Extra Output With Water Not Enough

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31239, 10 December 1966, Page 8

Extra Output With Water Not Enough

The extra production obtained under irrigation farming on the Ash-burton-Lyndhurst scheme in Mid-Can-terbury was not enough to make it an attractive proposition, taking into account the extra costs involved, according to Mr A. E. P. Kilian, who recently retired after spending 12 years on an irrigation farm at Lauriston. For five years he was vice-president of The Irrigation Development Association, a body consisting of irrigators in the area, and for three years was secretary of the association.

| Mr Kilian said that basicI ally not enough extra dry I matter could be produced to ’ lift carrying capacity suffici- . ently to make it a profitable I proposition. The average irriI gallon farmer was unable to I double his carrying capacity on every acre irrigated. This | appeared to a large extent to I be a question of suitable pasI tures at the right time, utili- ’ sation, and methods of manI agement. Still he was confident that, I as such great advances had ’ been made with dryland I farming, so there would be I a breakthrough with irrigaI tion fanning. Perhaps furI ther research work on fertiliI sets, pasture species, the I light factor as it affected pasI ture production and methods I of controlling the percentage I of legumes in pasture at I various times in the same I year, could bring great adI vances in irrigation farming. ’ At the Winchmore research station he felt that more attention might be directed to the economics of irrigation farming and there could be better liaison between the station and farmer. Light Lamb On the utilisation side, Mr Kilian said that the trend towards light lamb production had not favoured the irrigation farmer. Production of heavy lambs used to mean something to him, for in reality he wanted high carrying in the dry period to reap the advantages of his system. The system that he had practised of carrying large numbers of two-tooth ewes for sale in the autumn looked good, but this was not something that everyone could do, as the market could very well become over-supplied.

Management appeared simple enough during development until about the four ewes to the acre mark, but thereafter increasingly expert management seemed to be needed and this unfortunately was a 365-days-a-year job and could be regarded as a limiting factor to irrigation fanning, but it was one that was not necessarily confined to the irrigation scene. Winter management became a particularly difficult matter and necessitated meticulous supervision to ensure the best utilisation of saved grass where stock carrying was heavy. Irrigation could not get over the ticklish situation that' developed in the late winter and early spring, particularly if the spring was late, and there were increasingly large numbars of mouths to feed.

Mr Kilian feels that one of the real stumbling blocks as far as irrigation is concerned on the Ashburton-Lyndhurst scheme is that the rainfall is about the 30-inch mark. It did not leave the scope for the irrigation fanner to be far ahead of his dryland counterpart.

Nowhere else In the world was irrigation being practised under a 30-inch rainfall for grassland production. This situation, he said, probably did not apply all over Canterbury and would not the

case in the drier areas served by the Valetta and Redcliff irrigation schemes. In the light of this, he said, he saw irrigation being of value under a 30-inch rainfall more as a means of insurance against a dry spell, and therefore water had to be cheap and the system cheaply reticulated. His main thought was that because of existing markets farmers had to produce cheaply to exist, so that thoughts of an elaborate scheme with the 100 per cent of the area watered seemed too expensive. One good watering of a paddock at the right time appeared to make a tremendous difference—hence his thinking on the insurance role of irrigation. What farmers needed was a means of increasing production while still keeping costs down. It was his view that dryland farming was so good that until the techniques of irrigation were greatly improved irrigation should not proceed too quickly. However, as it had been clearly shown that the country must have additional production, and irrigation could and would give this, the Government must be prepared to deliver water to the farmer below cost. He said he did not agree with subsidies in principle, but when an industry was lagging for want of a fillip this should be given, provided it could be justified when its earning power to the nation was measured against the cost. This was a case where the Government joined hands with the farmer in a national venture. It had been claimed in some quarters that cheap water for irrigation farmers meant that other farmers were subsidising them. Mr Kilian said he felt that quite the reverse was the case. The added production from irrigation bore than compensated for cheap water both in respect of overseas exchange earnings and in the development of local social amenities.

