Farming Column

Hokitika Guardian, 2 July 1932, Page 8

Farming Column

THE SMALL FARM PLAN. SOME DAiRYINu pOTENTIALITJES In ( tlie brief interval which has elapsed since the announcement by trieGovernment , of the Small Farm !Plan abundant evidence lias been provided that the, intrinsic worth of. the proposals is realised by. thought nil farm-, ers, (says the ‘-N.Z, Journal of Agriculture). ' Every farmers’ organisation to which the plan lias been explained clearly has expiated the opinion that it is at least'"better than any othei scheme as yet submitted as a means or dealing; with - the present difficult economic situation. ' The opinion oi prominent individual farmers is-in conformity with that of- their organisations. ' \ ■

This has been well exemplified in the west coast area of Wellington Province and im the southern .: part i6l Hawke’s Bay, where the services of several local advisory committees to* co-operate with the Department of Agricu.ture were sought. Not a single refusal was received irem the-prominent busy inen who were asked to give their services—services, b3' the. way, , whicn should be of great value iii assuring the' fullest possible success for the Small Farm Plan.

So far, so good. But it is evident that.in seme quarters there pre- misgivings about the amount of labour it is possible to absorb in an.'economic manner in our rural industries. Such ; misgivings; seem, usually, to be b.aseu lon the belief that, while additional I utilisation of labour would eventually|be pr fitable, a mer s to-day’ are not j in a position to pay for additional lab- | our from which profitable returns j are', to be expected only at some cenI siderable distance in the future. Hence | it seems- well to consider whetlier. there i is not scope on our farms for the employment of additional labour .from.which practically immediate returns j will be received. If it can; be shown '*fchnt there is such scope, ,’..'then > the grounds for the are correspondingly kweakerie'd.VV, FoiyJjhe ’ present, cbnsideratiqn-i'iAV-il* be given; only to that (very important tural industry—dairying. There .if accfimulated evidence that; ■ the actmmilking of cows is not always done;:-a's. •effi. iently as would he profitable, f,and that the commonest cause of inefficiency in this 1 connection is seantyputilisatjon •of labour. The analysis of .data secured through herd-testing f and similar work has l time and again pointed--.to the conclusion that many of the larger. herds could with profit be split- \i into two milking units. For example, herds of eighty and more cows- are .being milked on a share-milking basis. ;. /•

j ' On the evidence, available the owners of sucli herds would do well to plore the prospects of greater' profits from-the division of such- large herds into 1 two equal.- herds, employing two • share-milking families ‘in place, of, the. one family under the, present. arrangeemnt. Because of the extra: , labour . That would be'eome available thereby i-for such work as the growing of .supplementary forage-crops and' 'tne conserving of surplus summer' 1 pasture growth, it is conceivable that the total ! nuinber of cows in-the two herds could be made greater than; the number atpresent in -the undivided large herd. ,','lt is to be expected that the individual, cows in the two herds .would be more carefully and thoroughly milked than if they were I 'all in a single herd. ,)>...*■ Probably some owners of such , large j herds operated on a share-milking • basis have alt times considered tlie question of dividing their herds in the way just suggested, and, while realising the advantages to be obtained; have been deterred from taking any action on account of the outlay in-, volved in providing not only extra but also the necessary ; residence ' for the second share-inilker. In many instances the outlay'''in' this, direction would bear, more heavily today 1 than formerly. Hence it is of particular importance that the SmfilljJSarm Plan in suitable circumstances.: may , prdhatily be employed to renfoye so.me of 'the financial difficulties that tendto arise jn the dividing of undesirably large herds into two smaller more efficient ones. Farmers > who are interested are therefore invited to consult the’Small Farm District . Organisers of ,the ‘ Department of Agrr-d-ture in -regard to details which could not satisfactorily lie discussed now: J, In support of the 1 view'that ,the suggested division of large.sh'a're*milking herds would prove profitable, .there is ■the fact* that an additionaL-600 lb. to "7091 b. of • butWfnt ’ from each pf two divided herds •would be sufficient at current prices, of dairy produce, to. cover interest and depreciation on • tile milk-ing-plant, to provide'-interest and sinking fund on the sliare-niilker’s bouse., aad still leave a small amount oil hand. ‘ ’, - * Another somewhat similar | merit which would lead to increased efficiency in milking originates in .the,: fact that practically all herds contain , some cows which nre- diflPeult to milk; or arc otherwise unsuitahle. for milk-; ing by machines. It is considered thar, herd production would, be /materia- Tj increased by separating sucli. aniniasi frdm the main herd and them as a separate herd-unit. It. has; been noted that herds of sixty to sev-, entv cows at times contain from twelec (o twenty animals which.(are difficult to handle on the machines— they often not, only fail to-produce V. their best ability themselves, but-held up the progress of all t|ie shed- woik. Such animals at times- ine’nde s-m really good milkers. Experienced Farm-; ers generally believe that the best wa y of handling gncli cows h by a . separate

