AGRICULTURE.

Nelson Evening Mail, Volume VII, Issue 10, 11 January 1872, Page 4

AGRICULTURE.

(From the New Zealand Mail) Newspaper editors and correspondents, stock owners and Government officials, appear to labor under the delusion that bush land is best adapted for agricultural operations, and that such operatious have nothing in common with those of the grazier on the one hand, and those of the dairy farmer on the other. No opinion could be more opposed to conamou sense, and (he experience of practical men. Bush land, especially in New Zealand, is least fitted (or agricultural operatious, which, uudtT no circumstances, can bo carried on, alter the first crop lias heeu garnered on any extensive 6i.ale. Unlike the forest laud of Canada, or ihe open bush of Australia, it cannot be ploughed, nor can those lahor-suviug implements and machiues, so advantageous snd necessary where labor is dear, be employed amongst the roots and stumps which for years encumber the hush land in New Zealand, after the greatest care has been employed to get rid of them. It is true that the finest crops of wheat can be grown for the first year on bush land, because wheat has a remarkable affinity to wood ashes ; but after the first year, unless the laud be of Binall extent, it is absolutely impossible to crop it except with grass, and consequently the wheat-grower has to become a grazier or dairy-farmer in apite of himself. But in truth, gming and tillage,

when the latter is carried out on a, large scale, must «o hand in hand. " Without forage nocatile; without cattle no manure; without manure no crops ;" is a proverb applicable to other countries besides Flanders, and merits the attention of even the farmers of New Zealand. Strange to say, however, the governing class in this colony have wholly ignored the lesson this proverb teaches, and have appeared to think that there was nothing in common between grazing and agriculture. Hence they have acted on the assumption that the grazier should have all the open country to himself, and that the agricultural and small farmer should be confined as much as possible to the bush. At least, in the land laws of this province, in those relating to pounding and impounding, in the depasturing regulations, and in tbe reserves set aside for small farm and agricultural settlements, this has been the rule adopted; and, consequently, while the interests of colonisation and settlement have been neglected, neither the province nor agriculture has had fair play. One of the most forcible arguments that can he urged against the general adoption of the small farm system in New Zealand, unless accompanied by an extensive r'ght of commonage, is to be found in the fact that a sufficient quantity of live stock eanuot. be maintained on small holdings lo enable agriculture to be profitably piosecutec), except by a system of stall feeJiug, which is out of the question in New Zealand. la fanning, the prosperity of the vegetable, is dependent ou that of the animal kingdom. To obtain an increasing quantity of graiu and vegetables, fhe earth must, be supplied with animal manure. Hoises and catile are also required, if agriculture is to be carried on at a profit. Suppose two farms, in one of which eighty acres art) devoted to tillage, and twenty to pasture, while the other has eighty acres of pasture land and only twenty under crop. The twenty acres of arable land, iv the latter example, would, or should receive the manure of the live stock kept on the eighty acres of pasture laud; in which case it would produce more graiu and vegetables than the eighty acres of arable land which was only fertilized from the manure of cattle fed on twenty acres of pasture. Hence it has been forcibly urged that the best system of cultivation is that which most favors the development of the animal kingdom. At the low prices which now rule for all kinds of farm produce, it is doubtful if farming, as the term is understood either in England or America, can be prosecuted, on a large scale, at a profit. It should be looked upon not so much as a means of making money, as a mode of securing an independency for life. Iv New Zealand the farmer attempts too much or too little, and is consequently unsuccessful. He is not satisfied with adding field to field from ihe waste ; but lie must be the nominal owner of acres of such waste, which he cannot possibly cultivate ; while he desires to live in a style as if he litid already made his fortune. In New England, the farmer iv addition to his chief business, say of grain production, raises his own pork, mutton, beef, and poultry, grows the wool of which his stockings and his wife's underclothes are made, and makes his owu soap, starch, and most of his other household uecessarics. He is satisfied if he can, by industry, frugality, and forethought, " Keep the wolf from the door," and at the game tima lay the foundation of a future competency.

In New Zealand his aim has been to get as much land as possible, instead of aiming to make a small quantity more productive; and ho is not content with securing a competency, hut is bent on making a fortune. This is the case with the stock-owners, and dairy-farmers, as well as the agriculturist. They all want to make money, and in no country can farming be considered a money making pursuit. There is a good deal of risk in proportion to the profit : but then it is a healthyiviug pursuit, and no man who has kept out of debt was ever ruined by even a succession of bad harvests. His best course is not to rely exclusively on grain crop?, oa dairy produce, on stockrearing, or stock-feeding, but to carry on the whole of these pursuits together makiug oue mutually assist the other, aud giving the preference to that for which his farm is best adapted, or which for the time being affords the best prospect of securing a remunerative market. In no case can agriculture be profitably undertaken unless also combined with grazing fanning. This fact requires to he constantly borne iv mind when devising schemes for the future settlement of the couutry.