NELSON HARBOUR

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXIV, 28 May 1930, Page 2

NELSON HARBOUR

AND FRUIT INDUSTRY CONFERENCE WITH BOARD A conference was held to-day between the Nelson Harbour Board and representatives of the fruitgrowing industry to consider the question of providing additional facilities at the port for the handling of .fruit. The conference was hold at the suggestion of the Board. The Board members preseht were: Messrs 11. R. Duncan (chairman), A. Gould, 11. W. Kelly, A. Drummond, G. Manson, A. E. Max, Price, J. Glasgow and Captain MoncriefT.

The chairman welcomed the fruitgrowers’ representatives, and went on to say that the Board had at all times recognised the importance of the industry and had endeavoured to give them all the facilities in its power. He dealt briefly with the early history of the industry, which now, however, was in a stabilised condition. It was owing to this fact that the growers had been asked to meet the Board. The Board in 1913 had placed a loan of £35,000 before the ratepayers for harbour improvements, but it had not been carried. Had it been carried lie believed growers would now have been able to ship their fruit direct. He simply recalled this fact to show that the Board had early recognised the necessity of direct loading. The question of widening and deepening the cut would need further consideration. But owing to the great increase in the industry additional storage was necessary. What class of storage did the growers require? At least £OOOO had been spent by the Board in giving additional facilities at Mapua and Nelson; but it was recognised that this was not sufficient. Did the . growers require a shed or a refrigerating store for precooling the fruit? In conversation with Mr Tiller, of the Cawthron Institute, he had advised that precooling should be carried out as close to the wharf as possible. The Board had been charged with not taking the initiative in the matter, but there seemed to have been a considerable difference in the past as to what growers really required. Assuming that the growers asked for a refrigerating store then the question of finance would come up. The Board would be unable to face the expenditure, and it would entail the question of a loan. There would be some delay before a loan could be put before the ratepayers The orcliavdists were in a minority in the district, and therefore it would bo difficult to ask the ratepayers as a whole to saddle themselves with a heavy rate. Personally, he considered there should be no question as to what the ratepayers generally thought as to the necessity for carrying a loan. Unless the growers could arrange to a great extent to guarantee the interest on a loan, lie thought it would be difficult for one to be carried. Personally, he thought the Board might be able to arrange to pay a share of Hie interest. in view of the fact that the Board was getting a revenue of £3BOO a year from the industry at the present time Tt had to be remembered, of course, that the Board had considerable expenditure to face in harbour improvements. He stressed the fact that the growers should seriously consider the matter of guaranteeing the interest on a loan. The chairman added that he had not discussed the matter with his colleagues, and that his opinions were his personal ones. The Board, however, was in sympathy with the growers’ aspirations in providing additional facilities at the port. Unless it was the wish of the conference he did not propose to discuss the deepening of the harbour and the widening of the cut owing to the fact that the cost at present was not known. To make the port the last port of call would necessitate the deepening of the cut by about sft.

GETTING THE FRUIT AWAY Mr Dicker, chairman of tlio Advisory Board, said tlie Board very much appreciated the opportunity given to discuss the matter with the Board. The Industry had now reached the stage when the most important thing was the getting away of the fruit. The conference held yesterday was representative of the whole province, and while It was recognised that increased berthage and a deeper harbour were necessary; it was considered that the erection of additional shed accommodation was 1 In separable with it. The allotment committee had stated that additional ships would come if facilities were provided. There had been a difference of opinion as to whether precooling was a necessity; but there was a consensus of, opinion among those studying flic question that precooling was essential in order to obtain the best results. Mr Dicker went on to refer to the cost of sending fruit to Wellington. Growers recognised that the erection of a cool store was the ideal; but the meeting on tlie previous day had passed a resolution asking for the erection o l a concrete shed; and also for the adoption of mechanical apparatus for handling fruit. (The full resolutions are printed under the report of yesterday’s mooting.) Mr Dicker concluded by stating that it was considered ways and means could be devised to finance a cool store. Cool store rates had to be paid at Wellington, and growers would prefer to pay such charges at Nelson. In reply to Mr Glasgow, Mr Dicker said it was hoped that the concrete shed could be converted in the future into a cool store. The resolution had asked for accommodation for 75,000 cases, but after further deliberation it was considered that a capacity of GO,000 would be sufficient.

