Moisture In Fiji Copra
pp. 31-32 · Read in the full issue
Growers Fight Against Board’s Decision
A LIVELY, three-cornered argument has been in progress in Fiji concern ing the moisture content of copra, and the alleged need for taking steps to build up the quality of the Fiji product.
The parties are the Fiji Copra Board, (an official body formed to receive copra from the growers, sell it to the British Ministry of Food under the nine-year contract, and pay the producers), Copra Producers Incorporated (which speaks generally for the copra producers), and the Suva copra-millers (of whom Mr. W.
Grainger Johnson, managing director of W. R. Carpenter & Co. (Fiji) Ltd., is re garded as spokesman).
Discussion between the chairman of Copra Producers Inc. (Mr. L. R.
Martin) and the millers (Mr. Johnson) has not lacked warmth. It is ironical that Mr. Johnson had a prominent part in the formation of Copra Producers Inc., at the time when the Governor suggested that some body should he brought into existence to speak for the planters.
The Copra Board announced in August that all copra taken over by its agents in Suva and Levuka would be subjected to test (a new form of test, represented by the calibrations of an electric meter) and if the moisture content was more that 10 per cent., the grower would be penalised 10/- per ton. Further, his returns would be reduced 15/- per ton if moisture was between 10 and 12i per cent., and 47/6 per ton if over 121 per cent. This was to apply from October 15.
IN September, CP Inc. went on the war path, per newspaper and radio publicity, against this innovation.
Mr. Martin pointed out—
• That the British MOF had agreed to take all the copra Fiji had for sale. o That it stipulated only FMS quality —no other conditions. • That it had never rejected any Fiji copra. • That the existing grading system was adequate. • That, as the Fiji copra producer already is being penalised (inasmuch as he is not receiving world parity from the British MOF it is improper to penalise him further. • That the proposed change is clearly made in order to provide copra of lesser moisture content for the Fiji millers, and that in these circumstances the Fiji millers should offer more for higher grade copra, instead of inducing the Copra Board to place a penalty clause on all the growers shipping from Suva and Levuma Levuka. • That the hand of the millers was shown to be in the picture by the fact that the new provisions applied only to Suva and Levuka ports (whence the millers bought their supplies) and not to the other two shipment ports of Rotuma and Savusavu, where they did not buy.
It was, therefore, announced that CP Inc. would in every way resist the im position of the new grading system as from October 15.
The Millers In Reply
THE copra millers and merchants resent the suggestion that the movement to improve the quality of Fiji copra is new, and based on milling conditions. For 20 years, there has been an agitation for the introduction of regulations to enforce higher quality in the Fiji product, which prior to the war had a poor reputation on the European market, and did not command the price of New Guinea copra, for instance.
During the war and post-war years, little could be done. But when conditions became more stable again, in the middle
forties, and the British MOF system was introduced, attention again was directed to quality. However, it still was difficult to do anything, because of the strong demand for every available pound of copra, of any quality. In fact, because of the sellers’ market, and official in difference, the average quality of Fiji copra has tended to fall.
Complaints about the poor quality of Fiji copra sent to Britain under the MOF contract began to reach the Fiji Copra
Board many months ago. When Mr, B.
E. V. Parham was in Britain early this year, he was shown the bad effects of Fiji copra on machinery which was milling copra for the British Ministry, and he brought back to Fiji unfavourable reports from the crushers.
Much copra received by Suva millers has not been up to the standard which they might reasonably expect. It is ac cepted throughout the industry that FMS shall mean a moisture content of not more than 6 per cent. The millers say that any planter, entitled to call himself a planter, should produce copra with a moisture content of not more than 6-8 per cent. Yet CP Inc. are crying out
because they are not to be permitted to deliver copra with over 10 per cent, moisture.
When copra, packed or shipped in bulk, shrinks say 3 per cent, after it is shipped, it not only deteriorates sharply in quality; it also affects the quality of well-dried copra in the same shipment, and imposes handicaps, in both quality and weight, upon the competent owners, whose pro ducts have gone into the same shipment.
Under the existing system of collecting and shipping copra, the good planter has to carry the bad planter on his back.
The commencement of control of quality at 10 per cent, is being very generous to planters. The Ordinance
covering the position authorises the Copra Board to commence penalties with a moisture of 8 per cent.
Local millers already have announced that they will pay more for quality— 10/per ton premium for copra between 7 and 8 per cent, moisture, and 20/- between 6 and 7 per cent. —and these premiums will operate from October 15. When copra is £5O per ton, 10/- per ton represents the value of every 1 per cent, of moisture in the copra.
“Moisture in copra is the root of all evil, as it starts the deterioration of the article,” says Mr. Johnson. “Well-cured copra has little smell, and does not ac cumulate copra bugs nor deteriorate in anything like the degree seen in badly cured copra. The latter deteriorates after shipment; and the seller of badly cured copra is placing a very unfair handicap on the seller of good copra.”