THE WHEAT-GROWING INDUSTRY.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19202, 7 January 1928, Page 13

THE WHEAT-GROWING INDUSTRY.

TO inS EDITOR Of TUX PRISS. Sir,—l suppose. I should thank you* for your qualified approval of my lettcr on the above subject expressed it! your leaderette in yesterday's issue,:; oven though tho latter purt of your!' reference, quite misrepresents me i«* suggesting that I wanted tho Canter- • .bury whent-growors to abandon thofr industry, whereas 1 merely wished to emphasise that it would be wiser in. my judgment to adopt a system 06 mixed farming—a term 1 prefer because in more general use in that coiw nexion than the grandiloquent one—■ diversified husbandry—you adopt to describe my proposals. I am 6uro it would not interest your readers were I to attempt to traverse your arguments regarding uiy reasons-for draw* ing attention to this question, and, mindful of your dexterity in manoeuvring and side-tracking on argil* inent, and tho fact that you must al* ways be able to give the knock-out. blow in the last word, I will nob! trouble you or them except to 6ay that* , your criticism of statements in my letter read strange in connexion with) your leader" so recently as the 3rd inst., wherein you state the "New, Zealand product lias fallen behind in! the world s race for progress." Again, "Now Zealand wheat and Hour are noil so good as Australian or Canadian," 1 etc. For this reason you advocat* research; that, of course, is all right* but is the farmer well advised, without any oilier string to his bow, to keep on in the meantime, while this re* search is going on, relying entirely ont wheat-growing of suoh ,an inferior quality as you proclaim it to be, which* moreover, requires imported • flour (off wheat) for admixture to make it fit fofl baking as bread and subject to taxation. The process of research may! take years (uti Lincoln College it took! many to produce a.new wheat anot then only.as regard*} quantity.of yields I believe)) so we may well v ßee£ 0101*1* derelict farms. ■>. But your argument*.; seem to me bo childish against mjtf simple contention, that .ft system off" mixed farming would be. a safer policy; that may well leave them tbthe judg-*' ment and interpretation. l of'those, If any, sufficiently interested to read myj original letter side by" side with theraw I pass over s'our reference to the "gardener's herbaceous border 1 ? as it it is merely meant to throw contempt* on -my proposal and the points raised! in my . letter, merely saying it JnighM more appropriately,, and v with more; . consideration for the dSgnity of yourl . leaderette, have been reserved • fdr} .. ObiterXDicta, by K. . But if you awT , , sincere: in stating-ithat the political as* pect: of the" question df-.the duty; onl ;-;j flour-is one; purely between the man onj \| Lambtoii quay or Queen- street, itntf x ,% will have" noiitifiuehce.en our polite. N i| clans', to, be dismissed,'in 'your eiegauV . ||| phraseology,- as wish to say- that I;,think you;have> ig again misread ' the : public feeling Mid! protests recorded- .lit* the North Island . :.$ against any increase by : artificial means!; S taxation). in the price of [wheat off: lour which/would raise tho price oS * bread, for; despite your assertion a# ;;; to the unimportance of bread as i ant ( 1 article Of diet "in a society like this* ,|| whatever it may have been in phMrarj al Britain," it;will\still remain' here an -| there the staffvif life.-" v* In conclusion, Sir, may I ask yoK ; | for the enlightenment ; Of the farmer* . I for whose welfare you are,so solicltou* ; | to draw attention to a cartoon ■* ia ;'« "Punch" of, June 29th last wher>-al.- -\.-Jj disheartened! John. »Bull. is depiotedh (| leaning on ft fence contemplating hi« »| derelict farm and machinery (it mayf ?§ well' be thevAmerican tractor so dealt? .;J to our farmers to-day) and soliloquis** M ing thus: "Wheat gone and tneatt A,;s going. And. to think they used to call me Farmer etc., :| .--. BDW, O. LEVINGB, | Jonuovy 6th;1928. : - || [Our correspondent has completely mi»% .yg| road our' articled approve*, ' |j| of his; recommendation of more 1 ' -.'M rriixed farming. -As for his sug* -II

gestion that "quite misrepre* . <a sented" him, no question of toil* representation could possibly arise* ~ because his letter was there foif ' < reference.—Ed. The. Press.] t