FARMING INTERESTS

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIV, Issue 1074, 22 July 1924, Page 6

FARMING INTERESTS

ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF UNION PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS. The annual conference of the New Zea- , land Farmers’ Union commenced at; Wellington to-day. Addressing the delegates, Mr W. J. Poison, Dominion president, I said, inter alia: “This year has seen an | amount of interest and energy in tho affairs of tile organisation that lias cheered up even the pessimists. There is still a lot to do, of course. There is still the farmer who does not know what ails him to cure, and there is still the farmer who does not believe in organisation to convince. But in un age when every section of the community is organising, tile farmer who stays out in the cold and refuses to help himself is either very foolish or very selfish, and probably both. Considering the aloofness of so many farmers, the wonder is that this union lias achieved so much in the past. But it is nothing to what it will achieve when producers, as a body, learn that, they must look after their interests themselves, and unite as one solid body, instead of disdipating their energies us they do now. We have been at work upon the problems incidental to our development and growth. Each succeeding year brings its own propositions for investigation because, as times change, so does legislation require to change also to fit the new condition. The world’s competition, against, which we can have no protection, forces ns to adopt new methods in keeping with the methods of our competitors. The Fanners’ Union's usefulness continually grows as it suggests or initiates the legislation needed to keep us in line with those eom- ! petitors, or points out the dangers in the ! way. What are wo fighting for? Why jail this turmoil and striving and feeling? | There is a certain grim amusement from such a question when asked of a pro- | dttcer, but the fact is, that it is producers I who mostly ask it. They do not realise that even in spite of high prices production is at a standstill while the towns are ; going ahead by leaps and bounds. They [don’t read statistics, they fail to grasp | the significance of the steady reduction in | the country’s proportion of both popula- : tion und wealth as compared with the j towns. They do not realise that history jis only repeating itself. They are astonished when you tell them that, in Arne- | lieu and Australia, wealth, which was ' formerly held chiefly by the country, is now almost entirely in the possession of the towns. Nor do they understand the reason (made so patent to those who read) that they are getting less than half the value the consumer pays for the proI duct they grow. The arresting figures lay I bare the whole position and show those who care to read that we arc steadily losing ground. Compare such a situation with Denmark’s, a country with every climatic and physical disability, and with little or no wealth which, in loss time than it has taken the American producer to drop from owner of 80 per cent, to owner of 5 per cent, of the community’s wealth, has grown rich until to-day she stands at the head of the list, Hie richest country per head of population in the world. If producers would recollect that Denmark lias applied the co-operative programme we seek to apply here, they would better understand the necessity for united action and more deeply appreciate the work of our organisation.

j IMPROVING DOMINION PRODUCE. | “.Much has been done during the year |to popularise herd testing among dairymen unit to educate sheep lariiiers to me necessity of improving tneir stock. The Meat Board has emphasised the necessity lor increased stringency in the grading of our meat, particularly our hunt) tor export, and the Agricultural Department lias by no means lust sight of the necessity for tightening up tho grading of both butter and cheese.” While approving of all these, Air Poison added that much more remained to be done. ''While we

may face the future we must never forget that we have competitors nearer the market who cun produce at a lower cost and that those competitors are waking up to the importance of the trade and making plans accordingly,” lie said. “A serious decline in the vulues of our products will have a catastrophic effect upon this Dominion if we do not entrench ourselves

'while we have the opportunity behind the ramparts of scientific, economical and high class production.” After quoting from ilie speech delivered some time ago by Air T. Shuilcr \\ cston, president of the Employers’ Association, at the annual meeting ot that body, when be urged strict economy -on the part of the Government, local bodies and private individuals —Mr Poison continued, ill endorsing All- Weston's remarks: “I would be failing in my duty as bead of this organisation it 1 did not continue to urge complete equipment, better . weapons, better organisation, better cooperation upon my follow producers m order that no emergency may find us unprepared.”

: VALUE OF CO-OPERATION. Dealing with co-operation, Mr Poison said that, properly applied, co-upcrution should reduce costs to all anil, if there had been any misapplication, the fault, lay not with tlie principles ot co-operation, but with the application ui' those principles in New Zealand. The cost of distribution was too high when compared with the manufacturing cost. The speaker then mentioned flow this question bud been dealt with in America where a joint coinmission on agricultural enquiry had discovered that "we have now reached a point whore it. costs more to distribute and serve than it costs to produce.” That commission had commended the farmers’ cooperative movement sweeping over tlie United States as the "'most premising experiment looking towards the more etticient distribution of essential commodities.” CONTROL OF WOOL. Referring to the wool committee set up some time ago by Ilie Producers’ Commit-

I too. Mr Poison said: “Most of us arc in •favour of 00-operati\e control of our industries and, personally, I believe it generally in the best interests of the producers, and I also believe that a measure of control would bo beneficial to the wooi industry.” Mr Poison then traversed the history of the setting up of the Wool Committee and pointed out that the wool growers had, through their organisation, expressed themselves as definitely opposed to control and were possibly still of the same mind, although he understood' the organisation in question had subsequently invited the committee to continue. If such was the case the wool growers had a right to object to control until the whole of the wool growers (a very large proportion of whom were members of the union) had been consulted in the way other bodies of producers bad been consulted. Expressing the opinion that it was the duty of the Government to put this matter on a more satisfactory basis, the speaker hoped _ a satisafetory scheme would be forthcoming which would provide the necessary control, not be too ambitious and not objectionable to the growers themselves. CONTROL OF DAIRY PRODUCE. Mr Poison then referred to the setting up of the Dairy Control Board, stating that bo was more than ever satisfied (bat this great movement was absolutely sound ami that it would prove a weapon of defence against the attacks of their trade competitors in future times. There was practical if not absolute control in Denmurk, and control was llie keynote of the new American marketing movement. Continuing, Mr Poison said: “The fact is that production is increasing:. Siberia is expected to beat its pre-war output in a very few years, and the recovery of the Russian trade is extraordinarily rapid. Only by control methods can we insist on the high quality that will save us in tile j future. It is not so much a question of getting the highest price as of turning out the highest quality in the most economical manner. I imagine that the Dairy Board will work along such lines as these. If it does so, and concentrates on removing difficulties, and increasing the popularity of our butter, it will do a great national service to the Dominion. Possibly, it may bo able later on to encourage production

at this end as well as by devoting, if such be possible, some of its funds to this purpose.” SHIPPING AND FREEZING INDUSTRY. Continuing, Air Poison dealt with the shipping and freezing industry. Referring lo the former, lie said that overseas shipping was not and never had been satisfactory to Hie producer, and never would he so long as lie was under its thumb. In a lengthy reference to tho freezing industry, Afr Poison said that the Meat. Board began its career with a very definite pronouncement making it very clear that it had no intention of permitting “oversea interests” to purchase, build, or acquire interests that would give them a further measure of control over freezing works in New Zealand. Continuing, be dealt with the acquisition of Poverty Bav works by Vestey and Coy., which, lie added. “shows how unwise it is to lay down hard and fast rules on matters of this kind. The Afeat Board lias had an early lesson and lias now adopted the method made famous by Chandler Harris, in Uncle Remus, and of which Brer Rabbit was the chief exponent. Now, we have a new cry raised, that there must be fewer freezing works—the fewer the better apparently. . . . The point, of course, is that the number of freezing works we are entitled to is the number which will serve us with most convenience and dispatch und with the necessary regard for our interests and no less. T have carefully rcfruined in these remarks from discussing the meat merger proposals, which require further explanation. . . .”