SMALL FARMS

Grey River Argus, 5 December 1940, Page 10

SMALL FARMS

“THE ARGUS” for Wednesday, November 27, in commenting upon the Small Farms Amendment Bill, expressed the editorial opinion that ... it is high time small farms became more typical of our primary production.” We ourselves, however, believe this view to be mistaken. We are convinced that small farms are uneconomic and their advocacy reactionary, and that the progress of primary industry—in this as in every other country—depends upon the adoption of large-scale, specialised, scientific methods of working. And we think that such methods of working will not only greatly increase both quantity and quality of production, but will render possible a standard of living’ and of well-being to the primary producers! which few of them, under existing conditions, enjoy. ....

Some nine months ago MR G. J. BROOKER, a farmer with a lifetime of both practicaly and theoretical knowledge, contributed to “The Magazine Page” a series of articles in which he advocated the introduction of co-operative principles in New Zealand primary industry. He considered both dairy farming and sheep farming. In the case of dairy farms he showed conclusively that the small unit which at the present time is typical of the industry is hopelessly uneconomic. For greatest efficiency, he contended, herds of approximately 200 cows are necessary. Mr Brooker proceeded to develop a schfeme whereby such a herd could be tended co-operatively by a party of seven men, each working nine or ten hours a day for a five-day week, and each receiving ia net income of over £3OO a year.

Thel author drew similar conclusion from a study of the problems of sheep far|ming. ;

, From this and other evidence it is clear that the individualistic outlook of the New Zealand farmer must be superseded, if he hopes to improve his worldly position, by a collective or co-operative outlook. If he is willing to move with the times there is no reason why he should not enjoy .the same social and economic amenities enjoyed by urban workers. But if, on the other hand, he refuses to accept progressive teachings, he has no one but himself ,to blame for long 1 ,hours, low income and poor conditions.

To say this, however, it not to say that the whole initiative for progress should be left to the farming community itself. The Labour Party—and,, indeed, the whole of the organised Labour Movement—has a responsibility in this matter. At the 1939 Conference of the Labour Party a resolution was adopted calling upon the Government to make an experiment in co-operative farming. We do not know whether anything has been done to implement this resolution. Certainly, if so, no publicity has been given the effort. However that may be, we suggest that the Government has a duty—in pursuance of its objective of “the socialisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange”—to investigate thoroughly the possibilities of group, collective or co-operative farming. Once an experiment/in this field can be shown to be successful the best and final answer will have been given to those stout individualists who persist in their antiquated agricultural ways and who yet continuaHy bemoan the fact that thein working and living conditions are (allegedly) below those of workers in secondary industry. " '

The Small Farms Amendment Act is concerned primarrly with the problem of placing returning soldiers on to the. lond, and “The Argus”, apparently advocates the principle of ‘one returned soldier, one farm.” Now we are often told.’ that, however evil war may be, it nevertheless tends to develop a spirit of comradeship and good fellowship amongst all ranks involved. But comradeship and good fellowship is of the essence of any genuinely co-operative enterprise. Is it not to be expected, therefore, that the returning soldiers will be far more likely to welcome an opportunity of engaging in largestale co-operative farming than of returning to the narrowly individualistic, small 1 , competitive way of living they left behind them with civilian life.