The Press. MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1896. WHEAT STATISTICS.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9860, 9 March 1896, Page 4

The Press. MONDAY, MARCH 9, 1896. WHEAT STATISTICS.

From a Press Association telegram from Wellington it will be seen that the Agricultural Department estimate that the total area of land down in wheat this season is 242,956 acres, and that the yield is expected to be 5,911,929 bushels. It is further stated that the quantity on hand, that is to say, the quantity carried over from last season, is 607,775 bushels. The amount required in the colony is estimated at 4,980,500 bushels, which would leave about a million and a half bushels available for export.

These statistics are liable to mislead both the farmers and the merchants of New Zealand. We say at the outset that ■«>-differ from the estimate which assesses the requirements of the colony at 4,930,500 bushels ; and it appears to us nothing short of carelessness on the part of the Agricultural Department to put forward these figures. If our readers will refer to the official returns of last year it will be found that the Eegistrar-General's estimate was as follows: — Bushels. Wheat crop of 1895 3,613,037 Quantity grown by Maoris .„ 270.075 Held by farmers ... ... 259,747 Total 4,142,859 The requirements were estimated by the Eegistrar-General as follows :— Bushels. Food on an estimated mean population for 1895 of. 735,000 (including Maoris) at 6.3 bushels per head 4,630,500 Seed—lso,ooo acres at 2 bushels per acre ... ... ... 300,000 Total ... 4,930,500 Had these figures been correct it is evident that upwards of 800,000 bushels of wheat would have had to be imported to meet our requirements, without leaving any surplus whatever to carry forward to 1896. Now, as a matter of fact, New Zealand imported less than 200,000 bushels of wheat in 1896, and as we have carried over, according to official returns, 607,775 bushels, it is evident that without the imports, we have had a surplus of over 400,000 bushels, instead of the estimated deficiency of 800,000 bushels. It must therefore be apparent that the official figures and estimates for last year were wrong by something like 1,200,000 bushels. And we venture to say that the present year's statistics will prove nearly as misleading. For instance, as we have shown, the total crop of last year was estimated at 3,888,112 bushels. The previous year's stock held by farmers was put down at 239,747 bushels". We have imported something under 200,000 bushels, which, if added to the stock held over, makes 459,747 bushels. Deduct this from 607,775 bushels carried over in the present year, and it would appear that our last year's orop yielded something like 150,000 bushels more than was required for home consumption and seed. It is, however, understood that the present statistics include the stock held in merchants' hands, whereas last year's returns only included stocks in farmers' hands, and it is probable that there may have been at least an equivalent to this surplus of 150,000 bushels held last year by merchants; in which case it means that last year's aggregate yield of 8,883,112 bushels just about sufficed for home consumption and seed.

Now, our point is that if last year's crop of 8,888,112 bushels was sufficient for our wants in 1895, why should the colony reouire 4,930,500 bushels for 1896 ? The fact is that the RegistrarGeneral adopts the old-fashioned estimate of 6.3 bushels as the consumption per head of the population. "When a local paper, last year, made the error of estimating the consumption at over 7 bushels per capita, and therefore calculated that the crop of 1895 was 1,700,000 bushels under the amount required for consumption and seed purposes, our Commercial Editor, in our issue of May 1 _tb, 1895, referred to the estimate of over 7 bushels as

absurd, and proceeded :—"lt is now > " thoroughly recognised that in all i " meat-eating communities, such as ' " the United States, Australia and "New Zealand, the consumption of " wheat is not over 4£ bushels " per head, the outside estimate for " the States being 4f bushels. " Meat is even more plentiful in New " Zealand than in America, and conse- " quently the probabilities are that we " eat less bread. But assuming that "we consume 5 bushels per head, i " and taking the population at 700,000, " our requirements for the ensuing " year will not exceed 8,500,000 " bushels for food, and at the outside " 300,000 for seed. As the esti- " mated yield is 3,618,137 bushels, " this leaves a deficiency of " less than 200,000 bushels." It will be seen that our Commercial Editor made a very accurate forecast of the position when he pointed out that the deficiency would at the outside be less than 200,000 bushels ; seeing that we imported less than that quantity in the byegone year. According to the Registrar-General the population of the colony (including Maoris) on the 31st December, 1895, was 740,699. Now, if we take the average population for 1896 at 750,000 and the consumption at even 5 bushels, j it gives 3,750,000 bushels, and we feel | satisfied that this will prove in excess of the actual food requirements of New Zealand for the present year. Add the liberal allowance of 500,000 bushels for seed, and we have 4,250,000 bushels. Deduct this from the estimated yield of 5,911,929 bushels plus the surplus in hand of 607,775 bushels, and we have a balance available for export of 2,269,704 bushels. It may be true that the yield will not turn out equal to the estimate, and that we shall carry over as much wheat as we brought forward from last year, and, consequently, there maybe only 1,250,000 bushels to be exported. But we think we have shown conclusively that the RegistrarGeneral between his figures of 1895 and 1896 has blundered very considerably. We know that it is popular to write that which the people would wish. But misleading figures must inflict, in the long run, a direct and positive injury on the producer. The fact is that we have this season a very considerable quantity of wheat for export, and prices here are far above the parity of the English market. If, however, we had only a small surplus in excess of our own requirements, which surplus could be absorbed by Australia at current rates, there would be some reason for encouraging the producers to hold for high prices. But it is a cruel wrong to them to under-esti-mate the surplus available for export, seeing that it is the price to be obtained from the surplus which will practically govern the price for the season's crop. Now, unless values rise materially in Europe it seems almost impossible that recent prices in : New Zealand can be maintained ; throughout the current year, as it is more than unlikely that we shall be . able to dispose of our surplus in Australia at present quotations unless prices advance in Europe.