Electric Fencing On Otago Mixed Farm

Press, Volume CVIII, Issue 31784, 14 September 1968, Page 8

Electric Fencing On Otago Mixed Farm

Increasing use is being made of cheap semi-permanent electric fencing on a 500-acre mixed sheep and cropping property of J. H. Mitchell and Company, at Weston, near Oamaru.

About three miles of electric fencing has been erected on the property and the length of fence is being progressively increased. Mr J. R. Mitchell, an obvious enthusiast for electric fencing, believes that this sort of fencing that can readily be moved or shifted has obvious advantages when adjoining areas are in crops giving larger areas for more economical cultivation, and at the same time when these areas are sown down to pasture he says that they can be readily subdivided again into smaller paddocks for grazing. Thus it is possible to see a strainer post standing out in a paddock under crop on the Mitchell property waiting to take an electric fence again when the area is once more in pasture or under grazing. Likewise, Mr Mitchell believes this sort of fencing could have a place on areas where lucerne is grown extensively to facilitate rotational grazing and also more economic cultivation where areas run out and have to be taken up again. The expansion In electric fencing has taken place on the property In the last two or three years since more efficient units have been available. Recently there were some six controller units working on the property, but some of these were under test for manufacturers.

The operation of modern units has been found satisfactory with no trouble from growth on fence lines putting them out of operation where they are running all the year round. Mr Mitchell is interested in the cheapest possible sort of fencing. A fencing survey done by the local Totara Weston Young Farmers’ Club and recently brought up to date shows that in the last three years prices for most items of fencing material have increased. An exception has been concrete and wooden posts, which have remained constant with, in fact, slight decreases for some types of wooden posts. The survey found that the effect of price movements had been that the cheapest type of electric fence costing $123 per mile in 1965 now cost $l47 — an increase of 19 per cent — while a typical conventional fence costing $686 per mile in 1965 had now gone up to $783, representing an increase of 14 per cent The Increase of $97 in the price of this fence was sufficient to meet more than half the cost of the cheapest electric fence quoted. The conclusion from all this was that many items of fencing materials were pricing themselves off the market and that farmers in fighting against these trends would be forced to erect the cheaper type of electric fence, which

many farmers now, in fact, regarded as being a more efficient fence. Mr Mitchell last week produced some convincing arguments in favour of a temporary or semi-permanent type of electric fence compared with a more conventional fence on a property like theirs. He first showed that it had been calculated that over a flveyear period, taking into account interest, depreciation, spraying of the fence line and some return from grazing the fence line, a conventional fence costing some $640 per mile on land worth $l6O an acre would cost the property owner $224 per mile, whereas a semi-permanent fence costing $l2O per mile—this could now be about $l50 —that could be shifted to facilitate cultivation would over the same period actually show a profit of $lO or a profit over the conventional fence of $234. Looking at the area of land that is occupied by an average fence line, Mr Mitchell says, there would probably be about an acre of unploughable land in a mile of fence line. At present high prices for land this was surely a high price to pay for a fence line and this was a cost in addition to the loss of production that had to be added to the cost of farm fencing. Among advantages seen in the sort of temporary fencing that he envisages are greater control of weeds in fence

lines, such as barley grass and thistles, by being able to cultivate these areas, thus reducing their spread into pastures

and contamination of pasture seed crops and a reduction in spraying; the ability to cultivate larger areas where adjoining paddocks are being put into similar crops with consequent more economical operation; and elimination of banks of soil against or away from fence lines which frequently cause a fence line to become wider over a period of time, especially on steeper country. It is also understood that such fences would not come into capital valuation. Mr Mitchell has been looking for the cheapest sort of fence and in this fence costing about $l5O a mile or only about a fifth or a sixth of a conventional fence, he has been using 3/Bth inch rods with five wires of 16 gauge high tensile steel with insulators on all wires so that all wires can be livened if necessary and to facilitate easy removal of the fence If necessary in the mixed cropping programme. Pointing to a 350 yard length of such a fence, he said that one man could remove It in about an hour and a half. It stands about 30 inches high.

Mr Mitchell believes it is most essential to be able to liven the bottom wire of such a fence to protect valuable crop, particularly where weaned lambs may be nearby. Mr Mitchell has developed his own gate to go with his electric fences. It has been described a little uncharitably as “a glorified Taranaki gate” because the basic material is netting, but it works efficiently and looks tidy enough.

Mr Mitchell believes that people will put up an electric fence before doing anything about gates and he says that where a cheap electric fence is put up for about $l5O a mile it was possible that the costs of gates could well exceed the price of the fence. He believes that his gate could be marketed at a

profit for about $6 or $7. Already they have about 20 on their own property, two other district farmers have these gates and four, including two recent models, have been sent to the Agricultural Engineering Institute at Lincoln for testing. The netting gate with steel stays at either end has a crank device that goes over centre straining or tensioning and locking the gate. It is easy and quick opening and has advantages over other gates on a hill site.

Because of its lightness It does not require a heavy strainer assembly and when the gate is laid up against a netting section adjoining the strainer post it shorts out until the gate is removed again.

The width of the gate can easily be varied and this facilitates the movement of big machines like header harvesters on such country.

At the Agricultural Engineering Institute this week Mr K. R. Humphries, a research technician, who is working on fencing matters, said that one of Mr Mitchell’s latest gates would shortly be installed on the dairy farm at the college for testing. He said that the gate seemed to be a useful one with the advantage also of lightness for transport to a remote area of a property.