In answer to Mr Gould, Mr Dicker said the Advisory Board was in an advisory capacity only to tlie Control Board. Mr McKee said that whatever was done in regard to providing mechanical apparatus for the quick handling of fruit would have an important bearing on wharf improvements. He stressed the saving that would be effected by the careful handling of fruit. In reply to Captain Moncrieff, Mr McKoe said lie did not know any port where mechanical conveyors bad been installed. It was stated that such conveyances were in use at Capetown and Southa'mnton.

In answer to the chairman, Mr Dicker thought that if additional shed accommodation was provided at Nelson perhaps it might relieve the pressure at Mapua. But as things were increased space was required at Mapua. Mr McKee thought that whatever was done at Nelson increased storage would be required at Mapua.

Mr Nottagc said the Control Board had the power to arrange finance by way of levy for the erection of a cool store. Arrangements had been made in

Wellington for cool storage and the same'thing could be done‘at 'Nelson. ■

INSPECTION FIGURES

Mr Thorp (orchard instructor) gave figures covering Che number of cases inspected at the Nelson end of the district. In the 1924-25 season the num* tier of cases inspected was 48,000,.and during the past season it had increased to the huge total of 217,000. He ex* pressed the Department’s appreciation of the facilities provided by the Board last season in the inspection of fruit; but additional shed accommodation was urgently needed. The industry was at the top of the export trade at present, and he was optimistic enough to think it would continue.

PRECOOLING FAVOURED Mr Tiller, of the Cawthron Institute, speaking from a scientific • standpoint only, said the Institute’s experience was that what was ultimately most desirable was a refrigerating store at Nelson "wharf to precool fruit. Ships were at present not designed to bring down the initial temperature of fruit quickly. He went on to give the results of experiments conducted, and said it would be a comparatively simplematter for a ship to handle fruit if it was put on board in a precooled condition. The work of prccooling, however, could be easily undoife, as for instance by tlie placing of fruit in trucks in a hot sun. This was one reason why a cool store should he at the wharf instead of some distance away. Incidentally he expressed the opinion that the number of insulated trucks available to convey precooled fruit was inadequate. As to a shed, he thought arrangements should be made whereby it could be converted into a refrigerating store, He did not think it would entail much additional expense to .so plan a store. From the point of view of getting the best results on the Home mai'ket he considered a cool store at the wharf desirable.

Mr Sutherland said he was thoroughly in accord with Mr Tiller’s remarks. He went on to speak on the same lines a 3 at the meeting of fruitgrowers yesterday afternoon. Mr Gould asked Mr Dicker if growers as a whole accepted the expert opirifon regarding precooling. Mr Dicker replied that at present some ot the orchardists were undergoing an education and appeared reluctant to accept the opinion of scientists. It seemed to him that the consensus of opinion was in favour of precooling. Replying to Mr Glasgow, Mr Dicker said that if the Trait was put on board in a precooled state, it would not necessarily mean that Nelson should be the last port of call.

MAIN APPLE PORT" Mr Nottage stressed the fact that Nelson should be the main apple port, which contributed about five-sevenths of the export. Why send fruit to Wellington to be precooled when it could i>e done at Nelson.

Replying to a question Mr Tiller said he did not consider, providing fruit was placed on the ship in a precooled condition, that Nelson should be the semi-

final port of call. | Mr Price asked, supposing the cool store was provided, and the ships did not come here, would the fruit be sent to Wellington. Air Brant replied that no fruit would be precooled at Nelson,, beyond the amount required for the boats set down for direct loading at this port. Mr Robertson, acting-chairman of tlie Control Board, reiterated bis state-' meats made yesterday regarding the Board’s attitude towards direct loading at Nelson, and financing a cool store. DIRECT LOADING Mr Gould asked for an explanation of (ho fact that last year the quantity of fruit shipped from Nelson far exceeded the space provided for by the Control Board.

