FARM PRACTICE RESEARCH.

Press, Volume LXIII, Issue 19154, 10 November 1927, Page 10

FARM PRACTICE RESEARCH.

REPLY TO CRITICISM. LINCOLN COLLEGE AND PROGRESS LEAGUE. Criticism by the Lincoln College Board of Governors of the Canterbury Progress Leasue, in making certain recommendations to the Minister for Agriculture, and the Board's assertion that the League was duplicating the work of the Board, was referred to the secretary of the League (Mr P. B. Climie) yesterdav.

"With the object of assisting the primarv industries of the Province, the League appointed a Select Committee of agriculturists and business men, towards the end of last year, for the purpose of conducting an economic survey of the whole field concerned," said Mr Climie. "The, League was fortunate in being able to induce men of the highest standing in their respective spheres to give their time and ability to this investigation. In no way was it intended that this work should conflict or overlap with that of any other bodv, rather was it desired that the activities of all those engaged in research work be co-ordinated. "At, the very outset the value and good work of Lincoln College was recognised, and for that and other reasons the Director of the College and Dr. Hilgendorf were invited to accept seats on the committee. No member of the committee has rendered more valuable assistance and offered sounder advice than Dr. Hilgendorf. The fact that both the Director of the College and Dr. Hilgendorf were asked to assist the League in its investigation, and the ready response received from Dr. Hilgendorf, disposes of the suggestion that Lincoln College has been 'ignored.' Merely Asked for Survey. "The proposal to carry out a farm practice survey had its origin, so far as the League is concerned, in the mind of the president, and found inclusion in the 'programme of suggested activities' as presented by him to the Executive as far back as November of last year. The fact that Lincoln College intended doing similar work was not mentioned during the discussion on the subject, although a representative of the college was present at the time. "It should bo mentioned, however, that 'farm costing' is not included in the farm practice survey as stated by the Director of the College. Perhaps this is where the Board has misunderstood the position. The Director's precise words, as reported in The Phess were: "The Progress League was asking the Minister for Agriculture to approve of a man to go into farm costing." The League has made no such request. It merely asked the Minister if he would place facilities at the disposal of his officers in Canterbury, for a survey of the various forms of practices employed on farms, for the purpose of fixing standards with which comparisons could be made. Recognising the value of such an investigation and being appreciative of the League's help in the matter, the Minister has instructed his officers to proceed with the work." The Pork Industry. Regarding the pork industry, which is the subject of a further complaint by the Director of Lincoin College, Mr Climie said that the League had no idea that the College even had in view a programme of placing the pig industry on a sound basis. The League was, of course, aware that very valuable work was being done by Mr M. J. Scott, of the College staff, as regards the feeding of pigs, and for this reason both Mr Scott and the Director had been asked to place their valuable advice at the servioe of the pig breeders at the public meeting. to-night. "The object underlying this meeting," he said, "is the formation of an organisation to promote the interests of the pork industry. If it is correct that Lincoln College is-prepared to undertake these wider responsibilities, the Director will have an opportunity to point this out to the meeting, and the need for another organisation to do this work—to say nothing of the trouble and experience involved—will thus be obviated. It is difficult to believe, however, that the Board is prepared to do this."