AGRICULTURE.

New Zealand Mail, Issue 49, 30 December 1871, Page 8

AGRICULTURE.

Newspaper editors and correspondents, stock-owners and Government officials, appear to labor under the delusion that bash land is best adapted for agricultural operations, and that such opera tions 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 common sense, and the experience of practical men. Bush land, especially in New Zealand, is least fitted for agricultural operations, which, under | no circumstances, can fee carried on, after the first crop has been garnered on any extensive scale. Unlike the forest land of Canada, or the open bush of Australia, it cannot be ploughed, nor cat) those labor-saving implements and machines, so advantageous and necessary where labor is dear, be employed amongst the roots and stumps which for years encumber the bush land in New Zealand, after the greatest care has been employed to get rid of the n. It is true that the finest crops of wheat can be grown /or the first year on bush land, because wheat has a remarkable affinity to wood ashes; but after the first year, unless the land be of small extent, it is absolutely impossible to crop it except with grass, and consequently the wheatgrower has to become a grazier or dairyfarmer in spite of himself. But in truth, grazing and tillage, when the latter is carried out on a large scale, must go hand in hand. " Without forage no

cattle; without cattle no manure ; with out 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 fencing and impounding, in the depasturing regulations, and in the reserves set aside for small farm and agricultural settlements, this has been the rule adopted; and, consequently, while the interests of colonization and settlement have been neglected, neither the province nor agriculture has had fair play. One of the most forcible arguments that can be urged against the general adoption of the "small farm system in New Zealand, unless accompanied by an extensive right of commonage, is to be found in the fact that a sufficient quantity of live stock cannot be maintained on small holdings to enable agriculture to be profitably prosecuted, except by a system of stall feeding, which is out of the question in NewZealand. In farming, the prosperity of the vegetable, is dependent on that of the animal kingdom. To obtain an increasing quantity of grain and vegetables, the earth must be supplied with animal manure. Horses and cattle are also required, if agriculture is to be carried on at a profit. Suppose two farms, in one of which eighty acres are 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 laud, in the latter example, would, or should receive the manure of the live stock kept on the eighty acres of pasture land ; in which case it would produce more grain 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. In New Zenland the farmer attempts too much or too little, and is consequently unsuccessful. He is not satis fied with adding field to field from the waste; but he 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 had already made his fortune. In New England, the farmer in 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 own soap, starch, and most of his other household necessaries. He is satisfied if he can, by industry, frugality, and forethought, " Keep the wolf from the door," and at the same time lay the foundation of a future competency. Tn New Zealand his aim has been to get as much land as possible, instead of aiming to make a small quantity more productive; and he is not content with securing a competency but 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 healthgiving 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 crops, on dairy produce, on stocklvaring, or stock-feeding, but to carry on the whole of these pursuits together, making one mutually assist the other, and giviug 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 farming. This fact requires to be constantly borne in mind when devising schemes for the future settlement of the country.