FARMERS PROBLEMS

Wairarapa Times-Age, 30 January 1941, Page 9

FARMERS PROBLEMS

OBSERVATIONS BY MR W. A. lORNS. USE OF ARTIFICIAL WOOL. Commenting on farmers’ problems. Mr W. A. iorns. Martinborough, exchairman of the Dair.v Board, stated that he had lately been in Auckland and while there he had noticed in a newspaper a cable from London referring to the shortage of wool in England and stating that substitutes were being used and were surprisingly satisfactory. "I have been shown, while in Auckland. by one of the biggest soft goods firms, very large stocks of wearing apparel made from this artificial wool and manufactured in Bradford. England." said Mr lorns. "It certainly is beautiful, but here is the point: This artificial product is allowed into New Zealand duty free, but should similar articles contain one fibre only or a little more of pure wool, twenty per cent duty would be imposed. On figures taken from the last statistics of world returns of production of artificial wool, the output is three times the amount of real wool produced in Australia in one year. Probably, seeing that the matter is so vital to the welfare of this country and that importers are so harassed by import restrictions, it would be an opportune time to take the matter up with the New Zealand Government."

Mr lorns then referred to the meat industry, maintaining that many freezing works claimed that the grading dictated by the Meat Board is now 18 to 20 per cent stiffer on higher grades than before the war. "We all know, he said, "that the Imperial Government made a contract with the New Zealand Government to purchase our meat as previously graded. Last year the Meat Board for several weeks so tightened the grading, particularly in the Hawke’s Bay and Auckland provinces. that the farmers lost a very considerable amount of money. ‘1 he extra Southdown grade asked for by the Imperial Government was strongly advocated by Mr Forsyth, the Meat Board’s London manager, when he addressed a meeting in Carterton on his last visit to New Zealand. One member of the Meat Board strongly opposed this, although he had no London experience •Whether it is correct or not. 1 ant not able to say. but it appeal’s to me that th«- farmer is badly penalised by the price he has to pay for fencing wire." said Mr lorns "Before the war the importer's profit was based at £2 per ten. but now, though the wire corr.es through only one channel, that channel is allowed a profit of £6 per ton. why’.' Surely it will not be necessary for the farmers to build up another organisation to see that the Fai - mors’ Union, the New Zealand Wool Council the Agricultural Committee the House «>f Representatives, the Sheep Owners' Federation or even the Me.,t Board attend to fanners' interests properly and adequately "