THE PRICE OF BUTTER.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLVII, Issue 15321, 17 September 1920, Page 4

THE PRICE OF BUTTER.

i' — — «-* WELLINGTON, this day. Th© first meeting of the Parliamentary Committee set up by tho House to inquire into and report upon the present and future prices of butter m the Dominion, especially with regard *to the probability of' the present ; and probable surplus being purchased by the Imperial ■Government at a considerable increase m price as compared with that of last season, was held this morning. The committee consists of Messrs. Nash Atmorey J. R- Hamilton, Mcleod, Hawken, Hockley, Kellett, McCombs, Poland, Powdrelf, and Massey. The chairman suggested that, the evidence of various - parties interested should be taken. One or two from each section would be sufficient, and he thought it absolutely necessary that there should be ovideivo from the point of view, of Labor, tho witnesses to be selected by tho Labor organisations themselves. -Tlie first witness ciilled was A. R y . .Stone, accountant of the Agricultural Department, who analysed 24 typical cases which had been supplied to the Department, which, >pfter allowing, all expenses and charges, showed an average loss of £|d on the production of a pound of butter fat on the prices paid by the various factories they supplied. "W. M. Singleton, assistant director of the dairy division of the Agricultural Department, said that last year New Zealand produaed 28,000 tons of butter ; 11,000 tons T?ere- consumed, 14,000 exported, and 17,000 now available for export. The grading of hutter had receded m the last four years and the grading of cheese was going up. He suggested that the British Government had not paid a pjHce for butter on a parity with cheese. Consequently there had been a disposition to produce cheese instead of butter. On tho cost of production he said the .commission which sat m Chicago m 1917 held thafc the for/ncr was entitled not only to interest on his investment, but- to 10 per cent.^ on all costs as -his share of the enterprise. In 1914-15 a farmer had to invest £90 per cow per acre. In 1 1919-20 he had to invest £150 per cow. The principal items m tho increased cost were land and labor. The reason so few farmers know* what it cost them to produce a pound of butter fat was that so few' of , them were accountants. He thought the herds of tlie Dominion were improving. He could not say whether it was more profitable to milk by machine than by hand.' •*•■.- David Haberfield, president of tho Christchurch .Grocers' Association, detailed the experience of the retail grade m connection, with butter; Before tlie war grocers bought bfttter at Is Id, andsold at Is 3d, which left a fair profit, but the "expenses had so gone 'up l;hat to-day ' double profit would not give the same return. With butter at 2s''TSd wholesale a fair profit would be 4d, per lb cash, and 5d booked and delivered. Butter was seventh m a, .grocer's turnover. He anticipated that if the price reached the point talked of consumption woiild be considerably reduced. Criticising the figures supplied to the commit- ' tee, Mr. McCombs contended that they were, more or lesg valueless. Quoting the case of one farmer, who said he, was losing £292 yearly on . land valued at I £15 an acre, yet said his land was worth £22 an acre, he thought the figures should be investigated by an ac•countant. ,Tlie committee proceeded' to deliberate, and subsequently adjourned till Tuesday. — Press Assn.