Readers Write

Northern Advocate, 29 June 1943, Page 2

Readers Write

The Minister for Agriculture (Mr Earclay), in an article in your issue of June 16, suggests that all dairyfarmers should

&HAREMILKERS’ INCOMES

be wealthy men Suppose the sharemilker he

quotes shows a profit of £492 as his share for ICO cows, it is interesting to see how many hours he worked during the year and how much he was paid per hour. The figures are: Sharemilker, six days of 12 hours and eight hours on Sunday—Bo hours per week, making a total of 3200 hours for the herd season of 40 weeks, with 12 weeks of eight hours a day for each week —a total of 3776 hours a year. His son would .work the same hours, and his wife 2240 hours (eight hours a day for 40 weeks), making a grand total of 9792 hours worked during the year. This shows, on Mr Barclay’s figures, that these three sharemilkers earned l/0a per hour, a huge wage when put against other award workers, who receive as much as 7/6 to 8/- an hour for overtime. It will be of interest to see the huge profit of the owner of this farm that Mr Earclay refers to as giving £BSO for the sharemilker and £BSO for the owner. It sounds good, and the returned soldiers during the post-war period, I am sure, will make a rush for the land (on Mr Barclay’s figures), only to become bankrupt in a very short period. I now assess the average costs of today on a mechanised 100-cow farm. As these assessed costs are too bulky to put into print (but can be viewed by the Farmers’ Union), I propose to deal only with total figures. Today’s costs (without labour) on a mechanised 100-cow farm, would run into £1403/10/-, based on the given output of 25,0G01bs of fat; costs without labour run to 1/0& per lb of butterfat. I have assessed costs on a mechanised farm for the simple reason ihat the majority of farmers have been forced to turn their farms into semimechanised, or fully mechanised farms. The above figures will give you some idea as to where the owner comes in with his £850; of course, the sharemilker pays some of the farm costs. The farmer now requires at the very least 4d per lb extra for his butterfat to recover lost costs. On some of the farms of smaller output, say, 10,0001 b to 12,0001 b of fat, the cost line would be round about 1/4 per lb of butterfat, and in 12 months’ time you can safely add one penny to that. Any increase that the farmer may receive in the meantime in the line of Id per lb you may rest assured will be eaten up long before it is paid out. I understand that statistics show the average income of the famerr to be somewhere between £2OO to £250 per year. Suppose we strike an average cf £225. He shows this with the help of his family. This is a family income. He is very lucky indeed if he can come anywhere near this figure. With working hours at 9792, and the average of the farmer’s family as three, this shows that the farmer and his family work for the large sum of 53 d per work hour. This recalls to my mind a recent statement made to me by a British farmer, who said: “I life my hat to the New Zealand farmer.” I have wondered since whether it was because we were so patriotic, or such fools.—G. HAYES.

May I ask indulgence for space in your columns to express to the people of New Zealand by heartfelt thanks for the

POLES THANK NEW ZEALANDERS FOR HELP

w o nd e r ful kindness and generosity recently extend-

ed to my fellow-countrymen? Some time ago, quite unexpectedly, a ship arrived with 700 Polish refugees, mostly women and orphan children, released from prison camps. They were the first contingent of 10,000, to whom hospitality has been offered in Mexico, and the Polish Consul in Bombay, who escorted them, told me that while they were now very well-fed, they badly needed essential clothing.

Having already experienced the generosity of the people of New Zealand, who, through the National Patriotic Fund Board and the Lady Galway Guild, have in the past helped us so willnigly, I felt confident that I could again ask them for help. The response was overwhelmingly greater than I could possibly have hoped for. In the space of three short hours, the Wellington Red Cross and the Joint Council, assisted by Junior Red Cross, Girl Guides, Boy Scouts, and other kindred organisations, quickly and efficiently arranged magnificent assistance in the form of large quantities of excellent clothing of all kinds.

Deeply was this generous assistance appreciated by the Polish people, not only the material help, but also the kindly spirit which prompted it. I was able to visit them on the ship and can bear witness to their needs. What I saw would leave an unforgettable impression on any heart. It was not only their physical appearance—nearly all of them had had malaria and half of them scurvy from malnutrition—but it was the expression in the children’s eyes The captain of the ship told me: “These children never cry; they cause no trouble on board.’’ And one of the Polish teachers added: “Nor do they laugh.’’ I am very sorry that the strict rules of security would not permit some cf the people of Wellington to visit these children. Had they been able to do so, they would indeed have seen for themselves just what this war has done.

One thing more I should like to add. Many sick and wounded New Zealand soldiers returned on this ship. One of the Polish ladies, Madame Tyszkiewicz, a personal friend of mine, told me: “The New Zealand soldiers are not only famous, modern warriors, they, have also some qualities of the noble knights of old, every one is a perfect gentleman. Tell me, please, what kind of a country is this New Zealand that gives such sons?’’ I told her. —(Sgd.) MARIA WODZICKA (Delegate of Folish Red Cross to the Red ’ Cross Society of New Zealand).