Wheatgrowers’ Case

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 98, 19 January 1933, Page 9

Wheatgrowers’ Case

Sir,—l have been reading your very interesting remarks anent the dire effects on industry and even morality by the operations of the pool, and as 1 am only a mere wheat-farmer, one ot the unfortunates who has dared to try and keep his brethren supplied with bread during the past twenty years, I think it is tanto ask you for a little space to put the farmer’s case. I may mention that I took my present farm in 1912, and have been growing wheat ever since. During the war at Air. Alassey’s urgent solicitation 1 put jn double the quantity of wheat, and lost a good half of my crop by one disastrous nor’-wester which raged for four daj*at the verv worst time for me. For the past two seasons I have not had enough wheat to pay expenses. Two years ago it blew a north-west gale for three weeks from New Year onward. I had a promise of a 30-bushel crop, but the incessant wind reduced this to 18 bushels, noi enough to pay for breaking up the land. Last year I had 40 acres in wheat, and owing to the drought harvested 16 bushels to the acre. This year, because at last in Canterbury we have a fair prospect, we get nothing but envy and hatred from our neighbours. If the South Island had not provided the wheat for you people in the North during the war, where would you have been if the Emden had cut off Anstrahar supplies. Fair play is bonny. Jry anr. put. yourself in my shoes. 1 have the first decent crop now for the past tbi-ea harvests. I am going to get; the muuificient sum of 3/- a bushel on trucks for it, aud even this you grudge me. Tn the name of British fair play, what do you want?—l am, etc., A.D.T. Christchurch, January 15. [lf wheatgrowing is such an unprofitable business, does not that remove the last shred of justification for propping up an uneconomic industry nt the expense of the whole country?!