THE GRAIN SACKS QUESTION

Timaru Herald, Volume LXXXI, Issue 12635, 23 March 1905, Page 4

THE GRAIN SACKS QUESTION

FURTHER LOCAL OPINIONS. WHY THE 200LB RULE WAS CANCELLED. A representative of the "Herald" yesterday made some enquiries regarding local opinion concerning Snr J. G. Ward's cancellation of his previous order as Minister of Railways that sacks of wheat were not to be carried on the railways in sacks containing over 2001b. Mr Newman, manager of the CanterburyFarmers' Co-operative Association, is very much surprised that the order has been cancelled, without notice, and so far as the merchants and farmers are aware without enquiry as to the effect of the order. The explanations given to the Press by Sir J. G. Ward—that 'there are still a large number of the larger sacks in the colony," and that "the Calcutta mills are unable with their looms, to make sacks of the size referred to"—will not hold water. There must be sacks of the larger size- imported, for oats and barley, whatever size of sackis used for wheat, and 48-inch sacks have been imported this season together with 44inch. The real reason for the cancellation of the order, Mr Newman suspects, is that the Minister has been informed that the new- order was having the effect of strengthening the competition of traction engines, which draw grain by road without any regard whatever to tfie size of the sacks. The interests of farmers, threshers, and millers favour the 2401b sack, and the traction engine haulage suits all those interests, as the engrae owner* make no restrictions- Mr Newman thinks his suggestion must be the correct one, because all other conditions affecting the question were. weD known before; traction engine competition is the only new element in the case. The Farmers* Association imported for this season both 48-inch and 44-inch sacks, and now they have a lot of 44's on hand which they wiD find some difficulty in getting rid of, locally, as farmers who have not yet purchased their sacks will certainly demand the foil-sized ones now, to save any haggling with the mfilera about the value of the sacks when they sell their wheat. Reference has frequently been made to the fact that 44-inch sacks have all along been used in Otago. This, Mr Newman remarks, has little to 60 with the wheat-b3g question, because Otago does not grow much wheat, and the standard Back there is the one most suitable for oats. The new regulation gave a great deal of trouble to importers of sacks, and it was vexatious that all that trouble has been thrown away. and a new annoyance caused by the rescind-

be of the order. A bad precedent has been established, for farmers now will not feel safe in acting upon any future legislation of the kind. '"" ' Mr William Evans does not think much of the difficulty of the small sack so far as. the package of flour Is concerned.' The inch saek has all a.o. g'been used for 2001b of flour"byDunedia.iniDs, ~and some of the short bags have been packed at the Atlas. nulls: Sir Evans is inclined to think that Mr "-Newman's- suggested explanation of the railway regulation is the r correct one; it seems a very likely thing. His objection to the short sack is that it will not hold the standard market weights of bran and pollard, as these have to be pressed into the full-sized aacE; shipping freights- are" based on so many sacks to the-ton,and the rates cannot be altered white, the long sacks are in use". The millers Twill therefore be compelled to use the - old sack for offal and the new one for flour, and risk the flour being made "lumpy" by .pressure. It is usual to put 2001bs of flour in a 44" inch sack in Australia, but there the flour is drier and will bear tight packing better than the softer flour of New ! Zealand.

The Atlas Mill has probably received into store the largest quantity of wheat yet delivered, to one consignee in Timaru this season,-in 2001b bags. Mr Venning, the storeman, informs us that from his point of view the 2001b bag is a success, and the carriers like it. The weight being more within.their strength, the "men not only carry the bags more easily, but, what is of equal importance, they can* place them and shift them quicker than the heavier ones, and in that way the extra time spent in carrying is about made up. As for the supposed' difficulty of safely stacking the short-sacks, that is altogether imaginary, and experience shows that there is no difficulty about it. All that is Mcessary to make a safe- stack is to alter the numbers of the units of each layer from even numbers to c«dd; numbers. Our reporter was shown a number of stacks of 2001b bags m the Atlas mill, and they are quite as compact and neat and safe as the stacks of 24Q"sI'alotigsidff'them. "Hie, whole secretis in laying down odd'numbers instead of even ones.- The snia'lest unit for a small stack _of 240's is two, and then two ,laid»»cross them. With 200*8 fh»-smallest -unit: is three, two side by -side and one across the end, the second .tier the same, but " end for end." The next unit is five side by sidej and three pairs end to end for the next tier. These units make square solid stacks., Mr Venning is perfectly well satisfied with the stacking quality of the 200 sack, .and the men who have to handle them were.pleased with the reduction _of weight, and do-not regard the cancelation of the regulation with satisfaction.