WHEAT-GROWING

Evening Post, Volume CIII, Issue 55, 7 March 1922, Page 4

WHEAT-GROWING

FARMERS WANT,GUARANTEES

THE EXPORTABLE SURPLUS

In order to stimulate wheat-growing in New Zealand, the Government has not only accorded farmers substantial protection through the Customs duties, but has guaranteed for this (1921-22) harvest prices ranging from 5s 6d to 6s 3d per bushel, according to variety, and increments of jjd per bushel monthly from May to October inclusive, rising to Ss 10£ d, 6s l|d)- and 6s 7£d on the three varieties purchased. With this encouragement and favourable weather, the harvest this year has been of spch dimensions as to provide .for meeting New Zealand's own needs and allowing a surplus for export of from 1,500,000 to 3,000,000 bushels, according to various estimates. The average yields in the South Island l'ange from 27.89 bushels to 39.67 bushels per acre. ) The Dominion average is 29.32. The Government Statistician estimates a ■ total yield of 10,500,000 bushels against an actual yield last harvest of 6,872,262 bushels. Now fanners want the Government guarantee continued, the assumption being that if it is not they will not grow wheat, at any rate not in quantities to fully meet local requirements and producing for. export as" well. The matter was recently discussed at the North Canterbury Farmers' Union Executive. Fears had been expressed that millers might not buy freely; and if they did not, then the Government should do what was done last year : take over the wheat, paying for it as soon as delivered ,into approved store. \■ * WHERE IS THE MONEY TO COME, FROM? To this request the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Nosworthy) replied (in a letter published by the Farmers' Union Advocate) :—"The present intention is to proceed with the export of some of the crop, and as the best of the wheat will be required for this purpose, this step should stimulate millers in their buying. Should, however, there be no export, and should millers stop buying .after, securing sufficient wheat for the first few months' gristing, I will give earnest consideration to the. matter of taking wheat from growers." . r The Minister added, however :—" I cannot see where the money Jb coming from to put such a scheme into operation. I estimate that the amount'required would be .in the vicinity of £500,000, otit of which money the bovernment might have to,lie from three to four months."

Mr. G. W. Leadley said that, without a Government guarantee,, there would not be a great amount of wheat sown next year. In his own district, he said, there was a strong feeling that there should be a gnaranteed price. Mr. W. T. Lill said that the general opinion in his county was that there should be a guarantee equal to that of last year. Mr. D. Jones, M.P., said there was an opinion in some quarters that next year's wheat-growing was going to prove unprofitable, but, personally, "he did not think soY ,He referred to the increased duty on imported wheat of 2s per 1001b. That could remain only if farmers made an honest attempt to grow sufficient for New Zealand's needs. If they did not do so, they could not object when the peo; pie objected to paying higher prices for imported wheat. .■...."" BENEFITS OF A BIG CROP. Mr. Jones was satisfied that the last two years' crops had helped a good many growers through. In New Zealand there was a wide ace.a that would grow good wheat i£ it. were well farmed, and they should aim at securing the best results, and growing as much as possible. With the increased duty and with additional freights on wheat coming to New Zealand, if there were a short crop, there were good prospects for the New Zealand grower; the crop was as assured as anything they could grow. Nothing was so important to New Zealand as to_ grow, a big wheat crop, from the point of view of labour, the railways, and everything else. All other industries would prosper with it, and it was much to New Zealand's advantage to grow a big crop. Mr. Jones added that he was touching on prospects, not on the guarantee question. Mr. Leadley said that the duty was really no protection—it would be taken off by the Minister of Customs "at his own sweet will." Personally, he had every confidence in the future of the wheat industry. /At present they were faced in New Zealand with the fact that the producer must have some assured sources of income. A certain amount of wheat could be grown, no matter what the conditions were; but where they could grow enough for their own country they should not send their money into other countries to obtain wheat. He was not asking for an exorbitant price to be guaranteed, but just for a fair commensurate return for the producers' labour and the use of his land. GUARANTEES FOR ALL PRODUCE?

Mr. Banks: From your arguments, does it not follow that there should be a guarantee for our butter, our meat, our wool, and everything else we produce? Mr. Leadley: Perhaps it looks that way, but we are not asking for that. It was ; resolved that a circular letter should be sent to all branches of the Fanners' Union asking them to take a vote of members on -the question of whether the Government ,• should be asked to fix a guaranteed minimum price for wheat grown in the ensuing season. A MERCHANT'S VIEW. The wheat-farmers' view in the guarantee by the Government of price* before production is expressed in the above (remarks made at the North Canterbury meeting. They are not quite in accord with those of a grain merchant of long and wide experience in the trade. Speaking as both merchant and consumer, *he informed The Post in an interview that whatever may be said for the Government in times of stress guaranteeing wheat-growers fixed prices before the seed was down, did not hold good now. " Surely,"- he went on, " the wheat-farmers are , highly privi-' leged. They have protection enough in a duty of 2a per cental or 100 pounds of, wheat (601b going to the bushel), and £2 10s pe,r ton on flour. What more can they expect? If they cannot grow wheat with such a bonus, then they should put their lands to other use—dairying and stock raising." , • . . It was pointed out-thaj> some of the land might be suitable only for wheatgrowing. "That is admitted; but it does not amount to mnch. Besides, when farmers found that they could make more Ijy "putting their land to other uses, they went into, dairying and sheep-raising quick and lively. This guarantee is a konud to wheat farmers by the Government, at tinl expense, of the general taxlpiiyers. It is nothing else." "• The Government may sell the surplus at a profit," was suggested. "It may make a very good bargain." •In the present state of the market the Government cannot but nuikfe a loss oil the wheat it will export, and which it has guaranteed farmers up to 6s 3d per bushel up to April next, and a premium for every month thereafter. Who

can say what the market will be two months hence ? WHY NOT GENERAL GUARANTEES? " The market will have to go much higher than at present if the Government is to escape a heavy loss —payablo out of tho Consolidated .Fund—on its guarantee to wheat farmers. Again, if wheat farmers are to be guaranteed prices year after y,ear, why not stock farmers., dairy farmers, and wool-grow-ers? Having had guaranteed prices, of course, wheat farmers will want them again. They are all right; they are on velvettV Other producers have, in my opinion, an equal right for guarantees from the Government to produce at specified prices. It is too good a thing for them not to ask for. There have been recent cablegrams to the effect that a great American - CanadianAustralian wheat corner is in process of formation. Ido not know ,how much of fact underlies these reports. It would, however:, be regrettable, on moral grounds; if this Government sought to participate indirectly in the benefits of such a gigantic triangular combine, which would withhold from the consumers the benefits of a great harvest in this country and elsewhere."