WHEAT VERSUS STOCK

Otago Witness, Issue 3336, 20 February 1918, Page 10

WHEAT VERSUS STOCK

.'AN AUSTRALIAN CONTROVERSY. (Fbom Ode Own Correspondent ) SYDNEY, February 6. Thero is an important controversy raging here at tho present time on the question—ln tho interests of Australia and the Empire, which is the better thing to do, grow wheat or stock? The facts have already been published in New Zealand papers. Australia, in the last four or five years, has produced enormous quantities of wheat, all of which has been purchased by'_ Britain. Although as a result of tho shipping shortage, the greater portion of this wheat is lying stored in Australia, and it is reckoned that it will bo fivo years beforo tho last of it is shifted, the Australian farmers have been paid for most of the grain. Britain would not buy iho 1917 18 crop, however, and; this is being carried by tho commonwealth. The farmers Kayo ixs*n paid for this too. Terribly stories reaort the city pcrsUtentlv of havoc, wrought among- tho mou.ntn : r.ii of stored wltont bv Sv-oa, weevil.", and n*»ather. It "is believed that if, b-'for« shipping is available, do-

Istructioh overtakes this grain, it will h,-< a disastrous effect on Australian commerce and finance. So the Government of New South Wales. where a considerable proportion of the wheat is grown, proposed to considerably reduce the production. Where, three year ago, it begged tho farmers to assist the Empire by growing wheat, it is now prepared to ask tho farmers to assist Australia by not growing wheat, -and producing live stock instead. On the face of it, the proposition seemed fair enough- There aro no ships and it will take five years to move thj accumulated wheat when there are ships Therefore, is it not better to grow live ' stock, for which there is an even ke*no- ; demand, and which will keep indefinitely, whereas wheat is perishable? But the proposal has started a fierce controversy. Professor Maxwell Lefroy, whr> was sent out by the British Government to look after tho British wheat stocks hero, attacked the attitude of the Government with considerable effect. He said that there would bo a terrific food shortage at the conclusion of the war. It would bo a long I time before much of the land in Europe could be restored to its former cultivable condition. The internal condition of Aus-tria-Hungary was appalling. In Franco and Italy the food shortage was serious, and a largo part of the French army would probably have to be sent from tho front in order to grow food. A considerable part of the Canadian crop had gone into the United State*, where there was alto a shortage, and he considered that every ton j of wheat th<\y could grow in Australia would fetch a high price as soon as it could be removed. The sound policy for Aus tralia was to accumulate as large a stock of wheat as it possibly could. Apart from business it was a patriotic thing to do. England could not grow enough wheat to feed herself, and when shipping was liberated after the war, they might take it for granted that shipping would' be sent to wherever there was wheat ready for shipment. Stocked as he suggested, their wheat would keep indefinitely—ho could guarantee it for "five years at least. There was no doubt that bulk handling would overcome the weevil difficulty. It would also be a good thing if farmers could hold their wheat on their farms. The majority of the farmers appear to be with Professor Lefroy. and the argument proecedeth merrily. It all seems to hinge on the question of how long wheat can be kept in good condition.