Mr Benzies, acting-manager of the Federation in the course of replying gave the savings to the Nelson grower by shipping fruit to the United Kingdom locally instead of sending it to Wellington. From Port Nelson the charges for direct loading were 4/1.427; from Wellington 5/1.771; Motueka, 4/6.131 and 5/1.109; Mapua, 4/6.125, 5/1.139. He went on to say that under present conditions of the harbour fruit for the Continent and South America had to be loaded at Wellington. This season 30 per cent, of fruit for the United Kingdom was loaded at Nelson, There were several factors to be taken into consideration concerning loading at Nelson. It was" not altogether the delay on the coast. He did not think that growers would like their Coxes to be delayed on the coast. In the early part of the season, consignments were too small for direct loading, and it was not until about March that sufficient fruit was available to warrant overseas vessels calling here. Under the present facilities he considered that somewhere about 200,000 to 220,000 cases could be loaded at the port. He did not think it would improve tlie position very much if a cool store was erected without at the same time deepening the cut. _ The Port Auckland was cancelled owing to the Tasmania being .in port at the time the first-named vessel was due. The boat was cancelled by the Shipping Committee, and tlie Control Board bad to accept the position. If facilities could be provided whereby two vessels could be sent at the same time he thought that would meet the position. Shipping companies knew that the fruit could be held in cool store at Wellington; and if Nelson had a cool store and could therefore keep the fruit if a boat was delayed, this would be an important factor in getting more direct loading. As to precooling Dr. -Kidd bad shown that 180 per cent, of the wastage was due to carriage, owing to the long time ’taken in getting the fruit down to the ! proper temperature. He had not yet seen an accounts sale, in spite of reports stating that consignments had arrived in good condition, that did not show wastage. Cool storage was essential and this would be brought home to the grower in the future. It was pointed out that owing to the Port Auckland being diverted from Nelson, the loss to growers was £2OOO. During the course of some further discussion, it was stated that growers as a whole were in favour of precooling, but that it was a matter of finance. Mr Haining stated that the recommendations of the scientists were followed by orchardists regarding the production of their crops; did it not therefore follow that the recommendations regarding precooling should also be adopted. He had never been led astray by following the recommendations of local scientists. Replying to Mr McKee, the chairman thought a loan of £150,000 would be required for harbour improvements. Mr Chisuall questioned whether the business people of Nelson realised the possibilities of the industry, in bringing into production land which hitherto produced very little or partially nothing. Mr Gould said the Control Board had no power to compel ships to come to Nelson. It had been stated to him that those controlling the industry did not want to send away more than 30,000 or 40,000 cases in one bottom in order not to meet a glutted market. But Nelson

sent.away 72,000 cases, in one bottom, by' the Port Hobart : and the captain of the ship said he was prepared to have taken 75,000 if he had been asked. The question was, what was the position of the Control Board regarding shipping. Tlie Control Board and the Advisory Board had stated that they were in favour of direct loading, but the final say rested with the shipping companies. He had been accused of blocking everything in favour of the industry. But he. pointed out that the Board was involved, in a liability of £168,000 for which it had to find interest, and it had had to go veiy carefully in order not to land the ratepayers in a position that would cripple them. He admitted that the position was now altered. The matter had been fully discussed by those present but no suggestion had been put forward as to what the growers were prepared to contribute towards the interest and sinking fund of a loan. The Board had the right to get something from them; but ho admitted that the amount should be split up between the growers, the Board and the ratepayers. He asked the growers for a definite assurance as to what amount they were prepared to contribute towards the proposed scheme they were asking for. Mr Benzies pointed out that the Port Hobart’s shipment was dumped on a flooded market and some of the fruit sold at 2s 6d a case. The conditions then prevailing had now changed, and the Control Board had charge over that phase of the matter. As to finances, hs aid know that when the Wellington Board discussed such matters it put up a proposition and told those concerned what it was going to cost them. Mr Dicker said growers recognised that they could not get the improvements without helping to pay. for them. They felt, however, that the first thing to recognise was the need for such improvements. All the growers desired was that they would be charged: a reasonable proportion of the whole. 1 , . The chairman thanked the growers for their attendance. He could not say-at present what the Board would do. The grower might contribute a small levy on fruit, the Board might make a contribution out of the increased revenue being received, and a small 1 harbour, rate might be put on the business section. The time was not opportune for a loan, but whatever was done the Board would have to provide more storage accommodation.- ' V

Mr Gould; Do you mean a refrigerator.

The chairman: Possibly, Perhaps the best thing:would be to set up a committee of the Board and the growers to discuss the financial aspect of the, matter, and formulate; a definite proposal. The Board was very sympathetic towiurds the industry and had done and Was dong everything possible to further the success of it. . , •. .> . .. : After Mr . Dicker, had .thanked the Board for meeting the growers, the meeting terminated. .. ... ;