FOREIGN FERTILISERS

Sun (Auckland), Volume IV, Issue 951, 19 April 1930, Page 25

FOREIGN FERTILISERS

BRITISH MONEY SENT TO BELGIUM A FARMING CONTROVERSY “Instead of answering the facts set out both correspondents have gone to some trouble in answering statements that were not contained in the article referred to,’’ said an Auckland business man this morning when shown the following letters written in reply to an article on “Foreign Fertilisers’’ appearing in THE SUN on Saturday last. “Landowner” writesSir, — As a landowner I was astounded to read a report in Saturday’s Sun of an interview with local fertiliser manufacturers in which mention was made of a duty on imported fertilisers. The basis, undoubtedly, of the prosperity of New Zealand, especially for the future, is largely bound up in the use of large quantities of cheap highgrade fertilisers. In the writer’s humble opinion he has never heard of a case in New Zealand where a protection for an industry has made for cheapness in the article that they manufacture. We read daily about the troubles that Australia is now passing through. The farmers, as primary industry, have, of recent years, been very much embarrassed by excessive duties, one of which was a duty of 25 per cent, on imported fertilisers. Surely we do not wish to repeat in New Zealand what is now happening in Australia. As regards the suggestion that farmers are not using the most suitable type of fertiliser for their farms, 1 would suggest that the best judge of what is the right type is the farmer himself. “The proof of the pudding is in the eating.” Apart from the farm-* er’s own judgment he is protected against misrepresentation by the Fertiliser Act. I noticed in the papers recently that there are four or five boats coming out to New Zealand in ballast to load butter. They are coming out in ballast because there is no cargo offering. If many such boats have to follow this example, the cost of freight on the the butter, cheese, lamb, etc., to England will possibly have to be raised to pay for the ship having no freight to New Zealand. Apart from the freight question there is the money one. We send our primary produce Home to England and must import goods in payment. What better thing can wc take in payment for our butter, cheese, etc., than fertilisers for the much-needed further increased production of the produce of our soil? Hoping that this will be the last we will hear of duties on fertilisers. LANDOWNER. Another correspondent, Mr. A. McCullough, writes as follows: FOREIGN FERTILISERS AND ECONOMIC WASTE Under the above startling headlines, Saturday’s edition of The Sun published an article that may mislead your town readers. In the first place, basic slag has been the most important factor in helping the New Zealand dairy farmer to produce more economically, on a given area of land, and helped him get rid of his mortgages. Although imported basic slag and New Zealand-made superphosphate are both phospliatic fertilisers, they are entirely different, not only in their composition, but what is more important, their action on the soil. Some farmers obtain the best results by the use of “super,” and others favour basic slag. This largely depends on soil, situation and rainfall. These are indisputable facts. The statement that merchants make more profit out. of imported manures is hard to believe as it is well known that the three Auckland fertiliser manufacturers are now working in harmony and, having a monopoly of supply, have fixed both the wholesale and retail prices for their superphosphate. The coal-dust story, told to the wellknown man connected with the freezing industry while in Scotland, is certainly a good one. I think the Scotsman must have found our colonial friend “easy meat,” and devoid of humour. Modern methods of farming and proper scientific grass culture demand the use of many kinds of artificial fertilisers, of which “super’* is only one. Nitrates, potash, phosfull and basic slag are a few of those that are imported from foreign countries, but which play just as important a part in producing butter for 180 s a cwt., as locally-made “super.” In conclusion, sir, may I say, hands oft’ the farmer. Experience teaches him what he wants, and you can safely leave the choice of fertilisers in his capable hands. DUTY NOT ASKED FOR BELGIUM, NOT BRITAIN THE SUN’S article contained no suggestion that a duty should be placed on imported fertilisers, although the Government would be quite justified in prohibiting altogether the importation of certain fertilisers. It did stress, however, the necessity of giving active support to the appeals issued by the country’s leaders to support New Zealand industry, and in regard to the fertiliser industry the appeal can well be applied. Tlio fertiliser industry in New Zealand does not ask for protection, says the business man to whom the letters were referred, for the simple reason that it is now able to supply the best possible article at a competitive price. “In his last paragraph ‘Landowner,’ whether intentionally or otherwise, has completely ignored the whole point of the article. Ho states that ‘we send our primary produce Home to England. What better can we take in payment for our butter, cheese, etc., than fertilisers for the much-needed increased production of the produce of our soil?’ ” THE SUN article expressly stated that naturally the same objection was not taken to importations from the United Kingdom. The objection was to the fact that for the autumn quarter of 1929 Belgium sent 31,778 tons of basic slag into New Zealand, while the United Kingdom shared in the trade to the extent of only 5,025 tons. “Apparently from his last paragraph we should send the money Great Britain pays us for our produce to Belgium for its cheap fertilisers. This is certainly ‘economic waste.' “ ‘Landowner’s’ reference to the protection of the Fertiliser Act is also incorrect All fertilisers, even imported, are sold on an analysis certificate, but the certificate does not demand any particular standard of quality. If it did several lines would probably be prohibited. “The statement that the farmers art the best judges is also not borne out by the demand by ‘bona fide’ farmers, both individually and through their organisations, for guidance in regard to fertilisers. This is a special study which farmers can hnrdly be expected to be familiar with.” SLAG AND MORTGAGES Referring to Mr. McCullough’s letter, the business man pointed out that slag can hardly be claimed to be an important factor in freeing the farmers from mortgages. The part of

New Zealand most free from mortgages is the South Island. Basic slag, on the other hand, is used principally in Auckland and Taranaki. “The modern methods of farming and proper scientific grass culture demand a sound knowledge of fertilisers,” he added, “and if your correspondent had that he would realise that the producers of New Zealand should have only the best class of phosphatic fertilisers and he would know that these do not come out of Belgium. “Your correspondent’s ‘indisputable facts’ concerning the difference between slag and New Zealand-made superphosphate cannot be supported by any noted authority or by any accurately recorded experiments. If either the authorities or the experiments exist I would be pleased to hear of them.” NOVEL MATHEMATICS! USED ON THE FARM The following is taken from “The, New Breeders’ Gazette,” U.S.A.; I was talking to C. M. Long the other day. He is a practical dairyman and chief of farm service for the Blue Valley Institute. He has figured out that a cow that produces 1001 b of butter-fat a year returns a net income of only 1.25 dollars a month: 2001 b, more than 4 dollars a month; 3001 b, more than 9 dollars a month; and 4001 b, practically 14 dollars a month above feed cost. it takes a cow capable of producing around 500 lb of butter-fat a year to net 18 dollars a month, or above the 200 dollar mark a year. You may have a cow in the herd producing 5001 b of butterfat a year. The chances are equally good, providing you have never kept production records or had the herd tested regularly, that you also have a cow producing only 1001 b of butter-fat. If so, the cow producing 5001 b is actually netting more than 14 of the 1001 b sort. And you have only, one good cow to milk, feed and house Instead of 14!