WHEAT OR MEAT?

Press, Volume LIV, Issue 16118, 24 January 1918, Page 7

WHEAT OR MEAT?

0 THE PROBLEM BEFORE AUSTRALIA. (By Cable.—Press Association.—Copyright.) SYDNEY, January 23. Mr "W. G. Asbford (Minister of Lands), addressing the Producers' Conference, advocated reducing the wheat area to the minimum sufficient to meet the domestic requirements of New South "Wales and Queensland, owing to financial and shipping problems. "If we cannot have meat and wool as well as wheat," he said, "let us have whichever is most satisfactory in all phases of production and profit," BRITISH EXPERT'S ADVICE. (Received January 23rd, 9.35 p.m.) SYDNEY, January 23. The question of ivheat or meat production is occupying considerable attention. Contrary to Mr W. G. Ashford's advice, Professor Lefroy, the British Government's wheat representative, told tho Conference of Producers that it would be a sound policy for Australia to cultivate the largest 6tock of wheat possible, in order to meet tie terrific food shortage after tho war. "Wheat can be saved from weevils," lio said, "if it is stored properly, and will keep indefinitely." Ho guaranteed it would keep at least five years. WHEAT CAN BE SAVED. WEEVIL PROBLEM OVERCOME.

An announcement of vital importance to the wheat-growing industry of Australia was made last week to a representative of the Sydney "L>aily Telegraph'' by Professor H. Maxwell Lefroy, the scientific officer of the British "Wheat Commission, wiio was sent to Australia primarily to deal with the weevil pest infesting the wheat purchased by the British Government. He stated that the problem was now well in hand, and future loss from weevil in the wheat stacked in Australia need not be feared.

The stacks of wheat in the various States, he said, are badly attacked with weevils, and the authorities hero have not been able to grapple with the situation. Certain facts about weevils were not realised in this country. In stacking the 1915-16 and 1916-17 wheat certain mistakes wero made, and the result is the stacks have got into very bad condition. "We have had," he said, "to take hold of the position in taking over the very large quantity of 1916-17 wheat on behalf of the British Wheat Commission. The grain was in such condition owing to weevil that if the shipping had been available tho wheat could not have been shipped. That wheat has got to be kept hero until ships are provided. Sooner or later it will be moved. A considerable quantity of it has to go to America to replace large quantities of wheat and flour obtained by the British Government from America.

"So far as weevil goes," the Professor went on, "I have reached very definite conclusions. In tho first place a system of stacking lias been devised which eliminates weevil as a factor in the future. That means that tho talk about restricting wheat cultivation in favour of stock raising is wrong. It is not necessary to discourage wheat growing if we can keep tho wheat free from infestation. The British Wheat Commission has paid so much per bushel for the wheat, and we know that it will realise much more if we can keep it. It would be a suicidal policy for Australia to restrict wheat cultivation in view of the new situation.

'"Wo have now," Professor Lefroy explained, "a nractical system whereby weevil infestetf wheat can bo put in thoroughly good condition. We havo demonstrated that. Therefore, all further loss from this source will be stopped. Any further deterioration of the grain in this respect is unnecessary. The infested- old wheat will all have to be treated. Onco treated it will bo absolutely free of all insect life. It can then be shipped or stacked indefinitely. The cost of "treatment is eomcthing like -Jd or Id per bushel, which,is infinitesimal. The treated wheat is not liable to reinfestation. Then again, in stacking the wheat under the system wo )7a"ve devised the liability to reinfestation would not occur. I would not have any fear in re-stacking the treated wheat with the new wheat.

"Those facts having been definitely established." added Professor Lefroy, "and tho position being now well in hand, it seems tn mo that tho best policy for Australia is not to restrict wheat and especially in view of the situation in Europe." *