AGRICULTURAL NEEDS

Shannon News, 27 April 1928, Page 2

AGRICULTURAL NEEDS

INTENSIVE CULTIVATION,

ARGUMENTS FOR LIMITATION.

Many people, political, professional and private ? delight to point to increased production and intensified, farming as the road to greater agricultural prosperity, and, although the farmers themselves may at times feel a little irritated at the continual drumming on the one platitudinousstring there are few who will not boncede the soundness of the principle at least (states the New Zealand “Herald.”) That many of our Dominion’s farmers are men of narrow limita-. tions, however, who have to plan their activities in accordance with restricted financial resources is a fact which is very often overlooked by those who seek to guide the country’s agrarian army—and incidentally the country itself —into tho w r ay of increased prosperity, and no matter how excellent the advice given may be, it can only prove effective in proportion to the extent that the farmer is able to put it into practice. Easily available finance is rightly considered one of the first requisites to enable many farmers to benefit in that respect, but from England comes an argument which in practice would eliminate to a large extent the matter of finance and which is unique as it is seemingly incompatible with usually accepted theories. It is an exact antithesis of New Zealand’s constant cry for more production and is to the effect that "agricultural depression can best be met by the adoption of less intensive methods of farming.” This proposition formed the topic of a recent debate by the. Agricultural Students’ Association in Lancashire. The broad prnciples concerned naturally make it a subject of interest wherever agricultural effort is paramount and it is certainly worth while examining the various arguments put forward in favour of it. 1 Production and Returns.

It was contended in support that, although large crops were very acceptable from the public point of view, the farmer knew that when he had a good harvest everyone else was in a similar position the consequent over suplying bringing down prices. Thus increased' production was almost > from the standpoint of the farmer When prices were low, therefore, the farmer should pursue less intensive methods of cultivation and concentrate on cutting down production costs. ;

•No matter how weary he may be of hearing the cry for more production it is doubtful if any New Zealand farmer could be brought to an acceptance of this opposite argument as a sound, logical attitude to adopt towards a condition of depression. At first sight the suggestion might appear reasonably sound since it seeks its justification in the law of supply and demand, but close examination shows it to be rather a shortsighted sumbission to the exigencies of that law when an endeavour to make the very best of existing circumstances would be productive of much more definite results..

The fact that the law of supply and demand is at times antagonistic to the most payable prices has to be accepted by all classes of producers, and, if anything, it' demonstrates the vital necessity for a considered policy of coordinated production and marketing at all times. anada supplies a strncing example of what can be accomplished in this direction. In 1923 Canadian wheat growers reaped a most bounteous harvest and prices slumped disastrously-—the decline being accentuated considerably by the frenzied marketing of the farmers themselves. Out of the ruins of that harvest sprang the great wheat pools —not for the purpose of restricting or even controlling production, but with the object of selling every bushel of wheat that could be produced at the best possible price. And the result leaves little to complain about. Fluctuation in Prices. The suggestion that farm produce of all things could be restricted in output at a psychological period cannot, of course, be taken seriously; the supply of agricultural products is only partially undfer human control and any adjustment in supply must necessarily be a prolonged process. Further the price of agricultural produce is subject to variations not only from year to year but also during the same season, and the task of regulating the supply in accordance with these fluctuations is certainly not one that can bo taken up at a moment’s notice and immediately discarded on a return to more favourable conditions. Above all perhaps, is the question of turnover, a phase as important to the agricultural industry as it is to any other business. It is not so much the profit per pound that is important, but rather the profit per pound multiplied by the number of is going to dodge us, blit improved pounds sold, and naturally the smaller the margin of profit per pound, the greater the need for increased turnover, provided, of course, that the in-