THE SIZE OF GRAIN SACKS.

Otago Witness, Issue 2813, 12 February 1908, Page 21

THE SIZE OF GRAIN SACKS.

THE LIMITATION TO 200lb. Some uncertainty appears to exist among grain merchants and farmers as to the time at which the Government edict that grain sacks are not to hold more than 2001b ■weight of grain is to come into force. The actual position is that, although the Government has signified its intention to limit the holding capacity of grain sacks to 2001b, the gazetted notice, of date January 23, is to the effect that the new regulation will come into force on and after Ist February, 1909, while it states J further that if a sack of wheat, barley, or <jats contains greater weight than 2001b

the freight charge over the railways shall be four times the ordinary rate. The fact that time ha 6 been given by the Government until 1909 to permit of grain merchants and farmers disposing of then- stocks of sacks does not appear to have been generally known, and thp announcement will be hailed with satisfaction by those not already possessed of the fact. Anticipations of a more than usually productive harvest this season led merchants to import a v£ry full supply of sacks, which, were the new regulation in force, would mean that they would either be a loss to the merchants, or if sold would mean that the farmer utilising them would have theextra trouble of turning them down after filling- the sack to the specified weight. The suspending of the regulation for a full year should enable merchants to get rid of their holdings this year; while for the following year they will, of course, be in a position to order a pack that will meet the requirements of the new regulation.

But even should the new regulation limiting the size of 6acks. and accordingly the weight of their contents, cause any inconvenience to merchants or farmers, it cannot but be admitted that it is a nost humanitarian 6top, and solely for that reason should have public approval. The 44in sack u«ed for wheat holds from 240 to 2601b, and it is generally conceded that that is far too hoaw a burden for the ordinary man to contend with. In fact, several cases aie on. record locally where men have been incapacitated for life as the result of severe strains brought about by carrying heavy sacks of wheat. The coming into operation of the measure ha\ing been suspended for a full 12 months, merchants and others have no cause for complaint, and +he action of the Government can in no wise be considered arbitrary, as it has been characterised in some quarters.

A move for the limitation of the holding capacity of gTain sacks to 2001b has a!;o been in progress in Australia for some time. Under existing conditions the weight is about 2451b, and it was considered on many sides that no man should be required to handle bags weighing more than 2001b. On the other hand, the action of the Federal Government met with some opposition and disapproval. Thp South Australian Advisory Board of Agriculture, for instance, was pronounced in its d-sappwnal of the new measure. One of its reasons was that smaller sacks would cost South Australian farmers fully £25,000 a year, and .their use would result in youths and weaker men handling them than at present. The extra cost would be due to the fact that nearly as much labour would lie employed in making and sewing small bags as large, and the smaller were just as costly for the farmer to handle and sew. It was further contended that a costly alteration of fillers and appliances would be necessary. The change in Australia was expected to come into force on Ist April, but it was argued that that would not suit prospective shipments of bags from Calcutta.