LARGE V SMALL FARMS.

Ashburton Guardian, Volume VII, Issue 1813, 12 April 1888, Page 3

LARGE V SMALL FARMS.

♦ ("Taieri Advocate.") What has proved a corse not only m New Zealand, but m the Australian colonies, has been the " pride of proprietorship," the mania, for big farms In hia evidence before the Victorian Commission on Vegetable Product*; that experienced colonist, Sir S Davenport, stated that " too much land " was amongst the principal hindrances to successful farming m South Australia In bis opinion, squatters awi farmers alik9 were suffering from the drawback of possessing more land than thoir available capital and labor could turn to profitable account. His evidence illustrated the old theory that a small farm well cultivated is tuoie profitable than a largo farm, a great portion of which has to suffer neglect. It would not be bo bid if those who had gone m tor largo farms had been able to pay for them ; but, alas ! m thoir eager grasp for land, too many have been guilty of the unwise practice of mortgaging one prop?rty that they might purchase another ; and m too many instances the second property }>as i become an elephant on their hand?, eating with its huge teeth of interest and taxes a big hole into the tilled aorea for Us unworthy support. This ia the cause of It. It ia no Government bond that acaumu[atea by lying stiil, or that can be hid away, and is the better for keeping quiet, but there it is, expoßei to the assemaor'a eye, exhausting the strength of the owner and the profit from the rest of the farm for its unprofitable existence, 1 A New England writer pata tho matter this way : * Concentration means power ; diffusion, weakness When the point 1b reached thi-t the land f uls to pay interest on its valaation, taxes and market rates of wages for tho tfrce beulowed m cultivation, It had bettor go into the hands of the aezt man who stands ready to try his power 3 upon it. Wo will hsaird the assertion that enough ia lost to the farmers every year, though thia holding of more land than they can swing, to pay for what extra help they really stand ia need of to make the rest of their 4aad return what It should. Even m England it is found how much better farming pays when the farms are comparatively Email. On this point a correspondent of "Devizes GaZ3tte" recently wrote as follows : It will probably be within your recollection that about twenty yeara ago there was an agitation m favor of large farrna as being moro economical than amall ones. Oar chief landlord at Market Lavlngton appears to have been Btrongly impreeßed with the idea, and, unfortunately for the parish, be put it into operation. Five farms have been combined, and tho whole let to one farmer, Mr Sargent; The effoot on tho locality has been most disastrous — the number of laborers employed waa reduced a third, and four farm honsea wore shut up. It was supposed that ths landlord and the favored tenant would divide between them the results of the economy, but it dooa not appear that there waci anything to divide ; the produce seems to have diminished more than the employment. The fiaal catastrophe ! has now arrived Mr Sargent, unable to pay the rent, hes handed over to the landlord all the stock on the farm, which it is said, will be scarcely sufficient to meet arrears of rent. Thus ho has lost all his original capital and the greater part of what he borrowed from friends. The big farm policy has been ruinous all round. What makeß tho failure more strikicg is the fact that a number of small working farmers m the locality occupy land far inferior to the huge farm ; and paying three times as much rent per acre, continue to hold on and do fairly well. The fact is,, the produce on these am «11 holdings often exceeds £15 per acre, whereas £4 per acre would probably represent tho produce of tbe largo farm ' The value of bo many acres of land to a farmer consists principally m what he can get out of them. It has been said that on American farnuer'd wealth consists of what ho can rake, whereas an Australian landowner reckona his wealth by counting his acres which arc suppose 1 to be worth en much m tho market. It la quite evident that tho land poaoeeofon mania has worked a good deal of mischief, proving an obstacle to farming, and bringing the avocation Into a sort of disrepute with certain olasiea. It is high tiroe that speculation were directed not to much to the purchase of land as to developing the resource! of the soil. Holding unproductive land is a poor speculation, and wone still If interest has to be regularly paid for it. What the country wants Ia not land speculators, but a population of email farmers, occupying good land, and cultivating so bb to make the land highly productive. That l» the way to make farming pay.