Initiated Schemes

Mr Kilian said it had to be remembered that the Government had initiated these schemes and after long negotiations had been prepared to deliver water at low cost. This indicated that it was prepared to help farmers to develop irrigation. Now when it was shown that irrigation was comparatively unprofitable to the individual farmer, why did the Government expect an increase in charges? To suggestions that water charges were not over-all a matter of great importance to irrigators, Mr Kilian said that they could not be divorced from other costs, but were one cost over which some control could be exercised.

Another one was the cost of land preparation. Now the Ministry of Works met the cost of the initial survey, and the preparation itself was done at cost with the ministry hiring out the graders at a set hourly charge, but this

cost was rising, and it had been mooted that the farmer might also have to pay for the initial survey as well. The well-known Stewart report on the relative productivity and profitability of irrigated and non-irrigated farms in the Ashburton-Lynd-hurst area was requested and paid for by local farmers. Lincoln College was chosen to make this investigation as an unbiased academic body with the necessary qualified staff, and therefore its findings would be acceptable as evidence on the economics of irrigation, and indeed this was the only published economic survey on this topic. To his thinking it measured irrigation at all levels and the unfortunate thing was that the higher the intensity of irrigation became the lower the relative profitability was. It had also dealt at some length with local social implications and it appeared that there was no doubt that irrigation had contributed to the growth of the Ashburton

County in every field of commercial activity associated with farming. As a member of the Irrigation Development Association’s committee which has been handling water charges, Mr Kilian said the Stewart report had been presented to the Minister of Works as factual evidence of farmers’ ability to pay for water, and now the whole question appeared to have become political, and one might say even emotional. Was the Minister being poorly advised by some of his engineers or was too much notice being taken of statements from the Winchmore research station, which had never attempted to publish any over-all costing of irrigation?

Though the Ministry of Works at a local level had done an efficient job in the delivery of water to the farmer and was a sensible body to perform this function, Mr Kilian said that talks that they had had with ministry

engineers had shown that they had no background of farming knowledge and the question arose as to whether some other department might be more suited for negotiation of water charges. Perhaps the proposed water authority would be a more appropriate body. If it should be, then it would be desirable that irrigators should be represented on it. It was a bad state of affairs that the negotiations had been so protracted and this bad done irrigation nothing but harm. The farmers had presented the Stewart report to the Government in 1963, and in December of last year the Minister had rejected it as being only an analysis of existing farming practice in the area and not an attempt to show the potential under intensive irrigation. The Minister had been asked for facts and figures of this potential, and had agreed to furnish these. In the meantime an interim water charge had been issued without prejudice to future negotiations.

A further limiting factor as far as irrigation was concerned was a lack of skilled labour, in spite of what had been said during the election campaign. A good shepherd was necessary at all times on an irrigation farm but was very difficult to find. It was his feeling that they were not being trained and he linked this up with the many small farming units in New Zealand, which do not employ labour. Young Man And again his feeling was that irrigation was a young man’s venture and for the person with enthusiasm and ability . This year’s A. C. Cameron Memorial Award winner in Mid-Canterbury, Mr G. B. Henderson, was a man of this sort. He also had the advantages of being almost in a higher rainfall area and possibly on a slightly better soil than the average of the scheme, and being well situated on the delivery race was therefore better able to obtain surplus water. He was also an expert in cropping and this was where irrigation was at its best when used for a specialty purpose; but Mr Kilian said he felt that not many irrigation farmers could emulate Mr Henderson unless bigger martlets could be developed for crop products. The largest markets still offering were for wool and meat so that production of grass under irrigation remained the only direction in which farmers could go in a big way. Unfortunately the production of grass under irrigation as a medium to grow meat and wool at the present levels of income was just too expensive.

Automatic irrigation, Mr Kilian said, appeared very expensive, including the cost of double fencing, and although it might be more efficient, the experienced manual irrigator could do a very good job. He believed that some of the claims made for automatic systems, in the times required for setting up, and in rates of watering, were very extravagant