Fight for Sugar

Mauritius Times – 70 Years

Editorial

The percentage of sugar from the total yield is produced after milling the canes of planters, going by right to these planters has been a matter of long-standing dispute. Until recently the law was mute in that connection. The share of sugar accruing to the planter was a matter of personal agreement between the planter and the miller. It varied between 65 and 70 kilos per ton of cane. Large planters received a few kilos more. The planters, for economic reasons, were forced to accept whatever terms were dictated to them. Some planters who had no financial connections with the millers were freer than the planters of today. There was no factory area at that time and being given that there was quite a sharp competition among millers to buy canes of planters, planters were free to sell their canes to the miller who offered the best terms.

At that time the quality of the canes of any particular planter was not taken into consideration. No consideration was given to fibre, water and sucrose content.

Following the report on the unrest among sugar workers and small planters which occurred in 1937, the Central Board was set up in 1939 so as to mediate between millers and planters in connection with the sale and purchase of canes for milling and of the share of sugar and residues which accrue to planters, etc.

The Central Board makes it a compulsion for planters of a certain locality to sell their canes to a certain “factory area”. This has put an end to competition. Millers can now fully rely on a definite tonnage of canes, which is an incentive offered to them to fully equip their factories. This measure has been to the disadvantage of the planters who have lost their bargaining power and also have to suffer for the faulty equipment of the factory or inefficient technique.

On the whole the Central Board has succeeded to a large extent to bring about a better method of assessment and a better understanding between planters and millers. Its guiding principle in connection with the payment of canes is “that the average amount of sugar which planters might expect to receive for their canes would be not less than two-thirds of the amount of sugar which a ton of such canes delivered at the factory may normally be expected to yield.”

But it is not so much the amount of sugar accruing to planters which is the bone of contention but the method of assessment which is defective. In theory planters are receiving two thirds of their extraction; in fact they are not and this is all due to the fact that the method of analysis is unsatisfactory. Also, planters hold the view that those employed should be more qualified and, consequently, better remunerated. Mr Jomadar was therefore correct to make it clear while moving his amendment to Mr Dabee’s motion that an inquiry into the matter was necessary. Unless the planters are well posted with all the facts and figures, their protests and petitions will be mere cries in the wilderness. The millers are fully equipped to meet any challenge from any quarter. The recent unsuccessful attempts of planters are worth considering.

It took the small planters more than half a century to know more or less exactly where they stand in their dispute with millers. The Mauritius Co-operative Federation of Planters had the genial idea of securing the services of Mr Mathur, a highly skilled chemist from India. There is no doubt that Mr Mathur has not brought about dramatic changes which the over-optimist expected of him but he has definitely spotlighted some grave defects in the methods of analysis on which of course the whole dispute hinges.

In the report he wrote before he left, he pointed out that over here payment was made on actual recovery basis, that is on the amount of canes delivered and manipulated at the factory while in many other countries payment is made on a theoretical recovery basis. On the actual recovery basis the cane supplier is affected by the efficiency of the factory and the technical ability of the personnel — if the factory and the technique are efficient then the planter gets a high percentage of sugar otherwise the reverse is the result.

When payment is made on a theoretical recovery basis imaginary standards of high efficiency are fixed. Even if the yield of a certain factory is low or the technique is not as efficient as in other factories, that factory is compelled to effect payment as per standard laid down by the authorities.

In Queensland the sugar value of the cane is assessed on the formula which is “such portion of the sucrose content of a certain quantity of cane as would be obtained… If milling and refining recovery could be raised to a prescribed imaginary standard of very high efficiency.”

In Reunion the following standard has been laid down since 1954:

(1) Mill Extraction: 95%. at 12.5 fibre; (2) Boiling House Efficiency: 100; (3) Purity Final Molasses: 30.

In Mauritius the standard laid down dates 1941 and is below the standard of Reunion or Queensland. For example: The Boiling House Efficiency is 99 and the Purity Final Molasses 40. When that standard was fixed in 1941 it was computed on the basis of previous five years which was considered ideal efficiencies of Mauritius. But since that time there have been major improvements in technique and factory equipment. The efficiency of most factories has gone up and yet planters continue to be treated by an obsolete standard laid down 19 years ago.

We agree with the conclusions reached by Mr Mathur that if some factories do not possess essential equipment which others have and if their operation is defective and so record a lower extraction figure, planters should not suffer on account of something beyond their control.

Hon. Dabee should be congratulated for having tabled his motion. He has given the members of the Council an opportunity to know a lot about the problems of cane planters. No doubt some good will come out of it. But the planters should not just delegate their responsibility to the Government. They should unite in order to defend their interests.

7th Year – No 303
Friday 17th June 1960

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 2 May 2025