EXPORT FRUIT AND CONTROL BOARD

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXVI, 1 September 1934, Page 2

EXPORT FRUIT AND CONTROL BOARD

(To the Editor) Sir, —It appears to the writer that the election about to be held to fill the vacancy on the Fruit Control Board is of such moment that no fruit-grower should neglect to vote. When in the 1932 season it was proposed to change the selling policy from the previously existing arrangement of a parcel of brokers to a single selling agency, the writer did the only thing possible to arrive at a right decision regarding the relative merits •> and demerits of both systems by comparing the total number of each variety, grade, and size and the prices realised therefrom ,with the corresponding statistics of the proposed Goodwin scheme. The loss showed an average of 8.087 pence per case case against Goodwins. Assuming that all growers exported the same varieties the loss to them on the then existing 10 per cent exchange on one million cases would be £33,098. Control when carried out in a business like wav has its advantages bub when we have a board acting as above it is high time that we had new blood in its ranks to save the long suffering grower from ruin.—l am etc., ORCHARDIST. Nelson, 31st August. \ (To the Editor) Sir, —Many growers are of the opinion that- the separation of the Control Board Offices from those of the Fruit Federation will increase the expenses of both organisations. To-day tho writer received a letter stating that the consolidated charges are now being compiled showing loading charges at Nelson separate from Wellington, Some growers will benefit by this arrangement, others will not. Before pooling was established there was a direct saving of from 8d to 9d per case on the Nelson loading. In view of the forthcoming election would Mr Stephens inform the growers as to the reason why there appears to be no saving now ? If this is an actual fact, tho sooner direct loading is abolished the better.—l am etc., CURIOUS. Nelson, 31st August,