FRUIT EXPORT

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume LXXII, 16 July 1938, Page 10

FRUIT EXPORT

NELSON CONFERENCE VARIATIONS IN GUARANTEE OPPOSED INSPECTION AT SHEDS FAVOURED The provincial conference of fruit-ex-porters concluded in Nelson late yesterday afternoon, presided over by Mr F. E. Nottage. The question of guarantees, compensated prices, marketing and inspection were among the subjects discussed.

Mr D Haining moved the following remit: That in view of the increase and variation in production and harvest costs of export fruit, together with the fact that up to the present certain growers receive no subsidy from the guarantee, the Government be again urged to place the guarantee on a more equitable basis. (Note: (a) Labour costs alone in harvesting Cox’s are 55 per cent, higher than in harvesting Sturmer. (b) Average crop from Cox’s Orange trees is 30 per cent, lower than from Sturmer trees. (c) Towards producing Cox’s Orange growers have never received a subsidy from the guarantee. Sturmer growers have.)—Motueka District Fruit-exporters’ Association. He referred to the higher cost of producing Cox’s Orange and the smaller crop per acre. Where a grower’s export of Cox’s was more than 9 per cent, the production cost was not covered by th» figure of 11s 3d on which the guarantee was based A man growing Sturmers could produce them at a lower figure than he could produce Cox’s. If the present system of guarantee was continued he predicted a change-over from Cox’s Orange growing to Sturmer growing. The remit was seconded by Mr W. E. Rowling. Mr L. B. “Robinson said that the remit was not necessarily supported by the Motueka Association. If they once introduced a sliding scale of guarantee they were setting a dangerous precedent. He opposed the remit. Mr C. Stannard considered that they should hammer away at getting a guarantee that would cover all production costs.

Mrs White said that pooling was the trouble. The Cox’s were paying for losses on other varieties. If they differentiated between Cox’s and Sturmers why not between other varieties 7 asked Mr C. H. Mackay. Mr A. Brown supported Mr Stannard and said it was dangerous to ask for an individual guarantee. They should ask for an .ncreased guarantee to cover the costs of all varieties. Mr J. Arbuckle was against the remit, and Mr Forsyth in favour of it. Replying Mr Haining said that had it not been that the wages cost had gone up this year he would not have introduced the remit. As situated to-day he c<Duld not export both Cox’s and Sturmers and make it pay. The remit was lost. GUARANTEE AT SHED FAVOURED In moving that the board request the Government to give the guarantee at the grower’s shed Mr J. L. Robinson said that this was the on 1 j way to keep a check on the costs. The remit was seconded by Mr Maisey. Mr Pitts Brown did net see that they would be any better off. Mr Maisey said that if the guarantee was given at the shed the Government would keep an eye on the costs after the fruit left the shed. Mr W. Benzies (secretary of the board) explained that it would mean the pooling of transportation expenses. It involved the question of segregating the costs of each district and granting a separate guarantee to each district. Mr Lindup said that the Government would not accept responsibility for increased costs.

Mr J. Dicker said the whole question was the difference in costs of transport from orchards to inspection points or ports. If they pooled the costs it was a question whether it would tell against them or for them.

Mr J.* L. Brown said that nothing said had detracted from the value of a guarantee at the shed. Instead of a guarantee of 11s it would be better if the guarantee was said to be -3s 4d at the shed. It sounded as though the growers were getting a lot when they were getting 11s. The remit was carried LONDON PANEL Mr Thawley moved: that the Fruit Board renew the efforts to secure the services ot Messrs Monro and Poupart on the I *ondon panel, on the same terms as the othei members of the panel.— Hills Fruitgrowers’ Union. Ltd. The chairman said he was in favour of including Monro and Poupart. and was sorry they did not have them. Mr H. E. Stephens said that the board recognised that Monro and Poupart were a good firm. He did not believe growers were losing money by not having this firm. There were a number of firms equally good. The board had put no obstacle in the way of the firm coming back except that they had set down a certain policy. Mr J. 1,. Brown pointed out that if Monro and Poupart were brought back next season the growers could not expect to get back to the preferred position held up till 1933. They could not expect the firm to cut adrift from the suppliers they had had for the last six years. He suggested having more brokers at Spitalfield for rapid distribution Mr Forsyth said the necessity was for quick clearance. He would like to see a recommendation made for brokers in the province to be added to the panel The lemit was carr-ed. QUOTA AGREEMENTS

