Our Wheat Supply.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 5259, 15 May 1895, Page 4

Our Wheat Supply.

(Prom the Lyttelton Times.) J PsOPtifc wbo decline to take their i politics 1 from our morning contemporary have hitherto been disposed to place cone reliance upon its utterances with regard to those matters which direilly affect the interests of the great landlords of this part of the country. It seems, however, that this confidence has been altogether misplaced. Yesterday our contemporary published a statement which simply . turns to derision any claim it may hay» had to speak with authority on tbs wheat question. We recently pointed out that the estimated yield of our last wheat harvest was 1,700,000 bushels under the quantity required for consumption and seed purposes during the next twelve months. This calculation was based upon the official returns, and upon au estimate that 738 bushels per head represented the colonial consumption. Our contemporary loftily calls this "absurd," and advises us to " refer to someone wbo understands the question." Without waiting for us to follow its advice it straightway proceeds to pose as the " one who understands," and hurls at us a mass of arguments and alleged facts to prove that we were wrong in stating that the consumption of wheat in New Zealand is over seven bushels per head of the population. Let us quote its orwn words : —

It is now thoroughly recognised that in all meat-eating communities, such aB the United Stateß, Australia and New Zealand the consumption of wheat ia not over 4£ bushels per head, the outside estimate for the States being 4| bushels. Meat i 3 even more plentiful in New Zealand than in America, and consequently the probabilities are that we eat lees bread. But, assuming that we consume 5 bushels per head, and taking the population at 700,000, our requirements for the ensuing year will not exceed 3,500,000 bushels for food, and at the outside 300,000 for seed. As the estimated yield is 3,613,137 bushels, this leaves an outside deficiency of less than 200,000 bushelß, instead of the 1,700.000 bushels stated by the Lyitelton Times. It is only in France, Germany and other countries, where the poor have to live almost entirely upon breadstuffs, that the consumption reaches 7 to 8 bushels of wheat per head per annum.

It would be difficult to crowd more errors than appear in our contemporary's statements into any twenty lines of print. We find from the " New Zealand Official Yearbook " that, taking the average for I the past seventeen years, the people of this colony consume 7*40 bushels per head of wheat annually, and in I spite of all the " probabilities " and ■ the actual plentifulness of meat, this 'is a much higher average than that which obtains in Australia or in the United States. The average is 6*4 bushels in IjTew South Wales, 5*4 bushels in the United States and 5*6 in the United Kingdom. :A.s for the contention that the consumption of wheat is high in countries where " the poor have to live almost entirely upon breads tuffs " it is as baseless as the other statements of our contemporary. France has a slightly higher average than New Zealand, but the consumption in Germany \a only three bushels per head a year ; in Russia it is but a fraction over two bushels, while in Italy, which is a poor and not a meateating country, the average is 54 bushels. As a matter of fact the Russian and - German peasantry largely live on rye-bread, which accounts for their small consumption of wheat. The reasoning of our contemporary is thus altogether astray, and its facts are utterly unreliable. It may be able to explain wherein lay the necessity for " assuming that we consume five bushels per head," when reliable statistics were available to show that we consume 50 per cent more. It cannot, of course, have any interest in seeking to deceive the public on this pomt — that is out of the question — but it is difficult to believe it capable of such gross blundering. Then, it makes a further misstatement in arriving at " an' outside deficiency of less than 200,000 bushels." Assuming the consumption to be five bushels and "taking the population at 700,000" is a convenient way of arriving at the result desired. But in addition to understating the consumption, our contemporary understates the population by at least 30,000. The correctiou of this trifling error would nearly] double the " outside deficiency," and further rectification would prove our calculation of the deficit to be absolutely correct. For "one who understands the question " our con-

temporary has shown itself to be wofully deficient in information. There is no great importance in the point in dispute; for, as we have said, there are probably sufficient stocks in hand to Bupply the deficiency ; but when our calculations and deductions, founded upon actual statistics, are impugned by our contemporary "assuming" one thing, " taking " another, and misrepresenting the wholo of the facts, it is just as well that wo Bhould set it right with the gentle reminder that without accurate information the highest understanding ia liable to err.