WHEAT PRICES

Press, Volume LXXXIII, Issue 25090, 23 January 1947, Page 5

WHEAT PRICES

Sir,—Most farmers; twin xaxuiers win appreciafp your leading article upon the above question, and heartily agree with sentiments. I have recently received a t a u r ° m a farmer Jiving in Cam bridgeshire, in which he ftates thSt to induce the farmers of Great Britain the Government has ii is os or £1 a bushel but thp cost " f a gr s O man g nr Supposing there has to ell a u ? s 8d ne ‘- but unlit Tf Mr 5, 3 ?! bUSflelS Per aCre to 801 he IVan , Were a businessman wanTS ? w now that if wheat were have . r « be grown here he would •*u ffe £ a prlce that would compete with other farm produce. Surely wncat is of far more importance jus* now than small seeds? Hoping the Minister of Industries will read, mark, learn and inwardly digest your views on this vexed qestion and act upon them.—Yours, etc.. T „ G.H.J. January 21, 1947. Si J*k“ Y °ur leading article of January 20 seems to me to do nothing more nor less than to lead the farmer astray Everybody knows that there is a limit to the area of wheat that can be grown in New Zealand; and no amount of the taxpayers’ money will increase that area. Why, therefore, tax us all and spoonfeed those wheatgrowers who must grow wheat whatever the price may be. because that is the only satistory cash crop they can take out of the ground when renewing old pastures. The less wheat we grow in New Zealand. the less we are required to pay to meet the wheatgrowers’ bluff.— Yours, etc., T „ MAIRZY DOATS. 22, 1947 , Sir,—ln your leading article of Monday you overlook the fact that all published reports by competent authorities. including farmers and agricultural field officers, blamed the wet weather in May and September for the small wheat acreage. In the article referred to you do not allude to this, but try to show that it is price alone which has been responsible for the .adverse result. You thus render a great disservice to farmers, because the wheatgrowers have already accepted the price offered by the Government for the two seasons 1946-47 and 1947-48, viz., 7s Id, plus any increased proven costs, as quite a satisfactory one. This offer was made by the Government and accepted by the wheatgrowers on July 15. 1946 and if Pf lc e was the main consideration, that should have given the necessary impetus to increase the acreage to the target as then nominated, viz. 300,000 acres.—Yours, etc. , LE TEMPS. January 22. 1947. [The article did not say that the price was the only or main reason for the small acreage in wheat. It was merely discussing one aspect of the question.—Ed., “The Press.”]