PRIMARY PRODUCTS

Evening Post, Volume CXXVI, Issue 59, 7 September 1938, Page 5

PRIMARY PRODUCTS

MARKETING SCHEMES

IN OTHER COUNTRIES

The organisation and control of the marketing of agricultural and pastoral products was dealt with by two speakers at a meeting'of the Wellington branch of the Economic Society of Australia and New Zealand. The speakers were Mr. G. H. Holford, of the Department of Agriculture, and Dr. R. G. Hampton, of the Bureau of Social Science Research.

Mr. Holford, who returned recently from a trip abroad, in the course of which he made a close study of marketing schemes now in operation, spoke at length on the efforts of other countries to regulate supply and demand. Fifty million acred of land in Europe -had been left uncultivated during the Great War, and the United States had benefited as a result, and had been able to increase her agricultural exports. When the land in Europe had been taken up again after the war, the United States had been faced with the problem of a considered surplus, particularly of wheat and cotton. To meet the problem innumerable schemes had been put into operation. Production had been restricted, and surplus produce had been destroyed, but this had resulted in an improvement of the position of other countries rather than any improvement of her own situation. Now the tendency was for the United States to try to develop her export market through bi-lateral agreements. Germany, said Mr. Holford, epitomised the trend to nationalism and self-sufficiency which had been apparent since the war. It was very obvious to the visitor to Germany that her plan for self-sufficiency was not fully succeeding. Generally speaking the result had been a tremendous development of synthetic products, and the cutting-down of imports had had the effect of raising the price of primary products against her own people. GEEAT BRITAIN'S ATTITUDE. Great Britain had been almost the last country to adopt restriction of im-, ports, but, provided, that prices kept low it appeared that she could not expand greatly in agriculture. Cost of production in England was very high, and 9,000,000 tons of artificial feed was used annually. It appeared that Australia was likely to be New Zealand's strongest competitor in the marketing of products overseas. She was producing the same products at the same time of year as New Zealand, and, in addition, had cheap land. The policy for New Zealand appeared to be one of more efficient farming on the more efficient acres. There was not so .much need to worry about the quantity of produce as the quality. No country in the world had such climatical advantages for pastoral production, but her distance from her markets was a disadvantage and he hated to think where New Zealand would be if she were not part of the British Empire and had to struggle for a market in Britain in the same way as Denmark. EXPORT OF MEAT, The second speaker, Dr. Hampton, dealt with specific schemes which had been adopted for the control of produce marketing, with particular reference to the export of meat and the work of the New Zealand Meat Board. He outlined four aims for the organisation of marketing with the object of providing the basis for discussion later in the meeting. The first was the controlling of supplies to bring about increased prices for the benefit pf the producer. Next he dealt with the rationalisation of productive resources, improvement in the regularity of supplies, and bulk bargaining. Dealing with the question of improving the regularity of supply, Dr.. Hampton said that in 1932 the short-sighted policy of Australian meat producers had resulted in a large percentage of their exports being shipped to Britain over a short period, and the market had been' disorganised. The work of the New Zealand Meat Board prevented any occurrence of this nature in the marketing of New Zealand produce. Any restriction of markets must, in the end, fall back on the consumer and it had to be admitted as a basic fact that the gain in other directions was doubtful. He thought the problem of marketing was well summed up in the words of the former British Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Walter Elliot, who had said that the truth of the matter seemed to be that in the question of produce prices the efforts of men were but puny compared with the operations of Nature.