A GREAT INDUSTRY

Manawatu Standard, Volume LVIII, Issue 54, 1 February 1938, Page 9

A GREAT INDUSTRY

VIEWS ON AGRICULTURE. ADDRESS BY MR BRUCE LEVY. “Agriculture is probably the greatest single industry in tile world, and many manufacturing industries depend upon agriculture as a source of supply for their raw materials,” said Mr E. Bruce Levy, Director of the Grasslands Division of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, in the course of an address given yesterday to the Palmerston North Rotary Club. Mr Levy recently returned from a tour of Great Britain and the Continent, and he gave an interesting outline of the impressions gained by him. The great industry of distribution relied to a large measure on agricultural products, he declared, the fact being brought home very forcibly when one considered the feeding and the clothing required for the city of London alone. “The thing that strikes one most in agricultural production,” Mr Levy continued, “is the relatively few people the land can support in situ on the land. There are, for example, in the whole of the United Kingdom approximately 800,000 agricultural workers, male and female, supporting some 3,000,000 people on the land, and it is doubtful whether Great Britain could support more than, say 5.000,000 people did she rely on the tillage of the soil entirely. Similarly I would say,' on a conservative estimate, that New Zealand could not, or should not try to support in its agriculture more than say 4,000,000 of a total population; that is if each family is to have reasonable living conditions and an income that will permit such families to use the conveniences and participate in the boons that industrv provides and upon the use of which the life of industry depends. Of the total population of Great Britain only 7 per cent, are within the agricultural industry, and when in Great Britain T could not but be impressed with the fact that the might of Great Britain is in her industries, and if New Zeajand is ever to become a powerful nation she cannot do it on agriculture alone.” A COMPARISON. It was of interest to compare Great Britain with some other European countries as far as agricultural_ workers (including agriculture, fisheries and forestry) were concerned, the speaker added, Great Britain had 7 per cent. New Zealand 13 per cent., Belgium 19 per cent., Holland 24 per cent._. Germany 30 per cent., Denmark 35 per cent., France 38 per cent., Czechoslovakia 40 per cent., Sweden 41 per cent., Italy 50 per cent., Finland 63 per cent., and Poland 76 per cent. The North of Ireland had, on an area of 3,000.000 acres, an agricultural population nearly as large as New Zealand had on its 20,000,000 acres of improved country. Holland had 3} times as many people on the land per 100 acres as had Great Britain, Germany had four times, Denmark five times, France five and a-liali times, Italy eight times, Finland nine times and Poland 11 times as New Zealand had a quarter of the people on the land as in Great Britain per 100 acres of improved couw trv- . , . , “The point I want to make is this, Mr Levy said: “How do these highly populated agricultural countries com pare with Great Britain and New Zealand? My general impression is that the higher the agricultural population the poorer the people become, and I would take agricultural England as the furthest point any country should go to in its subdivision ot the land. The countryside of Great Britain, that is agricultural Great Britain is beautiful and, given reasonable conditions the farmsare largc enough in general to support aham y and furnish a good, comfortable In 111 Holland had appealed to Mr Levy very strikingly in regard to her agi culture and the people there, with their own homes, had an appearance and air of prosperity. New Zealand, compiled with Great Britain and Holland, appeared quite undeveloped, but tins was necessarily so on account of the much more rugged nature of % cou try and its recent winimng from forest Where however, there was earned on in New Zealand intensive dairying, sheep raising and arable farming, the land looked equally as good as the best of England or Holland, and from a sub-division point of view was quite close enough. PEASANT CONDITIONS. Mr Lew was not impressed with the peasant tanning system m Germany and some other European countries. “Small farms” he saw, “mean poverty and hence inefficiency m production and land utilisation, and what probably impressed me most in peasant Europe and in part of Ireland was antiquated methods wind inefficiency of production, and this under adverse climatic and soil conditions where inefficiency is fatal compared with the comparative ease ol production in New Zealand. It agriculture there had to pay standard factory wages it would indeed be bankrupt, if it is not now actually so. In Germany, by the National Peasant Estate Succession Act, farms were proclaimed hereditary estates. These could not be sold, nor could they bo sub-divided. They had to be of such an area as to sustain a man, lus wife and two children and hot exceeding 300 acres. Bp to that point the policy was sound, but these liereditaiy estates could have a bigger burden to bear than the man, his wife and two children, for the Act provided that “the peasant who takes possession of such an estate is endowed not only with rights but also with duties. His brothers and sisters have a claim to sustenaince and education. They are further entitled to demand to be trained in a calling corresponding to the status of the estate. In case they should become independent, as for m stance when a son goes into business or a daughter marries, these have a claim to equipment or dowry corresponding to the capacity of the estate, lhej have also the right to return home whenever, through no fault of their own, they are in need.” COSTS OF PRODUCTION. Holland and Denmark, with all their efficiency, required a big price for thenproduce to enable them to cany on., Mr Levy added. “At a rough estimate I would say New Zealand can produce butter at approximately half the price it can be produced at in Europe, Canada, the United States of Amenca, and even in Great Britain itself, and one wonders whether it is not to New Zealand’s advantage to so increase her production in order to sell at a relatively low figure, rather than high in order to increase consumption and to discourage competition. This, of course, in an entirely selfish viewpoint ’which must inflict great hardship on competing countries such as Denmark, Holland, etc. The principle, however, of catering for world consumption to my mind is sound. Industrial England must have cheap food, and plenty of it if the national fitness campaign in England is to be given a fair chance.” At the conclusion of his address Mr Levy was accorded a hearty vote of thanks on the motion of Mr W. S. Carter.