"MORE WOOL" CAMPAIGN

Auckland Star, Volume LX, Issue 233, 2 October 1929, Page 23

"MORE WOOL" CAMPAIGN

COLDLY REGfEVEP IN YORKSHIRE. PROBLEMS FOR GROWERS AND MANUFACTURERS. (By SUNDOWNER.) In view of the strong competition which wool has nowadays to face from various artificial fibres which can be woven into fabrics of more attractive colouring and texture than woollen goods, the wool growers of Australia propose to launch an advertising campaign setting forth the numerous advantages which their product has over all substitutes. It might naturally be expected that British manufacturers would- be heart and soul in favour of this "use more wool" campaign, as it is designed to popularise the finished product, and should, therefore, immediately benefit manufacturers by increasing demand and turnover. It would appear, however, that the Yorkshire manufacturers are exceedingly disgruntled and inclined to blame all their present misfortunes on to the growers. The Yorkshire "Post's" Opinion. The present proposal is that there should be a joint conference of growers and manufacturers to organise the advertising campaign and to decide on ways and means. This seems a sensible proposal, but all the Yorkshire "Post" has to say in connection with the idea is: — "If the proposed conferences are to be productive of real good, wool growers throughout- the world must reduce the costs of . production by writing down estates from the inflated prices which some paid for them, and on which others: have been calculating at what they regard as profitable prices for wool. That must be the first step." "Writing Down" Already Done. Possibly the author of these sentiments does not realise that this "writing down" has been going on pretty steadily ever since the collapse of the '"boom" period, and in this Dominion at any rate many farmers are now working land in which they actually have no cash equity. If this is so in New Zealand where farming has many more profitable products than wool, we can reasonably assume that the same thing has been taking place in Australia, where much of the area is devoted solely to the production of wool. It is always easier to detect "the mote in our brother's eye" than "the beam in our own," and this appears to be the attitude of our Yorkshire friends. It would have suggested a better spirit of co-operation hp,d writing down of manufacturing plants been suggested in the same paragraph. This, however, ha* been entirely overlooked, the story proceeding: "Then will come the problems of distribution and finance." Prom all we can' gather there is no great margin of profit to be earned in the woollen manufacturing business at Bradford just now, but the same may be said of wool production at the prices ruling at the moment. These factors merely point the urgent need of. some such conference and advertising campaign as the growers suggest, for it is apparently only through greater production from both pastures and mills that profit may be expected.

Paying the Penalty? There is apparent a regrettable amount of bitterness in the tone of the article from which we are quoting, and some of this is directed at the practice of selling wool in Australian and New Zealand markets which previously went to auction at London. They say in this connection: "It has been the ambition of Australian brokers to have the whole of the wool produced in the Commonwealth brought uncle the hammer at selling centres in Australia before it is exported, and, to a great extent, they : have succeeded in this at- the expense of London and are now paying ;the. penalty. They can gain relief by send-' ing more of their wool to London for sale." Colonial Markets Most Central. It is hard to see where the logic of this reasoning comes.in. Australia and New Zealand cannot any longer look to Bradford as the only,- or even the chief, buyer of their wool. Bradford buyers made a rather poor showing as competitors for our product in the early part of last season, aiid had it not been for the competition of Continental. American and Japanese mills, all of whom prefer to buy their avool here and ship direct in preference to buying in London, we should indeed have been in a bad way regarding prices. Until Bradford reassumes her former position as the most important wool consumer in the world, her manufacturers will have to content themselves with coming to the most convenient' selling centres — which are at present the producing centres—of the commodity. We cannot afford, for sentimental reason alone, to ship our produce half-way round the world, lose interest meantime, and then be at the mercy of a market which is not any more central from manufacturers' point of view than is our own. Last Year's Clip Too Dear. The Yorkshire "Post" further points out that "although prices are, according to Mr. Tout, president of the Australian Graziers' Association, 25 per cent lower, our importers to-day are holding Australian wool which they cannot liquidate at a profit. Once again, therefore, the wool growers have received more for the wool than its present economic value." Actually, this is no concern of the producer. Wool, unlike articles manufactured from it, is sold in an open market where the price is regulated, not by production costs, but by the demand from manufacturers. If Bradford cannot compete against her other competitors, then it is obviously her job to put her house in order and so reduce manufacturing and marketing costs as to again successfully enter the running. Anyhow, it is unfortunate that at this time, when the joint interests of growers and manufacurers would best be served by co-operation, that the attempt on the part of the growers should meet with such a cold and unsympathetic reception from a paper which no doubt reflects the attitude of its Yorkshire readers. In our own interests we must make every effort to reduce cost of production on the farm, whether it be of wool or other produce, and I believe that our greatest hope of success in accomplishing this lies in increasing production rather than in writing down property and stock values.