Rewards For Cocoa-Growing In

New Guinea

How Can Planters Be Properly Protected?

WE return, without apology, to the sub ject of the cocoa industry in New Guinea.

When copra fell on evil days, many N.G. planters, seeking desperately for an alter native crop, decided to try cocoa. Their efforts were disappointing in the extreme.

Australian confectionery firms use large quantities of cocoa, and the N.G. Adminis tration, as the agent of the Commonwealth Government, pays a bonus of £ll/4/- per ton (being IJd per lb., less 20 per cent.) on cocoa grown in New Guinea and sold in Australia.

It was found that the Australian firms were most reluctant to buy the New Guinea cocca beans. When challenged about it, they said: (1) The beans were of very poor quality, and poorly graded; (2) their nrocesses of manufacture, and their formulae, were all fixed to accord with the quality of imported cocoa beans cus tomarily used, and they could not face the expense of changing their routine unless they were given guarantees of consistent quality and fixed, regular supplies.

That, on the face of it, seemed reasonable enough: and the alert Department of Agri culture in New Guinea took up the theme, begging growers for better and more regu

lar quality and hinting at a system of com pulsory grading.

The latter suggestion has stirred some of the planters to a protest. They say that their product is really of good quality, and that the attitude of the Australian manu facturers is suspect, because it is obvious that if they can decry the quality of the New Guinea beans, they can keep the price low, and benefit accordingly. They say that they ought not to be charged with the cost of inspection and grading until it is clear that the Australian manufacturing firms are not “working a ramp.”

The planters’ attitude is quite reasonable —there are very few big manufacturers whose policy in such matters is dictated by altruism. Most of them will take a point from the producer if they can.

The real secret of it all is that bounty of £ll/4/- per ton. It is intended for the benefit of the grower; but the manufac turer tries to benefit by it, too. We have before us, supplied by cocoa planters in New Guinea, authentic, documented cases of this.

A planter who has consistently produced a high-grade cocoa sent, through Messrs.

Burns, Philp, a consignment to Sydney; and 8.P., after hard selling, eventually got £29/10/- per ton from a reluctant Sydney manufacturer. About the same time, the grower sent another lot, of the same quality, to a foreign market: and it realised £35 per ton sterling, or £43/15/- Australian.

In the former case the grower got the bounty of £ll/4/- per ton, so that he was nearly as well off in the one case as the other.

The important point here is that the manufacturer grabbed the bounty. If he had paid world parity for those N.G. cocoa beans, he would have paid over £4O per ton, Australian; and then the £ll/4/- re ceived by the grower, on top of that, would have been a real bounty, or bonus. He would have been encouraged to grow more cocoa, and establish a strong industry— which, unquestionably, was the object of the Commonwealth Government in giving the bounty. It never was intended as a subsidy to the already well protected Aus tralian manufacturer.

The New Guinea growers are reason able in their contention that an inspection and grading fee should not be imposed upon them until the marketing position in Australia has been cleared up. Incident ally, whose is the responsibility for investi gating the Australian marketing position?

The Australian manufacturers cannot be ' condemned unheard —they have a case to present.

Manufacturers' Letters

Since we announced our intention of bringing this matter under the attention of the Commonwealth Government, with a suggestion that a customs duty on non- Territory cocoa beans might be considered, we have received the following letters on the subject:— The Managing Director of Messrs. Nestle and Anglo Swiss Condensed Milk Co. (Aus tralasia) Limited, wrote under date Decem ber 23: “When you write: ‘But the total lack of encouragement being given to the New Guinea cocoa growers in any shape or form by the Australian manufacturers threatens to strangle this industry at its birth,’ you are evidently not au fait with

the full facts, and the following informa tion will no doubt be of interest to you: “We have been buying cocoa beans from New Guinea regularly and our Abbotsford Factory Manager—Mr. E. C. Tyler—visited New Guinea last year, spending some time with the Agricultural Department and a number of the growers discussing the future for the New Guinea cocoa beans, Mr. Tyler gave the Agricultural Depart ment and the growers a deal of valuable information which will help them materi ally for the future.

“Only last week Mr. Tyler received a number of samples of what was looked upon as an improved bean, and he was asked for his opinion and criticism.

