RE-ORGANISING THE BAGON INDUSTRY.

Shannon News, 1 December 1922, Page 4

RE-ORGANISING THE BAGON INDUSTRY.

LEVIN FAVOURS PROJECT

Mr Small thanked the meeting for its welcome. ;He stated that the pig industry had been rieglected too long, and he was one who had urged within the la it two years that something be done to organise and put the industry on a better footing. He outlined the work that had been done in this direeJ .tion by the Dairy Farmers’ Union. He .I traced the steps made previous to 1 that, and when negotiations were j proceedings receiver was put into the | Packing Co. That was why an effort | was now being made to re-organise | and get the Packing Company’s works | re-opened by the farmers themselves. | Delegations waited on the Prime Minjister asking for support, with satisfactory results.; Mr Small pointed out I that for years the bacon industry had been played with, and dhe producers had not got the full value of their pro- I [ f hme. He referred again to the in- j fluence that hnd been exercised in j past years by ; one or two concerns which had controlled the market to a large extent. The producers did not want any more of that, and the only way to avoid, that .was to control the factories which, produced the,.-finished article. To-day the farmers had the opportunity of leasing the works that were under the control of the Packing company ; ,t the rate of £6OOO for 15 months. He til ought they should take the works wit h. the view, to ourchasing at £100,000,, the valuation of the company’s plant. There were ample dairy companies in the North Island to easily make, the purchase. The

Dairy Farmers’ Union, of which he was connected, • was doing its best to organise in bringing this about mid own the business from first to last—from the farm to'the finished article out of the factory. And they should be able to say to the retailer what he was to sell it at, so that the public could purchase nt a reasonable price.

Mr Small said, the whole thing was one of organisation, and the- question .the farmers should ask themselves j was would they put their shoulders to the wheel and -assist to secure, these works. This past -season the farmers. were offered 4|d per lb for prime bacon.. That was a ridiculous price when they kn.ew very well that the bacon was sold for far more than that. Mr Small said in conclusion that no stone was being left unturned to make the venture a-success. The Government had promised to help, and he hoped that; after the conference during the week-end that it would not be necessary to call up any ; money from dairy companies, but to take the guarantee only. Even if the money, was calked up in easy instalments, it was Siti.ll good business, and would never be missed by the dairy companies.

[ In replying; to •questions, Mr Small 1 said the lease only of the works was under consideration nt present. The purchase would be considered after that. Two-fomrteenths of a- penny cf the dairy companies’ output would purchase the works. The purchase was optional if th-ey took the lease-. Mr T. G. Vincent said there was nothing definite enough before tbe meeting—not hing t-o indicate how far the companies were expected to go.

Mr Small sairt the- Government was supporting the project to* the extent of £50,000, and was nominating the chairman of the ;provisional co/nrnittee, and was thereto] re going to see they did not lose thi jir money or that of the

A meeting was held in Levin on Wednesday afternoon at the instance of the Levin Dairy Company to consider the present position of the bacon industry and the question of re-or-,gani&ation. Mr S. A. Brdadbelt, chairman of directors of the Levin Dairy Company, presided, and there "•was a .good ttendance of over 50 shareholders and suppliers of the company." Mr P. J. Small, chairman of the JBaCon Committee of the Dairy Farmers’ Union, was also present. The chairman stated that the question of the bacon industry was mentioned, at the slast annual meeting of the Levin Dairy Company. Various proposals were made to carry on and progress was being made, but since then the Packing "Company had got into difficulties, ' and was unable to proceed. A proposal was now made that a compny. take over the Packing Company’s plant, and the dairy companies were bping approached to assist with .capital. He believed the Government was also prepared to do something. The Auckland and Wellington farmers were taking an active interest, and Taranaki, he believed, was coming in. The plant of the Packing Company was a. fairly considerable one. the various branches being valued as follows: Wellington £40,000, : Eltham £20,000, Te A-roha. £SOOO, Auckland £IO,OOO, Fi’anklin £20,000, transport plant £SOOO. It was essential some concerted action should be taken by all the dairy companies to place the industry on a sound basis for the betterment of the farming community.

dairymen either., Mr Rolston asked when the works could be got going. Mr Small said some owners had sent'their pigs to the works already. Replying-to another question, Mr Small said lack of support of co-op-eration had been the cause of failure in similar concerns in the past. Mr Vincent said he could not see why they should not get some information as to the dairy companies’

ultimate liability,' How much money was required after the works were bought, and got going? Mr Small said if the companies came in with their tvofourteenths of a penny, that would purchase the works. £IOO,OOO was wanted to carry on with after that.

Mr Gilmour: Can you name any cooperative bacon company in New Zealand that has been a success?

ifar Small: Eltham for one, and In.glewood; Mrj;'C. Innes questioned that,, as lie knew from experience. Mr Small said tbe net profit of Eltham last vear was £13.000.

Mr A. .T. Girnhlett, said a sore point about the Packing - Company was,the local representatives were unable to attend meetings owing to. their being 1 held at inconvenient, times. Mr .T. H; Taylor said he w.as one who had lost money in bacon corn-! panies'before, but he was prepared to . do so again, as he was a believer in j co-operation. He moved that the TLe- i vin Dairy Company support the pro- j posal to an extent that the directors !. ‘ f

thought, fit. This was seconded by Mr Laing. Mr. Walton movecl an amendment that .before the company took any i steps the .whole of the. shareholders he ; consulted.. He (t'l not .think the meet- I ing that day should act • without con-, suiting tiie -shareholders

Tlie chairman said he thought the meeting attended by over 50.. shareholders was representative enough to deal with the proposal instead of having to circularise every supplier. The success or otherwise of the. bacon, companies was due to the support of | the farmers. With the dairy comI panies, their success was due to- the i farmer not being able to run from one | factory to another. • ! Mr Vincent said the position was the individual farmer was-called .upon to contribute 3/ per cow, the money ,to be paid out by the dairy companies. He suggested Mr Taylor .adding that ! the--Levin Company give its support 1 to the extent of £2 per ton on the | present season’s, output. 1 Mr Taylor said he was agreeable. The chairman said loyal support wast what they wanted. In the .past the: farmer was ready to sell his pigs to,, anyone who would, give. a little,more.,, Mr Gilmour said a lot had ; been .said. { about want of -support on the part, of the farmer,, but bad management had been of failure of some ba-'J con. companies. J Mr .T. W. Todd said at the £2 per, ] ton rate, the suppliers would only, lose [ £IBO if the. scheme failed. !

The motion was put and carried' with no, dissentients.

A vote of thanks to Mr Small and We chairman closed the meeting.