MARKETING OF HIDES

Press, Volume LXXVI, Issue 22941, 10 February 1940, Page 10

MARKETING OF HIDES

FARMERS’ UNION PROTEST

LETTER TO MINISTER

An emphatic protest against the proposed Government scheme of control of hides is contained in a letter which has been sent to the Minister for Marketing, the Hon. W. Nash, by the Dominion president of the Farmers’ Union, Mr W. W. Mulholland. Mr Mulholland states that the scheme is contrary to the Minister’s undertaking not to extend Government control, and that it proposes an unfair distribution of the costs among farmers. “On behalf of the New Zealand Farmers’ Union I desire to repeat my strong objection to the principle involved in the proposed scheme of marketing hides, that is to say, that the farmers should be required to subsidise other industries by supplying them With their requirements at lower than a parity market value,” the letter states. “I desire to protest to you most emphatically against the unfairness of compelling farmers to bear the whole burden qf this subsidy, and I would point out to you that the bui'den is not even equally distributed over the farmers themselves as the proportion of the value of stock represented by the hide varies with different classes of stock and may generally be said to be much higher in regard to the stock a dairy farmer has to sell than that which the producer of beef cattle has to sell. Consequently this method of subsidy becomes proportionately a more severe impost upon the dairyfarmer than upon the regular beef producer. “I would further bring to your notice that one of the most urgent problems with which the Government is confronted in New Zealand is that of making available to the farmer a sufficient return for his produce to enable him to pay competitive rates of wages with other industries which is, as you know, at the root of the farm labour problem. This scheme is actually intended to reduc s the farmers’ returns. “I wish to object to the proposal to establish a Government marketing organisation for marketing hides as being a violation of your definite promise that the Government would not control commodities which were not purchased by the United Kingdom Government. It is a further violation of your definite statement to a deputation from the Dominion executive of the Farmers’ Union on November 2, 1939, when you stated that the war would not be used as an excuse for the extension of Government control of the marketing of primary products. “I hope that the proposal will be very carefully reconsidered before you place me in the position of haying to regard, the-promises of a Cabinet Minister as being unsubstantial. “In a telegram you have raised the point of securing the supply of raw materials for local tanners. It _is easily possible without any extensive marketing scheme to secure the full requirements of the tanners, and representatives of the Farmers’ Union have offered, with my cognisance, to place the tanners in a better position than they were in normal times. That is to say to give them the first refusal" of all hides with the opportunity of picking those that they desire to take. This was a very generous offer as you must realise and would meansome sacrifice to those whom I represent. “Further, if you are determined that the farmer must supply local requirements at below their true value, it is easily possible to do this without any extensive control by simply imposing a levy on hides by which, the tanners could be reimbursed the amount which their hides might cost them over and above the price at which it was determined that they should ba supplied. This would make entirely unnecessary the expensive and complicated organisation which it has been suggested that you should set up; would enab.e the ordinary marketing channels to be used without any interruption or dislocation, and particularly to maintain the channels of trade with other countries which ♦it •is so essential should be maintained intact for happier days when the war is over. “I would remind you again of your definite promise that the existing channels of distribution with regard to primary products be maintained in order that they might be in a position to function when control is abandoned at the conclusion of the war, and would point out to you that the-operation of the suggested scheme would inevitably destroy - most of those channels of trade and would violate still another of your undertakings. "I hope that before a final decision is arrived at you will give the fullest consideration to the points raised and to others that have been put before you by our representatives from time to time. I can assure you that in the attitude which I am presenting to you I have the very strong support of my organisation.”

TOPDRESSING PROGRAMME

NEED FOR EARLY ATTENTION INCREASED USE OF LIME IN CANTERBURY Many farmers are already casting their thoughts towards this season’s liming and top-dressing programme, and in this connexion it is interesting to recall that it is only of comparatively recent times that the average farmer in Canterbury commenced to take an interest in the possibilities of either liming or top-dressing with superphosphate. The practice was thought to be quite soupd in Southland and hr parts of the North Island, but quite out of the question in Canterbury owing to the low rainfall. The strong advocacy of recent years by the Department of Agriculture at Christchurch of the value of lime and super and the publicity through the columns of this paper led one farmer after another to give the new practice a trial until there is now a widespread appreciation of the value of both. That the use of lime in the province has increased from practically nothing ir 1928 to about 70,000 tons last year, and super in proportion, shows clearly that farmers are getting results, otherwise they would not continue the practice. Discussing the position yesterday, Mr R. McGillivray, Fields Superintendent at Christchurch, said that practically all sorts of land in Canterbury were deficient in lime. . When he took up the question of the use of lime in 1928 he was not groping in the dark, as all the soil samples taken nine years earlier, on being test i showed a very substantial lime requirement ranging from about two tons up to six tons an acre, but for the first year or two the majority of farmers were fs from being convinced that their soils wanted lime. • Mr McGillivray mentioned the case of a farmer who was quite opposed

to the suggestion that his farm was badly in need of lime, but was eventually induced to try one truck on eight acres of a 30-acre paddock going down in pasture. The result was so outstanding that three years later that farmer used 250 tons of lime in one season, and was to-day liming and top-dreSsing with super, with most beneficial results. Mr McGillivray said, that lime and super had turned store lamb farms into farms producing fat lambs off their mothers, and in addition clovers were now flourishing and soil fertility was being built up. .. Mr McGillivray said that he had this season investigated the production of agricultural lime in Canterbury, and as far as he could see the various companies would be able to meet all orders as they had now made arrangements for greatly increased outputs. He advocated an initial ; dressing of one ton an acre, followed by dressings of from 3 to scwt an acre when applying fertilisers in future years. The super dressing should be 2cwt an acre, and the sooner farmers as a whole got into the habit of. liming and top-dressing the better it would be for everyone. “Increased production from the land is wanted, and there is no surer way of bringing this about than by the increased use of lime and fertilisers.” said Mr McGillivray. “Farmers should get their orders in -nd the work of top-dressing completed as far as possible before winter sets in.” i