Wheat Storage Remit Fails

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31498, 12 October 1967, Page 5

Wheat Storage Remit Fails

A remit asking that the Wheat Board be requested to provide storage for bulk wheat at railhead or other suitable points - was heavily defeated when it came before the agriculture section executive of North Canterbury Federated Farmers yesterday.

The remit was put forward by the Fernside branch, and was presented by Mr C. R. Bayley, who later said that he personally did not favour it.

Mr J. McCaskey said that the capital cost of such a scheme would be very high, and would include the cost of such things as weigh-bridges. The costs would eventually have to be met by the wheatgrower. ' The storage could be done more cheaply on the farm.

In Australia, where the bulk storage system was used, the farmers paid for the silos, Mr

G. A. "Nutt said. There was a State Grain Elevators Board which erected and maintained the silos.

The system was not as simple or as' cheap as it seemed. In some states the farmers paid a levy to put up the silos, and in addition to the capital cost the users of the silos were charged for each bushel they stored. The charges varied from 5c to 7c a bushel.

In the end it was the grower who paid. After seeing the set-up in Australia he agreed with the views expressed by Mr McCaskey, Mr Nutt said. Mr R. G. Rainey said a disadvantage would be that with New Zealand’s comparatively small growers, many different lines of wheat would be stored together. Mr T. E. Streeter said, holdups in delivery to the bulk store would be a problem, for trucks from the various farms would be queued up at the silos waiting to unload their wheat

There were only two places to store wheat on the farm or at the mill, said Mr G. E. Rennie. Any method which required storage between these two points would add to costs.

A remit from the Sefton and districts branch, that farmers be given the opportunity of buying untreated mother seed wheat, was also heavily defeated. The chairman (Mr A. L. Mulholland) said farmers could already specify untreated seed, but tile remit would merely be running away from the problem of over-treated seed. If a wet type of treatment was used for the seed he did not think there would be any problem, Mr Mulholland said. Mr W. N. Dunlop said the executive should investigate the cost of using a safer method of treatment for valuable seed. Mr G. E. Rennie successfully moved that grain merchants and the Department of Agriculture be approached so that remedies could be in-' vestigated.

USB the Advertisements In “The Press” to plan your buy ing. They will save you many hours of Shopping Time.