THE REAL TEST.

Putaruru Press, Volume VII, Issue 286, 2 May 1929, Page 6

THE REAL TEST.

i “PER ACRE” RESULTS. Dairy Farmer’s Objective. “ Per Cow ” Also Counts. The dairy farmer is wise to •watch carefully his per cow production figures, but he is unwise if he allows them to blind him to his per acre production figures. Every acre, as well as every cow, must be made to do its best. In other words, it is unsound to understock in order to secure high lmtter-fat figures per co-w. The

high-producer cow does not compensate the farmer for giving it too much land. The land, measured in grass values, must fit the herd and the herd must fit the land. Prime Crime is Waste of Grass. The otherwise praiseworthy quest for high producer cows is no good excuse for throwing out inferior cows when food is plentiful, “ unless the farmer is able to replace them with animals of better quality.” Even the poorest cow is better than wast'd grass. Full utilisation of grass capacity does not mean over-stock-ir.g. For instance, a statistical survey shows that the number of cows carried on small dairy farms is high (relatively to all dairy farms) and the average production per cow is not detrimentally affected. The good dairy farmer keeps the balance between grass and cows, and thus uses his grass at the age and stage when

the grass has the greatest nutritive value. To fail to do so is waste of j grass. The land and the herd are as ; inter-dependent as the piston and the cylinder in an engine. You do not i help the piston by giving it too much j cylinder, and you do not help the j cow by giving it an excess of grasa that could help to keep another j (even a poorer) cow. The above sentences are penned after reading the latest bulletin of ] the Department of Agriculture, ] “ Dairy Farm Management,” by the < Farm Economist of the Department, ' Mr. E. J. Fawcett, M.A. The bulletin has a complete figure and fact j backing, the result of a survey of | farms in the Waikato and Taranaki i districts, season 1926-27. Quotation marks in the following will indicate Mr. Fawcett’s exact words, as apart from the summarising language of the reviewer.

Carrying Capacity is First. I l What factors promote dairy pro- ! duction ? “ The factors contributing to high per acre production are (1) , high carrying capacity, (2) high butI ter-fat average per cow, (3) small i farm areas.” Note that carrying | capacity is first. But high per cow 1 production often, though not always, j goes with it. Although high per acre production of butter-fat is more dej finitely associated with number or j cows carried than with any other i factor, high per cow production is as | a rule also present. “ In practice it is usually found that the average production per cow on high-carrying-capacity farms is also high. This is not always the case.” Allowing that carrying capacity is | the prime factor—and that it usually connotes a high per cow production, j helping to accomplish the economic [ objective, a high per acre production

—on what farms is carrying capacity highest? Mr. Fawcett’s survey—and this is important to farmers and politicians and the country generally—finds that carrying capacity is usually highest on small farms. The small farm is the family farm, and the family sup plies labour. This availability of labour is the great factor helping high production per acre on the small family farm. All the same, labour is not fully exploited on family farms These small farms, have relatively a greater amount of labour available than the larger farms have, but the larger farms show a greater produc tion per unit of labour. “ It is apparent that, other things being equal, the number of cows carried per given area determines the limits of butter-fat products. It is possible to procure high per acre returns from a comparatively low average herd if carrying-capacity is high, but it is not possible to do so with a badly under-stocked farm of high producers. High per cow averages are not generally associated with low-quality land. The importance of carrying-capacity is indicated. . . . but average production per cow is not necessarily high. The tendency is, however, to find these two factors closely associated. Heavy carrying capacity is not restricted to small areas, though these are as a general rule better stocked than large farms.”

