PHOSPHATE PRICES

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 670, 23 May 1929, Page 6

PHOSPHATE PRICES

CHEAPNESS SOUGHT REMIT DEFEATED Opinions that fertilisers should be as tow in price as possible were given by delegates when an adjourned remit from Horsham Downs came forward, regarding with alarm the present price of superphosphate. rj>HE remit was lost. Considerable discussion bn the positions and outputs of fertiliser companies took place. On behalf of the Horsham Downs branch, Mr. T. H. Henderson suggested that, as fertiliser!' are the foundation stone to successful /farming, this conference views with alarm the present price of superphosphate. Although £4 2s 6d a ton was the figure paid for a very considerable time in last year’s workings, tbe Auckland Farmers’ Fertiliser Company was able to pay a dividend of 8 per cent. In view of this fact it was suggested that the conference should consider a substantial reduction in the price of superphosphate should be made. Mr. Henderson said that cheap fertilisers were highly desirable. The use of fertilisers was undoubtedly extending throughout the Dominion and, as all progressive farmers were seeking supplies, it was necessary that cheapness should allow even small producers to improve their holdings. DROP Mr. A. E. Robinson quoted from a statistics chart for all the fertiliser companies in New Zealand, with reference to the years 1927 and 1928. Output had gone up in 1928, but the profits had dropped. “You cannot keep capital in business if it is reduced,” he said. “The profit has reduced although the output has increased.” Mr. W. H. Alien spoke on co-oper-ative concerns handling fertilisers. He also advocated cheapness in fertilisers. "The cost of fertiliser depends on the output,” he said. Voices: Not altogether. Mr. Allen maintained that the greater the output became, the lower the scale of prices could be made. Mr. Henderson said that, although fertiliser prices fell from £5 11s 6d to £4 2s 6d a ton during the "fertiliser war,” some manure companies had still been able to pay 8 per cent. Prices bad since risen, but obviously a figure below £4 10s a ton would leave a margin for the manufacturer. NO “RING” Mr. R. D. Duxfield denied that the farmers were in the hands of a ring. The Farmers’ Fertiliser Company, for instance, was governed by farmers only. “You are not being exploited, and you never have been,” he said. “If the output is doubled, your expenses are not doubled, and that is one way prices could be brought down.” Mr. C. C. Munro made it clear that it was purely a question of business. Co-operative companies on a strong financial basis were ready to hold their own with any other concern. If there were room to bring down the price of fertilisers, the companies could be expected to do so. An active move was being made by concerns to float other fertilisers on the market. Mr. E. L. Walker asked If reductions in costs of production and distribution were the only ways in which relief could be expected. Dr. H. E. Annett pointed out that the costs of manures in New Zealand were greater than in Europe. Comparing the phosphate content of New Zealand superphosphate with English, the price in this country should reasonably be £4 2s to £4 3s a ton. On information he had received, this was about the actual cost price in New Zealand. He did not think other manures coming on the market were likely to oust superphosphate for many years to come. He would be pleased to see the manufacturers brought together and an agreement reached. The commission selling agents received was also considerably higher in New Zealand than in Europe, Dr. Annett said. REGULATION OF PRICES Mr. F. A. Harcombe said that the price of superphosphate largely regulated the prices of manures. “Here we have three companies operating on the superphosphate business,” said the president, Mr. A. A. Ross. “One is purely a farmers’ concern, and a second one is a combine of proprietary and farmers’ Interests. I contend that to start another concern, as has been suggested, will not improve the position. It is a fa.ct that Australia does not get its fertilisers cheaper than New Zealand. Although I have not the latest figures, the New Zealand farmer is getting his manure 7s 6d a ton cheaper than the Australian, unless the figures have been seriously altered. Regarding British prices, there has been a price war at Home and there has been competition with Continental manufacturers. In any case, a company must be expected to pay a reasonable dividend. If a company is bound down the position will not be improved, to my mind. I am sure the price is not exorbitant. There has certainly been no exploitation in New Zealand.” In reply, Mr. Henderson said that the farmers were up against combines. He denied that he had anything against any particular company. The remit was defeated. RURAL PHONE COSTS REDUCTION WANTED Remits from Otorohanga and Waikato asked that the conference should consider that the basis of charges for rural telephones should be materially lowered. Mr. Watkins, tbe mover, mentioned that the question had previously been raised. Quoting figures, he suggested that the department could reduce its charges and extend its business. • Mr. Feisst believed that the department at present had a credit balance of about £BOO,OOO. A Delegate: It’s over a million pounds. The remit was carried.