Hill-Country Topdressing “A Necessary Overhead”

Press, Volume XCVIII, Issue 29068, 3 December 1959, Page 18

Hill-Country Topdressing “A Necessary Overhead”

(New Zeaiana Preu Association)

GISBORNE, Dec. 2,

Hill country topdressing should be recognised as a necessary overhead, Mr C. P. Tebb, a field officer of the Meat and Wool Boards’ economic service, told delegates to the grasslands conference today. This contribution to pasture management, he said, should be subject to a formula which would be accepted not only by farmers, but also by bank managers, mortgagees and politicians. He envisaged a simplified minimum prescription, such as half a hundredweight of superphosphate per breeding ewe. He quoted figures showing a very clear case for continuous topdressing of hill country at a level of, at least, 50 per cent, of the productive area. Failure to topdress to a bold plan means at the best, standing still, but the farm more likely would slip back. Mr Tebb said that top-dressing was one item of farm costs which has not increased in the past decade. Mr Tebb gave the results of a survey of four groups of farms, the first in South Auckland and the others on the East Coast The groupings were on the basis’ of annual coverage, with superphosphate. Group A (South. Auckland) had a 66 per cent, coverage, and the evaluation over the five-year period showed an average increase of 3.21 b of wool an acre, an increase of 0.3 stock units an acre, an increase of 45s 9d in grass returns (from 12is 6d to 167 s 3d an acre), an increase of 22s an acre in working expenses (from 56s to 78s), and an assessed average cost of topdressing an acre of 225. Group B (East Coast) had a 60 per cent, coverage, and an increase of 5.71 b of wool (14.1 to

19.8), an increase of 0.6 units an acre, an increase of 65s in gross profit an acre (96s 3d 3 161 s 3d); the working expense! increase by 16s 8d an acre (52s 5d to 69s Id) and the assesMfV 1 average cost an acre of topdree, ing was 21s. In Group C (East Coast), the coverage was 39 per cent, the wool yield an acre increased only from 16.61 b to 16.71 b, and stock-unit concentration from It I to 2.9 an acre; gross profit was up by 17s 9d (108 s 9d to 126 s M), ! working expenses were up by llg 8 ;' Id (50s 4d to 61s sd) and dressing costs were assessed at 15s an acre. Group D (East Coast) com- 4 prised farms on which the avtr- > age coverage was only 14 per l ! cent. Their average wool yield dropped from 15.91 b to llSib, while stock units an acre increased from 2.4 to 2.5. Their 5 gross profit an acre rose by only 5s 3d (102 s 3d to 107 s 6d) where* as their working expenses an acraitl , increased by 5s 6d (43s 9d to Ot 3d), and the average assessed dressing cost was 5s 7d an aet«S|