FERTILISER RATIONING

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23943, 10 May 1943, Page 6

FERTILISER RATIONING

COMPLAINTS FAIRLY FEW SMALL TOP-DRESSING ALLOCATIONS Complaints about the degree of rationing of fertiliser for top-dressing have been comparatively few, according to reports obtained recently, and though allocations have been small they appear to have been generally accepted as the best that can be offered from the available supply. A brief statement on the position has been made by the field superintendent of the Department of Agricul-. ture (Mr R. P. Connell), who was told of a recent complaint by a fanner who was able to obtain only 16 hundredweight of fertiliser for more than 700 acres which he wished to top-dress. Mr Connell said that it was recognised that the system of rationing was not ideal, but it was considered the best practicable to operate in all the circumstances. The system at the outset had been approved by the National Council of Primary Production, which had consulted district councils. Recently, before the reviewing of the regulations, the National Council had again consulted district councils, and the North Canterbury council had advised that no material changes were desired in the system, which was looked upon as providing the best means of dealing with a difficult situation. The rationing covered two phases, he said. In the case of the allowance an acre for arable crops, this was broadly in accord with standard practice in Canterbury farming, and there had been virtually no criticism of this phase of rationing in Canterbury. Grassland top-dressing allocations were based on previous usage. In a general way the allocation to a farmer was based on the quantity for topdressing used in tne basic period ending May 31, 1941. If that period was not indicative of a farmer’s regular top-dressing practice, he could use the period of two years ending May 31. 1939, but had to supply documentary evidence, such as invoices or receipts, in support of his contention that the first-named period was not indicative. The current regulations, said Mr Connell, also provided for appeals by farmers whose allocations were unduly small because of their misunderstanding or because of their inability to secure a just allocation. The latter could arise from a change of ownership. A considerable effort, he said, had been made to bring about an equitable distribution of the relatively scant supply of fertiliser available. The present basis provided an allocation amountme to 28 per cent, of the average annual usage in the two basic years. Admittedly this was smaller than was desirable. but was the best which could be made from the available supply. Mr J. P. Noonan, president of the North Canterbury branch of the New Zealand Fertiliser Merchant Distributors’ Association, who was also approached, said that provision had been made for hardship cases to be dealt with by committees whose job it was to see whether relief could be given in genuine cases. If a farmer with a complaint—such as the one mentioned, for instance—approached the association. he would receive all the help possible . in the present circumstances.