DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 131, 4 June 1923, Page 7

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

DIVIDED OPINION. MEAT TRADE PARALLEL. (By Telegraph— Special to "Star.") WELLINGTON, this day. The Prime Minister's wish that the farmers themselves should be unanimous in their attitude towards the Dairy Control Bill, for or against, seems I just now further from realisation than ever. A month or two ago it looked as if the promoters of the bill had succeeded in convincing a majority of the producers that the meat pool had proved a great success by stabilising prices and putting thousands of pounds into the pockets of the sheep farmers, and that a similar organisation would do as much for the dairy farmers. But eince then the claim* made on behalf of the meat pool have been considerably discounted. Independent authorities, who may be supposed to have no ase to grind on their own account, have shown, for instance, by what appear to ■be irrefutable figures that the somewhat costly activities of the Meat Producers Board have gained no advantage for the 'New Zealand producers that has not been engaged in an equal measure by the Argentine producers through the natural and inevitable operation of economic laws. As a matter of fact, the improvement in the price of Argentine mutton and lamb on the (London market during the period of the 'Meat Board's most strenuous efforts between December, 153], and October, 1922, was greater than the improvement in the prices of New Zealand mutton' and lamb. This does pot necessarily mean that thr Meat Board has rendered no useful service to the producers of the Dominion, but it proves fairly conclusively that it has had little to do with the improvement in the prices of mutton and lamb.

The fact that the Meat Board has spent a considerable sum of money i* obvious from the nature of its activities, and it is unfortunate that its promised balance-sheet will not be available before the end of July, by which time the dairy farmers may lie committed to a similar expenditure. Another factor that is weighing with the critical producers is the unfortunate experience ot a large number of farmers' trading concerns during the slump. Many of these concerns fared very 'badly, and were compelled not only to withhold their customary dividends, but also to trench upon their reserves and to strain their credit to the utmost. This experience has not tended to increase public confidence in such amateur management as will probably shape the policy of the dairy pool.

In these circumstances it is not surprising to find a number of wary producers asking for more information in regard to the pool than yet has been afforded them by its promoters. At Stratford last week, and at a. number of other dairy centres, since then farmers' meetings have declined to subscribe even to the principles of the scheme without further inquiry. At Dannevirke, illustrating the attitude of another section of the producers, a meeting of the Farmers 5 Union expressed approval of the -icheme, subject to the all-impor/ant reservation that it should have the financial backing of the Government.

The indications at the moment are that the man on the land who would be immediately affected by the institutions of the pool requires assurances which no one is in a position to give. The alternative many nre favouring is that a small commission, consisting of two or three capable and reliable men acquainted with the intricacies of the dairy business but n't actually engaged in it, should be eet up to information as to methods and - practices of shipping and marketing in the other important butter and cheese-producing countries for the guidance of the Government and the ■ New Zealand producers. It has been made abundantly evident by the discussions that have taken place here during the last month or two that even the prominent men in the controversy are not all fully Informed even on minor points. The meat pool experience so far has afforded them little guidance. There is, of course, a fundamental difference between the meat position of eighteen months ago and the dairy position of to-day. Eighteen months ago the bottom had fallen out of the meat market, and the desperate position required a desperate remedy. Happily the remedy came in the shape o; improved prices without the application of the radical cure that had been prepared. The position presents no such alarming problems; it ie flourishing and stable, and in no need of pampering assistance. The help the Government could give the industry would be found in such a commission as the one that has been suggested. Manufacture ard supervision ships and shipping, markets and supervision offer a widfc field for exploration. The whole field, it is contended, could be covered at a fraction of the cost the institution of a pool would entail. The task completed, sucn defects as might be discovered in the present organisation could be attacked with knowledge ard understanding.