SMALL FARM PLAN

Evening Post, Volume CXIV, Issue 18, 21 July 1932, Page 12

SMALL FARM PLAN

IREPLIES CRITICS

SCORErFOR EMPLOYMENT

I^OEEASED PEODUGTION

iPoiats of recent criticism.of the small employment plan are replied to in/a memorandum issued, by. the Department, of- Agriculture, which' is adjninistering j the scheme in conjunction ■^th/ the-Unemployment Board.

. 'Pointing ■ out that the scheme .is a qcjimpara.tiyely new venture!, having been-.la'unched only a few weeks ago, ihVDepartm'en't states that as yet-there li's-been. but scant opportunity for the publio. to> become fully acquainted. with itafjolbjectiyes, and the method of operation1, and X warning is issued against attaching top much importance to much of); tjhe) criticism, that has been levelled agaiußt.sthe scheme in its initial stages. -Replying'to the argument that it is impossible--for an average unemployed «lerk t'o<goi on the land and'"make a doj?«£: ; it J? on fflve; or ten acres, the Department points out that it is pro-ppße:d;etoT-absorb into the farming indnatry tinder -the scheme men wlw>se:training fits them 'for a place on tSrlarid,:'and ;that it is fully recognised thatth^arinyof unemployed clerks and .others'ifr^iiied' only in urban- occupations- cannot, satisfactorily participate. 'fiBBI^VEIJHObD QUESTION. ,

' also.the comment that :the oeeupier of a small hoMing cannot hope to^maik*.'a reasonably attractive liyelihqbd- irpin. what he; can produce on his holdiftgv, ''.In an effort';to be sarcastic it- has;been; thought fit to work into such ; comment rather hackneyed and diatinctly.irrelevant remarks about ;two. ♦^jM^andl-ai; cabbage. patch,," says the Dp^^tfent^''Nobody responsibly con»octed with, the plan hSLs advocated the general growing■'of/. cabbages, or any other vegetables, as a piincipal moans 4>t livelihood. In fact, it lias been emphasised'and repeated again, and again that teh production from the small holding nrust geneially be supplemented by revenue from the farming of the noighbonrhcod. It has bcon demonstrated that] the production, of a reasonably ■wejl^condueted small holding, supplemented by an income of £2 a -week from outside sources, would put v the snttaJThpldor in a position equivalent financially to the city worker earning 354 to i£s weekly.

1 "In -partial explanation of this, it maybe well to point out that the total cos^ tt> the small holder of. both his cottage and his land will amount to ' but'los a, week approximately; that tho standard holding 'will be capable of supporting three to four cows, the rettrrns from which should range from £30 to' 1 £50 annually; and that it Ahoujd'be'possible to make poultry not only.contributo materially to household requirements, but also' bring in a considerable amount of cash from sales of «ggs" and'birds. JPigs, and especially a complete ran go of vegetables for the small holder's own requirements, should i&rfi' be ' overlooked. , '. /, AT THE WORST. \ ' - ','Beadily it may "bo imagined that for .sonic time at least a small holder so- operating may not be able to secure Bn*income-averaging £2 a week from outside sources. But lei it be assumed tflat.he obtains only £1 a week. He still .would be immeasurably superior .in point of-social value and self-respect to what he is in his present position nailing for. iclief allowance. Further, let'the'most pessimistic possibility to considered. Let it be assumed that the position of farmers becomes worse, trad, that- the small holder cannot earn any,'income from % outside sources to supplement the production of his holding, and that he finds himself unablo to pajf rent'to tho State. Then ho still would be, on his "holding, a smaller «harge on State funds than he is today." -. <" SPECIALISED PRODUCTION. , /-The memorandum goes on to point out that there is also scope, though less extensive^, for small holders who, by specialising in. the production of commodities which at present are impoitcS and' which 'yield high returns to the acre, could quickly place themselves in a {-satisfactory financial position. The laising.bf farm and garden seeds under suitable guidance and organisation probably offers the greatest scope in this sphere. Summing up," the Department states ihati— ' (1) Small holders aro being care:fully: selected with due regard to their experience and their fitness to carry out efficiently tho rural -work which may be offering where they aro to be located: ■■' • • (2) Small holders arc not expected, "*s a'rule, to gain their livelihood . solely from their small holdings, nor to,be-under the necessity of borrowing from, or otherwise depending ' npon.' the charity of tho farmers al- ' ready, established in their neighbour- . hood. Care is being exercised in 'locating small.holdings only where to i the-occupiers of them tliere will !be , reasonable prospect of obtaining ade- . quate employment in the fanning of the- neighbourhood. > . SCOPE FOR MORE LABOUR. ' Other ■criticism of the small farm plan, ds'-based on the view that thcro is,now no scope for tho profitable absorption of additional labour in the farming of the Dominion. Tho Agriculture Department states that the protagonists of the small farm scheme contend that there is scopo for the profitable employment of the additional labour that the small farm plan is fitted to provide. "An informed survey f>£ farming developments during recent tithes assuredly supports this view," it remarks. "During the last dozen years, allowing for recent decreases, tho "sheep population of tho Dominion has grown by,-fire to six millions in number. Tho amount of'fat lamb exported during last season was more than twice tho amount exported twolve years ago. Tho dairy -'production, of the Dominion has much-more 'than doubled during the I j>3Bt,twelve years. Tlie significant fact to.' link up with these gratifying increases in production is that during the same period the labour employed on farm's has .remained practically stationary, :if it has not declined. The position may be summed up by saying there has been a lopsided, even though It ha»_ been a decidedly useful, development in our grazing industries ■wjnch, taken together, dominate the national-position." PARSIMONY IN TARM LABOUR. Striking" instances could bo 'given) the Department declaics, of parsimony in' the employment of faim labour. It is contended by tho sponsors of the small farmplan that our farming iutljostry. requires to increase its consumption of labour; that an increased consumption of labour would be profitable in th«J. replacement of worn-out; pastures fop ones containing true perennial ryegrass and other products of recent rosearcK; that additional labour could be profitably devoted to forage cropping, to-ensilage, and to side-lines; and finally; that many farmers cannot afford not;to..eniploy more labour.^