THE POSITION OF THE FARMER.

Waikato Times, Volume 97, Issue 15998, 28 May 1924, Page 6

THE POSITION OF THE FARMER.

(To the Editor.)

Sir.—Your leading article on the position of the farmer makes out from your standpoint a reason why the New aZealand farmer should cut his losses and calmly face disaster; and you also show that prices of land were and are too hig"h. It is quite useless to make assertions without'facts to back them up- Now, if we cut our losses and walk off our farms —bear in mind all farmers are hard hit, —and if we come to the conclusion that farming will not pay and walk off, what then? Howare the towns to carry on with no exports to create money? Bear in mind from 92 to 96 per cent, of all our exports are off the land. Mr Editor, it is a cold fact that your district owes its prosperity to butter-fat, and if butter-fat shows' a working margin of profit it will continue; if not, then possibly the farmer may swing over to sheep. The farmer, like everyone else, is bound by returns, and if these returns do not show a margin, then it is only a question of time. Bear in mind all farmers' have been hard hit. Why? Because wc agree! to sell our mutton and beef to the Imperial Government at a fixed price for one year, but that year was construed into for the duration of the war and some time after. The price received was well below the market, value, thus average beef k id, average mutton 5d per lb. Argentine, through the meat trusts, got 11 Ad per lb for beef. Now. to make my contention clear, wc did all right off our farms at these prices; but there was a sequel and we could see it coming and objected, viz., Argentine meat wa'i controlled by a powerful body which was on the spot and actively handled a large proportion of the retail trade, while New Zealand farmers did not. Result.: These people insisted that if a customer asked for New Zealand lamb the answer was "yes," three New Zealand lamb but nine Argentine. So Argentine lamb was consumed three times faster than New Zealand, although wc sent more lamb. Result: Cold storage had more N.Z. lamb than the Argentine, and when the commandeer was over we had a large stock of stale and rotten lamb, mutton and beef in store as against Argentine's nil. Wc objected to this, and were told we sold our meat and lamb and had no right to say what was being done with it. The outcome, which was foreseen but could not be guarded against, was that our lamb, mutton and beef were exhibited in the retail shops absolutely rotten in some cases. While it is quite true it was not sold, as it was not fit for human consumption, but no food inspector's certificate could be got until it was in the shops, with the result that our good name was absolutely spoiled, or in other words our trade was gone. Now, whether our land cost £1 per acre or £SO there was no margin. I was selling with no margin over charges from the farm gate, let alone my farm expenses. While that was happening, show me one firm or person that handled that meat that did not make big wages and profits. Wool was not on the same basis, but there were 2,900,000 bales of Imperial wool to be sold beforeours could have a clear run. We advocated Government help to enable us to hold part of that huge accumulation of wool back from sale. As a whole the New Zealand papers were solid against that, advocating that wool should be sold at its market rate. While it is true the B.A.W.R.A. came into existence and helped to steady things, it neither moved fast nor effectively enough to have the desired effect, and wool was worthless to the farmer, as it was only realising charges. Now to draw a long letter to«an end, our contentions re wool that all would be required has proved true, as there was a shortage of production. All the 2,900,000 odd bales are gone and wool is soaring in price. We have lived down the destruction of our meat's good name, and are to-day getting better prices than pre-war. But there is a fly in the ointment —the parasites' charges take too big a toll out of it. On top of all that I have enumerated, our merchants bought heavily all kinds of merchandise at peak prices, which the banks were unable to meet unless the farmers' credit was curtailed. Result, shortage of floating cash and any goods we had to buy abnormally dear. Then two sections of the community went mad. The cities started out on a campaign of spending, thereby using up any surplus cash, and the lending institutions refused to lend to the country farmers but have lavishly lent to the towns. The sequel of that, policy is not yet written, but I can say definitely it will be sad reading for our expensive towns and cities. But then I must not anticipate coming events, so I am told, t>o [ will be silent. —I am, etc.,

ewen mcgregor

Our correspondent does but strengthen our case. Mr McGregor says "the farmer is bound by returns and if those returns do not show a margin it is only a question of time." Quite so. and therefore what \vc contend is thai a sound basis of land values must be low enough to permit the farmer's returns to fluctuate over a period of years without reducing him to beggary at the lirst drop. In many cases of late years one bad season sent men to the wall because they had bought in at outrageously high prices. The same situation is always likely to arise when land is sold as at present, at a price based on what it returned in some good seasons, regardless of the fact that the same cannot be expected every year. We did not advise farmers to walk off, though we expressed the opinion that in their own interests some would be wise lo do so unless mortgagees were prepared lo meet them with liberal concessions. Our correspondent's letter lias done nothing to alicr this view.— Ed. W.T.