The Farm. (From the New Zealand Fanner.) Deficient Production in Tasmania

Te Aroha News, Volume VII, Issue 401, 11 September 1889, Page 5

The Farm. (From the New Zealand Fanner. ) Deficient Production in Tasmania

Under this heading the Colonial Treasuvor, in his comprehensive statement to tho House of Assombly last month, had something to say about the amount of money sent oub of the colony in payment for produco that the country is capable of growing:. In three years tho sum of £450,000 has been paid away to our neighbours, and this iias provoked him to inquire why our agriculturists have not done more to meet the local demand. Mr Bird, howover, sees, or fancies ho seos, hopeful signs of improvement, and, so far us cereals are concerned, expects wo will very coon supply our own requirements. When these- statements were- made in the House there were one or two hon. members who urged Protection as the lemedy for this stafco of aflairs, and the Treasurer introduced a lew of tho current arguments put forward by persons who pretend to know the reason why our tarmeis do not produce more latgely. The&e were that labour is too dear ; that the limited extent of farms prevent agriculturists from competing successfully with the tanners of other colonies where labour-saving machinery can be used over large areas to an extent impossible in Tasmania ; that the climate is too cold to admit of fattening stock as in Australia ; and thab the uncertainty of prices in the local market, consequent upon our exposure to inundations of produce or stock from abroad, and the fact that intercolonial ports are, to a largo extent, closed by protective tariffs against us, have together xendcrod prospects of profits so precaiious that many tanners have roally been afraid to run tho risk of producing what they might not be able to sell at a paying price. Mr Bird himself refuses to oin in such an imputation on either " bho I judgment or business pluck of such a body of men,'' and he may well tako this course, tor the simple reason that very little ♦' judgment or business pluck" comes into the question at ail. Farmers, as a rule, grow wheat, oats, barley, hay, etc., not because they think any one or all of these products are likely to bring more than ordinary prices when placed upon the market, but simply because they consider fchoie is nothing else for them to do. Their fatheis and grandfathers worked in this way, and thar. id sufficient j for the majority of larmers at the present day. And when the question is looked at in all its bearings there is not to much reason, for under that things are as thoy are. The merchant, doubtless, pushes his business by making inquiries amongst his clients as to their requirements, and when ho has ascertained them gives his orders accordingly. In issuing these orders he does not consult the grower, nor care whether lie is a Tasmanian or not, bub keeps himself posted up in the state of the markets throughout the colonies and elsewhere, and makes his purchases where he can get the material at the cheapest rate. In this way a mei chant can bake an order from a client say on the first day of the month, fill the order within a few days, and as he can get a month's credit he is not called upon to pay his own account until tho one he has against his client is paid, so thab ihe money needed to pay for the stuff in the first instance, and the profit made upon it comes rolling in together. The meichanb Joes this all the year round, and if he did not. he would not be able to carry on business. A farmer has only one chance of selling hi& produco each year, and, unlike the merchant, ho cannot obtain an ordor for it until he has it in hand. Moreo\er, the fanner has to begin the process of producing some twelve months beforehand, and who can point out the ■way foi him to find out what he ought to produce ? With regard to the que&bion of fattening stock ib must be admitted that in this direction the farmer's business is more nearly akin to that of tho merchant, bub here again he has many difficulties to face. The disadvantage which Mr Bird states chat he has heaid, viz., " that ib is impossible for us in this, colder climate to raise and fatten stock in competition with graziers on tho continentof Australia, where tho warmer climate and the vast and rich pastuies are sso much moie favourable for the business," is, however, one that cannot be considered tenable. For wo need only turn to New Zealand, wheie in a climate much colder than thab of Tasmania, sheep and cabbie can be and are fattened a& quickly and profitably as in the warmer climates of bhe continent. It might also be argued that a great; deal of climatic effect could be counterbalanced by the provision of shelter for stock by growing hedges or platations. There is, however, another way of looking nfc tho failure of farmers to keep up tho meat supply, which seems to us more possible than any mentioned by the Treasurer or any wo have yet heard on the subject. Ib is that the pastoialists of the colony find bhab a sheep yields a bebter return from its wool than' from its carcase. The man who invests in a flock of sheep finds his money earns good interesb through the viool grown on their backs, even apart from the lambs which he has bo sell off each year, consequently bhe selling value of a store sheep comes very near bhat of a fab one, and it becomes a question whether bhe money received for ! the labberj^an be invested in anything thab will give flack the same return as bhe store sheep will if he is allowed bo live on, So far it will be conceded thab the pastoialisb, finding thab ib pays him better -to grow wool than meat, continues to do so. Tho agriculturist who might be expected to supply bhe markets with meat to a largo extent is unable to do so at a profit, as the high value of store sheep leaves so little margin, and as the majority i of farms are v, ithoub runs, the farmers have not sufficient scope for bioeding the sheep they wish to fatten. Whilst this is so it cannoo be expected that farmers will lay themselves out for fattening, and at tho present time there are few who could fatten if store stock could be more easily obtained. Paddocks that are well fallowed for wheat or barley should be entirely freed from i anything that would grow so thai they can produce a clean crop of whatever grain that is sown upon them, and where this is done there is nothing left when the crop i« taken oil 1 that would fatten stock. Tenant farmers, as a rule, have such short and uncertain tenuie of their lands thab they are bound to turn the soil over each year, and cannot afford | to leave a paddock out which, bj' tho way, ! would be useless unless sown with grasses, Where this practice is not followed the farm is principally used for growing hay, and in order to make weight the growth of all kinds of rubbish is encouraged. If one of these paddocks is left out the rubbish may grow, but stock will not eat ib, nor fatten upon it, if they do. To sum up shortly the case stands thus : — Consumers who are in the great majority want everything as cheaply a3 they can get ib ; merchants who make their profits out of both producer and consumer are nob moved by patriotic senti- j ments, and care nob whether the goods they handle are locally grown or foreigns and farmers in contending against thee; : things have to bake a back seat.— Taym&nicw I Mail.