FRUIT CONFERENCE

Grey River Argus, 7 August 1937, Page 10

FRUIT CONFERENCE

THE LOW GRADE STUFF Who Gets It ? [Per Press Association]. WELLINGTON, August. 6. The opinion that the present terms in reference to the grading of apples —“extra fancy” and “fancy were more applicable to underwear than to fruit, was expressed by a Canterbury delegate, Mr. H. Sampson, at the Fruit Conference. A Motueka remit was as follows. “That with reference to the standards to be set up insofar as local market regulations are concerned, not more than three grades be instituted for apples and two grades for pears.” The delegate moved that there be four grades (Spee.ub hrst. second and orchard run). He considered that all the public wished to know was whether the frult grade or second grade, and those should be the terms used. Mr J. A. Campbell said that with only two or three grades the fruit within those grades would be so varied that "standardisation would not be worth tuppence. The lowest number of grades was fou . anybody could say different, he would like to know how. . ■> Mr. G. Ballantyne (Canterbury) said that the public was forced into taking the low grade fruit to get the price He suggested that the “extra fancy” should be "extra extra fancy. He would like a revision of the terms which were at present unmtelligib e to the public. Into good they could introduce the pin point of black spot. All the black spot could go into “domestics.” The public would continue to buy reject fruit and no Government could prevent them iron buying what they wanted. His people called the poor fruit “pig feed”; but “there is a difference between men and pigs.” A voice: “What’s the difference? The delegate: “Men will eat anything, but pigs won’t!” (Uproar). Another delegate said that they should have a special grade, a first grade, a second grade, and a fourt.i grade, whatever they liked to call it. Mr. J. H. Thorp said that he visualised that his new work would dovetail into the work of the Internal Marketing Department. The question of standardisation needed very serious consideration and he would not like to see the Department tied down to three grades of fruit. Standardisation had been built up on the export market. It was not to say that all growers would use six or eight grades, but there would be times when they would “be jolly glad for the extra grade at the beginning of the season.” It was world practice to use the present grading nomenclature “arid don’t stack up trouble for yourselves by altering it,” he added. Mr. Ballantyne said that the whole of the discussion was tinged and seeped with export; and until they got rid of that they had no chance. He had listened to as good as a wrangle on grades as possible and nothing was said about the customer. What the customer wanted was the important thing. Mr. A. Forsyth said that the speaker was on the wrong track. He suggested that they should keep export in their minds.

For the centres they should keep as high a grade as possible, said Mr. Tate, a delegate from Auckland. “When it is sold in the smaller places they do not know a good apple irom a bad one.” In Wellington they would get the real good price for the real good stuff. Mr. L. B. Robinson said that he might give his heart, to the amendment by Canterbury if they agreed to a minor amendment. However, it would not be possible for Mr. late to substantiate his last statement. Mr. Robinson, continuing, said that it was impossible to divorce his discussion on local marketing from export.

Mr. F. E. Nottage asked Mr. Ballantyne how he-would like a million extra cases brought across the strait for the Wellington local market. The Canterbury delegate who initiated the discussion said that as far as the nomenclature was concerned they could drop that part of it and just make it four grades. An Auckland delegate said that they should not get away from the “extra fancy” and “fancy” designations. Mr. T. C. Brash (chairman) said that Canterbury had accepted that. The Motueka remit was withdrawn. A Hawke’s Bay delegate (Mr. R. Paynter) considered that the matter should be referred back to the Standards Institute and other gentlemen, Mr. Thorp and Mr. Picot. He moved an amendment in that direction. The Canterbury delegate considered that conference should make up its mind on the matter. The Canterbury amendment had not been withdrawn and was now the motion. Was the conference in favour of four grades or not? The amendment (Mr. Paynter’s) was put’ and carried.

Dealing With Frost CALIFORNIAN METHODS EXPLAINED. WELLINGTON, August 5. After investigating frost fighting methods employed in the orchards of California, Mr Lloyd Williams, of the Department of Agriculture, considers that only four methods can be recommended to New Zealand growers—lard pail oil burners, cow and stock oil heaters, briquette heaters, and central heating with hot air. Mr Williams to-day told the annual conference of the New Zealand Fruitgrowers’ Federation the results of his investigation. The conference decided to ask the Government to make Mr Williams available to give advice to districts affected by frost. Mr Williams said there were two main methods of fighting frost—by preventing losses of heat, and by actually adding heat. The first method. which included the use of glasshouses. and scrim and smoke, was not greatly used. Smoke, generally speaking, was of little use in preventing heat loss, retarding not more than ten per cent, of heat radiation from the ground. Spraying with water was looked upon as a standby means of adding heat; but there was a danger' of the water freezing and splitting the trees. Electricity as a direct means of producing heat was impratcticable, as the cost was too heavy. 1000 horse power being needed to heat one acre of ground. Air circulation by wind machines had not been altogether successful, and the

machines cost £1,500. A machine with a furnace attached to it was now being made; but the cost was still higher. With the lard pail healer it had been found in California that it was not necessary to use the “spreader.” Combustion could be retarded by the use of the lid, which meant a reduction in cost. Low stack heaters were popular, 2,500,000 being in use. In California the heaters cost 6s or 7s each, and 80 were needed to an acre. . . Petroleum, of which Mr Williams had had hopes, would prove too expensive, and owing to its inflammability, was also dangerous. Mr Williams saw one system of central heating with which he was impressed. Hot air was radiated from a furnace through tapering mains, with laterals punctured with holes. The initial cost of the plant was £375 for five acres, but the running cost was lower than of any other system, the oil consumption being only two gallons and a-half an acre an nour. Because of the low cost of oil in America, few experiments had in the past been made with solid fuel; but the smoke nuisance was beginning to force research in this and other directions. The chief disadvantage of the solid fuel heater in New Zealand had been the waste, caused by the fact that the fire could not be extinguished until the charge had burnt out; but the briquette heater had been introduced in America, from which air could be excluded to extinguish the fire at any time. The heaters cost 10s and 100 were needed to an acre. If briquettes could be obtained at £3 a ton delivered, this would be the cheapest method of heating orchards to prevent frost damage.