Please wait. Contacting image service... loading

Article text

SUPERPHOSPHATE.
WHEATFARMERS' PLIGHT.
Conference to be Arranged.
"In view of the great uncertainty
existing among farmers as to the
rate of superphosphate per acre
which they will be permitted to sos
'ith wheat this season; the greatly
restricted and varying amounts of
superphosphate being granted farm
ers today; their ability to meet their
commitments through the curtail
ment of acreage, and the present de
lay in deliveries of superphosphate
and the threatened further delay in
deliveries by the railways," Mr Sew
ard (CP, Pingelly) moved the ad
journment of the Legislative As
sembly yesterday. After the Premier
(Mr Willcock) had intimated that a
conference could be arranged to dis
cuss the matter, if the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr Watts) would take
the responsibility of urging that
farmers be allowed to use their dis
cretion on how they applied their
superphosphate quota, the motion
was withdrawn.
Mr Seward said the question of
superphosphate supplies was one of
the outstanding troubles confronting
farmers at the present time. In the
allotment of supplies today farmers
were not being treated fairly. To
wards the end of last June the Min
ister for Agriculture (Mr Wise) ad
vised farmers to buy more super, as
he claimed that if WA did not use
the allotted supplies the Phosphate
Commission would reduce supplies to
this State this year. Unfortunately.
as a result of that advocacy the fin
ancial farmer benefited at the ex
pense of the poorer farmer. This was
causing grave unrest as some farmers
had all the superphosphate they re
quired while others were unable to
obtain their ordinary supplies. Ex
isting regulations stipulated that a
farmer must sow 401b of superphos
phate to the acre for wheat. The
Department of Agriculture had taken
up the attitude that instead of cur
tailing his acreage, the farmer must
curtail the amount of superphos
phate per acre, which was at com
plete variance with what the de
partment had been preaching for
many years past. He had been asked
by many farmers if they could re
duce their acreage and increase their
amount of superphosphate per acre
but the department had refused
them permission. An alteration of
the regulation was urgently called for
to meet the season now being faced.
Another cause of complaint was that
railway deliveries were 3 weeks in
arrears.
Mr Boyle (OP. Avon) predicted
that on the basis of 401b of super
phosphate to the acre, the wheat
yield for the State would probably
fall to 10,000.000 bushels. He esti
mated the loss to 'wheatfarmers at
between £700,000 and £800,000.
Mr Berry and, Irwin-Moore) said
that if the policy of 401b of super
phosphate to the acre was insisted
on, the Scully wheat scheme might
as well be dumped.
'Presher's Explanation.
The Premier (Mr Wailcock)
claimed there was nothing construc
tive in the motion. Investigation had
shown that on land where 80 to 90
lb of superphosphate had been ap
plied over a period of years there
was still a residual value of super
phosphate left in the ground in the
first year In which superphosphate
was not used. If 40ob of superphos
phate were used -an- the land, 75 to
80 per cent of the notmal crop was
obtainable. If however the usual
amount of superphosphate was ap
pOei onl'.50 per cent of the usual
crop was possible, us the acreage to
which the full amonmt of superphos
phate was applied would have to be
reduced bp half. -The reduced ap
plication of' ssperphosp'hate -was
necessary because of Use tairttsge of
phosphatic rock. Azakgements had
been made to increase the local sup
plies of sulphur to reduce the rock.
The Railway Department had as
sured him that practically the whole
of the superphosphate requiirements
would be' in farmers` hands by the
beglinig 6f May. tst year 170,000
tons of superphosphate was trans
norted by rail but this year only
100,000 tods would be handled. The
department estimated that It would
handle 8,000 tons a week.
Althougi -the 401b order had been
made, the Premier said, use Gov
ernment was not adamant about !t.
Tf the Opposition would take the
reaponsib~itli of urging that the
fArmers be allowed to use their own
discretion how they applied their
superpihospirate quota a aonference
could be arranged to discussathe pros
and cons and a decisionk reached in
conformity 'with the consensus of
opinion at the conference.
Mr Patrick (OP, Gyreenough): We
will take that responsibility,
TheLeader of the Opposition (Mr
Watts) said the Tremiers reply 'was
comparstively satisfactory. If farm
ers 'were given discretion In the use
of superphoephate and in conse
qjuenee they reduoed. the acreage
sown this season, it, was necessary
for them to be protected against
the possibility" of this 7a acre
aige being 'used by the Gov
ernment as the basis for a further
compulsory reduction at somze tubre
dit.- ¶leare bad been a great deal
of- condemnation ty farmers here
of the 4dlb maximum and this was
the only State in 'which srich a
maximum had been ixead. The maxi
mumn had not, been imposed by the
Federal . Government but by the
State Agricultural DepartsPent.
Mr Msann tO, Beverley) claimed
that the elder the land the more
superphosphate was Jecessary. Ibe
regulations governing the applica
tion -of superphosphate could never
be polied,.
Mr Thorns' (CP. Toodysy) said lie
would ikhe a census taken of the
amount of fertiliser in this State'
Vegetable growers were getting
more than their fair amount and
traffiking was taking place,
Mr Melarty (Nat. Murray-Wel
lingion) said that an early decision
on the matter was needed as other'
wise top-dressing in his electorate
would ,be delayed.
$