NEW ZEALAND PROSPEROUS.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 50, 28 February 1923, Page 9

NEW ZEALAND PROSPEROUS.

CO-OPERATION AND CLOSER SETTLEMENT. (By R. J. TERRY.) I. If New Zealand is to use her resourceto the best advantage she must adopt more or less co operation in the production and marketing of her products. I admit this statement may have been made many times previously, and the men who advocate closer settlement and intensive culture are in many cases looked upon as more or less dreamers. Well, it is a dream that if I could sec accomplished 1 would be content to write "finiS."' as I should have made healthy #1)4 happy numerous households. '

For years it has been a dream and a goal ever in the distance, but 1 claim to-day that 1 can write on the subject not as a dreamer, but with authority, owin;> to my past experiences.

First, born in the provision trade, I know the requirements of the purchasing public; secondly, as a salesman on Smithneld market 1 have some knowledge of the marketing and distribution of produce. Then there were my years as an officer in the Agricultural Department in Australia, in constant touch with all classes of men on the land and the things they produce; and last, but not least, as a land salesman I have acquired local knowledge. I recognise that it is a big task indeed to bring about closer settlement, especially on co-operative lines, but I am out to do it if possible, and will not be afraid to take the gloves off if necessary.

A co-operative' organtaatiou has in most cases grown out of an economic necessity, and surely at the present time there are sad reasons for this cooperation. Chat with the small producer in almost any line, inquire as to the cost of production and compare it with tbe prices returned, On the other hand, owing to the want of management and distribution the town dweller, e», in words, the chief consumer, pays an absurdly high price for an article whjc!.. is far from choice, chiefly owing to delays in ,

It is we}] that there should be a crying necessity for cooperation, so that it will have strength enough to survive the competition to which it will in~ stantly be subjected--

My experience of farmers and men on the land generally is that they are strong individually, perhaps in many cases one might use the word stubborq, and there is reason for it. The born farmer in most cases is a descendant of individuals who have been trained for generations to depend on their own individual efforts for their maintenance, 1 have been brought in touch with the great difficulty in inducing farmers to break away from their individuality, and combine. Here in New Zealand we are in our. infancy as regards co-opera-tion, hut if we will take a lesson from other countries which carry a large, healthy, and thrifty population, we find that their success, or rather the success of the rural population, has invariably been due "to co-operation, I once paid a visit to Denmark and some other Con? tinental countries investigating certain lines of. produce. There is< a: ,-o^opera^ tive dairy in practically every parish In Denmark, I think the number would be about twelve hundred, and there are about forty co-operative bacon factories. Tlie export of Danish eggs and poultry products is valued~-*t a few million pounds. My last figures give the export as over twenty millions of eggs. Now the eggs, butter, or bacon are not produced bn large farms. The bulk of the holdings are from five to ten acres. The whole of the success of the Continental egg trade, which represents a vast sum, is due to small holdings and tion. Even the beekeepers have about eighty co-operative societies. What really enabled Germany to carry its large rural population, and incidentally to put a, few million country-bred men into the field? Intense culture and cooperation- In Belgium and France the success of co-operation has been remarkable. Those of ouv returned men who were ip France or Belgium in the early days of the war, before things were too much dislocated, or those who were fortunate enough to visit portions of these countries not ravaged by the war, must have beep impressed with the success of intense cultivation, many households obtaining more than a livelihood on from j one to Aye acres.

In Holland it » the Bame. I fancy that I hear someone say that we have not the markets the Continent has. Granted. But how did the markets develop? The higher class article was placed upon them in regular supply, and the consumption increased. Be patient; I am going to solve the problem of producer and consumer later on in these articles. It !s a somewT.at difficult matter to alter the habits of the larger farmer, neither is it such a matter of necessity, as in the case of the smaller man, I will proceed to sketch out a scheme wheiebv closer settlement and intensive farming on comparatively small areas of land can be made a commercial success and a help to the health and prosperity of the town dweller; in other words, the consumer. The scheme j g on somewhat similar lines to that which I advocated for soldier settlements. Now, I hate to hit a man when he is down, otherwise I would say to some responsible person, 'T told you so." For the soldier settlement scheme has been and is an unnecessary farce. I admit that some closer settlement schemes in England have not been a success, but the reason is not far to seek. The management or the people in them were various faddists or religious fanatics of some new sect or even people who under the cloak of what is called the "simple life" indulged in methods of living which would not be tolerated in populated centres, whereas in the scheme under consideration the persons taking up land would be picked. We will suppose that a suitable area of land has been acquired. It is cut up into portions, the size of which would be determined by the nature of the soil and the object of the settlement, as there might be.settlements, the chief products of which would be mixed farming, whereas others might be confined chiefly to fruit, bees, and home products, But what is known as the intensive culture Bystem would be generally followed in all "cases. Therefore all colonies would not sarily have the same sized holdings, even if producing an identical article.

A great drawback to the individual small holder is the ploughing and cultivation of his land. He cannot afford a suitable team and implements; therefore he has to let out his work, often paying

too much, and is at the convenience of the man undertaking to do his ploughing, etc. Therefore, at each colony or settlement, there would be a central farm where both horses or tractors and implements of the larger kinds would be common property, with only the necessary charges to make good their upkeep and replacement. Further, the manager in charge would know some time beforehand how much of this class of work had to be done, and arrangements would be made accordingly. The individual keeping of horses for carting and marketing of produce would be saved. Tho collection of all produce from the settlement would be done by and from the central depot of the colony. ■*By such accommodation many classes of production could lie undertaken, which could not be successfully accomplished by individuals.