The Waimate Advertiser. (Established 1898). Published every evening since 1914. WEDNESDAY, AUG. 11, 1926. WOOL COMMITTEE OR WOOL BOARD.

Waimate Daily Advertiser, Volume XXIV, 11 August 1926, Page 4

The Waimate Advertiser. (Established 1898). Published every evening since 1914. WEDNESDAY, AUG. 11, 1926. WOOL COMMITTEE OR WOOL BOARD.

There is a section of farmers to whom the word “control” has the same consolation as that blessed word “Mesopotamia” had for the old lady. At the conferenece New Zealand Farmers’ Union last week the question of establishing a Wool Control Board was considered and the following remit was carried: “This conference considers that the time has arrived when a wool board is essential for the better marketing of wool.” The mover declared that there was a distinct difference between a wool committee and a wool board. The latter body might be likened to the Meat Board so far as its powers were concerned. He emphasised the necessity of reducing freights on wool. The freight on wool had been reduced both here and in Australia, and the shipowners are not likely to disturb their arrangements for a wool board. Mr Grimsdale Anderson, a woolgrower jn a small way, wants absolute control of all primary products. He instanced the wonderful success achieved by “Bawra,” but omitted to mention that an effort to continue “Bawra” was vetoed by the woolgrowers of the Commonwealth as the Australian Meat Council was forced out of existence by the direct vote of the graziers. Another advocate of control gave an estimate of the cost of production, and said Dominion growers were not getting a remunerative price for the product. Evidently the setting up of a Wool Control Board would accomplish that. The president of the Union, who during bis investigations as a member of the Rural Credits Commission, discovered the dangerous effects of control as suggested in respect to dairy produce, is against absolute or compulsory control, and the Sheepowners’ Federation was also opposed to “compulsory” control. It was stated that the t existing Wool Committee did not possess sufficient power. These farmers who discussed this subject and aired their opinions may know a great deal about sheep and wool-growing, but they certainly know very littfle about marketing. The Wool Committee possesses all the powers that it needs. Its function is to lii*it the quantity of wool sold by auction, when the bulk of the clip is available. The wool selling season extends from November to March inclusive, and some 500,000 bales have to be marketed in the period at eight selling centres. Any offering of more than 25,000 bales would be a difficult matter for the buyers to deal with in the time at their disposal, and the Wool Committee sees to it that the offerings are reasonable. It is an onerous duty, for the,interests of buyers, sellers and woolbrokers have to be harmonised. It was stated that a better system of grading and marketing of wool was wanted, and we might fairly ask how the marketing can be bettered. Most of the big clips are classed by exneri"enced men, and the smaller clips are classed in the -wool stores at the selling centres by conqtetent men, and the catalogues clearly indicate when ■such wool is classified in store for the names of the brokers who have arranged the classification is given. The system of marketing can scarcelv be bettered. The buyers from all the consuming centres attend the sales, they examine the wool in the stores and place their own value on each lot. They are independent of one another, that is to say there is no arrangement on the part of the buyer to “bear” the market. It is open competition and each lot is sold at the best price on the day of sale. It would be impossible for the Wool Control Board to make the buyers give more than the wool is worth to them, nor would it be possible for the Board to devise a better system of marketing. Jiveifca voluntary pooling arrangement would not accomplish anything. If growers can pool their interests in the selling of the woql, so can the buyers pool their interests in the buying of the wool. No doubt most of the growers would like to see a repetition of

the inflated values of the | son, but such prices for Woo | *1 likely to !>e seen again for g,," M Euro]>e is the principal M wool,- and Europe cannot atwj prices. After all, the f aft Si admitted that the prices I growers in the past season « 1 sonable, and the growers re 4 h* 1 for practically the entire din „ ] at the sales held in the Il i Bradford would resent any (■m'jl ness, and if Bradford called ers the farmers would , J ting their circumstances.