IS TRADITIONAL FARM PRACTICE ALWAYS SOUND?

Bay of Plenty Beacon, Volume 13, Issue 4, 6 October 1948, Page 5

IS TRADITIONAL FARM PRACTICE ALWAYS SOUND?

For a long time farming has been ruled by accepted practice, and for -a long time we have been loth to doubt accepted practice. Of recent 'years, however, our agricultural scientists have been asking themselves why certain practices have been accepted and whether, in the light of modern knowledge and de--vices, there are better ways of doing things. For instance, one of the questions being explored at Rothamstead experimental station in England has been the reason or reasons for using the plough. It has been suggested that the question of “to •plough or not to plough” has assumed practical importance only since the introduction of steel, because even hdavy land can now be 'broken up with other types of implements, whereas once the plough was the only implement for the job. Making this suggestion, Dr. E. W. 'Russell, of the Rothamstead station, “said the primary function of the •plough is to kill weeds, which is the one operation it can accomplish, if -used properly, more thoroughly than other implements, and good ploughing was linked with fewer subsequent cultivations. • This is only one instance in which accepted practice has been questioned. This questioning is going on •not only in the laboratories, but on “the farms themselves, as farmers ■are finding that what their fathers *did was not always the most efficient way of doing things. There is a greater readiness now to accept changes, and all the time the scientist and the farmer are asking the -question: “Why do we do these things?