WHEAT GROWING IS NEW SOUTH WALES.

Lyttelton Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 2501, 8 January 1869, Page 2

WHEAT GROWING IS NEW SOUTH WALES.

(From the Sydney Morning Herald, Dec. 11.)

The Royal Society of New South Wales has given Mr Christopher Holleston a good opportunity to read a valuable paper on the results of ten years' wheat-growing in New South Wales, It is thoroughly well timed and practical. Mr Kolleston's picture is not encouraging. He completely confirms the view recently expressed in these column* conoeming the returns of the late harvest, but derives his conclusions from a much wider field than our own remarks were based upon. In the calculation alluded to it w«? shown that, for the past year, 1867-8, no county has given more than 16 bushels 2 pecks peracre, while the minimum has been 3 bushels 2 pecks. The average of all the old settled counties was staled to be 8 bushels 2 pecks, and of the pastoral counties 12 bushels 1 peck. Mr Rolleston shows that this result is not only a retrogression from the previous year, but that tho last half of the decennial period (l»S8-18G8) is also marked by retrogression —the figures being us 9.9 is to 13-0. The Northern and Midland districts appear to have been the least favourable throughout this period to the production of wheatFrom 1858-1862 the average during no year was beyond 15"4 bushels while it fell one year (1862) to s'l; and from 1862-1868, the averaKeof the Northern district sank to *'o bushels, and the Midland to 19 bushels. The maximum average of the Western and Southern districts during the first quinquennial period was 20*1, the minimum 9'»

• v obpla ■ from 1863 to 1867 the maximum S3 d only 16'7 bushels while the minimum nk to 4'4. The pastoral counties throughHut the entire period give a better yield than ', the old « ettled counties, which indicates that the latter are exhausted and no longer so .rood as they were. But the value of these jtatistics is enhanced by their being made to include price, without which it is impossible to arrive at any really useful conclusion res•peering wheat-growing as a profitable industry. In the Southern district, for instance, the price during the decennial period indicated i has averaged 7s lOd, and Ims therefore •yielded to the grower about £4 14s per aoro, The growers of the Western district have made an average of 7s lOd per bushel, or £i 17b lid per acre; and those of the Northern district have realised £3 6s 4d per acre, with an average price per bushel of 7s lOd. The .-gross result to the farmer in the Midland districts has been £3 2s 8d per acre—7s lOd being the average price per bushel. It is difficult to conceive anything rauoh more deplorable than this. If this is the upshot of wheat-growing, we wonder not that the growers are sick of it. One seeks in vain for the residuum of profit—even for restitution of the money sunk to secure the crop. Under the most favourable circumstances the seed cannot have been put in and the crop "harvested and brought to market at a less aggregate cost than £3 15s per acre. Generally, it will have cost much more j so that, in the majority of instances, during the last ten years, at least, the farmers have been paying handsomely for the privilege of producing wheat. They have been " doing the handsome" by the rest of the community, and feeding a large number of people at their own expense. And when we consider the ilender resources possessed by most of those who have undertaken this species of culture, —nay, more, when we consider the absolute indebtedness of most of them before they '. began to cultivate—it is impossible to hide from ourselves the conviction that great numbers of them are reduced to a very miserable state.

We should fall into a very great mistake, however, were we to regard the state of things depicted by Mr Rolleston to be unimproveable. He has sketched the results of wheat-growing under bad husbandry ; he may yet hare a different picture to show of what wheat-growing is under good husbandry. Amongst the returns from which he lias drawn his conclusions, there are instances of Tery large and pretty constant yields, referable both to the natural fertility of the soil and salubrity of the climate, as well as to downright good farming. Butgoodfarminghas been the exception. Both in New South Wales and in South Australia, the farmers, as a rule, are at no pains to do all those acts which make the difference between good husbandry and had, between farming to profit and farming to loss, Had the many farmed as the few, the average would have been better j but, as it is, the miserable harvests of those who hare entered upon the business of farmers, without the previous instruction necessary;.to give them success, or the aptitude and good sense to learn, have thrown down the average, which might have been excellent, to what we see and deplore. Although these remarks may be made wiih .Justice it is necessary that they should be qualified. Doubtless, scientific cultivators could produce wheat in almost any district of this colony ; but it does not follow it would pay to do so. Since the farmers of South Australia appear to be as fond of ■wheat-growing on patriotic principles as some .nearer home, it might be as well to profit by their investment, and produce something that .pays better. We do not venture to assert that wheat-growing even on the most approved principles will pay, though, under some circumstances, we certainly think it would, judging from what has been accomplished ; but there need be no hesitation in .saying that if it will not answer to grow wheat on sound scientific principles, it will certainly prove an utter failure, as Mr Rolleston shows, to attempt to grow it without reference to these principles.