"EXPERT" FARM LABOUR.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 15860, 27 March 1917, Page 5

"EXPERT" FARM LABOUR.

' xo THE EDITOR OP "THE PRESS."

Sir, —In Monday's issue of "The Press" "Ail Old Farmer" says in the course of an epistle on tho question of farm labour: —"It makes an old farmer laugh to read that farmers aro asking exemption from military service for 'expert ploughmen.' It does not require an expert to follow a two or three-fur-row plough. I have seen boys of 14 years of age ploughing day after day with a double-furrow plough, do the work well and like it. Of courso tho plough is set for "them at the start by their father or manager." I think not many farmers will agree with our ancient friend. Tho fact that he has seen a boy of 14 years of age follow a doublefurrow plough does not help his argument. That boy was no doubt a farmer's son, or a country boy at anyrate. He has been familiar with tho operation of ploughing practically all his life, and has seen it done hundreds of times, ho had no doubt done it often, and, in short, he was well on his way to becoming an "expert," even if ho had not learned all thcro is to be learned about this particular occupation. But you take, say, a grocer's assistant from the town, and put him to the plough, and kindly imagine what happens. To begin with, he would not even know how to harness the horses or yoke them up, and if ho did, by tho light of his understanding, manago to do this, ho. still would be as far off ploughing .as ever. In plain language ho would have to be' taught, and while he is being taught, the time of tho man who is teaching him (an expert) is being more or less wasted, for ho might have been ploughing himself. lam willing to admit that, in a week, a bright novice might make a very good attempt at ploughing on the flat, but looking at tho matter from the point of view of (say) a member of an Efficiency Board, it does seem a trifle "weak to take away an expert from a job which is admitted to be essential. and waste a lot of time and another expert's efforts in teaching a novice how to do the work I There is another point to remember, and that is that an "expert" teamster should bo able to do all kinds of horse -work. If "An Old Farmer" got liis ploughing done by a new chnm satisfactorily, he would hardly like to let that new chum tako on drilling, would he? No, I think that on an arablo farm it is a sound economic proposition to leave at least one expert teamster on the place, for ho might well bo able to look after a good deal of novicc labour, which by itself would be rather worse than useless.—Yours, otc., "COULTER,"

; TO THE EDITOR OP "THE PRESS." Sir, —I have this day read with most astonishing interest a letter appearing in your correspondence columns, signed unfortunately, "An OJd Farmer." Personally, I have very little hesitation in stating the fact that the one who wrote the letter lam referring to knows exceedingly little, if anything at all, regarding his subject. Certainly to most expert ploughmen, his nonsense letter shall without a doubt appear more than stupid. "An Old Farmer" says it does not require an expert to follow a two or three-furrow plough. Certainly not. My two-year-old daughter lias sat behind six ,'iorses on n three-furrow plough, - and with straight going done equally as "■ ell as her father, but accidents occur ov<-ry half-hour: the team or teims requiie turning, this or that requiro an adjustment. and nothing except experience can attend to such important matters. I have, for an instance, worked two two-furrow ploughs (fourhorse teams) a,nd one three-furrow plough (six-horse) team), and no other person in the saftc paddock, but without success. It is easily understood that to plough rightly a competent inan must attend to each one team aud implement. In conclusion, I should like to say able and good ploughmen are hard to obtain and always shall be, if a more substantial increase in wages are not paid to such necessary workers.—Yours, etc.. I W. BRIAN.