The Wheat Protection

Dominion, Volume 28, Issue 168, 12 April 1935, Page 13

The Wheat Protection

Sir, —A poultryman from Masterton and another from Levin write in your issues of April 6 and 8 complaining that fowl wheat is too dear. This year, on account of a dry harvest, nearly all wheat is milling quality, hence the dilßeulty with fowl wheats. But do those who decry the protection given to the wheat industry really consider what would happen if that protection was withdrawn? One can only speak with certainty of our own concerns, but personally, if the protective duties were withdrawn I should, at once, sow down the land now used .for wheat and start a dairy farm. If half the wheat-growers did the same —130,000 acres would be devoted to dairying—say, 70,000 additional cows wouid be required. The extra butterfat from these cows —round about 14,000,0001 b—- . have to be marketed in England and "might well decrease the price of the whole of the exported butter by at least Id. per lb. If the wheat-growers decided to sow down the land for sheep-grazing, the area usually used for wheat would keep at least three ewes to the acre, and so almost three-quarters of a million more lambs would be produced. I think the Meat Board would admit that that quantity of lamb could not be thrown on the London market without very seriously affecting the price of all the 10,000.000 carcases now produced. There is no doubt that wheat employs more labour than any other class _ of farming. The sowing, cutting, stocking, threshing and carting of wheat costs somewhere about £2 per acre in wages alone. So there would be £500,000 less wages paid out. and the unemployed would be increased. In addition, somewhere about 11 millions of money would go out of New Zealand every year to buy the necessary wheat or flour. Adding all these items together. 1 am sure it pays New Zealand to produce its own wheat, but there is not the least hope of our doing so. unless the protective duties remain on, as better returns could be obtained from the land, without nearly so much trouble, from either sheep or cows. —I am. etc., G. L. MARSHALL. Marton. April 9. Sir, —"Poultryman” apparently is unaware that the price of Australian wheat at Masterton cannot be Compared with the price of New Zealand wheat at Wellington. and in order to obtain a proper comparison it is necessary that the price of both wheats nt the same point should be given. All “Poultryman’s” remarks regarding the cost of delivery apply just ns much to Australian wheat as to New Zealand. I am rather interested to learn that “Poultryman” pays (>/- to 6/0 per bushel for his wheat in Masterton. If he is really a poultryman who is interested in having wheat 'in more than paper bag lots (.say. IO to 20 sacks at a time), why does he not purchase his wheat in the South Island, where it can be bought for 4/3 to 4/4 f.0.b.. Lyttelton? The cost of delivering the wheat from Lyttelton to .Masterton is as follows : — Pence per bushel. Freight. 17/6 ton <>.62(1. Insurance Oud. Exchange on Cheque 06(1. Wharfage, 2/3 ton (direct ship to rail) "-<]• Railage Wellington-Masterton . . 4.00 d. 10.45 d. Hence, if "Poultryman" buys in the right quarter, his wheat should not cost him more than 5/4 per bushel delivered to Mastertoil. In calculating above. I have left out the cost of the bags, as these are saleable after emptying.—l am. etc., N. GILLESPIE. Christchurch, April 10.