STOCK FOODS.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXV, Issue 18635, 2 August 1930, Page 17

STOCK FOODS.

CRITICISM OF MR HUNT. REFERENCE AT FARMERS’ UNION. The agitation in the North Island for the removal of Customs duties from wheat for stock feed, which was referred to by Mr P. R. Talbot, president of the Timaru-St. Andrews branch of the Farmers’ Union, at a meeting of the branch a month ago, brought a reply from Mr W. D. Hunt, who, Mr Talbot said, was at the back of this agitation. This matter came before the Union again yesterday. Mr Talbot said Mr Hunt had been good enough to write to him saying that he had seen the statement he (Mr Talbot) had made. This, said Ihe speaker, was a reprint from a report which had appeared in the “Timaru Herald.” “Mr Hunt, in his letter, states that I have evidently been misinformed,” said Mr Talbot, “as he is in favour of a duty on wheat for human consumption, but he is not in favour of a duty on inferior wheat used for stock feed, because pig and poultry farmers are hampered by the duty on these stock feeds. “There is a recommendation that this duty should be removed,” said Mr Talbot. “The Commission, in making this recommendation, said it desired to point out that it does not want to interfere with the duty on grain grown for human consumption. Mr Hunt said: ‘I have never advocated a removal of the duty on wheat for milling purposes, but I am definitely against duties on wheat the farmers require to feed their stock.’ “I have not been misinformed,” observed Mr Talbot. “I knew exactly where he stood before I received his letter. The point is, Mr Hunt differentiated between the two: stock feed and the wheat for milling purposes. A well-known miller told me the other day that during the Government commandeer, when the wheat was hard to get, and free wheat was allowed to come into the country by lifting the embargo, some came in for poultry and pigs, and found its way into flour bags. They arjmit it now, but the point is that this goes very far afield, does the question of a duty on stock foods, and I think we should fight it to the last ditch, for it is a far more serious thing than many imagine. The average farmer does not realise that there was a duty on oats of 1/6 per 1001 b., or something like 7d a bushel. They are letting barley in for stock food. I think this is a question upon which we should pass a resolution. So far as maize is concerned, a duty of 2/- per 1001 b was imposed, and when you come back to oats, there are a lot of these used for human consumption, and how are you going to differentiate between the two kinds there? I think' Mr Hunt is wrong when he says that we can get these stock foods duty free, and that it is not going to interfere with wheat or other grain for human consumption. “I still think it is an agitation from the merchants in the north,” said Mr Talbot. "The merchants in the North Island are scared we are going to get their trade between us and the people there, and that we are going to get into closer touch with them. That is why they want the duties off stock foods. Mr Hunt wrote a nice letter, but that does not alter the situation at all, and we should fight any attempt to take the duty off stock foods. The sliding scale on wheat is all right for this year, but we should send a protest to the House. Mr Hunt s position does not worry me in the slightest. I knew where he was It is a dangerous position. He is tackling the position from the wrong end.” Mr J. Black: “It is most important, but it is rather unfortunate that you mentioned his name, but there was no harm in doing it.” Mr Talbot: “I am not afraid to mention his name.” Mr Black said that America was full of wheat, and they wanted to get rid of it, and if the duty was removed they would swamp this country with it. He thought the Union should support the the Marlborough growers in their protest against the removal of the duty on barley. Mr France said that from what he could gather from reports on the pork Industry at Home, the pig business in New Zealand was a “wash out.” Mr Talbot moved: “That this Union PP i? rts the P rot est made by the Marlborough Union against the rethe duty on barley.” Jones seconded the motion, which was carried.