DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

Otago Witness, Issue 3613, 12 June 1923, Page 12

DAIRY PRODUCE CONTROL.

A thorny subject, it will be admitted, no matter at what angle it is glimpsed at by suppliers. Apparently the remedy for all the ups and downs of the dairy produce traue is filtering —nay, not filtering, but flooding —the South island from the sunny North. It would seem to be a method akin to ‘‘export control by experts.” It has a rhythmical sound, but looks, as the Americans say, ‘‘too slick.

Yve may well ask for more information about the Dairy Control Bill before signing a blank cheque handing over the produce of dairy tanners to even experts. The Prime Alinister, at Auckland the other day, distinctly stated that if the Bill was passed during the coming season it would be because people connected with the industry wanted it. If they did not want it they should say so. 'there wa's no political interest attached to it, but he would like to have some expression of opinion from the people most concerned. A house divided against itself could not stand. He would like to see unanimity on the question. One example of the benefit of control could be found in the Meat Control Act. It had worked well. The board had done excellent work because it had not been pushed along too rapidly. A reduction in freights had been brought about, representing a gain to the Dominion of £578,000 a year. Why, then, we ask, cannot the Meat Board do all that is required on behalf of the dairy people, and so save the great costs likely to be incurred by setting up of a Dairy Control Board to control dairy products alone? The Meat Board costs producers no inconsiderable sums of money to run, and could well manage to attencl to such trade matters which all admit hamper the maximum of money returns coming the producer’s way. One of the grievances of the farmers is the freight rate for railing dairy produce. It is asserted that the rate to-day is over 150 per cent, higher than it was before the war. Well, then, what is easier than to get the Meat Board to attend to such matters as railway freights, etc., on behalf of the dairymen? Although a very great number of dairymen througout the Dominion are opposing compulsory control of dairy produce, it is probable that those same objecting dairymen would not mind being overseered by the Meat Control Board. The term “compulsory” is not liked by dairymen in this part of the world, as in the past they have been well treated by traders prepared to handle their produce when matters looked ominous at Home. Are producers prepared to give over all idea of selling on an f.o.b. basis? As a southern supplier writer, “during the past three years the factory to which I am a supplier has sold the bulk of its output. Only recently it was considered that factories that had sold their cheese from month to month during the present season would fare far worse than the factory which consigned, but now that the Home market is back to 84s per cwt. and looks like going lower, it is almost certain that, as far as my factory is concerned at anyrate, the net result to the suppliers will be at least Id per lb better on a, butterfat basis than if we had consigned. It is true that we obtained only 8d for our September-October make, but for Novem-ber-Deeember we obtained 9§d, for January 9£d, for February lOd and and the same price for March, April, and May. Some factories in Southland obtained lOd for January-February make, and obtained as high as 11| for certain steamers, wich sailed during February. It is quite probable that by the time the season’s output is marketed at Home we will net considerably more for our butterfat than the consigning factories, and in the meantime it is certain that our advantage will be at least Id per lb. The matter rests with the suppliers to determine. Undoubtedly there are faults to remedy in the dairying as in any other industry. Nothing is perfect. The faults in the dairying industry, however, are amenable to ordinary methods of remedy • —they may require time and change of circumstances, but they do not require arbitrary legislation. The greatest room for improvement, is first with the farmer, and secondly with the factory. These are right to the farmer’s hand and under his control, and he should concentrate his whole energies in this direction, and not dissipate his time and money in rash ventures in the field of commerce. It is pointed out that even the shipping problems are exceedingly difficult, especially for inexperienced men who have failed in other small and simple commercial ventures. Marketing problems are still more intricate. Before anything is attempted to interfere with either of these sections of the dairying industry, a thorough investigation would seem necessary by men of requisite knowledge and experience. Surely a small delegation consisting of men of proved ability and integrity could be sent to visit Canada, England, and Denmark to inquire into and report on methods adopted by other countries and make recommendations as to any changes required in the New Zealand shipping and marketing system. In any case the scheme to control produce should not be rushed.

Finally, the reason why we ui-ge dairymen to go slowly in this matter of handing over control of their produce is the fact that such conflicting reports have come down from the north in regard to the general view taken by dairy farmers of the proposed Dairy Control Bill. in the National Dairy Association’s annual report it is mentioned that during the past year the executives of the National Dairy Association and the South Island Dairy Association, in conjunction with the Meat Producers’ Board, negotiated for several months with the associated shipping companier in order to obtain reduced freight rates on dairy produce. “Ihe only result,” the report records, “was a reduction of gd per lb on freight on cheese. Freights now stand at 5s per box for butter and 1 l-16d plus 10 per cent, per lb for cheese.” “Reports from all sources urge the necessity for more regularity in shipping, and claim that, given regularity, more stable prices would be realised. It is undoubtedly true that the lack of shipping at the end of January and in the early part of February, with the consequent shortage of arrivals in Great Britain during March, resulted in famine prices. When the reaction came, due to heavy arrivals later, the market collapsed, and reached a lower figure than it would have done had shipments been regularly maintained. “These irregularities are to some extent in the hands of the producers themselves, as the urgent demand of every dairy company is to have the produce shipped as soon as manufactured, thus crowding into a few months the greater proportion of the season’s output. With the greatly increased production in the Southern Ham.isphere, the question ol regulating shipmenta is one of the most important matters relating to the industry, and one that demands immediate attention.”

Surely, then, the obtaining of regularity of shipments is not beyond the capacity of the Meat Board, the members of which after all, have no interest in the dairy industrv beyond furthering the prosperity of the Dominion.