“With these facts before you, I think you will appreciate that the statement made in your letter dated December 6, addressed to our friends at Sweetacres, is hardly fair.

“We are particularly anxious to help the New Guinea cocoa bean industry, and might I suggest that you get in touch with Mr. Tyler at our Abbotsford chocolate factory, and he may be able to give you some information which will be helpful.”

The General Manager of Messrs. James Stedman Henderson’s Sweets Ltd. wrote on December 13:— “You will find, upon investigation, that your strictures upon the trade as a whole have no application to this firm.

“We have purchased about 50 tons per annum of these beans for the past two years (from the firms of W. S. Tait and Co., Gollin and Co., Kerr Bros, and Nelson and Robertson) and we think this is a fair proportion of an estimated total output of 200/300 tons per annum. If you have any accurate information that the output varies considerably from that figure, we would like to be informed of same.

“It would be absurd to suggest that the beans offered in commercial quantites are of a high grade. As a matter of fact, we think they are the worst variety we know of and, at the moment, we do not desire to purchase any more of the usual quality offered.

“As distinct from this, however, we have recently received a 281 b. sample of a far better grade of New Guinea beans than we have ever previously seen, but we have not been informed whether or not this grade is available commercially. We have

made an offer of £5 per ton above the usual market price of New Guinea beans for one ton of this grade of beans for trial, if it is available, and are now awaiting a reply from the dealers in the matter. If this better grade of beans could be supplied commercially, we feel sure that our opinion of New Guinea beans would improve con siderably, “In view of the above remarks, we think your statements regarding ‘stubborn oppo sition of confectionery firms’ and ‘lack of encouragement to New Guinea growers’ have no application whatever to this firm.” prori fm OF MARKETING

Problem Oh Makktiiino

TT seems to us that when a Government *■ provides a bounty on production, with possibly some system of inspection and grading, the job is only half done. Market ing is just as important as production: but bounty-paying Governments often leave marketing on the knees of the high gods, and the producers at the mercy of trading firms and speculating middlemen, Cocoa is a very good case in point. There should be some authority to investigate this market very thoroughly; and it should be an authority competent to act without fear or favour, and see to it that the pur pose of the bounty is not defeated by greedy commercialism, There should be someone to decide whether the Australian manufacturers are genuine in their case against New Guinea cocoa beans.

One of the main difficulties is that in dividual planters produce comparatively small amounts, whereas buyers nowadays always want to buy in bulk.

A planter, Jones, with great care, pro duces 10 tons of A grade copra; his neigh hour, Brown’s 10 tons of copra goes B grade, but is fairly good; Smith is a lazy rogue, and his 10 tons go definitely C grade. The B.P. steamer comes along and picks up 100 tons thereabouts, all produced under the mixed conditions outlined. It goes to London, and is sold by B.P. as one line, and the price is for average quality, The industrious, careful Jones gets a smaller price than he should—and, more over, is “socked” 5 per cent, for shrinkage, although he has dried out to within 2 per cent.; the lazy, careless Smith gets a higher price than he should—he is riding on the backs of his neighbours.

This happens even in New Guinea, within the limits imposed by a rigid sys tem of inspection and grading. There are good planters there who show us their account sales from B.P. or Carpenters and say: “Why should I try to get the highest grade, and dry out to the limit? I’m not getting any better price than old Mac- Whiskers, over in the Bay, who spends half his nights chasing blue dingoes off the verandah! ”

The same sort of thing has happened in connection with cocoa; and must happen in all production where the producer’s out put is small, and the market buys in bulk.

Primary producers in big countries con trol so many votes that the politician leaps to their commands, and so they have been reasonably well protected in the marketing

of their products. Primary producers in the Islands territories are voteless, and more or less disunited, and so they are largely at the mercy of a well-organised commercialism, which controls their mar kets.

That is the proposition. Who has the answer?

Mr. and Mrs. A. E. Allman, of Siga toka, Fiji, arrived in Sydney from Suva by the Niagara on January 25. Their children, Betty, Joan and Edward, who accompanied them, will remain at school in Sydney when their parents return after three months’ holiday. Mr. Allman is head overseer for the Colonial Sugar Refining Co. at Sigatoka.