SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

Waikato Argus, Volume V, Issue 348, 1 October 1898, Page 4

SUGAR-BEET INDUSTRY.

TrtK following is the address given by Capt. Hunciman at the last meeting of the Farmers' Club : He felt it incumbent upon him io refer to the advene criticism on the sugar-beet industry by three gentlemen at the Agricultural Conference held recently in Christchurch. He would mainly confine himself to the flippant and satirical strictures levelled agaiust the industry by Mr Bcetham. As to the remarks of Sir John Hall, his statements are no more borne out by facts than are Mr Beetham's. As to Mr Bayne's remarks, he considered them favourable, under the circumstances. Mr Fisher, the representative of the Club, fell into an error on the £60,000, and, in consequence, led Sir John Hall into error, which he took very kindly hold of. The amount is virtually only £20,000; the other £40,000 will never be called up until the factory proves a success: otherwise, it would never be called for. Further, the £20,000 would spread over four years, and would only be receivable on 1000 tons of sugar from beet, or sorghum produced in each year. Mr Beetham appeared to him a very ' curious character, who is given to carrying matters with a high hand, and in dealing with this matter has allowed prejudice to carry him away. He ignores the principles laid down by him as to the dairy industry, on page 61 of the report. He states that the dairy industry has a colonising effect; in this, of course, all must agree. The sugar-beet industry is, however, a twin sister in this respect, and, indeed, much the stronger sister oi the two as a coloniser. They in no way act antagonistically, the former stimulates the latter by the extra production of grass, leaving aside altogether the by-products. The growth of beet would give a light class of labour between milking times, which it is now impossible to find. He then shakes out a great cloud of dust over great companies. In France the industry is left to several large companies, and the Government had given such assistance as to allow of the sugar being sold cheaply in England. The next sub-paragraph is calculated to have mislead his hearers, who are not well posted in the subject. He says :—The quality of the sugar is not equal to that made from cane. This is incorrect if the authority of distinguished analysts is to be accepted. They state emphatically that there is no difference between two samples of No. 1 sugar, and that no analyst could distinguish between that from cane and beet. The great difficulty in establishing the beet sugar industry is the costliness of the machinery and plant. Experience has proved that below a minimum of 300 tons per day during the season is unprofitable, but when a larger quantity is dealt with profit accrues to all concerned. As to the cultivation of the beet it stimulates every other agricultural pursuit, makes the country more prosperous, consequent on the employment for labour which it annually provides. In other countries the land surrounding factories suitable for the growth of sugar have increased in value from three hundred to four hundred per cent. We are sending away annually £40,000, mostly cash, to bring to the country what should be a product of our own soil. It has been proved conclusively that our climate and soil are suited to produce beet satisfactorily as regards quantity and quality. All we require is the plant to manufacture the sugar. We can send wool and other products to the plant necessary for their manufacture, but the plant must be brought to the beer. In face of all this the Government will not bring down the Bill they have drafted. Both of our esteemed members, Messrs Herries and Lang, declare emphatically that a majority of the House had promised to support the Bill in order to get the industry established. They recognise that it" would give employment to many hundreds of men, where it is impossible for farmers to give work under existing circumstances. In the mean • time the Government is actually borrowing money to pay for the work given to the unemployed. That the sugar-beet industry would provide this is abundantly exemplified in California. In New Zealand the conditions are similar, and it is fair to presume that the same results would follow.

The great objection the speaker took to Mr Beethan.'s statements is that he spoke in a way to prejudice the minds of his hearers, without treating the subject on its merits so that those who had not given the matter, consideration for the reason that it might or might not be suitable to their particular district. Sir John Hall echoed' his sentiments, hut raised the further objection that under existing conditions little use could be made of the by-products. He (the speaker) might say for their information that the by-products had been duly considered, but had been left aside as of little importance in discussing the merits and demerits of the industry. He looked upon the adverse vote passed at the conference as calculated to do much harm with the authorities who are only lukewarm in the matter. If the vote had been adverse after fair discussion, he would have found no fault, he would only have concluded that there was a majority who had not given the consideration to the question which its importance should have commanded at their hands. It is to me curious that a man like Mr Beetharn should make such an assertion as that " he had not come to his conclusions hurriedly, but after great study in France, and that, were it not for the great companies being paid to enable the sugar to be sold cheap in England, it would not flourish in that country. Mr Beetharn appears to have ignored the fact of the thousands of acres which the peasantry of France and Germany have made their own sioce the inauguration of the beet industry. This is stated by George Villiers and other writers. He would, however, confine his remarks mainly to California, the position of which is, nearly in every respect, similar to our own. With regard to the much decried large companies, he would select Matamata in order to illustrate what might be done. This estate embraces about 60,000 acres, and a large proportion of the land is eminently suited for beet culture in I'very particular. Let us see what a small portion of it would do were a beet-sugar factory erected on the property. He would suppose it to be a 400-ton factory. To supply this would require that 3000 acres of beet should be"planted annually, at 15 tons per acre. This would give 45,000 tons. This would require the usual 100 days to put through the mill. If the roots were of 15 per cent, standard their commercial value would he 15j per ton, giving a gross return of .t 011,750. Cost of cultivation at £S per acre, gives £24,000 (this is £2 per acre more than the cost in California). This leaves a profit of £9750 practically £IO,OOO net profit from .SUOO acres. Dividing the £$ into two parts, £4 for seed manure and haulage ami £4 for labour in cultivation would give 500 men 6s per day for SO days. There would theu be the remaining 57,000 acres of the property available for other purposes, such as growing cereals and winter feed for man and beast, thus giving employment to most, if not all, the 500 men directly and indirectly the whole time. In five years the grazing capabilities of the land would ho doubled, in addition to yielding a clear profit of £IO,OOO a year and the employment of 500 men, where nore are employed. So much for the loudly decried great companies. Now for an example of what the industry will do for the small farmer and small holdings, of which the present Government are ostentatiously the champions. Ouly in name he was sorry to say,

or thev would have passed the Sugar Beet Bill long before this. It is said that this would be local legislation, but surely it is not as local as that which is passed to promote irrigation The rifty-aos-e holder would put 10 acres in annually, and the farmer and his family would do all the work between milking times, which extends from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. This would give them for their labour £6 per acre, or £(SO. The £2 would have to go for fertilisers and seed, although half of that might be saved Ly .judicious management of the stabh; and cowshed manure. This would be possible on the small holding. The yield from 10 acres of beet on the basis given above would be £ll2 10s; deductin" £1 per acre for seed and fertilisers would leave £lO2 10s net profit from 10 acres. He would still have 40 acres to grow for his family, his cows, and others. In five years his fifty-acre farm would be manured all over and in grass more than five years old. Its capacity to produce would be doubled, and the value of_ the property increased three or four times within five years, as is shown to have been the case in California. If Mr Beetlnm can show his neighbours something more profitable than this to themselves and the colony, he should do so at once.