DAIRYING COSTS

Press, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22197, 14 September 1937, Page 10

DAIRYING COSTS

+ FARMERS' UNION REPLY TO MINISTER BUTTER-FAT PRODUCTION FIGURES (PBESS ASSOCIATIOK TEIia&AM.! WELLINGTON, September 13. Referring to-day to the difference <* opinion with the Minister for Madding (the Hon. Walter Nash) about tfe« cost of production of butter-fat, Mr A. P. O'Shea, Dominion secretary of the New Zealand Farmers' Union, stated that the Farmers' Union had made no claim in its statement presented to the Guaranteed Price Committee to put forward any estimate of the cost of production of butter-fat. . The position was that the union ha* tried to put forward estimates of the tocreascsof dairy farm costsc*lapw lb of butter-fat basis from Octetej. 1936, to June 1. 1937 The uni«faaft taken the latest authoritative figures available, the figures of the cooawsion of 1934, and had worked «>*ar costs as a base, uni had expressly stated that it had taken the North Island average costs: as shown by the Dairy, Commission report, and consequently the inerefflH were probably more than those staWJ. To use the words of the stateness, "The procedure which has been, followed has been to take the North Island costs shown in the Dairy Coo. mission report, and to add to those toe percentage increase which we tare been able to ascertain (from compafi- , sons of the price lists and from per-; sonal knowledge"* has taken place m" . the last year. This would appear to- | be a practical method for comwarMMfc | but as prices had risen from ISH » October, 1936, the calculation must be conservative." . «_»- "It will be seen from this quotaufl* that there was no intention of considering that the 1934 costs were idea* tical with the costs of 1936, when the report was put forward, said KT O'Shea. "Mr Nash endeavoured to convey to the deputation that the amplication of our statement was «*»•* Dairy Commission report on COW (4.093 d per lb of butter-fat> sacnM have added to them -55d\ which «s our estimate of the increase m farm costs, and that the resulting ngw; would be our estimate of the yiasg** costs of production. It should begone plain that if a cost of production,fig** is to be arrived at the 1934 fiffßg should be brought into line with tae 1936 prees, and an increase of .» then added. It will also be seen tteft, had the Dairy Commission _***»* figures been brought into line witfc w» 1936 prices, the increase would torn been greater." _„,_, It should be quite clear, there«P» that there was no question of the *■** mers' Union putting forward any,, figure for the cost per lb of P"*g* tion of butter-fat. and further thatM figure of 4.64 d referred to by MrJWjgghad no place in the Farmers* "»« statement, Mr O'Shea concluded. __