1932 of, 116,0C0 ' tons, although sheep were reared primarily fer meat. Like til© United Kingdom, she has the, best crossbreds in the. world obtained by scientific breeding, anti they gave excellent wool as well as moat. These facts appear , in a report recently issued " by the Empire Marketing Board on “Fibres.” The report also reviews the world production and trade in cotton, silk, hemp, jute and flax, of which the importance in the native trade may the gauged by their estimated value of £1,195,000OCO. • •

Ne w Zealand’s Wool. production in 1932 was double that of the United

Kingdom, • which, receives 80 per cent of her exports. France was the next best customer, taking .. 6 per cent. Wool exports in themselves made up in value more than a quarter of all New Zealands export trade, tut had to be added do those of South Africa and Argentine before equalling Australia’s output.

Australia had tlie largest 'sheep population in the world, and accounts for nearly- one quarter ,of the estimated total of the world's supply of wool. Her sheep are mainly of the merino 'type and are increasing in numbers. It is noted in the report that during, the slump merino held its price better than the crossbred.

World wool is valued at £270,000.000 and of, that the Empire’s share is nearly one half. The Empire as a whole is an exporter of wool on a very large scale, although the United Kingdom in 1932 absorbed more wool than aiiy other country. She is the best customer not only to New Zealand, but also to South Africa and Argentina, while one third of Australia’s exports enter her ports. But it must be remembered that Britain carries on an extensive entrepot trade.

BRITISH FARM RELIEF England’s;; - farm relief plan, designed tp- raise and maintain prices at a remunerative level, was described recently by Mr Walter --Elliot, British Minister of, y Agriculture. He made plain at the ..outset that -if agricultural prices gaye the countryside no purchasing power, the countryside will not; he able to buy tlie goods men make in the towns.

-England started on a policy several years ago which recognised that there was no complete solution in lowering costs of production,' and that the world market would not indefinitely stand rapidlyincreasing- v amounts of produce. Although farm 1 wages have decreased since, that time in, the face of the biggest depression agriculture has ever known, 'that gave the farmers the sympathy, of the town. Then England started to plan the market, the. Minister of Agriculture explained. As ,a general rule prices ruling on the export market determine the price on the , domestic market overseas. A remunerative level for all who supply the market is the essence of the plan.

Leaders attacked • the problem product by product, beginning with wheat, milk, potatoes and bacon, each of which demands a different approach. The bacon problem is being handled by.. arranging contracts between large producers and “bacon factories”; tbe sum of all the contracts gives the total supply. The price is fixed in relation to the - price of the market. It rises or falls with that market. With milk the country is divided into 11 regions. All the money for the milk will be handled through the regional organisation in each area arid it will be illegal to sell milk below the regional price. Steps are being taken to handle the surplus by means of special price' arrangements so that the burden of the lower price is spread over the whole of the producers. ' FARM LABOUR AND UNEMPLOYMENT

It is a queer contradiction that a shortage of . labour is reported from three important farming districts, Taranaki, North Otago and Southland, while over 70,000 men are registered as unemployed and being supported I out' of public funds. Tbe fact may be that none of these 70,000 have the qualifications for farm work. If so, and if the demand for farm labour is substantial, should be the business of the Unemployment Board to provide the necessary-training. As the Employers’ .Federation suggests, the -men should “be taught how to perform some work of use .to the community.” They themselves • should welcome the opportunity of being removed from the liabilities to the assets of the community ledger. It it. possible, of course that among the 70,000 there are men who could do what was rrmiired on the farms. but prefer conditions on relief works. If that is the ease, for then the request of the Farmers’ Union, that the U»emment Board should take steps to remedy the shortage, should be met.