FERTILISER COSTS

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 75, Issue 6441, 3 November 1947, Page 3

FERTILISER COSTS

BURDEN ON SOLDIER SETTLERS i LETTER TO RETURNED SERVICES’ ASSOCIATION f “An aspect of the Government’s recent decision to cancel subsidies on fertilisers which has not apparently, been considered, is- the effect it will have on rehabilitated sheep-farmer ex-servicemen on second-class country,” writes Mr L. R. Neilson and eight other ex-servicemen settlers of Te Akau to the general secretary of the Returned Services’ Association, Wellington. “ The direct effect of the removal of the fertiliser subsidy has been to increase the cost of superphosphate by £6 2s a ton. As all ex-servicemen who are farming on rehabilitation loans have covenanted to apply a minimum of two cwt. of superphosphate per acre per year, the increased annual cost per acre will be approximately 12s 2d. Increased railage, cartage, and wages would bring this to approximately 12s 9d per acre. “It has been stated that the full cost of the increase will be made up by an increase in the schedule price for fat stock. This increase, as far as fat lambs are concerned, has now been announced at 3d per lb. Allowing for an average weight per lamb of 36 lb, this represents an increased price per lamb of 2s 3d, or, in other words, the fat-lamb breeder has to turn off six lambs per acre at an average weight of 36 lb to recover the increase in cost of fertiliser alone, to say nothing of the increase in rail and transport costs—a manifest impossibility on second-class land. “ As far as the ex-serviceman who relies on the store lamb and surplus ewe trade is concerned, the position is even worse. In most cases these men are not producing more than two lambs per acre. If the increase in the price of fat lambs is-going to be only 2s 3d, it is fair to assume that the increased price of the store lamb will not exceed 2s. That will give these men an increased return per acre of about 4s to off-set an increased outlay of 12s 9d per acre. “ To quote one case which can be substantiated: On a farm of 500 acres 350 acres are estimated to be in grass. According to the covenant entered into with the State Advances Corporation when the rehabilitation loan was granted, the man who farms this property is obliged to apply, yearly, a total of 35 tons of superphosphate. The increase in the cost of super this year will involve him, if he observes his covenant, in an extra outlay of £213 10s for the purchase of superphosphate. He breeds approximately 600 lambs, which he sells as stores. Allowing an increase of 2s per head, he will receive an additional £6O for his lambs, resulting in,a net loss, compared with the old price, of £153 10s. This is a typical case, not an isolated one. “ Virtually Impossible ” “In very many cases returned servicemen have taken up partly developed properties and are endeavouring to improve them with their own labour and resources. It is generally conceded that without adequate phosphatic fertiliser it is almost impossible to convert scrub and fern land into reasonable pasture land. It follows, therefore, that the increased cost of the fertiliser has made it virtually impossible for these men to further improve their properties. “As no farmers’ organisation or the Rehabilitation Board has brought up these aspects of the case, we, being all rehabilitated ex-servicemen sheep farmers, are bringing the matter to your notice with the urgent request that your Association take the matter up with the Government and the Rehabilitation Board to see if some relief by way of a decreased price of fertiliser or other means can be granted. Otherwise it is almost a certainty that a large proportion of returned servicemen farmers, particularly those on second-class land, and with limited resources, will not be able to carry on. “Fallacious Argument” “ The chairman of Federated Farmers has stated that, over the whole Dominion, the increased schedule prices for fat stock will cover the cost, of fertiliser. That may be so, but as far as the individual farmer is concerned it seems to be merely i a case of taking from the most needy ! to give io the least needy. It is a fact that a proportion of producers of fat stock Sire farming land which needs little, if any, artificial fertilisers for its upkeep; these are the men who will benefit from the increased schedule prices while those on the poorer land who constitute a far greater proportion of the producers as a whole can only suffer loss. “ The i chairman also stated that those hill and high-country farmers who were not in the habit of applying fertiliser would benefit by the removal of the subsidy in as much as they would not now be called upon to pay any part of the cost of the subsidy. This seems a very fallacious argument as (it being conceded that, without fertiliser, such land must deteriorate) the increased cost of the fertiliser has made it more impossible than ever to apply fertiliser, and so keep up the producing capacity of : such land. ; “ We consider that, having regard , to the fact that all farmers are being • urged to produce to the limjt to help I the people of Britain, no more inop- i portune time could have been chosen ' for the removal of subsidies on fer- | tiliser. We will yield place to none i in our desire to give all the aid pos- . sible (our war service should bo suffi- I eient guarantee of that), but when an insurmountable obstacle has been placed in our way, how are wo going to increase the aid, or even keep it at the present level ? “If the removal of subsidies was an astute move on the part of Mr Nash in seizing an opportune time to hand back to farmers’ organisations the control of their produce, for which they have been agitating for years, and ensure that no protest should be made (and, indeed, that farmers as a whole would be discredited if any such protest were made), then we can only say, with Lord Montgomery, that politics is a very rough business.”