MODEL FARMING ECONOMY.

Press, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5679, 30 November 1883, Page 3

MODEL FARMING ECONOMY.

TO THE EDITOB OF THE PEESS. Sib, —With your permission I would like to say a few words with reference to the management of the School of Agriculture. Model farming, as most of your readers know, has been an established fact for some years in one of the most luxurious parts of Canterbury, and as we might have expected, it should have been a great boon to the farming community of Canterbury and an immense benefit to New Zealand. But, sir, I fail to see it. Tn my opinion there is not one example in reference to farming that is worthy of imitation. Mr Ivey once told us that bluestone used for the prevention of smut in wheat was not bluestone, and in the wheat sowing season of 1882 he informed us that owing to the toughness of threshing the harvest previous tuscan wheat was much damaged, and a great percentage of it would not grow (a thing everybody knew), but he failed to tell us that where machines for threshing purposes were kept in good order there was little or no damage done to the grain. Now, if we look to the model farm for an example to till our corn, can we get it from the above noble Institution and follow out their plans ? I say no. I have seen their corn sown and finished according to their modern science, and in less than a fortnight acres of it have been under water, and allowed to remain for the want of a few furrows drawn through their fields, and old water courses being cleaned out, and I ask is this the style of farming to make a farm show a profitable return for the labor expended on it? As a matter of course some grain will escape being destroyed, and will grow, and in the natural course of events come to harvest. Now here their style of farming may do, for the number of hands placed in the harvest field well carries out the old proverb, viz., " Many make light •work." I have seen almost scores of boys (no, that won't do, I must call them men) elbowing their way, and working as if they were fond enough of the job to lay down beside it. How, tax, I for one should like to know what it does cost the model farm per acre for harvesting their grain. I find by contract cutting, binding, etooking, carting, and stacking, are let from 9s to 133 6d per acre, but I don't think our model institution can compare favorably with the above figures. Now if they cannot I mean to say that their science is not

worthy of imitation. If we imitate the model farm in stacking, what have we got ? Why unsightly heaps of sheaves which they call by a scientific name " stacks," and being built according to modern science, are left to take care of themselves when rain comes on, but their ability is not fit for the occasion, for the last threshing must have proved to them their folly. Now, Sir, I think stacking the most important part in farming, and stacks should be buUt with great care, and when built should be securely thatched, a thing sadly neglected on our model farm. Now, Mr Editor, I think the time has come when we ought to know what the above institution is doing. It is quite time wo knew what their expenditure is per annum, and their returns made known. If lam not mistaken, it is a public institution, and supported by the State, and if so why are we kept in the dark as to its workings. If it is to be of any use to the farmers, and lighten our expenses, it is quite time we knew; and if it cannot learn us to farm on a cheaper and more remunerative principle, why are we burdened with it ? I for one should say aivay with it. What should we think of a farmer who has a good freehold farm stocked with the best of stock which money could procure, implements all of the latest improvements, and without either mortgage, liens or.bUls of sale over them, who after balancing up his annual expenses and returns and showing JEI in debt, should we think him worthy of imitation ? I say not; and, in my opinion, I believe this is something like our model institution. If it is not so, I ask again why are we kept in the dark as to its income and expenditure? My opinion is, if the farm made large returns your columns would be filled with flourishing reports as to its success. I fear the directors would blush to see their expenses and their returns made public since the commencement of that model institution. Now, Mr Editor, if the School of Agriculture cannot maintain and hold its own, the quicker it is turned into an Old Man's Home, an asylum of some kind, or even a gaol, the better. The importance of the subject is, sir, the only apology I can offer for taking up bo much of your valuable space. Trusting some abler pen will take the matter up as a friend to his country, I remain, &c, R.H.D.