THE SCIENTIFIC FARMER

Taranaki Daily News, Volume LIV, Issue 140, 16 December 1911, Page 11 (Supplement)

THE SCIENTIFIC FARMER

PRACTICE AND THEORY. "''. Much misconception (says a writer inji the Evening Post) appears to exist cofr";|| earning the meaning and application ot<f| the term "scientific farmer." Science M'M grafted upon agriculture implies a ma:drji mum degree of production; but if start on a solely scientific basis i,t more than probable that the result wffltflj prove, a financial failure. Too often theis] theorist overlooks the fact that agpicul-fS ture must first of all show a There is no permanence about an inylS dustry that lives on credit. If we cept this view of the situation we migafr|s enquire a little deeper into the matteri! by asking where science ends and afc!f| what point does practice begin. Thwe|M seems to be great confusion of ideas owm this matter. It is so easy to talk «£§! scientific agriculture, but it is dimcuijra| to define it. We take it that the termsfl "scientific farming" implies the absofpfl tion of the teaching of related sciencesja provided they prove financially sitcceggaM ful. Now there is much of the ordinaryiS eycry-day agricuture that i 8 really scienjl •tific; but the theorist would scout thefjl suggestion were it made. Too often I'fcil is forgotten that it is the farmer's bußi-Jf| ness to be scientific, although mayh'anfß in a. crude fashion. It cannot be deniecra| that agriculture is to its votaries QwM long experiment. They are add'ingjJlS| their knowledge with "every season, and the question that has notf! been settled satisfactorily is whether f tas§| application of the results of perience and observations is 'not ttf|| truly scientific as the compounding.<&jii fertilisers on a chemical formula, or- tlfef|| observance of the albuminoid ratio iwm mixing feeding stuffs. * ''"'^H It is a mistake to suppose that agrij« cultural science must be derived irom||| the laboratory. It is as plainly in the field as in the test tube; but muobltS of that out-of-door science goes the general title of practice. In connection it is interesting to note howjffl small things may create an artificial andiS even false impression. A weH-knowifll science teacher who visited Germany bfrJfl | came very enthusiastic about Teutontrij§| farming and farmers. Asked why he <hei|||l this exalted opinion, he gave tfs one W)I« the chief reasons that when talking oWm the manurial applications necessary fofcfl different crops the German agriculturalitHH reckoned its quantities in so manylsl pounds of nitrogen, phosphates and PwM ash. It is a small. thing and worthy of the importance attached twin it, but the teacher in question ed that it betrayed the scientific minflJß The only difference between the GermanH custom and ours is one of method. TheraH reckon in essential elements, we talfflj our tally in quantities. The result jjj|B the same. There is no term more abus«M ed than that of "scientific agriculture,?!™ It is the applied science that is of fn|§9 portance, and there is more science itflfll corporated in practice than many appeanH to be aware of. i$H Science for its own sake and that may be adapted to make a commer- §■ cial success of agriculture are obviously ifl two different things. It by no means IS follows that the scientific farmer, or theja| farmer who has a scientific reputation,'U|-?§H better than his neighbor who can give novM sound theoretical reasoning for th&jgfl methods he • adopts. There is a large part of farming confined to buviaaM and selling, and the art of making good bargain is the first step towardjfjM financial success, so that when we of the farmer who is scientific we to his methods of working the land feeding his stock, and not necessariljgM to the actual profits he is making tSU applying scientific teachings. The greftJU value of sience lies in the fact that*i|BH tends to create the enquiring mind, if it only succeeds in making the agrf|fl culturalist his own experimenter it wiljjfll have achieved a very substantial servieJjß to the industry. Xo one questions,imH these days the power of scientific teacKsH ing, but great discrimination is requireajH to apply it. We may illustrate 4n|9 point in two ways. Mn'nv years agc-taJM theory advanced on behalf of deep cuItJSM vation was considered to be very souriftMß It really arose from the results obtainejjflß in tropical and other lands. Many e)fej3H terprising agriculturalists tried it, buJH only in a few cases was it of servio|||B Quito a large number of farmers on thtJjH lands ploughed deeply, and for manfjH years afterwards they were constantl|aH reminded of their experimental folly i)ff9 the great difficulty of converting a soliffiW or raw sub-soil into a suitable s,eed bedJjH Yet the theory of deep cultivation is ?Q§l itself quite sound. Still another illus*H tra'tion may be taken in the eultivati&@fl of bacteria as a source of soil enricli&fl ment. Science in this case was hasfaajM and its judgment somewhat Most fanners knew that heavy fertilistSH tion created bacteria, or the conditibflslH which favored the multiplication, hulifl they had little faith in direct inoculatloHgH of the soil as a sovereign remedy. SciettaM i tific theory docs not Sways receive thgiß endorsement of practice, and by the risj|9 ture of agriculture the absorption > :O$H now ideas may appear slow when, ns' : is9 matter of fact, it is very rapid, ing that the average crop takes ' nine months to grow, and throws UwH reckoning out for a whole season. Ttj«fl real source of strength in agricuUurfflfl science lies in the dispossession of uneeJ|H tain rule-of-thumb methods by othejJH more accurate. Fertilisers are boughjjM upon the strength of their chemical aiJH alysis. Feeding stuffs are purchased OffiH the same lines, so that by the use <lffl unit values a common market worth mm established. The alternation of crops wfl essentially a scientific problem,' and tllfl fact that free cropping is the ordor><qlM the day does not argue in favor of tljlH unscientific treatment of land. ";||H : method, too, there is such a thing ; mH science. The buying and selling of calsjlH by the weighbridge is more accurate ttiffflH guesswork, although it is true that qiif|9 ity can never be gauged save Imnd and eye. Science is thus fa Ifjffl widest aspect intimately related to tttlfl indnslry of agriculture, and if a clonH investigation be made into the. appUeaJM tion of scientific truths it jviH be fol "§|M that they are more readily put into pKfflßß tico than many people imagine. -»'*mßM After pigs have been running togetfijnH it is a bad plan to put other pigs the same lot. as it invariably the whole drove. '>l^l The United States Department of ricnltnrc considers that a cow to be fUlfl fitablc should produce fiOOOIbs quarts) of milk yearly without forced. A cow ought to produce butter yearly. Lucerne hay is one of the best fofjlfl for the milking herd, because it confaftf|H all the elements of which milk is comj#j|H ed. In combination with silage from maize, it is as good a the dairy herd as can be provided. ? J^l It should not he overlooker] thafr-tfjH sweetest and tendcrest meat is alwmH produced when tlie ))rocess of fattenJ«H is done quickly, and if this is foliofwH itnit little exercise need be allowed SJ^H Amundant hair on pigs, lively somewhat fine and soft, growing o\\%ffl m W a pliable skin which is neither nor papery, and free from mangy tions., tells the story of robust vigor, thrift and active circulation.' action and a bright, spriothtlv are signs of good digestion 'and "j^^|