FARMING PROBLEMS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19321, 7 May 1926, Page 15

FARMING PROBLEMS.

CONTROL OF PRODUCE. SUGGESTED DAIRY CONTROL. Mr. W. E. Calcy Alexander, Piopio, writes:—The suggestion made by Mr. J. G. Wynyard that a dairy council consisting of three men from each ward (making 27 in all) be formed to guide the policy of the Control Board, comes at a most opportune time. The appointment. of three members from each ward would considerably enhance the fighting strength of suppliers and would ensure better representation of their wishes than by one man, particularly in the case of wards containing three suitable men. I think Mr. Wynyard might have gone further, and suggested also that all vacancies on the Control Board be filled from the dairy council, and that each ward, in the event of such vacancy, nominate its own candidate out of the three men appointed as its representatives on the council. But the point will be raised what is the dairy council going to cost. Will it pay for itself by reason of its good work ? Granted that it would do so, unless it had special legislative powers, it could not enforce its decisions. To be of any use it would have to be a sort of "super" Control Board. Without legislative powers, it would bo futile. Naturally its maintenance would cost something, but I am inclined to think that, given legislative powers of action, a dairy council as suggested by Mr. Wynyard, would, besides giving a sense of security to suppliers, have the combined intellects of 27 good sound men to guide the Control Board on all matters affecting the industry. Moreover, service on the council should prove admirable training for aspirants to the Control Board, and suppliers would be directly represented on the board by men whom they had personally voted for, and what is most important, the formation of such a council should heal the breach between the two, at present, divided parties. CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING. THE LOCAL MEAT TRADE. "Soldier Ssttler" writes:—As a practical farmer who has been up against it on more than one occasion, I can endorse Mr. Vaile's contention that it is not altogether the wages on the farm which hits the farmer's pocket, but the wages which are concealed in every item he buys. As things are at present the farmer is carrying the load of artificial prosperity in the cities, high wages, etc., also customs tariff 'in protection of secondary industries. My contention is that co-operative marketing of all farm produce is the solution to the problem. Take the .marketing of meat as an instance. Attend any country stock sales and compare the prices being received on the hoof, and the retail prices in the butchers' shops. At the last local sale here the writer sold a fat cow at £2 ss, another at £4; was offered 12s for weaner calves at six months; fat wethers 255, and 2j to 3year steers in good condition were selling at £3 10s to .€5 10s. 'I he only payable price this season was lambs, and they realised up to 22s for fat. Now, if we analyse the price the public are paying the butchers for meal, and what the farmer is getting on the hoof it makes an interesting comparison. For instance, a prime fat cow will realise about £4 10s for best quality, and should kill about 6cwt. Assuming the carcase to turn the scales at scwt. on a basis of 6d per lb retail, this amounts to £l4, which is leaving the butcher a tidy profit. Not. only this, he gets the hide, which should be worth 25s to 30s, and the offal should be worth another ss, or altogether a gross profit of £ll. I contend that our only remedy is the organisation of a co-operative marketing association, to dispose of our stock in the only sane and practical way which I can conceive under the circumstances. Assuming such an organisation was functioning in the city and towns of the province, the farmer would put all kiliable stock through the association, the co-operative would control the killing at the abattoirs, and sell the carcase at so much per lb. on the hooks. This would eliminate all guesswork in buying on the hoof, which is always in buyers' favour. Also, the farmer is retaining control of his stock until it is finally marketed. The co-operative would have the hides, skins and offal. The latter could be converted into various byproducts, and prove a highly remunerative proposition. Tie butcher would have no cause to complain, as he is only in the position of retailer, and lie could still make his profit whether it would be 5 per cent, or 50 per cent. The difference would hj»; this, that the farmer who now. gets from l£d to for beef would be getting double and still make'a profit on his byproducts. The farmer would realise increased prices for stores, as the scheme would eliminate speculative buying. In the event of a glut in the market the surplus could be frozen or canned. The co-operative would be in the position of wholesaler or manufacturer. Finance should be easily arranged and advances made to the farmers on a conservative basis. The selling of the meat would bo carried out on a strictly cash basis.