POULTRY FARMING.

Dominion, Volume 1, Issue 178, 23 April 1908, Page 2

POULTRY FARMING.

IS IT WORTH FOSTER INC? '

HOT CRITICISM. . Our Christchurch correspondent stales A lengthy correspondence has been going on in the "Press" during the last , few'weeks concerning the value or othorwise of the poultry export trade, and the Government's expenditure thereon. Some correspondents have declared that the money sp<pjt by the Government in fostering the' trade is absolutely wasted. Costly Export Depots. y The "Pross," commenting on the correspondence, remarks that it can seo nothing either in tho work of the Government poultry farms or the necessities of the export trade that warrants the expenditure, and it adds:—"Wo are 1 ) quite certain that the money could be spent to far better purpose. According to the latest figures, tho value of tho poultry' exported from- New Zealand during the "last financial year was £502. 'Wo have not the figures showing the cost of the-Government depots in the four centres, but for the year ending March, .1007, this came to £2583; and it is probably safe to say that tho cost for tbo year just clo.sed was about the same. Tho expense of maintaining the depots is, - on these, figures, out of all proportion to the value of the work they do. , Better. Sell Looaily. ."Practically thore is no export trade. It stands to reason that there can he none as long as the price of poultry to tho Now Zealand consumer ■is maintained at tho present high level, because it pays better to sell in the local market than in London. The depots therefore languish for want of support, and are reduced, it appears, to -.- pluck and prepare fowls, for local poulterers, m order to preserve a semblance of doing something for the money they cost. It is alleged that this work is done at rates that leave no profit. We do not know how far this is the case, but we trust that some member, of Parliament will make it his. business to find out the facts of the matter.. In any case-, it is not the work for'which the depots were established, nor is it any part of tho Government's business, to do the dirty work of the • poulterers. Ars the Poultry Farms Useful? "Neither can we agree that the work carried on at the poultry farms justifies the expenditure ,on thorn. Last year,, this amounted to £3135, of which Bnmham absorbed £686, and alt-hough Burnham is said to be the best managed of the four the receipts just about, pay for the fowls' food-, leaving the cost of attendance, etc., to; be borne by the taxpayers. There. would he less reason to object to this if the farms fulfilled any really useful purpose. Obviously they have no. value as. object-lessons, because the use of poultry farming, as in any other, kind of farming, is to make money, and these farms are carried on at a loss. This fact alonn would vitiate 1 any lessons they' might teach as to the proper methods af keeping poultry. The bodies wi.ich have organised the egg-laying , competitions have done much to encourage tho wide distribution of good laying 1 strains at very much less cost to the taxpa3 - er than the £6000 af £7000 that the 'poultry department,'with its farms; its depots, and 'its experts,'• costs the country. Do Fovjls Pay? v/ -~ ; jt '- "As a matter .of fact,' poultry"farming, as, ail occupation., ij.„,y,cry.;,poor way * of' making :''money,'"'uespito"'.;ti'n unfortunately widespread delusion to the contrary, which.,is encouraged by the - fact !that tho Government has taken poultry farming under; its wing; and' it is 'fostered byrtboso 1 whoso,' motives can"-hardly-be "regarded as quite disinterested.. Poultry farming .docs not pay, though, as a 'sideline'' in ordinary farming, poultry keeping, not poultry farming, may be profitable. But is it worth while to pay thousands of pounds a 'yearto enable farmers to buy, from the Government farms, birds which they could procure elsewhere,'and to maintain all the paraphernalia for transacting an export trade when that trade:is worth less than £600 a year?" These criticisms of the > "Press" 1 are interesting, and afford food for thought. Probably the export depots; are tlie weakest spots in the : \vork of' tho division, and there will, no doubt, be many people who will think that they are serving no purpose that justifies the enormous expenditure they; apparently entail.-| Ifj as seems •to be the case, the bast market for. New Zealand eggs and spring chickens is New Zealand itself, the export depots are not only useless, but they are doing harm, for they are endeavouring to deplete' the New Zealand markets of supplies that the New' Zealand consumers'are willing to pay for. Judged from that point of vie.w, they are apparently promo,turo. ' But beyond this point the arguments of the "Press" might to some extent be taken as a policy to be applied to all the experimental work of tho Department. At the present time all the experiment farms are run at a loss, if one estimates them on cash balance sheets The fruitgrowers, do not export, yet the State probably spends more money in fostering that industry than it spends on poultry. ;■ It will doubtless be the view of many of our readers that it is those industries that are in their infancy that need most assistance. The expenditure on the poultry division, as on the fruit and other divisions, must find its justification, not in the present dimensions of the industry,- but in its prospect of a future development that will be profitable to the State. Whether the poultry division would stand or fall on that test. seems to be a subject of some difference of view. It depends on the answer to that much-harassed question, "Does poultry farming pay to which the "Press" answers "No. The ' egg-laying competitions, the efforts .of that modorr ■development the breeder, of egg-laying strains, the experiences of |Some Americar poultry farmers who trap-nest, and t-ln opinion'of our chief poultry export himself go in the direction of making that aiiswei be "Yes." Certain it is that if it wen 'riot for the modern development of'the utilitarian element in', poultry .ke'eping, and i: egg-farmers had nothing to breed from anc select from but the typical show birds o: tho old school of fanciers, then poultr; farming could be nothing but a miserabli . The discussion raised by the article ii tlie "Press" will do good if it, directs tin mind of the Minister toward tho advisability perhaps,"of making the State, farms,.in sorn of their operations, pay. The mere fac that • their not paying—in _ cash—is some times' used in evidence against them show that some people,- at all events, are in fluenced' by that consideration. The Minis tor's view, as expressed in l speeches, an particularly in an interview which appeare in'the Dominion of February 11, appear to bo that tho Department is not run t make money, but to help the fanners t mako money ; and-'that tho .money that ,th farmers gain as a; result of the Department' work is far greater than the outlay, an far greater tliau any profit that could b shown if the experiment farms themsolvc were run to nay. As to whether tho money that is actuall spent on \tho experiment farms is reall spent to the best advantage, under th policy that happens to,bo in.vogue, is quit another quostion. The country will look t the Minister and Mr. Hyde to show the the £6000 or £7000 expended on the poultr department is not wasted.