hand-milking arrangement.' Yet ,t' is way is seldom adopted, because of di>ficult'ies of arranging the hand-milking. It is considered that a suitably located overstress the -importance of generally, . improving our milking efficiency. It i s not merely a matter of obtaining .greater direct production of butterfat from those animals which are difficult to'-milk out on the machines. That is really a minor matter in comparison with the effect improved milking would have on the incidence of udder troubles. In all: important'dairying countries uddter troubles are a bane to'the farmers, and in New Zealand experienced farmers and veterinarians are in hearty agrement in attributing this to a considerable extent to shortcomings in- our ‘machine-milking methods. For .example' a qualified veterinarian operating in one of the most important dairying districts-in the Dominion says definitely that much of the mammitis ,that crimes under ' his 1 - notice would 'be avoided, or remedied, were occupier of a Small 'Farm 1 could at times be usefully employed part of his time to do the ' hand-milking on .it sn ’’e-miik’ng or wage basis. It would probably be -difficult, to the herds milked more efficiently in the way. that would be facilitated by the introduction of small hand-milking units attached to relatively large herds as already suggested. Hence those many dairy-farmers who rightly, dread the ravages of udder disorders, should carbfrilly (consider -. the possibility o - participating in the Small NFarm Plan as a means of lessening the danger ot avoidable losses from this cause.

There is a third important openin'' .for the application of the Small Farm Plan to milking on farms the . owners of .which do not see their way to carry a full-sized dairy herd. There are, for instance,., many sheep-farms or mixed farms on which dairy herds, say v of ■ nine to fifteen cows- could -be-introduc-ed ■ with advantage, whereas -herds of forty cows or more' in numrier wouh be impracticable. There seems in such '’ircuinstances to be excellent oneni■ <v f r * suitable • small-holders settled in the vicinity to handle these small herds on a share-milking basis and do other available work besides. The scope * for utilizing the Small F.vrm Plan as a'means of, improving .the general efficiency of the important work of milking i.s to some extent indicated by: the fact that official statistics indicate, there are some thousands of. herds "in 1 the Dominion ranging, over eighty coivs in number. It may h said- with confidence that to-day there is avoidable'inefficiency in the 1 milking, o practically all these herds,-and that; in. general -more labour is the key to the avoidance of the inefficiency which costs our- ‘dairy industry very large sums annually in lost' production, ’ " '"• : Anoth6r’ -dairying"' matter••—.cf even •’greater importance, find one in which the Small f Farm. Plan 'may be made to play a valuable role, is inefficiency in feeding, practice; It has bepn-. demonstrated that thousands of our dairy fanners do not feed' their stock ns well as would be profitable. Indeed, there is mrich evidence which points to the conclusion, that by 'better feeding filone otir dairy* production could, within a single season, be increased by: at least 20 per cent. . ,

'; It may truly be said, in fact, that the greatest and most urgent need of our dairying to-day is better ’feeding. Hence particular importance attaches to the fact that - one- of the most common causes of poor feeding is scant farm labour'. Hundreds - of dairy- farmers know that they -are not feeding as efficiently as they • should. They know also what they should do to increase profitably the efficiency of their feeding practice. But often they do' not do what they realise, they should do, because they cannot readily obtain the necessary labour. ■< . •

Two of the more' important measures which should more -generally he adopted for the purpose, of bringing abouc improved feeding in 'dairying are the growing of special crops, such as mangels, and the practice of* ensilage. Both of these practices call for labour of the casual type, which could we 1 ! he supplied by' suitably located smallfarm 1 settlers. Within the next few weeks these practices will,* on many farms, give occasion f»r such labour as the construction of ensilage pits and trenches, and - the, preparatory cultivation of land Tor suitable foragecrops. ' , Tn addition, better feeding is often dependent upon drainage and*, moie fencing, which are at times not carried out because of paucity of farm labour. ’

Tn brief, paucity of casual farm labour often leads' to failure •to obtain increases, in . production which could be obtained not only profitably,’ but also promptly. : • . • To sum up. the Small Farm Plan, if suitably employed, promises to assist materially in improving the efficiency op our dairying, ' This is possible because at present our dairying is inefficient in at least-'two important aspects. Firstly, there is considerable inefficiency in milking practice. Secondly) there is n arked inefficiency , m feeding practice. The inefficiency • both' in feeding and in milking, may be attributed largely to unduly scant supplies of suitable readily available farm labour. The Small Farm Plan, if properly- applied, offers a solution ot the labour difficulties just considered. - Full information regarding the Small Farm Plan is available from District Organisers of the Department of Agriculture. ,