South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, MARCH, 10 1881.

South Canterbury Times, Issue 2487, 10 March 1881, Page 2

South Canterbury Times, THURSDAY, MARCH, 10 1881.

An individual is not in an amiable frame of mind when he derives comfort from the misfortunes of Jiis fellows. A good story is told, however, of a farmer, whose crops were a failure, returning quite consoled and almost elated after an inspection of his neighbors’ property. The fact that the prospects of others were as bad, and, in some instances, worse than his own,- drove away his melancholy and inspired him with renewed hopes. It may seem uncharitable, but it is natural, that the farmers of New Zealand, while deploring the low prices of grain and the high rates of freights, should be able to elicit some consolation at finding that their cup of bitterness is certainly not worse than that which the fanners in other parts of world have to face. Indeed, if comparisons were made and details fully entered into, it is doubtful whether the New Zealand husbandman is not ' bettor off than the average farmer in the United States, or any of the Australian colonies. That he is better off than the Canadian farmer is beyond a doubt, for we have it on record that heavy taxation, climatic and other causes, are driving the agriculturists of British America over the border into the new settlements, and that the exodus into the States is unprecedented. We have also the fact wafted by the San Francisco mail that the marked falling off in quantity and deterioration in quality of the Californian wheat crop is exciting attention. California has hitherto been one of Australia’s most formidable competitors in the London grain market, and however selfish or uncharitable the feeling may be, the circumstance that a formidable rival is exhibiting symptoms of dry rot must be comforting to the producers and exporters of this colony.

The deterioration of Californian wheat is ascribed to continuous cropping with the same cereal and tire nonemployment of fertilisers. In simple language it is said to be due to bad fanning. Every farmer in New Zealand knows what bad farming is. There are circumstances that render bad farming profitable at times,but they indicate an unwholesome condition of affairs. If the State does its duty it can render bad farming so expensive that the game will not be worth the candle. Genuine settlement and bad farming are utterly opposed to each other. Wherever bad farming prevails there is no genuine or permanent settlement. The farmers are nomads birds of passage—who alight on the soil like a plague of locusts, extract all the virtue there is in it out of it and then change their pastures.

Good farming recognises a system- of rotation and compensation. The soil originally fertile and productive is not allowed to starve. Common sense,, apart from scientific research, induces the farmer to bring the animal, vegetable and mineral world into lunnony. The soil is- regarded as a medium of conversion in which supply and demand must be nicqly balanced to avoid disaster. The Californian farmers appear to have been adopting the course followed some years ago very generally all over the British colonies. The land was worked, and cropped and cropped till, it became exhausted, and absolutely refused to bo cropped any longer. For the soil', like the slave that toils and .moils in hopeless misery, can kick when it likes. The Irish tenants have struck against rack rents ; the soil of California has struck against hard monotonous work and no wages. The Californian farmer has no process ■servers, policemen or soldiers to fall back upon ; ho has no reuffid'y but to comply with the demands of, the soil, or else leave it alone. Under the most favorable circumstances should he abandon had fanning tIU remedial process must be a slow one. It is a simple thine, to keep up the stamina of the soil, but ibis a difficult ami tedious thing once the land is exhausted to get it again into a productive condition. The lesson that the Californians arc learning—many farmers in New South Wales and Victoria have learned to their cost. In these colonies the cream of the land was the first to be settled on, and originally the yield was wonderful. Bad fanning, however, has rendered the best land valueless. Where forty, fifty, and sixty bushels to the acre of wheat, oats, and barley could be obtained twenty years ago, an average yield of twelve or thirteen bushels is obtained to-day. A few farmers in New Zealand are also beginning to experience the bad effects of bad farming. They find that year after 'year their crops are visibly diminishing. Fortunately in this colony, owing to the greater depth of soil, and a cooler rad in every way.t,superior climate, the exhaustive process is slower. But jad farming has only to be followed up and exhaustion will come as surdy as night follows day. The farmers the colony generally will do well to :akc a hint from what is going on in California, and nearer home, in Australia. In South Canterbury wo have a bountiful soil, a ciraate unsurpassable for agriculture, and wo have grain that will bear comparison with the finest .s;rain in the universe. Let it he the aim of our farmers to keep up the high standard of their produce as regards quantity and quality, and in the long run they will find themselves foremost in the race. As California and other grain producing districts fall behind, New Zealand will come to the front. Thanks- to bad farming there is no • l..nycr of the London ov Eui-upeau markets being deluged with American cereals. The farmers of New Zealand, if true to themselves, have seen the “ winter of their discontent.” The promoters of the Canterbury Farmers’ Co-operative Association have placed the ball of prosperity at their feet if they like to kick it. Good farming, a proper rotation of crops, the use of fertilisers, the combination of grazing with agriculture, and, above all things, a thorough organization, is all that is needed to bring about good harvests

in a pecuniary as well as in a productive sense.