AGRICULTURE IN HAWKE'S BAY.

Hawke's Bay Times, Volume XIII, Issue 541, 9 January 1868, Page 3

AGRICULTURE IN HAWKE'S BAY.

10 i.ee mdiior of the Hawke’s Bag Times. SiR, —A letter which appeared in your paper on fhe 23 rd December demands a Utile attention from me. Your correspondent suggests that the boilersdoicn of mutton for its fallow, <fc., should answer the question about its price, I only hope they will answer if, and show how if is that producers of food have to pay more than twice as much for it as producers of tallow

I P al J fourpence per pound for a piece of mutton, and if the obvious questions which arise out of the transaction are beyond the legitimate range of my business it is doubtful ij a man has any business with anything. However, the question admits of a most elaborate answer. I hope the sheep-owners will state how much richer it makes them to send the money they get away to buy flour and other kinds of produce which they might just as well get at home. When they are rearing establishments to get rid of their sheep at. any price let then count up the pounds which have been spent for imported farm produce for the last seven years—all that money, or most of it, might have been spent in fhe place. If settlers could get land and mutton at their realvalue they would he able to compete with any other producers. Let them show also that another producing interest here as strong as they are would out them in a worse position. I deny altogether the charge of abusing sheep-owners. Why I would take up and answer the question if I was one of themselves. I should say, “ This province is like a shot, and our wool is a leg which has to bear a good deal of weight; now if we could get half-a-dozm other strong legs, our own particular interest would not be so heavily loaded, because the weight would be divided.”

I do 7wt deny that, those who monopolise the land hare their (dies or that they are assisted by the law and government of the colony perhaps if they were not assisted quite as much it would be better. The question which occurs regarding the amount of the amount of information I possess, is not , I suppose, intended for me to answer, for a donhey's . ears hardly come within the range of his observafwn, and any spectator has a better opportunity to fudge of their enormity.

I c/i«not fathom the meaning which is expressed in the few lines which refer to a "lagging article ” \but I mag state as regards mg compatriots that the letter in question was written to please myself, and nohodg else had anything to do with the facts j ami opinions expressed in if. j My ideas on the state of wheat cultivation have more reference to the fact as it is, than as ti has been for (he last forty years. I gleaned a few quarts of seed wheat last summer, and it was impossible to do so without making observations among the farmers on the subject. It will not be business to sow the wheat unless I am richer afterwards —I had better let it stop in the bag. The figures which I quoted are, I believe, correct—ifi 6 s M per bushel as the cost of wheat is a libel, the farmers donli appear to be in a hurry to say so. I believe most who grew wheat on the flat land last year did lose £t per acre on the crop. I heard of men earning twelve shillings per day and rations at her. vest-work, and with the prices of produce as low as they were then, that of itself was enough to ruin any one who greio wheat extensively, unless a very great dead of it had been, done by machinery. The “ Tiller of the Soil ” quotes 6,s 6 d as the sell, ing price of wheat; but he cannot have read the papers and seen the prices at Adelaide and Canterbury for the last twelve months I think if wheat had been worth 5s per bushel in Napier, some cargoes would have come here. 4f per bushel is, I contend, more than wheat has been worth in 1867 to export, and that is its real value to the producer.

Your correspondent compares farming and rents here with the state of things in England. If this Colony had a population often or fifteen millions, as much money as there is in England, and interest at say 2 per cent, it would he reasonable to suppose that the state of farming and rents would be much the same, but when, these very important things are lacking I cannot see (hat the state of things there has very much to do with us. If farmers there are wealthy, and contrive to get balances at their bankers’, we are bm:nd to suppose it would be letter to go there if we wished to farm—farmers here as a rule have nothing of the kind, and if they had they came here to better themselves.

Besides, this counfry is noi all taken up with farms, and if a man did thrive paying a heavy rent he would not he able to compete with another who would start afterwards, paying no rent at all. In that case all the money he invests is lost. Improvements which increase the producing powers of land do entitle if to rent, hi the rent ought to be strictly according to that power, and lands which have never been improved cannot be of very great value until population and money are more abundant. I have no intention of abusing any one, and I don't think that when t stated facts and opinions which are obviously true, I did so. If I could see that I had I would retract if. A knowledge of farming suitable to this place would be a very great blessing to it, and any means which can inform people on the subject, as suggested ly “A Tiller of the Soil” are worthy of encouragement. 1 think I have touched on the main points of his letter.—l am, s~c., ISAAC R. SUTTON, Meaner, 6th January, 1868.