Mr Brown moved that no further quota agreements be entered into by the board.—Redwood’s Valley Fruitgrowers’ Association. Ltd. He said that till other countries were sending grade for grade with New Zealand this country was getting the worst of it. Till the local markets were organised it would be best to try to get every possible case exported Mr C Stannard moved an amendment that the words, “till grades of competing countries arc brought up to New Zealand standards.” he added Mr Everett considered that it was no good fixing quotas unless all countries snipping fruit were on a quota The chairman said that the board believed that it was in the interests of the growers to continue the arrangements with Australia. If quotas were dropped it would give a free hand to Australia

to flood the market, as they had better shipping facilities. Mr McKee said it did not seem that they were losing by the quota system. In any case the final say was with the Government. The'amendment was lost. Mr Dicker moved that the words be added: “If in the opinion of the board based on past experience the discontinuance of such quotas be in the interests of the New Zealand grower.” The amendment was lost, and the motion was aiso lost. RESTRICTIONS IN SIZE The remit, “That pending the complete organisation of the local market to absorb at a payable price fruit now shut out from export, the Fruit Board make no further restrictions in size, varieties and grades for export,” was moved by Mr A. Brown who believed that they were sacrificing quantity for quality. He would like to see sizes left as they were for some years. Mr E. R. Black seconded the remit, and asked lor it to be taken with the following remit: That the Government be urged to continue the present regulations relating to Good grade in view of the fact that there is a better sale for that grade in England, and that there is no suitable place in the local market grades for such fruit.—Stoke Fruitgrowers’ Association. The iemits were carried. FINANCE FROM RESERVE BANK? The following remit waj carried: That the board investigate the possibility of arranging finance for export advance* through the Reserve Bank. —Hills Fruitgrowers’ Union, Ltd. In proposing that shipping charges for the Nelson Province be pooled (Hills Fruitgrowers’ Union, Ltd.) Mr Forsyth said that this was one of the remits that was worthwhile. If the charges were pooled Nelson would gain in the long run as there would probably be more direct loadings. Mr Thawley seconded the motion The remit was carried. The following remit was opposed: That under the present pooling system, ov’er-printing of variety and registered number on labels be compulsory, except on small lines.—Marlborough Fruitgrowers’ Association.) The conference agreed to the following remits: That the present system of stickering export is too costly and that some other method of size group distinction be investigated with a view to its adoption.—Hawkes Bay Fruitgrowers’ Association.) That the Department and Fruit Board be asked to confer with a view to simplifying and reducing the cost of assembling export fruit.—(Hills Fruitgrowers’ Union, Ltd.) That the Department 1 2 asked to undertake the inspection of export fruit in the Mapua district at growers’ packing sheds.—(Hills Fruitgrowers' Union. Ltd.) In speaking to the last remit Mr Thawley said that it would save money. Mr Forsyth supported it and said that the saving in transport would pay for the extra inspection. Mr J. L. Brown considered that it was dangerous. It was impossible to give adequate inspection at the shed. It was further decided to put Nelson province instead of Mapua, and in this form the remit was carried. The following remits were passed:— That as double wrapping of pears at the ends of boxes is both extremely expensive and a great factor in slowing up packing, conference either abolish this practice or devise some better methods.—(Motueka District Fruitexporters’ Association.) That in view of the extra heavy cost of printed wraps this season, permission b<? given to use plain wraps—(Marlborough Fruitgrowers’ Association.) As printed fruit wraps are not compulsory, and not in general use, we suggest all districts be permitted to use plain wrapping paper in future.—Redwood’s Valley Fruitgrowers’ .Association. Ltd.) Mr J. L. Brown said that in reply to an enquiry about the Bledisloe Cup Competition, the Department had written stating that the absence of printed matter on wraps was a very minor matter, and their uce in export was not universal and not required by regulation. That a change should l 2 made in the present system of closing dates for export fruit to allow of greater variation between the early and late parts of any one district, which in some cases vary to the extent of two weeks or more.—(Motueka District Fruit-expor-ters’ Association )

That Cox’s Orange be treated similarly to pears as regards pre-cooling when necessary—(Motueka District Fruit-exporters’ Association.) That this conference be asked to go seriously into the question of core rot in Delicious in order that orchardists may prune, spray and cultivate with some reasonable degree of assurance that the fruit will not be subjected to drastic inspection.*-(Motueka District Fruit-exporters’ Association.) That where inspection entails cutting up of fruit, more consideration be given to growers.—(Redwood’s Valley Fruitgrowers’ Association. Ltd.)

That Rokewood be classed as a partial red variety instead of solid red.— (Hills Fruitgrowers’ Union. Lin.'