Maize for Profit

Sun (Auckland), Volume I, Issue 158, 24 September 1927, Page 25 (Supplement)

Maize for Profit

EFFECT OF TARIFF

Protests From Growers

EMPHATIC protests regard! the duty on maize have 1 and Poverty Hay growers. T deputation of those interested Finance in the near future. \TAIZE Arrowing for sale is only a very small industry in this Dominion. Even in the 33ay of Plenty and Poverty Bay it is regarded by mcst farmers in the light of a side-issue, and only in isolated instances do they make it their sole source of income. It is more popular as a fodder crop in many and It Is a moot point whether it is not more profitable as such. Despite the outcry from down the coast it is not likely that the grDwer will be subjected to any great hardship by the proposed tariff amendment. It is only as a last resource that the merchant turns to South Africa to supplement his stocks, and, even when he does, it is seldom possible to land it in this country at much under 5s 6d a

bushel. There is always a difficulty in arranging freight and, again, on account of the weevil, it is only possible or profitable to land a South African cargo in the spring of the year. Thus it can be seen that overseas maize is not an attractive proposition to the merchant and it is only when the local price is forced up out of reason that he will entertain it. This year a cargo of about 1,000 tons has been contracted for to land in Auckland some time in November. Little or no alteration Is expected to take place in local values as such a small parcel will soon go into consumption. Similar cargoes hav-fe arrived on thase shores at this time of the 'year for years and their effect on local values has been negligible. Admittedly, growers have room for a grouch in the fact that they as maize growers have had protection to a certain extent taken away from them, while the wheat growers, a more powerful community in the south, are to receive further protection, but it

ing the proposed reduction in been made by Btiy of Plenty here is every possibility of a 1 waiting on the Minister of cannot reasonably be said that even without any protection maize growing would not be profitable. In the past growers made satisfactory profits with the cereal bringing in little more than 3s 4d ex the farm. The writer has personally shown a profit though certainly not a large one, at 4s delivered in store. Figures have certainly been quoted by those interested in the business endeavouring to show that much under 6s a bushel maize does not pay the grower, but in those instances the estimate has largely been based on fictitiously valued land without regard to actual experience on reasonably priced land. Actual experience proves that at 80 bushels to the acre, and unless land can be induced to produce that as a

minimum yield it would be better for the owner to divert it to some other Else it should show a profit of at least £lO an acre after allowing for reasonable interest, manuring and cultivating, worked obit on an estimate of 5s a bushel delivered in store. It must be remembered that maize growing is after all, as previously stated, only a side-issue with th« growers and even under the reduced tariff, as pointed out by a speaker at this week’s meeting of the Auckland executive of the New Zealand Farmers Union will be subsidised to the extent of approximately 35s an acre. This must reflect adversely on a considerably greater section of the farming community, namely the poultry and pig farmer. , .. . It must be admitted, that while it is only human nature tor the man affected to squeal, there will be little Eindue hardship in the proposed reduction and, in fact., the grower will b€; little affected Certainly it will not put him out of business.