AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND FLOUR

Southland Times, Issue 17736, 14 August 1917, Page 3

AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND FLOUR

RELATIVE MERITS. (From Our Own Correspondent). WELLINGTON, August 12. With a view to correcting misapprehensions as to the respective merits of Australian and New Zealand flour, a merchant informed the Wellington Post that the real cause why Australian flour was required wtis because of its greater strength. In proof of this he stated that by using Australian flour us against New Zealand or a mixture of both there wns a gain to the baker of 9s 2d per ton, or one loaf in every 1001b of flour; but, inasmuch as Australian flour absorbed more moisture than New Zealand, allowance had to be made for evaporation after baking. So far as Wellington was concerned, it was not correct to say that Australian flour was cheaper than that made from New Zealand wheat. On the contrary, Australian Hour from Meloburne cost £ls 10s net spot cash, c.i.f,. e., whereas South Island flour cost £ls 3s 2d, with 2t per cent, discount. Flour for New Zealand was selling free on board at Melbourne to-day at £l2 17s fid to £l3 2s fid, and Ids per ton more if from Sydney. It was possible to buy an inferior flour at 10s per ton less, but such flour was not in demand in New Zealand. Bakers preferred Australian Hour also for the reason that it was stronger than New Zealand, and the dough took less time to “prove.” He had ascertained from a local baker what, was the proportion of Australian flour made up when New Zealand was used. The mixture was five parts of Australian to two of New Zealand. The flour used by one local firm for July comprised 125 tons of Australian and 85 tons of New Zealand from the South Island. That indicated the requirements of its customers. No retail business was done in flour, and bakers were the only customers supplied. It was suggested that economy might be effected by the use of pure wholemeal for bread-making, as it would til the same time furnish the people witii a bread which, in the opinion of many medical authorities, was more healthful than the ordinary white bread. The reply was that (here was a demand for bran and pollard that had to be met. The chief obstacle was not raised by the bakers, but by the public taste, which demanded a white bread. Brown bread was also ordered, but it was not necessarily wholemeal bread; in fact, it was often a concoction, but it met any demand for brown bread. If whole wheat meal bread were in demand the bakers would no doubt readily supply it. Almost every locality had its local taste, and therefore it did not follow that one kind of bread popular in one place would be popular in another. The bakers were guided by local preferences, for it was useless to produce an article not generally saleable. This explained why broad made entirely from New Zealand flour might be taken in larger quantities in one place than another. As for economy, whole wheat meal was now sold by millers at 2A per cent, off fine flour, so that if that difference were passed on to the consumer it would represent a reduction :Jd off even 7 half-crown’s worth of bread. He thought that people who insisted on having white bread would not, from motives of saving, (urn from it to the wholemeal article.