CO-OPERATIVE FARMING IN CANTERBURY

Grey River Argus, 21 March 1940, Page 9

CO-OPERATIVE FARMING IN CANTERBURY

(Specially Written For The Magazine Page).

By

C. K. Brooker,

Speccial School, Otekaike.

The large-scale irrigation schemes being developed in the Canterbury Province by the Public Works Department provide another field where a policy of co-operative tand settlement could be introduced. In a-lec-ture delivered to students of Lincoln College, Mr A. C. Hurst, of “Willowbank,” Papakaio, made some interesting statements. Mr Hurst is a practical farmer, and for ten years has been working his property under irrigation conditions. He is, perhaps the best authority we have in the Dominion on this phase of farming. “Irrigation,” said Mr Hurst, “is coming to Canterbury and it is sure to be an outstanding success.” These are some of the figures quoted: 1. The carrying capacity can be increased from 300 to 500 per cent., and all stock sold prime fat. 2. On heavy land 8 to 11 ewes to me acre can be carried from the beginning of October to the end of April. 3. There are many profitable side lines. Root anl hay crops can be increased from 300 to 400 per cent. 4. Irrigation provides a succulent leafy growth of pasturfs right throughout I he growing season. This allows of an extended lambing season, and the risk of losses ’from one bad storm in the middle of the lambing period is minimised. Lambs born as late as January go away fat off the mothers in April. To use a banking expression, we arc able to “spread the risk.” 5. The I flushing of ewes on heavy pastures a i fortnight before mating secures a heavy birth-rate. It is possible to average between 135 and 140 per cmt. of lambs, in marked contrast to the Dominion average of only 85 per cent. 6. Irrigated land provides a thick sward. This provided abundance of humus, and wonderful yields of wheat can be grown, also all other kinds of crops. 7. High-producing pastures can be sown down with confidence. The water brings the grass grubs to the surface where they are destroyed by birds. The loss in Canterbury from this pest runs annually into tens of thousands of pounds. “We have been irrigating now for ten years,” says Mr Hurst, “but never once have I seen the slightest degree of damage from this pest on irrigated pastures.” Mr Hurst concludes: “Irrigation will do more for the development of Canterbury than any other single factor since the province was first settled 100 years ago. An increase in productivity will mean an increase in population, our hamlets will grow into villages,’ our villages into towns, our towns into cities. It. has happened in other countries, and it will happen here. Canterbury has a rosy future.” IFrom obsiervation of Mr Hurst’s methods (the writer lives within 20 miles of the “Wiilowbank” property), and from personal observation and experience of farming in Canterbury, under irrigation and non-irrigation conditions, spread over a lifetime, I can heartily corroborate these claims. But who, I ask, is likely to enjoy the “rosy future” referred io by Mr Hurst. At present the farm.lands oi Canterbury that will be benfitted by the expenditure of public funds on irrigation schemes are mainly prwate-ay-owned lands held in comparatively large holdings. Farms of from 1000 to 5000 acres in extent are not uncommon. If the productivity of the land is increased from three hundred to five hundred per cent, it stands to reason that this increase in productive capacity will ultimately be reflected in increased land values which will in time be passed on to the prospective buyers of the land—the future farmers—-and only in a smali degree will the country as a whole benefit from the expenditure of public funds on this kind of work. This is a problem that must sooner or later be faced by the present or soma future Government. At the last Easter Conference of the Labour Party a remit was passed in the Lands and Agricultural Committee’s Report as follows:—“That an experiment be made in co-operative farming.” In support of that remit the writer has had placed, before the Waitaki L.R.C a proposition for the establishment of an experimental co-operative farm on the lines that follow. The proposition after being once turned down was unanimously adopted by that body, so we may hear more of it later on

