"RANGIURU” & CO-OPERATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8342, 31 January 1913, Page 2

"RANGIURU” & CO-OPERATION

EGG-CIRCLES CONDEMNED.

A REPLY TO CRITICISM,

The few recent notices that have appeared in these columns with regard to the necessity for improvement being eifeeted in the manner of marketing eggs has drawn a rejoinder from Kangiuru, who. judged by his correspondence, is ot the opinion- that the egg production or New Zealand has reached the extreme Uniit that can bo uuxui turned pioxit to the producer. Ho is apparently tatisfled with the prevailing system or marketing also. If this is a correct: conclusion to the burden of his letter then the writer venture© 10 suggest that iiangiuru" is entirely wrong m his premises regarding production, which Burst; oi necessity expand in sympathy >vith the extension ot settlement that is continually going on throughout the Dominion, if he is satisfied that no improvements are needed, or that suggestions calculated to remedy weaknesses are air babbles only, then ho is most happily situated. the majority oi other egg producers are not so happily placed. As one correspondent put it the other day; “Between the produce middleman on the one hand and the egg buyer middleman on the other the poor producer is pressed out as flat as a piece of tissue paper.” , "Eangiuru” sgggests that a study or economics would show the wouid-bo leaders of the present co-operative craze the foolishness of attempting such a movement- -Surely it is sound economy that has for its object the cheapening of production ami increasing the value of the article, whether the commodity bo eggs, butter, wool, of* any other primary product. Each separate industry has its peculiar circumstances and must he managed'and directed accordingly. Where eggs are concerned it has to be remembered that the controlling factor in regulating prices is not the 15 or 20 pier cent, of eggs that are -produced by the few poultry “farmers” hut by the great bulk of eggs that aro picked up in lots of from one to ten dozen a week from the farmhouses and poultry ‘‘keepers” throughout the country. Any individual producer may secure special customers for his particular supply, but the price he receives is largely determined by the regular market. If it were, as our correspondent suggests, that the supply is greater tlian the demand, it is the poultry fanner who must go to .the wall first. It is frankly admitted that there are m-any difficulties and pitfalls standing in the way of co-operation; but in the absence of any other scheme of consolidation there is no option under the present pressing necessity for reform but to make a beginning through the medium of the egg-circle movement which “Kangiuru’-’ so roundly condemns. Reference has -been made to the prices obtained for exported products such as wool and meat- It is urged that demand alone fixes the price. That contention is true only to a certain extent, for it is quality, guaranteed quality, that makes blew Zealand exported produce realise top prices. Every box of butter or carcase of meat that loaves this country bears the grader’s stainv as the undisputed hall-mark guaranteeing-its quality, and therein is found the basis for top market prices. The majority of local consumers of butter, will not, .under any circumstances. purchase even the best brands of the home-made article if factory butter is available, for* which they willingly -pay a higher price. W© want eggs of known quality, and when a sufficient number are forthcoming to supply the public demand the doubtful article will be unsaleable except at extremely low prices. How, then, are all eggs to be graded, unless they are received and distributed from a common centre? Opponents of co-operation seem always to assume that national combination is going to^ come all at once; while the contrary is the true -position. Some of the producers of large numbers of eggs hold aloof from egg-circles and condemn cooperation because they fear that any improvement effected for the benefit of the email producers would injure their business. Quite the contrary is the case, for, as already pointed out, the specialist will he the first to Buffer.

“Kangiuru” mentions preserving eggs in the spring and exportation, and also expresses the opinion that the limit of production has been passed. The trial shipments of eggs both to London and Vancouver, although suiicring somewhat _ from handicaps in transit and packing, have already proved that there is a payable overseas market for surplus eggs during the months of greatest production. This being so, the necessity for preserving any exceptionally large quantities would bo done |away with. All are not agreed with “Eangiuru’’ that it costs from Is 2d to Is 4d per dozen to produce, all the year round; 'but that is not the point in question. If wo have reached the limit of production would the producer ho agreeable to give the consumer the benefit of a remission of the heavy duty now imposed on imported eggs? If the condition is as Ranghmt’’ says, then the householder has a right to demand the removal of the impost. Another point for the consideration of opponents of .reforming systems to consider is with regard to quality of eggs that now influence the wholesale market. Wilt they oficr any remedy for the preseht' unsatisfactory basis of calculation of prices now forced upon the retailer who makes his purchases on the margin of nine good eggs to the dozen, because of the questionable quality of tho foods os they come from the producer? Would it not pay to make at least a serious effort to raise the standard of quality higher so that every egg would be paid for ? These are the objects that egg-circles axe aiming to remedy, and while admitting that the task is a difficult one, there should he a possibility of improvement

if all will unite and help to develop the movement gradually. National co-opera-tion may never come, but there is every chance for the success of* provincial organisation in the meantime. The evident earnestness of “Rangivtru i© apparent. His correspondence is very welcome ah this time, and is entitled lo careful consideration, but in the writer's opinion he ha© tailed to let tho air escape from the cooperation bubble. Since the foregoing was written a postscript has been received from “Rangiuru'* referring to the notice regarding marketing that appeared last week, which throws an interesting sidelight on the opinion expressed by the writer of the article in question, but docs not give any reason why the producers should not do their own marketing.