SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1536, 7 August 1901, Page 55

SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY

DOES IT RECOMMEND ITSELF TO; THE DAIRY FARMER? i

The following paper was read by Mr ' W. E. Gwillim, manager Eltham Cooperative Dairy Company, Taranaki, at tke Palmerston North Dairy Conference!

i As a committeeman of the N.Z. ; Cheese and Butter Makers’ > I was invited to contribute a short j paper on any subject dealing with c.ur industry, and in considering the proposal I soon discovered that to <say anything new or interesting was no easy task, in face of the large array of tal- ' ented individuals who had already promised to prepare papers dealing with nearly all points of our industry. I felt that anything I might say would be—or perhaps has been already—much better said by ethers. However, in an idle moment the subject of the sugar beet industry cropped, up, and as it ; was not mentioned on the programme, ' I determined to try and make an intelligible paper out of it. The subject of the sugar beet industry is no new one. It has been before the people of New Zealand for several years, and little or no progress has been made in starting the industry here. I have tried to view the subject from a dairyman's standpoint, and I shall endeavour to show that to the dairy farmer in certain parts of New Zealand the sugar beet industry deserves careful consi-, deration. -

The present production of sugar in the world is put at 7,000,000 tons: of this 61f per cent, is manufactured from -sugar Deet. In 1894, 4,792,000 tons was produced in Europe, and the production there is increasing. From 1884 to 1894 the increase in the European output was 78 per cent. In 1899 71,427 tons 'were produced in the United States, ana there were thirty-one factories there, and six more under construction. Our Canadian friends appear to be interested in the industry, and a factory is spoken of for Nor wold. Ontario. From a pamphlet obtained from the Department of Agriculture entitled "Memorandum on Cultivation and Manufacture of Sugar Beet, together with schedule showing approximate costs and receipts,” I take the following information :

“The prominence given by th e Premier in his late budget to the production and manufacture of sugar oeet is only one additional testimony to the ever increasing importance of the subject. Trade journals throughout the world are drawing attention to the value of this industry. The old source cf production—sugar cane —is gradually overshadowed by its modern rival. Indeed, so great is the demand for sugar 4 that without the widespread cult-ration of sugar beet it could not ;oe supplied, by half. Few people are aware of the gigantic proportions of this branch of trade; especially is this the case in European countries. In 1884 Austria--Hungary raised 653,000 tons of beet sugar, but in 1894 it increased its production to 1,050,000 tons. France m 1884 produced 303,000 tens, and in 1894 814,000 tons; an increase of over 500,000 tons, worth at least £10,000,000. New Zealand consumes per head nearly lOOlbs. weight of sugar per annum, or upwards of 30,000 tons, but grows and produces none. No country in the world is more favourably adapted lor the growth cf this valuable root. In climate, soil, rainfall and accessibility considerable portions of this colony are unrivalled. The benefits arising from the cultivation of sugar beet are by no means confined to the immediate products, sugar a>nd pulp. Ail lands used for its growth become, by reason of the intense and careful cultivation employed, more fruitful. Dairies and piggeries are the certain concomitants of a sugar manufactory. No branch of production and manufacture offers such rewards to capital and labour, or gives such promise of public and private usefulness as this. A sugar beet factory properly conducted is a veritable gold mine, in th© wealth of which many participate. Appended hereto are various schedules of approximate expenditure necessary to provide for, establish and carry on a factory dealing with 20,000 tons of beet root per annum. They comprise details of the initial cost of land for production, th© cost of machinery, ereoing buildings, etc.; working expenses for cultivation, for manufacture and for labour; estimated results, including bonus, etc. The estimates are founded upon official figures and returns from similar institutions in France, Belgium and Germany, with such modifications as are necessary to meet the different circumstances of the old and the new lands. It is, of course, impossible to arrive at an exact statement. It must of. necessity be approximate only, but eare has, however* been taken, to make . '.these schedules a safe guide, both as •regards expenditure and receipts.” * J find in. the schedules that it is estimated that with a yield of twenty tons per acre, beet can be cultivated, grown and delivered to a factory for £l2 per. acre. This estimated cost includes interest on land, two preparatory ploughings and seeding, seed, thinning • and harvesting, cartage to factory, and manure j also that a complete factory capable of dealing with 20,000 tons of beet, and manufacturing it into about

