LACK OF MARKET FOR OATS

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23858, 29 January 1943, Page 6

LACK OF MARKET FOR OATS

♦ APPEAL BY CANTERBURY COUNCILS DENIED FIELDS SUPERINTENDENT’S STATEMENT d A denial that Canterbury producr. tion councils had asked for an me creased production of Garton oats was e made by Mr R. P. Connell, - fields superintendent of the Departy ment of Agriculture, Christchurch, in 2, commenting on the statement on oats n marketing by Mr A. H. Spratt, presiP dent of the North Canterbury Gram 0 Merchants’ Association. Mr Connell ■- also suggested other factors for the y present market position. Mr Spratt’s statement, said Mr ConY nell, had left the impression that ini' creased production was an item in d the 1942-43 cropping programme of “ Canterbury production councils, Acts ually, he said, they did not appeal to farmers to produce increased supplies r of Garton or milling oats. After cone sultation with the National Council 8 of Primary Production, the Hon. J. s G Barclay, in a statement in March, ' said: “Last year (1940-41) 306,944 acres Y were grown, of which 71,758 acres r - were for threshing. The estimate of _ total sowings this season (1941-42) was „ 275,000 acres. It is advisable that Z plantings in the coming year should j be maintained at least at the level of j this year.” Such advice had been, and still was, } sound, in spite of any interim developments, said Mr Connell. The great bulk of the oats crop was grown for feeding livestock during periods of scarcity, and oats kept in reserve r for such a purpose did not need to be . wasted while the Canterbury live--1 stock population continued at the s present level. Canterbury, incidentally, was the outstanding oats-growing pro--1 vince, normally providing more than e half the total Dominion acreage. “Committee Appointed” 1 To discharge its function of promoting in its own district the suitable s application of the national programme, 2 the North Canterbury Primary Pro- ? duction Council appointed a special * committee to formulate an oats-grow--2 ing programme and bring it under 1 the notice of farmers, said Mr Con--2 nell. As a result of the deliberations of the committee, of which Mr Spratt 2 was a member, no appeal to grow } Garton or any other oats was made ; by the council. In coming to this ’ decision, the committee had before : it facts and figures demonstrating f that the question of adjusting the oats-growing programme to the milling requirements was beset with complications and uncertainty. There was no direct relationship between the acreage grown and the acreage threshed, nor between the acreage threshed and the quantity suitable or available for milling. The committee considered that it could not promulgate a definite programme for North Canterbury except at risk of contributing to a position such as had now developed, and it preferred not to take such a risk. “It seems from Mr Spratt’s remarks t that some merchants did not realise r the risk or were prepared to take it,” - said Mr Connell. “On the other hand, , certain leading Christchurch grain - merchants state that they refrained - from urging or advising farmers to r grow oats unless they were prepared r if necessary to hold the crop as a reserve. s Yield and Season Y “It may be said safely that the pres- ‘ enf condition of the market for Garr toil oats is due in part to factors not mentioned in Mr Spratt’s statement,” ’ he said. “The mild winter resulted ? in the area of oats utilised completely 1 for feeding-off being less extensive than in a harder winter. The favourf able season has given yields greater i than could safely be expected, and the _ returns that seemed in prospect probably brought about sowings additional ' to what would have been made had j prospective' returns been less attrac--9 tive.” ’ A common policy had been adopted j by the three Canterbury councils, Mr j Connell said, for beyond giving some „ publicity to the Minister’s statement j councils with jurisdiction in South s Canterbury and Mid-Canterbury had , not directed attention to oats-growing p in their efforts to ensure that their f districts played a proper part in the national farm production programme. 9 Oats-growing had not been viewed as s lacking importance. The view had » been, however, that a special effort f might lead to market complications I and that supply requirements normi ally could be met without any special effort by the councils. Canterbury pror duction councils were therefore not t in the invidious position attributed to b them. s “FARMER ENTITLED 5 TO COMPLAIN” ] MR SPRATT’S REPLY That his statement on Tuesday on i the oats marketing position had been i endorsed by a number of farmers, 3 millers, and grain merchants was 3 reported by Mr A. H. Spratt, president > of the North Canterbury Grain Meri chants’ Association, when the comment of Mr R. P. Connell, fields superinten- - dent of the Department of Agriculture, [ was referred to him. , "The Minister, who was Minister of , Primary Production and Agriculture, , laid out a cropping programme for the j 1942-43 season, and in this programme ! was a request for 275.000 acres of oats,” said Mr Spratt. “It’s admitted that this [ cropping programme was made by the [ Minister after consultation with the , National Council of Primary Produc- ; tion. This agricultural programme was i published throughout the press, sent to . the various primary production coun- • cils, and from the primary production i councils to the district committees. “As far as the special committee to which Mr Connell refers is concerned, no formal meeting of the committee took place. I agreed that because of my : knowledge of the amount of seed which had gone out already in direct response to the Minister’s programme there was no need for us to make any special appeal to famers. However, there is no doubt that farmers all knew that a fairly large area of Garton oats was required for making oatmeal and they responded to this requirement. “The position to-day is that while some farmers in our district are lucky enough to have contracts with millers at 3s 6d the bulk of the farmers have no such contracts, are now threshing oats, and are faced with the fact that millers are not purchasing and that the oats are therefore unsaleable. This, I still maintain, places the merchants and others in an invidious position I think the farmer is entitled to complain when a request comes from the Minister in charge of Primary Production and when the farmer honours it and then finds that he cannot sell his goods. Since my statement was published, incidentally, a number of farmers, millers, and grain merchants have telephoned me endorsing my remarks. “However, I would like to say in conelusion that I am not £oing to enter into a newspaper controversy over the matter.”