MANURE RATIONING

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 63, Issue 4462, 11 August 1941, Page 5

MANURE RATIONING

KING COUNTRY FARMERS ALARMED. DANGER OF REVERSION. The rationing of phosphatic fertilisers on a basis of 40 per cent, of the annual average purchases over the past two years, was discussed at the quarterly meeting of the Northern King Country sub-Provincial Executive of the Farmers’ Union, held at Te Kuiti on Thursday last. “For many in this district the arbitrary reduction of phosphates means ruination,” stated Mr H. Mason. “So many farmers here, for financial reasons, have been able only to apply the bare minimum of phosphate necessary to prevent reversion in the past two years now these men, struggling to hold their property, find that only 40 per cent, of this minimum is available. The matter is a very serious one indeed, one upon which a strong stand should be made by the Union.” Mr V. W. Simms said, inter alia: “I can visualise what is going to happen in the light hill country if this happens. It will simply revert, which is a loss to the country as a whole. “We must look at the matter from a national viewpoint, and we must admit that the hardship will not be great on the well-drained Waikato type lands. Certainly the big returns came from these, but what of the national calamity of lands being forced from production?” Mr W. J. Bowyer heartily agreed. He knew of one man applying 4cwt per acre of super twice a year—no less than Bcwt a year. Was it right that he should have 40 per cent, of this huge application, whereas the struggling man on hill country received only 40 per cent, of the few tons he had been able to apply over his whole farm. Concern was expressed at the fact that farmers were outnumbered upon the district fertiliser tribunals, there being on each one Government nominee, one farmer, and one fertiliser retailer. The opinion was expressed that the appointment of this latter representative could open the way to anomalies for instance, a farmer could threaten to withdraw his account from the retailers’ firm if he were not given proper consideration. After further discussion the matter was left with Messrs Mason and Simms to deal with at the Provincial Executive meeting in Auckland. POWERS OF COMMITTEES. OFFICIAL EXPLANATION. In connection with the above, Mr J. M. Smith, Fields Superintendent of the Department of Agriculture, has issued a statement, wherein he asserted that many farmers were under the impression that these committees had power to grant feriliser in excess of the quota laid down in the notice, and many of the applications received from farmers were for manure in excess of the quota which had already been granted them. Farmers were entitled' to fertiliser for cropping in accordance with the schedule, and could obtain this manure at any time during the year. For topdressing purposes they were entitled to 40 per cent, of the quantity used during the past two seasons, that is, between June 1, 1939, and May 31, 1941. GROUNDS FOR APPLICATIONS. Where a farmer had been advised that this 40 per cent, had been allocated to him he had no grounds for an appeal to the committee and he was wasting his own time and the time of the committee in making application. This left a limited number of grounds on which he had the right to make application. These were: (1) Where he had bought a property within the last two years and thus could not make a return of topdressing used by him during the period under review. (2) Where he had fertiliser on order during the second year but did not have his order fulfilled; in this case he was entitled to 40 per cent, of the fertiliser he would have actually received. (3) Where through no fault of his own he was unable to make the return of topdressing used during the past two seasons. Farmers must realise, concluded Mr Smith, that the rationing scheme was introduced because the quantity of manure that was going to be available during the coming year was only about half of that used in 1940-41. It was appreciated that the shortage would cause hardships, but the basis of distribution was on previous Use of fertiliser, so that the hardship was as evenly distributed as possible.