BRITISH FARMING FUTURE

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27500, 6 November 1954, Page 5

BRITISH FARMING FUTURE

Professor M. M. Cooper’s Views GLOOMY PREDICTION Unless British farming becomes considerably more efficient than it is at present, it faces a difficult future, according to Professor M. M. Cooper, the New Zealander, who is now a leading figure in British agriculture, and whose criticisms of British farming have several times raised strong protests. In an article in the “Farmer and Stock-Breeder,” Professor Cooper develops the theme that price subsidies paid during the war, and used to switch production from one commodity to another, discouraged farmers from inVesting in permanent improvements, and have left almost every section of British farming with a cost structure too high for successful competition against imports. He suggests that the subsidies promised for the future will be paid only so long as the consumer is prepared to pay the high cost in expensive food which could be imported much cheaper. When the events of the last 15 years fall into perspective and become part of the history of agriculture, the verdict will be that these have been times of lost opportunities, Professor Cooper writes. Our agriculture has not known such prosperity for 80 years; and yet it is singularly ill-equipped to face the cut and thrust of increasing competition. When the last Price Review was announced there was a sigh of relief in Bedford square that could be heard in Whitehall. But those who have read the portents know very well that the reprieve can only be temporary. Danish bacon and New Zealand lamb at two-thirds of the price of the British product can mean only one thing in a country where nine-tenths B of the voters are urban. The diet of cost-plus on which agriculture was nurtured for 15 years has created a high-cost structure for the principal items of production, which makes the industry particularly vulnerable in times of falling prices. That there will be falling prices one cannot doubt. We see it already in the world market for grains; dried milk is now at a discount; and a butter-marg-arine war will probably mean a swing to increased meat production in New Zealand. Cost of Subsidies It is true that there is a system of guaranteed prices for the, review products and that there have been Government assurances that these will be maintained. It is important to remember, however, that the estimated costs of susidies to agriculture for the current year will be over £200,000,000, and there is a chance that this figure will be much higher. There has been a tremendous increase in the seasonality of meat production and there has not been an appropriate expansion in cool storage space. In September and October there is likely to be a slump in prices, especially for the less favoured class of animal such as mature sheep or the heavyweight bullock. It may not immediately concern the farmer who has his guarantees. But it will concern the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the taxpayer who foots the bill.

The Food Subsidy When the Ministry of Food handled purchases from home and abroad it was generally claimed that the food subsidy was a consumer subsidy. It was, when supplies were limited and prices were controlled. But in a free market the subsidy is directly attributable to agriculture. It certainly is being so attributed by the political opponents of home farming, who draw invidious comparisons between Danish and home-produced pig meat and ask why it is that the Danes with no climatic advantages can land high-quality bacon in Britain of the cost of British bacon; and do so at a profit;

Such critics must, however remember two points. The- first is that some day in the not-too-distant future the .terms of trade may move against this country and agriculture may become as vital to the national economy as it was during and immediately after the war when there were dollar crises. A price recession in America and increasing competition from Western Germany and Japan could easily precipitate such a situation. And we no longer have the dollar and other investments of pre-war days to buffer a fall in export income. __ Lose Momentum” Nationally, we cannot afford -to let our agriculture go into a decline, for when the need arises expansion cannot momentum of the present expansion phase,, Il the longer term view is taken, with a proper realisation of our economic vulnerability and of the progressive increase of world population; the ephemeral nature of present food surpluses is appreciated. There may be a buyers’ market for food for five or even 10 years, but in the end we shall surely need all we can produce.

. Agricultural Progress. Agricultural progress is seldom rapid. At. the best, genetic Improvement m the quality of livestock J™ _ c ? me „ only very slowly, at tne rate of a gallon or two every generation in dairy cows and a small fraction of a pound of food in T? e ® co p om y of gain of bacon pigs. Husbandry changes can be substantial, as we have seen over the-last 15 years, if there i is - a buo > aric y and sense of purpose in farming. We must look 20 years ahead in shaping the industry. Statesmanship, not politics, must control its destiny. The second point the critics of agriculture must remember is that the urgency of war necessitated an expansion at all costs, and the price mechanism was used to secure increases in desired directions and to inject sorely-needed capital into farming. Such action was justified in war, and perhaps for a couple of years after, but unfortunately it was continued for too long. • There was such a succession of shifting emphasis ’from eggs and milk to bacon and meat that farmers tended to become opportunists, and not without cause, for no farmer with limited capital at his disposal could afford to tie this up in a new piggery when the. chances were, in a few years’ time, that pigs would not be an economic proposition.

“The Hard Way”* Now evolution has got to come the hard way. Though farming deserves consideration because it has been the subject of national convenience and expediency, nevertheless the industry must now work out its own salvation within the breathing space that its negotiators can secure. It cannot expect 2s 6d to 3s per lb for mutton and heavy-weight lamb when the New Zealander, with a tremendous scope for expansion, can land prime lightweight lamb, which the butcher prefers, for Is 9d per lb. The price of liquid milk must be cheapened to stimulate demand so that the burden of manufacturing milk does not weigh too heavily on the dairy industry. The country needs more beef: but it cannot afford to pay salmon prices for it. Eggs and bacon must eventually stand unsupported and meet fair competition from abroad. Physically there is no reason why we should not achieve such a position and be independent of any form of price subsidies. To counter New Zealand’s advantage of climate there is the premium for freshness and there is no burden of a 12,000-mile ocean haul. We must take a leaf out of the Lanes’ book and really set our pig house in order. Above all, however, we must pay atention to all those important small details of techniques and management which collectively contribute to an efficient farming unit and an efficient farming industry. This is the basic problem agriculturists have to resolve.