FARMERS’ PROBLEMS

Northern Advocate, 24 October 1935, Page 2

FARMERS’ PROBLEMS

(To the Editor.)

Sir, —The letter of Mrs Lilley, of Ruatangata, dealing with the butter question in London exactly confirms the reports I receive from my relatives and friends in Leeds. All the cartons of butter I haVe sent have been pronounced good, but none like it could be procured in Leeds. Amalgamated Dairies patted 4000 tons in London last year, and wrapped it in Anchor Brand wrappers, but, considering that London is 20 miles square, it is quite conceivable that some districts are ( not selling it. Mr Maxwell says that Mrs Lilley’s statement is not true, and, of course, he will say the same of mine. He quotes a long string of figures, which are doubtless correct, and' which principally apply to the. Wholesale Coop. Societies, but he does not claim that the retail co-ops. don’t blend. The explanation is simple. Is New Zealand butter sold as butter or margarine? At Mr Grounds’ last meeting in Whangarei, I asked this question, and received no answer. Sheffield traders say none of their customers will believe we make butter, but they like our margarine. I congratulate the new Dairy Board and directors ■on making a wonderful stride forward. The onus is now on the dairymen to sell our main product as butter or margarine, for unless it 1 is patted it will always be open to adulteration. My latest English news opens up another question. About two years ago Mr Baxter, the N.F.U., established aMilk Board, borrowed £2,000,000 (of which millions have been . spent) from the Government, and started operations. The price paid to the producer varied from 1/- to 1/5, according To the season, which was an improvement for the producer, as the board had to - take thO entire output if required. All producers who sold any milk locally ; had to be licensed by the board, , and charge the London price of 2/- per gallon. But the board found it could not sell the entire output at the fixed price, so had to get rid of ; it at a flower price. It makes levies on the best dairymen, and this; lovvers,the income of the producers, so that they are almost ruined. I give an illustration from a practical dairyman as follows: Total value of milk for the month, £143, Levies and other board charges brought this down to £9B, so Where was,the; 1/5 psr gallon? Another disastrous case : for which the board is blamed is the cheddar cheese fiasco. When the board was inaugurated, there were 1800 farmers making'cheese in Cheshire. Now 1270 of them have closed down. Cheese was 1/- per lb; now it is 4£d. If this continues, how will it affect New, Zealand cheese? Prob- . ably the board will have to be reorganised, because if it is abolished the two million of borrowed money would have to be repaid out of the monthly cheques, and many farmers would be smashed. It Is easy for a Government or board to borrow money usually,' but when it is spent who is to refund it? To my thinking, this is a distinct warning to Neyv Zealanders not to be persuaded to listen to the Parliamentary candidates, etc., who are advocating borrowing money for fixed prices for farmers and abolishing unemployment, etc. —I am, etc.,

WILLIAM WAKE,