WOOL

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume LV, Issue 17236, 16 April 1930, Page 10

WOOL

(To the .Editor of the Herald.) Sir, —The many cable messages appearing in tlie Herald and your leading articles on marketing problems shoum bo enough to arouse tanners to decisive action; and yet the meeting in Wellington recently of members of the Slieepowners ’ Federation and Farmers Union was resultless. I have heard it said many times that members of the Slieepowners’ Federation are a commercialised’ lot of farmers, having more interest in finance and commerce than m growing wool, and judging by tlm results ot the meeting above referred to, the statement seems to be well founded. Your leader of Saturday last points oui many advantages to be gained by cooperation. . In your cable message dated London, February 6, is an account of a meeting of Yorkshire farmers inaugurating a pooi or scheme for the co-operative marketing of wool, and this, sir, in the manufacturing centre of the wool trade. Two years ago the Scotch fanners formed a simihu Society in the very place where Scotch tweeds are made. Now if it is found needful for farmers to bind themselves together to protect themselves in the very manufacturing centres, does not a greater need exist in this land? The meeting in Wellington finally decided to seek a reduction in freight us a measure of relief. What an utterly ridiculous decision. Wool is on an average about 7d per lb., and it costs 14 jd to grow, and the greatest reduction we could expect to obtain from the shipping companies might be -|d per lb., whereas wc need another 7d per lb. if wool is to pay tile farmer, and this could easily be got, and a reduction in the price of wooller goods as well, if we had a wool board functioning properly. A wool board could speak for every sheepfaroier it New Zealand, whereas the Slieepowners Federation..can only speak for a few' o them and the Farmers' Union for a few more. A board representing the whole could negotiate prices with Bradford; freights with the shipping companies, in terest and exchange rates with the Associated Banks, insurance with the insurance companies, etc. The weights of wool grown in tbr Hrilish Empire according to your arlieb in Saturday's paper, are instructive About 55 per rent, of the world’s export able wool is grown by the Empire VYlia-t is to hinder us knowing exactl from year to year what we are to rr r ( ;jve for our wool, what Brad tot'd ha' fti pay, and wluit the tailor and the con smner have to nav for t.lieiv clothing' The Bradford man knows almost to r bale the amount of wool be needs: lit also knows the probable weight w - e shed have to sell. Then why the erratic price! we see in our sale-rooms? 1 lie who!( position is absurd. Until we get. a woo hoard, with power to value and inarke otm product, so lonsr will this unsatisfactory condition' obtain. Under present sale room valuations, we have no guarantee that till, or even any part of our dip will be valued, and wo often sei brokers’ reports of a wool sale, bidding erratic," “competition irregular.” That means that some poor farmer lias been di,Piled out of 3d or -Id per lb., and the I,vot ers' svnr albv docs not make up for his loss either. This whole system must | p lianucd. Under the scheme 1 h-i\m i advocated in vouv columns, none of these ;in pgularities could happen. Every bwould be scientifically \allied. The "count.’’ ’viold,” condition, and upset price would be recorded so that tin buver as well as the seller would be ■ Totccted. as three experts, with time to do the valuation properly, would he much safer than a single buyer often on a rush job. , In conclusion, f most heartily tbans .Mr. Anderson of Polorus Hound for hi? work at the 'conference referred to at the head of this letter, lie has a good grasp oli the marketing problems of the i'ai'mer. Might 1 recommend the Sheepowners’ Federation to either reoieanise or disband : at present that creams,utioi nopears to he moribund and useless to the woolgrower. T am, etc.. FRANCIS STAFhORD ,