2000 tons of sugar, would cost £25,000. It is further stated that in Belgium a factory of this size and output could manufacture this quantity of sugar for £5200, but in New Zealand, owing to the greater cost of some requirements, th© manufacturing expenses would be about £7580. Many experiments have been carried out in New Zealand. The following are three results : —Ngaire, yield about 20 tons per acre; percentage of sugar, 14.26. Waverley, yield about 27 tons 15 cwt. per acre; percentage of sugar, 13.95; Waverley, yield, about 32 tons 15 cwt. per acre; percentage of sugar, 8.85. A farmer interested in the Ngaire experiment put the yield at about twenty tons, and I am assured that if ©very possible expense was charged to the cultivation, and cartage added, the total cost of production would not be anything like £l2 per acre. Now, in order to show that there appears to be money in the manufacture of sugar, I’ give tfiis little stun : Cr.—By 2000 tons of sugar at £2O per ton, £40,000. Dr.—To 20,000 tons of \ beets at £1 per ton, £20,000; expenses of manufacturing 2000 tons of sugar, £7580; depreciation of plant, etc, say, £2420 —£30,000; leaving a profit -of £IO,OOO. These are round figures. You will note that sugar can apparently be grown and manufactured in New Zealand for £ls a ton—cheaper than it can be bought to-day. I believe that beets such as those grown at Ngaire will yield mere than 10 per cent, of refined sugar. • Note also that 1 have not mentioned the value of by-products of a sugar factory. I will mention one by-product, viz., 10,000 tons of beet pulp from 20,000 tons of beets. With regard to our friend the dairy farmer, I am inclined to believe that the cost of producing milk is more to-day than ever before. Take one item —the principal item—viz., the cost of labour employed in milking. I know of several instances in Taranaki where one half the factory milk cheque is given for the milking. Now not so long ago only one third was given—an increase of 50 pc-r cent. I will admit that economies are being effected in the manufacture of butter and cheese, and as the industry enlarges and gets better organised, greater economies can be counted upon Also I hope progress is constantly being made in. obtaining greater average yields of butter fat per cow ; but to day the balance is on the wrong side. What are tli e proposals for assisting the dairy farmer to cheapen the cost cf producing milk? Is the sugar beet industry any good to him ? I think it is, in certain parts of New Zealand, where soil and climate are favourable for both cows and sugar beet. I have noticed in many parts of New Zealand that the average dairy farmer cultivates a small portion of his land, and that his milkers do th e cultivation; also that whatever he cultivates for the purpose of selling is a speculation. Say he grows potatoes, it is a speculation, because a profitable market, cannot be depended upon. On account cf the speculation connected with present-day cultivation, the dairy farmer cannot charge the cost of labour to the cultivation carried on; all wages are charged to the milking account. I contend that if the dairy farmer drops part of his present speculative crops, and provides himself with a sure market for beets in the shape cf a sugar beet fac- | tory, he can run the two industries—j dairying and sugar beet—together, be»- • cause he has the labour fGr both, and he can divide the cost cf labour between them. By this means he lightens the cost of producing milk in two ways. 'He can charge the milk account ; with less cost of labour, and ha also provides himself with a grand milkproducing fodder in the shape of beet pulp. It only takes 1000 acres with an average yield of 20 tons per acre to provide sufficient roots to operate a successful sugar beet factory and if 200 farmers agreed to cultivate five acres each, the supply would be forthcoming. The cultivation could extend over a wide area provided a railway line was near.

As an illustration of the amount of capital or credit required to secure a market for £20,000 worth of raw material, 1 give the fallowing comparisons : —•

A butter factory with two creameries paying out £20,000 for milk. To 3000 cows, £2u,000 ; 7500 acres of land at £l2 10s, £90,000; factory and creameries, £6000: total, £116,000. A sugar be©t> factory paying out ;£2O 000 for beets. —To seeds and manure, £cSUUO; 1000 acres of land at £l2 10s, £12,500; cost completing factory, £25,000: total, £40,500. . ; That the sugar beet industry is considered good for New Zealand, I think is best proved by the fact ( tha there is at present on the Estimates £SOOO to b© given 1 as a bonus for the first 2000 tons of sugar produced in New Zealand. Regarding competition. I take it that ’ when the Government strongly desires to encourage the starting of an industry it will do its best to protect and foster it afterI wards. The present sugar trade appears j to me t© be a monopoly controlled by I an almost foreign company. Against j this industry, th© Maffra Sugar Beet > Factory, «in Victoria, may be quoted as j a complete failure. I regret that some i promised information on that matter has not come to hand. However* I do

not look upon it as a failure, I would I rather say that it is a success at present in state of suspense. Regarding overproduction. X do not think it wise to worry much on that score. An average output is 2000 tons, or not a consumption. It may he noted that £25,000 factories are not likely to be put up by co-operative dairy farmers without some consideration. I will conclude by giving nine points why the sugar beet industry deserves the careful consideration of dairy farmers in parts of New Zealand where soil and climate ar© suitable for sugar beet : 1. Because it could be carried on on co-operative lines like dairying, and run side by side, and not interfere with it. 2. If run with dairying there is no labour difficulty, continuous employment would he found, and labour for such is always available. 3. It would cheapen the cost of producing milk by lightening the cost of labour, and providing a grand milk producing fodder in beet pulp.

I 4. As an investment to secure a market for £20,000 worth of raw material, only one-third the capital or credit is needed in comparison with dairying. 5. The cash returns for sugar beets would he as prompt as dairy factory cheques. 6. It appeals to the small land holder as much as to the large. 7. Two hundred farmers cultivating five acres each with a yield of twenty tons per acre would provide sufficient roots to operate a factory. 8. A sugar factory would in many parts put a desirable increase on the , present value of land. 9. The Government recommends th® industry, offers a bonus of £SOOO, and? ! would n 0 doubt encourage and protect it in every reasonable way. Note.—No body of men can withstand competition so much or fight a monopoly with such persistence as a band iof determined co-operative producers.