PROFIT IN FARMING.

Otago Witness, Issue 2813, 12 February 1908, Page 20

PROFIT IN FARMING.

AN ELEVF-NT IN THE STATE'S EXPERIMENTS.

THE MINISTER'S VIEW.

(Special to the Witness.) " Why not carry out experiments that pay?"

This question — with all its picturesque suggestivencss. its hint of a self- sup porting department, of taxpayers relieved of burdens ; almost of a drift toward a Socialistic goal — was hurled at the head of the Minister of Agriculture by a mpdest journalist.

" Becaus-a," replied the Hon. R. M'Nab, with the air of a man who has already well weighed the matter, "it cannot be done."

Competing against private enterprise? "No. ***nly so; but it is. not the function of the State." Why should it not be? "Well, why should it be? Do you suggest that our experiments ought to pay?" Certainly not. No reasonable man would contend that the department's experiments "ought" to pay; but might not certain operations be carried out to ascertain the profitableness of a particular industry? It would 1 bo "an experiment that pays,' and a valuable one. , '•'The idea is good. It is along the right lines. But it might fail. The State might fail ■where a private individual would sucoeed. Farming is perhaps the least suitable of all industries for the State to conduct commercially."

Why? " Because in farming the personal equaim faints ipr sfi much, A farmer's guc-

cess is helped by many circumstances thai would not influence a State farm." For example? , " The element of self-interest ie entirely absent, and that is an item of the greatest importance-. Then there would be constant loss of time and interruption of operations by visitors. Immediately you establish a Go\ernment farm you will have visitors coming." Let the visitors be shown round by tho staff of die experimental part of tho establishment. That would avoid interruption or loss of time. " You propose to have the farm fenced off from the rest of the experiment station and run entirely as a private concern? That is good again; but there is still the personal equation to consider, and you loso the influence of self-interest. But after all, what would be the gain?" 1 You would set out to prove what profit was obtainable from a certain industry under certain conditions " The farmer himself can do that. I« it not: better that wo should apply our energies to what might be called scientific? experiments? If we test 20 plots of 20 grasses, and find that one of them is the best for the district, we show a loss on the operations ; but thcro is a large real gain to the farmers which cannot be shown on a balance sheet." But having tested these things and 'other things, would it not aleo be a gann to the farmers and the intending farmers if you selected a man with a good reputation as a farm manager and said to him : " Here are a hundred acres. Farm them on 6uch and such lines, and prove wheti profit there is in eheep-farminj? or dairy-

farming "?

" Apart from the incoticlusiveness of sucb a test, would it profit anybody to show that the farm paid or did not pay? Would U give any real information that farmers could be guided by?" There would be value in the report of the operations and in the details of the balance sheet. " Granted." And you would be putting the farn* industry on a business basis. A man with' money to invest can ascertain to some extent the likely profit in various commercial ' undertakings ; but in farming all is vague. There are no data on which a. financial man can calculate. "Nor would there be even if we farmed as you suggest. One man would achieve success where another would utterly fail, and the standard thus set would be entirely unreliable. A failure to show profit would be disastrous, because it would deten people from entering that particular branch of farming. And, as I say, we should be likely to fail." Even after care in choosing the manager? i "Possibly. The chief element of success — self-interest — would be lacking. lam nofc" at, all a Socialist, and I think- that of all enterprises that, the State should enter farming is the last. So much depends on the man." But is failure really so preassured? You have skilled 1 men at the heads of the divisions, and they have the benefit of the experiments already conducted. Your chief! fruit expert or grape expert or poultry or dairy expert would *tet out the plan to be followed, the stocking of the land, the cropping, the breeds, the mode of treatment. Hia ideal as to the best way of doing things would thus be demonstrated under the truest possible tests— the testd of farm conditions. "Wo can do more 2ood by 6cientifio tests, regardless of profit, and loss. We can prove, for example, that the eggs produced on a poultry farm under a certain system, by a certain strain of fowls, are moi-o valuable than others, and fetch an. extra 2d per dozen. It matters not iff we make a loss in findine that out, or if wo can or cannot make poultry-farming pay. But it matters greatly that we can say to a poultry-farmer. 'If you are getting a shilling a dozen for your epgs now, you can get Is 2d by following our method.' " You don't think it. would do any s-oodl to prove the interesting fact that poultryfarm ing pave? '• No And we might damage the industry irreparably if we apparently, though erroneously, proved that it did not pay." Thus the Minister is apparently convinced that tho=e experiments which make no claim to show a profit on paper are, after all, in reality the "experiments thati pay."