“ For many years past great stress Herd Averages. has been placed upon increasing herd averages, and right l y so. Individual animals should not be exploited, however, to the exclusion of other factors such as carrying-capacity. Table No. 3 shows that, despite high herd averages, the butter-fat produced per acre in these groups is not so great as those of lower averages but higher carrying capacity. As a general rule—and it is to he expected that such should be the case—high-pro-ducing herds are feund on land having a carrying capacity above the average. There are instances of high herd averages on farms yielding comparatively poorly per acre, but such a combination usually indicates understocking.” “ It is not sound practice to be understocked through the disposal of low producers if the land is capab'e of feeding the whole of the animals to capacity. The poor cows should be replaced only as better animals are available. Overstocking, on the other hand, i an be looked upon as a bad practice, and is generally found on farms not fully exploited from the food-production aspect, where it is deemed necessary to obtain a relatively high income to meet current expenses. Understocking may be necessary as a temporary measure to meet drought conditions.” “ It is indicated that high herd averages are associated with small farms. It will be said that this ts owing to the better quality of small farms, but such is not necessarily the case. The labour available on small farms is the dominant factor in food production and preservation, and it is this, combined with more intimate contact with the herd, rather than natural soil-fertility, which tends towards a high herd average.” Remembering the principle that carrying capacity exerts a greater influence than herd average or production per cow, the examination of the manure position becomes doubly interesting. Generally speaking, ipore manure per ncre means less manure per cow and less manure per pound of butter-fat; in other words, if you manure properly you will so stimulate production of butter-fat that the manurial charge distributed over your increased quality of butter-fat will he less per pound than in the days when your inadequate manuring produced a much less quantity of butter-fat. But in one table the manure used per cow is relatively greater in the highest production (per cow) group of farms than in the lower production groups, and Mr. Fawcett says in his footnote; “ In this table many of the farms with high herd averages are not carrying heavily. If they were, the manure used per cow would be much lower than shown in the higher groups.” Cost. Less Manure Means Higher Relative “ Heavy manuring Is definitely associated with high carrying capacity and high per cow production. On farms where high production is not obtained and moderate top-dressing only is practised, that proportion of the maintenance cost represented by fertilisers is relatively higher than is the case on high-producing farms.” Manure is the largest item in the farmer’s budget of expenses, and needs careful watching to avoid undue cost, if carrying capacity (made possible through its use) cannot be exploited. “ Manure for top-dress-ing is the most important item of maintenance, accounting on the average for approximately 38 per cent of the total. This is of paramount importance, for, as illustrated in the

discussion on production, it is suggested that either more general or more scientific manuring is likely to give the most immediate results. The proportion of maintenance costs devoted to it is therefore likely to increase. Whilst a progressive topdressing policy is relied upon to increase production, it is this item which must be watched to determine the point at which the law of diminishing returns begins to operate. On low-producing farms manure accounts for a higher percentage of the costs than on those cf high production.” Pursuing what has been said above about labour, and its availability (but not highest utilisation) on family farms, it is evident at first sight that labour like capital, is linked up with “ area of farm,” which Mr. Fawcett stipulates as his third factor in increased production (following in order the factors of carrying capacity and per cow capacity). “ Provided a farmer has sufficient capital to take over a farm and stock it, available man-power should be the dominant factor in deciding area. It does not pay to hire labour unless carrying capacity is such that all labour (lie italicises the “ all ”) may be fully utilised.” Again, “ the most economic unit is that which can be worked with family labour ; if the area which can be worked is too small to return the desired income, the area bought must be such that hired help will be employed to ca-

pacity.” While the cost of labour on both classes of farms remains the same, “ labour reward per acre varies from £1 7s 7d on low-producing farms to £3 14s lOd on high-producing farms.” The gap between the two figures speaks for itself. More Labc.ur, More Return. “ The question of labour is bound up with farm area ar.d size of herds,, and its economic aspect has not been sufficiently studied in the past. When all labour is considered equal (i.e., one man, one woman, or one chin! employed is taken as one unit of" labour), that—

(1) High per-ecre production is obtained on those farms havingthe greatest number of labourunits available per 100 acres. (2) The numher of cows milked per unit of labour is approximately constant throughout. (3) Butter-fat production per unit of labour is high on those farms having the greatest number of units available per 100 acres. (4) High carrying capacity is definitely associated with high labour units. (5) High herd averages are associated with high labour units. (G) The most concentrated labour isfound on small farms, but it is not so economically utilised as on larger areas. Uthough labour is most intensive on small farms, the return per unit is low. These farms are generally worked by a family, and labour is not fully exploited. The net returns to the family are likely to be greater than is the case on larger farms where labour is employed. High reward per unit of labour on farms which are not producing to their maximum may be sound from the personal viewpoint if capital indebtedness is lew, but when considered \s a national question becomes uneconomic. Intensive labour utilisation on farms of an economic area carrying the maximum number of* high-prcducing cows gives high gross returns, and results in increased net profit to the individual. There aretwo methods which may be adopted to ensure maximum labour utilisation:— (1) The increased employment of' labour on large holdings suitable for dairying until such areas are made to produce to capacity. (2) A gradual adjustment in the size of farms til) the economicfamily unit is obtained for different classes of soil. The latter method allows of maximum density of rural population, which suggests that it should be the national aim in all land settlement schemes where conditions permit-”