FARM LABOUR

Wairarapa Times-Age, 6 September 1938, Page 3

FARM LABOUR

THE ECONOMIC OUTPUT. ASSOCIATED SIDELINES. It is equally of importance to the nation and of moment to the individual farmer that the output of farm labour under generally parallel conditions varies tremendously, states Mr R. P. Connell in the “Journal of Agriculture.” A recent survey of dairy-farms in the Wellington Province Well illustrates this. On the farms covered by the survey butter-fat-production so dominated the position as to eliminate for practical purposes matters which otherwise might complicate the assessing of the labour output in pounds of butterfat. For instance, such sidelines as pig-keeping and cash-crop production scarcely entered into the farm businesses which were examined. The annual output per capita of a group of sixty-five adult male workers, expressed in terms of butterfat, ranges from some 50 pel' cent less than the average output of the group to some 150 per cent more than the average of the group. Expressed another way, some of the most effective workers produced approximately 41b of butterfat for every lib of butterfat produced by some pf the least effective workers. The basic importance of such a wide range in the output of workers employed in the one district lies in the fact that wages, in the long-run, must bear a relationship to the total value of the workers’ output. Such a striking range in output as that noted surely points to the advisability of individual farmers studying the output per worker on their own farms and considering the possibility of an economic increase in the output of the workers on these farms. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that an increase in the output of butterfat per worker is not necessarily the most desirable objective —the increase, to be desirable, must be the most economic one. This follows partly from the fact that labour is but one of the major items in the cost of production of butterfat, other major items being (1) interest or rent, and (2) working and maintenance costs. It follows partly, also, from the further fact’that concentrating exclusively on the production of butterfat may not be so profitable as associating the rearing of replacement stock and the exploiting of sidelines, such as pigs, with the production of butterfat. To illustrate the point from the survey under discussion: On two farms the labour-costs were 4.9 d and 4.6 d per pound of butterfat respectively, while the total net costs on these farms were 12.8 d and 13.1 d per pound of butterfat respectively. It is interesting to note that in the investigation just mentioned the highest output of butterfat per worker was associated with an average production which was substantially above that given by other herds in the district, together with a liberal policy of topdressing pastures and providing considerably greater reserves of feed than are usual in the district. On the other hand, the lowest output of butterfat pel’ worker was also associated with a liberal top-dressing policy, but in spite of that fact the herd average was substantially below that of the district, and there was no indication of any special endeavour to provide reserves of winter feed. Further, hand milking was practised.