URGENT PROBLEMS OF AGRICULTURE

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 200, 22 May 1944, Page 4

URGENT PROBLEMS OF AGRICULTURE

Professor Hudson’s Views SUGGESTED MEANS TO HALT DECLINE

Some of the most urgent problems of agriculture were discussed by the director of Lincoln College, Professor 1Hudson, in u recent address to the Wellington branch of the New Zealand Institutc of Public Administration.

Throughout the world since 1900 agriculture had been on Hie decline, said Professor Hudson. Particularly, in the depression, primary producers jn all Countries had suffered very serious UHfaculties. It appeared that the rural industries were unattractive to very main people, and there was what was commonly called the “drift from the land.' .1 hat drift was associated with many other causes besides economic factors.- He believed, however, that man felt greater satisfaction from n life closely associated with the soil than from the life of the Agriculture faced many difficulties, none of them capable of a quick or easy solution. In particular, critical attention needed to be given to the nature ot the farmer's tenure of bis land. At present there were no adequate safeguards to prevent owners or occupiers from/lamaging the land by neglect or wrong methods of farming. The present system resulted in such problems as those of tne dust bowl of the Middle West, erosion, depletion of soil fertility, instability o tenure, and economic insecurity because farmers wore forced to gamble on a future market over which they had no measure of control. These problems were too big to be handled by individuals. At the Iffise of them all were the. conditions by which farmers held their land. Farm Accommodation. Professor Hudson deplored the • tendency to concentrate wealth in cities rather than in the country. Fine build ings and appurtenances were common tor those who worked in the cities. Hie job on which the material prosperity of the cities rested was the farming industry, vet it was the common view, accepted even by the farmer himself, that so long as farmers were able to carry on, any old accommodation or equipment was good enough for farms. The tendency was to concentrate the fruits of labour in equipment for town industries. But farming was the main industry of the nation, and there should be more or less equivalent facilities I’fo'ided for it. H agriculture was going to be efficient, the facilities for doing the jop effectively had to be provided. Besides provision of adequate tools ot trade, there was need of better knowledge and training for the job in hand. This involved technical guidance. .1 he old view was still current—that anybody could make a successful farmer. That was wrong. The educational needs of agr cultuie were twofold. One was technical training Tbe second was the development ot a rural culture. There was need not onlv of the equipment for successful farming, but also of equipment to find satisfaction in a rural life where people had to a large extent to be self-reliant There was need for a high standard of leadership among farmers—men well "trained technically and with sound ideas of the social organization of rural <nstninS'the technical field, an all-important factor was knowledge of the care of the nation’s greatest asset —the soli. J. lie occupier was .only a trustee in possession for the time being. At present the community was prepared to allow any person to take control of the-soil, with no scrutiny of their qualifications to do so. A step toward scrutiny was taken by the recent Land -Sales Act, but in general the land went to the men prepared to pay the highest -price. On those grounds he was presumed to be the most competent to have it. • But he might be merely the greatest optimist or the greatest skinflint, prepared to take all he could from the land, and then to. throw it aside. National Trust. The magnitude of these problems led to the conclusion that, the land was too valuable to be treated in this haphazard way. It was a national trust, and .must he so treated. Professor .Hudson said no could see no other solution. to this problem than supervision of this trusteeship such as only the State could provide. It the source of New Zealand's wealth was to be preserved, no other course seemed open. This did not mean the nationalization of farming, but control of the use of the land. .... Such a course of action involved many complementary problems. There would have to be a staff adequate in qualifications and numbers to administer the required control. The idea that if a man was to be a farmer, the first essential was large financial backing, would have to be broken down. The first consideration should be a man’s qualifications for trusteeship of the soil. Scores of suitable young men wished to become fanners but had no prospects of doing so because of their lack of money. Means had to be found to enable men with suitable qualifications and training to become farmers even if they lacked money. Professor Hudson visualized a very big demand for qualified men, not only as farmers, but to do the necessary administrative work. There could be no biper job, and no more important one in life. In answer to a question. Professor Hudson said the so-called freehold was not a guarantee of the continued association of one family with a particular farm. The term freehold was rather a misnomer—leasehold or mortgage-hold was much more common. The continued association of one family with its farm lie considered to be the most desirable thing to bring about.