CO-OPERATIVE FARMING

Grey River Argus, 14 March 1940, Page 9

CO-OPERATIVE FARMING

Specially Written for The Magazine Page.

By

G. J. BROOKER

(Special School, Otekaike).

The Uneconomic Nature of Small-Scale Dairy-Farming A special statistical survey of production and employment was conducted by the Census and Statistics Department late in 1936. Some -10,009 questionnaires were distributed to dairy-farmers throughout the Dominion and in the following tables 19,387. completed returns were tabulated representing 46 per cent, of Ihe total butterfat production. From the figures supplied I have compiled Ihe following table which will show at a glance the uneconomic nature of much of our dairy-farming. Prior to the taking of this survey it was generally believed that a herd of from 45 to 50 cows represented the most economic unit of production. On what evidence this belief was based I know not. This is the table.

Butterfat No. of acres Full-time Cash returns per Size of production farmed per male labour full-time male herd. per acre. cow per 100 worker.

It will be noted that in column 2 the butterfat production per acre rises steadily until the 180 to 220 cow group where there is a sharp fall, a sharp rise again in the next group, and a further sharp fall in the final group. In column 3 there is a progressive decline in the number of acres necessary to support one cow until the last group number is reached. In column 4 there is also a progressive decline in the amount of full time male labour employed until the 180 to 220 cow group is reached, and then a slight rise in the next highest group with a sharp rise in the last group Of all. The cash returns arc the most striking of all the figures, rising steadily and progressively from £124 Is in the lower herd group to £4OO per full-time male worker in the second highest group with a sharp decline in the largest herd group. These figures appear to me to show definitely and conclusively that the larger herds —i.e., those up to or about the 200 cow herd —are the most economic, and that the cutting up of farm lands into blocks capable of carrying less than that number of cows is neither in the interests of the country as a whole and —particularly when the returns per worker are considered —definitely against the best interest of the settlers themselves. It is better to receive £4OO for a year’s work than, let us say, £l7O as is shown in the 20 to 30 cow group. My reason for selecting this group for comparison is because I believe that a herd of 200 to 220 cows worked co-operatively by a group of seven men would not only be the most economic unit of production in the industry, but that the quota would be, approximately, 30 cows per co-operative worker. This is what I believe could be done under such a scheme. The size of the farm comprising first grade dairying land would need to approximate 500 acres in area. Although the carrying capacity shown in column 3, and corresponding with the 180 to 220 cow group, is stated at 1.86 acres per cow this is applicable only to the land actually used for grazing and the growth of hay crops for the dairy herd. No provision has been made for supplementary winter root crops or the rearing of replacement stock. To be fully self-reliant the unit of dairy production should make full provision for both of these. The sale of “boner” or cull cows replaced by the young heifers coming into the milking herd would be an added source of revenue.

A herd of 200 cows producing an average amount of butterfat per cow —i.e., 240 lbs. —would mean a gross butterfat production of 48,000 lbs. In the figures quoted by the Guaranteed Price Advisory Committee the capitalisation allowed per cow milked is £45. This covers the rent of the land used, machinery and milking shed, maintenance and depreciation costs, and all other costs, and for the purpose of my estimates I propose to accept this standard. As this charge does not cover housing accommodation for the co-operative workers provision must be made for this. As seven workers would be employed an additional expenditure of £8,400 would be necessary for this purpose. This would bring the cost of establishment to the vicinity of £18,400. The items would be:— Land, machinery and stock for 200 cows and cost of same £9,000. Additional area for carrying replacement stock and for growing winter feed £l,OOO. Cost of housing £8,400. Total cost £18,400. Working and maintenance costs are stated by the report to be on the average 5.07 per penny per lb. This figure is, however, based on the average sized herd-of 45 cows. A glance at the table above will convince anyone that the costs margin between the 40 to 50 cow group and the 180 to 220 group will make possible considerable reduction on this figure.

