CEREAL CROPS

Otago Witness, Issue 3396, 16 April 1919, Page 12

CEREAL CROPS

WHEAT LANDS OF NORTH OTAGO

A MILLER'S OPINIONS.

Summed up, the position of the growing of white crops in North Otago during the present season is that ideal conditions have resulted in magnificent crops haying been harvested —and that in a. season which was the reverse of promising during the spring end early summer months. Looked at from all points of view, and taking full cognisance of the opinions offered, one would be safe in estimating the yields of oats, wheat, and barley in the North Otago district at from 20 to 25 per cent, above the average for the district, and 10 per cent, in excess of the previous best year. The wheat yield in Otago will probably be nearer 40 bushels per acre—--25 per cent above the official estimate — and oats 50 bushels, or nearly 30 per cent, higher than the Government Statistician's figures The crops in North Otago are almost invariably free from, disease, and on this occasion a distinct immunity is noticeable. With a late season such-as the present is it was expected that rust would "mariifst itself, particularly in the oat crops. It was feared, too, that the frosts, similar to the visitation which did so much damage to the -wheat crops in the 1915-16 season, would occur in a late season like the present. Neither frost nor snow, which not infrequently beset the grain grower, has been responsible for any loss in North Otago this season. The result is that prime samples prevail. In fact it is quite the- exception to see other than a prime milling sample. This ' applies both to wheat and oats. As far as oats are concerned it is expected that all the grain marketed will be A grade. One lar"-e broker in Oamaru, when spoken to, said he would be surprised to find a bushel of B grade wheat grown in North Otago this season. It is a notable fact, however, that in grain growing quantity and not quality go hand in hand, and that 4b particularly the case on this occasion.

With a view to eliciting information from the millers' standpoint our reporter interviewed Mr It. K. Ireland, of the firm of Messrs Ireland and Co., Oamaru, who stated i that he was of opinion that the wheat I position as far as New Zealand was concerned, was not thoroughly understood, I and he hoped that the Industries Committee of the House of Representatives, which is now engaged in taking evidence throughout the dominion, will recognise in this industry one which was of such importance to this country as to warrant measures being taken to ensure sufficient wheat being grown to satisfy the country's requirements. He said that some discussion had arisen as to New Zealand-grown wheat making a satisfactory flour for bread-making. He thought the quality of New Zealand bread, during the past 30 years was a sufficient reply to this question. The proportion imported for mixing purposes was small. Further, during the past season flour made from New Zealand-grown wheat had successfully competed against flour made from Australian wheat. The second question was: Could wheat be grown profitably in New Zealand? Mr Ireland, in reply, said that farmers contend that during the past decade or more grain-growing did not com pare favourably with the production of mutton, lamb, and wool, for instance. While he had no desire to dispute this statement, he wished to compare what the wheat-grow-ing lands would produce with sheep as against wheat. In 1918 New Zealand had approximately 270,000 acres in wheat, yielding about 25 bushels per acre at 5s 8d per bushel, equal to £7 Is 8d per acre, making a gross return of £1,912,500. Allowing one and a-half ewes per acre, 100 per cent, lambs, and the ewes shearing 81b of wool each at Is 3d per lb—the same area carrying sheep in 1918 would have produced 405,000 lambs at 255, £506,250; wool, 81b at Is 3d, equal to 10s per ewe, £202,500, or a total of a showing in favour of wheat-growing of £1,203,750. It may be asked, said Mr Ireland, why does the farmer prefer to engage in wool and mutton production? The reply was that all the gross profits made out of wheat were spent in producing the cereal. This money was expended in ploughing, harrowing, sowing, cutting, stooking, stacking, thrashing, and carting to the railway. The point he endeavoured to make was that wheat-grow-ing supplied work for a larger number of men than any other branch of husbandry would supply on this class of land. After the wheat left the farmer's hands at the railway siding it began to produce revenue for the railways estimated at not less than £70,000 by the time it got to the seaboard. Then came the labour of unloading, storing, and milling, which involved an expenditure of £IOO,OOO. Labour was employed also in loading for shipment to tho North Island, and this meant a distribution ; of wages amounting to £20,000, while in-

directly many business firms depended to a large extent on some of the above items for their revenue, such as implement-making and the construction of grain stores. Practically all this employment would be lost if wheat-growing were abandoned in the dominion. "Is it not worth while," asked Mr Ireland, "encouraging an industry which showed a gross return of about £2,000.000, and required the utilisation of so much labour?" Ho estimated that by the time the wheat crops arrived at the seaboard in the form of flour, bran, pollard, and fowl wheat, it was worth £2,411,000, made up as follows:—120,000 tons of flour, £1,800,000; 23,000 tons of pollard, £161,000: 30,000 tons of bran, £150,000- 500,000 bushels of fowl wheat, and a similar quantity of seed wheat —£300,000. Asked as to what a similar of Australian wheat in 1918 would have cost, Mr Ireland replied that it wa» impossible to arrive at a comparison, aa there were no quotations available. He knew that the wheat bought by the New Zealand Government in Australia in 1918 cost it approximately 6s 5d per bushel landed in New Zealand without duty, against the New Zealand price to the grower of 5s 10d per bushel. Australia knew we were short and dictated a price that was higher than ours simply because we must accept it. This year New Zealand has advanced the price to our growers, to 6s 6d per bushel. Australia has responded with an advance correspondingly equal to 6s 9id landed. It appeared, therefore, that although we have a large surplus of wheat almost at our door, we are forced to pay a high price for it. In pre-war days when a shortage of wheat took place in New Zealand it was made up principally with Australian flour, because the Australian miller reoeived a higher price for his bran and pollard, and could thus sell flour at a lower price than the New Zealand miller. ; Only last year, so as to encourage the Australian miller to make flour for New Zealand, the Wheat Board quoted the Australian millers wheat at a penny per bushel less than was quoted to the New Zealand miller. The same competition was, in Mr Ireland's opinion, to be expected as soon as wheat control in New Zealand was abandoned. To counteract this New Zealand wheat must be bought below the price of Australian to the difference in value of Australia's bran and pollard as compared with New Zealand. Australia- is nearly always short of bran and pollard, and although all the mills in the commonwealth have been running three shifts for 12 months manufacturing flour for the British Government, they are still short of bran and pollard. If New Zealand abandoned wheat-growing she would be under the necessity of importing at least 53,000 tons of bran and pollard. If we draw on Australia for these supplies, where they are invariably short, we' immediately cause the market to advance, and raise the price on ourselves. In times of drought Australia has paid over £lO per ton, f.o.b. • in New Zealand for our offal. This means that a drought in Australia under those circumstances would place the farmer in New" Zealand who raises calves and pigs in a very awkward predicament. He' asked whether the people of Now Zealand could afford to lose such an important industry producing annually £2.000.000. Wheatgrowing was the small farmers' standby, and it .ereatly assisted in the rotation of crops. To-day we were not growing sufficient wheat to feed ourselves. In order to encourage the Industry he suggested before the Industries Committee three alternatives: (1) A duty of £2 10s per ton on flour and wheat, with a guarantee of a minimum price to the farmer over a term of years. (2) Payment of a bonus to the farmer on every bushel of wheat grown, j . (3) The present system of Government control of wheat, flour, bran, and pollard eliminating speculation and guaranteeing the grower a fixed price for wheat.

He thought that a great deal could also be done by the establishment of Government experimental farms, in the selecting and producing of varieties of wheat suitable to the district.