FROZEN PRODUCE

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXVII, Issue 8352, 12 February 1913, Page 2

FROZEN PRODUCE

HANDLING IN LONDON UNSATISFACTORY CONDITIONS REPORTED BY MR LYSNAR. Press Association. GISBORNE, February 10. Mr W. 3). Lysnar has just returned from his visit to England on behalf of the New Zealand Producers’ Association. In tho course of a lecture under the auspices of the association, in order to give a practical demonstration of the way in which Now Zealand prices were kept at a low ebb, Mr Lysnar jiroduced and quoted from charts of prices issued by the different London firms for 1909i 5-11. New Zealand mutton, be said, was better than Scotch mutton. In 1909 Scotch mutton was up to 7id while New Zealand was down below 3d. In 1910 Scotch mutton was up to BJd a pound and New Zealand 3|d, and for one day only 4Jd. In 1911 Scotch mutton averaged 6|d and Now Zealand 4jd. During all this period tho retail prices remained practically the same. “Tho reason is,” said Mr Lysnar, “that tlie Scotchman is there to look after his rights and tho New Zealander is not.” The market was rigged to suit tho buyers at Home and not to suit tlie producers. If they allowed that condition of affairs to go on they were not doing their simple duty to themselves or to the Dominion. The Smithfield market prices were fixed by tho weakest holder. The objection raised by the speculator that nearly all the meat was sold at this end, and that, therefore, tho producers should not interfere, was not well founded. Figures showed that over 50 per cent, of the meat in the North Island was shipped on owners’ account. He asked: “Aro not those who do ship and would ship if better facilities are available, entitled to consideration ?” Ho claimed that the, dairy and other producers were entitled to some consideration. ■ Tho meat buyers had not a total monopoly of the export trade. This year the great bulk of tho dairy produce was being shipped on factories’ account. Those factory owners should not bo denied better facilities .because the meat speculator objects. Mr Lysnar said that tho conditions under which wool was handled were most unsatisfactory. Tho bales were dumped on the open wharves and it was left for days and sometimes weeks with tarpaulins on it. The dumps were broken and it remained iu that condition waiting for barges. The wool was often made wet on the wharves and sometimes by leaking barges. Tlie producers thus got reduced prices as a result and did not know it. He had 43 bales for sale in London while ho was there, and was curious to see them and satisfy himself that they were not in good condition. He was" advised that they were all right, but, when insistent, was told that he could not see them as they did not know where they were. Ho told Mr Shelton to look at the bales and see whether there was anything wrong. He had samples of the wool with him now, and had a note signed by the head salesman to say that it was damaged by bargo water in going up tho Thames. The bottom of the hold was sodden. He found that he had got 3d a pound less on one bale alone that was damaged ns compared with tho undamaged bales of tho same brand. Tho agents said it was an inferior class of wool, but he knew that it was clean fleece, all of it. The charges on wool in London were almost as groat as the freight from New Zealand to London. Last year the wool brokers raised their charges by 50 per cent, as many would find out when they got tlieir accounts in. The producers, Mr Lysnar said, could not do better than utilise Liverpool for their wool. The consolidated charge was 4s 4d and 5s 6d for London and 2s 4d for Liverpool. They had facilities to show 20,000 bales at a sale in Liverjjool and sell it in a day. They were prepared to put Wapping dock shed at the disposal of , New Zealand. There was a depth of 29ft of water there and there would ho , no charge for carting' or hand-trucking, and it was connected by rail to Bradford. Ho quoted the Hon. T. Mackenzie’s opinions upon the relative merits of London and Bristol. Mr Mackenzie’s opinion was that he could not sufficiently express his dissatisfaction with the handling of tho meat that was handled at some of the Port of London Authority's stores. The condition of the meat was far from what it ought to be. to use no more severe a term. Ho could not refer to the attitude of the dock authorities regarding the construction of stores, and the improvement to shipping required at tho South-west India dock, which undoubtedly was tho most convenient for Sraithfield market. In addition to the Albert and Victoria docks being much farther away, the traffic was far more congested. It was almost impossible at times for the vans to make any progress at all, tho handling of meat being iu a way that could not be other than detrimental. Speaking on behalf of the New,Zealand producers, ho would say that the conditions there would not be much longer put up with. Then, referring to tho facilities at Avonniouth and Bristol, the High Commissioner stated that he was much impressed with the advantages Avonmouth offered for tho handling and distributing of refrigerated and coolchambered produce. He was particularly well satisfied with tho dock equipment and the cold storage available, and was apparently convinced that, so far as the distributing of New Zealand produce is concerned, much of the Midlands, and more still of the West Country, could bo covered with advantage from Avonmouth. Referring to the question of insurance, Mr Mackenzie stated that, so far, at any rate, as Avonmouth is concerned, he is of opinion that shippers might rest content with insurance against total loss and breakdown in the ship’s refrigerating machinery, which could bo done, ho says, at one-fifth of the present rate.