The area used to maintain one dairy cow in the smaller group is 2.24 acres and in the larger group 1.86 acres per cow. Therefore, on each area of 100 acres in the smaller group the carrying capacity is in round figures 44 dairy cows as against 54 in the larger one. There are 4.3 full time male workers engaged per 100 cows in the smaller groups as against 2.8 per 100 cows in the larger one. This shows a higher degree of efficiency in the larger as compared with the smaller herd group. It should be remembered, however, that practicall ly the same hours of labour are necesI sary in both groups. > As the proposal of a co-operative

unit aims amongst other things mainly at a reduction of the working hours of the dairy farmer, the figures for the co-operative group would be 3.5 full time male workers per 100 cows. Allowing for only the same degree of efficiency in the co-operative group with 3.5 workers per 100 cows as in the privately owned group where only 2.8 workers per 100 cows are needed we should have a nett income of approximately £312 per cooperative farmer as against £391 per full-time male worker in the privately owned group. Against this reduction in income has to be set a considerable reduction in working hours. There should also be a considerably higher degree of efficiency in the co-operative groups as this allows for a greater division of labour and specialisation in the general activities of the co-operative.

One of the greatest drawbacks of small-scale farming is the fact that the farmer, in most cases, simply docs not have the time to attend properly to the many duties that need doing. One example of this was brought forcibly to my notice recently. The importance of herd testing is well known. Enquiries at my local dairy factory elicited the fact that of 1,000 suppliers only two suppliers regularly had their herds tested.

It is largely because of the hours of labour, which, though not strenuous, stretch over ten per working day, and aggregate 60 to 70 per week, that the dairy-farmer is inclined to make invidious comparisons with the more fortunate industrial worker. I believe this to be the major source of the dairy-farmer’s complaint and also the reason why so many young farmers are looking for other means of earning a living. Under the smallscale system of farming there is no remedy for this state of affairs, but under the co-operative system this can be remedied in a large measure. On the suggested 200-cow farm, 1 would divide the labour and responsibility as follows:— “A”, would be manager (elected) and be responsible for the buying and selling, accounts and the co-ordina-tion of the activities of the co-opera-tors.

“B” would be stockman in charge of herd-testing and the selection of replacement stock. “C” would be the engineer and would be responsible for the condition of the milking plant and would supervise the cleaning of utensils, etc. and do repairs to buildings, painting, repair of implements, etc. “D” teamster or tractor-driver. Would be in charge of all agricultural, work, top-dressing, etc., and responsible for the upkeep and maintenance of pastures. “E” would be in charge of piggery and pig breeding, and fattening department. “F" and “G” would be general hands doing such work as repairs to fencing, cleaning and ditches, etc., and would relieve other men on their days off duty.' The complement of workers in the milking shed during milking time would be five attending a total of 20 milking machines. Thus we could have a working week of 5 days of 9 to 10 hours each, and the workers would be relieved in rotation. From the best part of a lifetime engaged at farm work I am convinced that the source of the dairy-farmer’s discontent is not so much caused by the vagaries of marketing in past years as by the long hours of labour and the monotony of following the cows into' the shed day after day without a break for months on end.

Under a system of co-operation, such as suggested, this could be broken into periods of five days on, with two days off duty, and the grind and monotony of the dairy-farmer’s life would be broken and relieved with benefit both to his health and his temper—to say nothing of the relief to other sections of the community who have had to put up with his eternal grumbling—justifiable, I think—for so long. Without having any first-hand knowledge of the conditions prevailing on your West Coast I suggest that possibly some of the areas being reclaimed by modern machinery in your locality could be profitably settled under such a scheme. (To be Continued). ,

milked. cows. £ s. d. 10 to 20 80.43 2.60 7.6 124 1 0 20 to 30 84.74 2.47 5.7 170 0 0 30 to 40 96.22 2.30 4.6 225 8 0 40 to 50 100.32 2.24 4.3 254 8 0 50 to 60 105.33 - 2.18 3.9 288 5 0 60 to 70 113.53 2.06 3.7 316 6 0 70 to 80 116.77 2.02 3.4 337 6 0 80 to 90 117.60 1.97 3.4 341 6 0 90 to 100 123.30 1.96 3.4 351 3 0 100 to 120 124.23 1.90 3.2 358 9 0 120 to 140 128.40 1.83 3.2 360 3 0 140 to 180 128.99 1.82 3.2 265 5 0 180 to 220 120.51 1.86 2.8 391 1 0 . 220 to 260 132.77 1.78 2.9 400 0 0 260 to 300 117.30 1.90 3.6 311 9 0