The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1895. OUR WHEAT SUPPLY.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XCIII, Issue 10654, 15 May 1895, Page 4

The Lyttelton Times. WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 1895. OUR WHEAT SUPPLY.

People who decline to takeiheiri politics from ou- morning eontem-{ porary have hitherto been disposed to place some reliance upon its utter.' ances with regard to those matters’ which directly affect the interests oJEj the great landlords of this part of the country. It seems, however, that; this confidence has been altogether misplaced. Yesterday our contem-j porary published a statement which simply turns to derision any claim it may have had to speak with authority on the wheat question. We recently pointed out that the estimated yield of our last wheat harvest was 1,700,000 bushels under the quantity required for consumption and seed purposes daring the nest twelve months. This calculation was based upon the official returns, and; upon an estimate that 7*38 bushels per head represented the colonial consumption. Our contemporary, loftily 'calls this “ absurd,” and advises ua to “ refer to someone who understands the question.” Without waiting for us to follow its advice it straightway proceeds to pose as the “ one who understands,” and hurls at us a mass of arguments and alleged facts to prove that we were wrong in stating that the consumption of wheat iu New Zealand is over seven bushels * per head of the population. Let us quote its own words;— It 1e now thoroughly recognised that in all meat-eating communities, such as the United States, Australia and New Zealand the consumption of wheat is not over 4-£ bushels .per head, the outside estimate foe the States being 4f bushels.' Meat is evea more plentiful in New Zealand than in America, and consequently the probabilities are that we eat less bread. But, assuming that we consume 5 bushels per head, and taking the population at 700,000, our requirements for the ensuing year will not exceed 3,500,000 bushels for food, and at the, outside 300,000 for Seed. As the estimated yield is 3,613,137 bushels, this leaves an outside _ deficiency of lass than 200,000 bushels, instead of the 1.700.000 bushels stated by the Lyttelton Times. It ia only ia France, Germany and other countries, where the poor have to live almost entirely upon breadetuffs, that the consumption reaches 7 to 8 bushels of wheat per head per annum. It would be difficult to crowd more errors than appear in our contemporary’s statements into any 4 **- twenty lines of print. We find from the “New Zealand Official Yearbook ” that, taking the average for . the, past seventeen years, the people of this colony consume 7*40 bushels per head of wheat annually, and in spite of all the “probabilities” and the actual plentifulneas of meat, this ia a much higher average than that which obtains in Australia or in the United States. The average is 6’4 bushels in New South Wales, 5'4 bushels in the United States and 5*6 in the United .Kingdom, As for the contention that the consumption of wheat is high ia countries where "the poor have to live almost entirely upon breads tuffs ” it ia as baseless ae the other statements of our contemporary, France has a slightly higher average than New Zealand, but the consumption in Germany is only three bushels per head a year ; in E-ussia it is but a fraction over two bushels, while in Italy, which is a poor and not a meateating country, the average v is 5'4 bushels. As a matter of fact the Bussian and German peasantry largely live on rye-bread, which accounts for their small consumption of wheat. The reasoning of our contemporary is thus altogether astray, and its facts are utterly unreliable. It maybe able to explain wherein lay the necessity for “ assuming that we consume five bushels per head,” when reliable statistics were available to show that we consume 50 per cent more. It cannot, of course, have any interest in .seeking to deceive the public on this point—that is out of the question—but it ia difficult to believe it capable of such gross blundering. Then, it makes a further misstatement in arriving at “an outside deficiency of less than 200.000 bushels.” Assuming the consumption to be five bushels and “ taking the population at 700,000 ” ia a convenient way of arriving at the result desired. But iu addition to ■understating the consumption, our contemporary understates the population by at least 30,000. The correction of this trifling error would nearly double the “ outside deficiency,” and further rectification would prove our calculation of the deficit to be absolutely correct. For “one who understands the question” our contemporary has shown itself to bo wofully deficient in information. Thera is no great importance in the point ia dispute; for, as we have said, there are probably sufficient stocks ia hand to supply the deficiency ; but when our calculations and deductions, founded upon actual statistics, are impugned by our contemporary “ assuming ” one thing, “ taking ” another, and misrepresenting the whole of the facts, it is Just , as well that we should set it fight with the gentle reminder that without accurate information the highest understanding is liable to err.