Wool Improvement

Dominion, Volume 26, Issue 250, 18 July 1933, Page 11

Wool Improvement

Sir,—ln your issue of July 12. and in connection with the wool improvement movement, it is said: “With a view to clearing up some misconceptions the Provisional Committee has issued a ■ statement.” In this statement occur these words: “The committee is firmly of opinion that the principle of certification is sound.” With this, many will agree, but the committee then goes on to nullify this declaration, that is, nullify its usefulness by saying: “Certification would only lie concerned with glaring faults.” Now, if certification is concerned only with glaring faults, it is obviously useless, or practically so, for one must concede to the buyers of rams their ability, to see “glaring” faults for themselves. This halfhearted interference might prove worse than useless, for if registration is concerned only with glaring faults, it passes over, or condones what might be serious but less conspicuous ones. The vendor baa a right to keep silence at the sale of nis sheep. Can the same be said of a body whose professed object is to improve the country’s wool, and who, moreover, would be accepting the purchasers’ money, i.e„ the proposed “levy”? I hope the Provisional Committee will reconsider their statement.

Again, as regards sales of wool and Mr. Bagley's scheme, wherein he emphatically advocates that what he calls a “national standard of classing” should be enforced to the smaller clips. What does Mr. Bagley mean by a “national standard?” Is not Mr. Bagley aware that there are often numerous classes of wool in the one fleece of, say, three or four different “counts.” Are, therefore, the fleeces to be pulled apart? If so, it would mean penalising: the small farmer by enforcing the classing of his wool by incompetent, hands compared, to .those at Bradford, where for generations men have been trained to this job. Probably Mr. Bagley would say be does not advocate dividing fleeces, but without this it is-impossible in the case of many small clips to avoid the packing of wool of various counts in the one bale. The only thing which'could justify a national standard of classing, in the writer's opinion, would be a general demand either jointly or separately by the buyers and brokers that it should be done, accompanied with proof that it would be for the country’s good. • Lastly; to improve the “presentation” of New Zealand wool, Which is one of Mr. Bagley’s objects, is going very near what might be called by overseas buyers false packing. Our wool firms already possess admirable means for “presentation.” If anything more is required by buyers, why not leave it in the capable hands of our broker firms?—l am, etc., SCRUB COUNTRY. Eketahuna, July' 13.