This is an outline of the scheme which I offer for what it is worth and also invite criticism and suggestions of a constructive nature: It is proposed that an area of 1000 acres be acquired bv purchase, the land to be of medium quality and of a nature that wouid best respond to the application of Irrigation water. On this area should be established a modern Irrigation scheme, the whole of the preparator?’ work —levelling, building of dyke?, fencing, shelter belts for stock, shed? and outbuildings, and the erect’on of the workers’ dwellings to bs completed and the farm to be- implemented with the necessary machinery and hva stock and let to a group of 10 co-op-erative farmers. This is regarded by the authors —I have to acknowledge valuable help and assistance from members of the Kurow Branch and particularly valuable advice from Mr A. Hayes, a sheep-farmer of Hakataramea? in drawing up the proposals—as the smallest number of co-opera-tive farmers that could be economic ally and co-operatively be employed, having in view the suitable division of labour and the object of making th<unit independent of outside hired Is hour during the busy summer months The unit could, we think, b e extended to twice or three times the area and personnel without becoming too cumbersome or too large for the manage ment of one permanent head. It sirable that the manager or director should be elected by, and have the confidence of, his fellow-co-operators. I' will deal further with this aspect at the conclusion of this article.

The cost of establishment and the prospective returns of the proposal

s are as follows: — y Estimated Costs. e - 1000 acres of land at £lO per - acre £lO,OOO i Border dyke system of irrigation 6,000 Fencing, shelter belts, etc 2,000 - Ten settlers’ houses at £1,200 s each 12,000 - Implements, machinery, s sheds, etc. 3,700 - 5,000 ewes at 30s each 7,500 • 30 head of dairy cattle 300 ; 4 horses at £25 each _ £OO i Working capital/ brought in by settlers, £3OO each 3,000 J Total outlay £44,600 i Estimated Returns. ' Wool off 5000 sheep at 7s per sheep £1,750 , Lambs, 3600 at £1 each 3,600 , Sales of surplus aged ewes at 10s each 500 Wethers and ewes killed for home consumption 200 Dairy produce 300 Produce from all other sources 7°o Total receipts £7,050 Expenses. 5 per cent, interest on capitalisation of £44,600 £2,230 Land lax 40 Country rates TO Harbour Board rates 30 Total fixed charges £2,370 Working Expensea. 150 tons of lime at 12s per ton £9O 50 tons artificial manures 225 Seeds 160 Petrol and oil Incidentals (rock salt, licks, etc.) ?-00 Water charges at 6s per acre 300 Depreciation on nuildings and implements (this item is for materials only as one of the co-operators would 1 be a person capable of 1 making ordinary or run- - ning repairs) 1)0 ' Total working expenses £1,62-5 ’ _. ] Total estimated annual expenses £3,995 ' Estimated total returns X Z’ O5 ? J Less expenditure as above 3,990

Balance for division . £3,055 Giving an annual income of £3oo per settler. Added to this is the rent for the settlers’ houses, which, compute at £45 per annum would give a total income of £350. It will be noted that the settler on this proposal is required to bring into th e concern a capital of £3OO in cash. The object of th s is twofold. Firstly, on a sheep or agricultural farm or a mixed farm the income is spasmodic, the returns all coming in over a period of three months, from January l 0 March inclusive, and it is necessary to have at least one year’s income m advance. Secondly, the oap.tal brought in would be in the nature a fidelity bond and should not be recoverable without the consent of the other co-oporators if the person waning to leave the group were guilty of non co-operative behaviour or saboIn respect to the management P vious’.'y referred to, as the * a would have a considerable amount of capital invested in the undertak.ng the person appointed would have have the approval of Minister in charge or the officers of the admmis trative department before taking up. his responsibilities, and the co-opera-tive should work in close touch vi . the Agricultural Department s adv., ors. In respect to all internal prob lems and the general working o. tnc co-operative and the managei s * ary, this should be entirely m the hands of the co-operators, who would annomt their own working exetu Av., The Sea’, aimed at Is the demecrat.c control of industry, and this is, t think, the soul and substance 11 cialist philosophy. (Note: The author will be glad ti answer questions in connection with the above proposal).