WOOL

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27466, 28 September 1954, Page 3

WOOL

Sir,—I did not know of Mr Lund’s meeting until I read your report, which was interesting mainly because of his omission. This is understandable. Mr Lund has no convincing answer to the recent criticism of the Wool Secretariat. Although Britain is by far the world’s largest buyer of wool and the world’s largest exporter of processed wool, and hence has 'more to gain or lose through the rise or fall of wool prices than any other country, and although there are more sheep in Britain than in New Zealand, and in South Africa, its woolgrowers consistently refuse to join the Wool Secretariat, which comprises only Australia, New Zealand, and South African woolgrowers. Can Mr Lund explain away this defection? The headquarters of the secretariat are in London, where it employs a staff of 80, hence lack of contacts with leaders of the wool industry are not responsible for Britain’s deliberate aloofness.—Yours, etc..

PRIMARY PRODUCER. September 20, 1954. [lt is not a fact that there are more sheep in Britain than in either New Zealand or South Africa. The number of sheep in Britain is. little more than half the number in either country.—Ed., “The Press”!

Sir, —All will agree with the opinion recently expressed in Parliament by Mr Gillespie that production could be increased enormously by developing third-class land. My experience is a five-fold increase from one-half to two and a half ewes an acre. The cost, however, is substantial, and finance is the deciding factor. With great foresight and capacity, British industry is fighting its battle for the world’s export markets. An abundance of raw materials is of paramount importance to Britain; hence the necessity for an immediate major increase in the size of flocks. The carrying capacity of 2,000,000 acres of third-class land could be increased from 1,000,000 to 5,000,000 ewes by lending the £27,500,000 wool pool funds. The additional 4,000,000 ewes, for wool and lambs, would produce an extra £16,000,000 a year. The £40,000 a year Wool Commission should be abolished and the wool pool funds diverted for this commonsense project,— Yours, etc., WOOLGROWER. September 27, 1954.