The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 1916. A VITAL QUESTION.

Taihape Daily Times, Issue 160, 2 August 1916, Page 4

The Taihape Daily Times AND WAIMARINO ADVOCATE

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 2nd, 1916. A VITAL QUESTION.

.(With which is incorporated The Tal bape Post and Waimarino News.)

In his address to the j annual confer- | ence of the Farmers’ Union, the Presi- j dent touched upon thin ice when he ; said “They may pass as many Acts of ! Parliament as they like, but they will ] not got farmers to grow wheat at a j loss.” Such an expressed determination is quite justifiable under some circumstances, but the people of New Zealand will have in mind that bodies of farmers, probably urged on by the wheat middleman, have stated that wheat was not payinjg when it was six shillings a bushel, and while they were agitating against a price being fixed to prevent the holders of wheat putting the price still higher. The Board, of Trade Commission has reported that the wheat at that time was mostly in the 'granaries of the wheat buyer, so that farmers could get but little benefit from the seven shillings to which wheat was improperly forced with their assistance. When the mouthpiece pf the farmers ip conference exprseses himself In that way It is time for the country seriously to consider what is { the source of their future food supply. He said also, “It is a fact which has been proved that it takes from twentythree to twenty-five bushels to pay expenses, with wheat at five shillings a bushel. Anything under that is grown at a loss to the farmer,” and he goes on to say, “The country is poorer It • • j the farmer loses by the transaction, ’ in which we think his logic is slightly at fault. The question that in our minds persistently demands an answer is, however, have the growers of millions of bushels of wneat a yea”, right up into- the war period been such fools as to go on growing it at from three shillings and fourpence to four shillings? They were still growing it when war was declared at such prices, and none of them seems to have had to fall back on bankruptcy enactments. We are not questioning the truth of what the president of the Farmers’ Union asserted, but irreconcilable statements persistently trouble thinking people. For years and years farmers have gone oi* growing wheat in New Zealand at an average of about three shillings and sevenper.ee; now we are told that it. is a fact that wheat growing is a loss to the fanner at anything less than five shillings —it is hard to reconcile fact with precept. It may be that a little exaggeration crept into the President’s remarks on the subject owing to annoyance caused by a member of Parliament stating “It was

the duty of the Government to fortjo the farmers to grow wheat.” One is naturally anxious to know how the unborn millions of New Zealand, as well as those who are already in the flesh, are going to be fed if its land Has already become so valuable that wheat cannot be grown at prices ruling in the world’s market, and for a solution we eagerly read what the address had to say, and we find that the President thinks it is infinitely better to buy wheat from Australia, where, he says it can be grown cheaper, and turn land here to more profitable use; bur what again perplexes us is, why farmers did not turn their land to more profitable use, than go on growing wheat at from one shilling to eighteen pence a bushel less, or is it only during the last eighteen months of war that it has become a losing game to grow at less than five shillings, When a prominent public man makes utterances so vital to the food supply of the nation they are sure to be widely read and pondered over. It does not seem clear why Australia can girow Wheat at eighteenpence a bushel lower than New Zealand. Labour and machinery costs the same, and probably growers there would like as much profit as our growers. The only cheapening factor is the use of the stripper, which is driven into crops, stripping off the wheat from the ear and threshing it in one operation, ready to be carted away in bags. But does that account for the difference per bushel? Freight, handling, and other charges in getting Australian wheat here is ample set-off to cheaper harvesting). Neither must we overlook the fact that wheat growers are pretty insistent in their demands for a duty on Australian wheat. No one would like to think that in the race for huge profitmaking the holders of land have, momentarily forgotten their responsibility to the State, in whose pleasure they hold it. The first object 'in agriculture must be the feeding of the people, any digression from this must bring;, distress and disaster to both the injured and the injurer. The all-important question in arriving at an understanding was not answered. It would be interesting, if not altogether satisfying, to know from the President of the Farmers’ Union what use the land can be profitably put to if wheat cannot be grown at less than five shillings a bushel without loss to the grower. We know that meat and wool require less labour and are just at present highly profitable, but New Zealand’s best acres cannot be given up in areas requisite for success in sheep farming. The only other alternative is dairying, and it is worth while considering whether it would be in the country’s best interests to convert New Zealand into a huge dairy farm. We must value the authority of the President of the Farmers’ Union in stating that it doesn’t pay to grow wheat, but we would like to know what he thinks we can profitably use our land in growing.