OLD AND NEW.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XXIV, Issue 3238, 4 December 1930, Page 2

OLD AND NEW.

FARMING METHODS REVIEWED. ANCIENT MAXIMS RECALLED. The Agricultural Correspondent of the London Times writes: —

The old farming term “good husbandry” conveyed to the agricultural mind all that was best and most enduring in the working of the land. It does not always receive the same respect now, nor, possibly, does it imply equal appreciation of the qualities it represented the older school of skilled and enlightened farmers. But whatever may be thought of the old order and the phrase that so succinctly expressed all for which it stood, the fact remains that as the result of it the land of this country has continued fertile and fruitful for generations. The land on which the rules of “good husbandry” are most closely followed is still to be included among the most productive. No attempt will be made by any one conversant with the progress of scientific discovery to deprecate the true worth of modern teaching, but it would be equally futile and misleading to seek to disparage the value of the lessons that have descended to us from the experience of generations that had to farm without the advantages of present-day resources and alternatives. MIXED FARMING.' Reference to the old system of mixed farming is inspired by a remark made recently by»a farmer who has taken over what was formerly an arable holding in an eastern country. He has already put a large portion down to grass, and will continue to replace tillage by grass until only a fraction remains under the plough simply to give him “a little stiaw and a few roots” for the winter and spring. The holding in question is naturally fitted for arable production, but the disparity between the present wages and prices compels ieadjustment of the old procedure, with the results indicated. But the putting of the land down to grass takes time, and to save expendituie in the interval the perplexed farmersaid that he intends to sell his straw of this year’s growth instead of treading into manure and will use artificial fertilisers for the crops of 1931. The proposed selling of the straw breaks no agreement in the case in question —nor would it be contrary to law in any of the numerous instances of occupying ownership——but it does not follow that there is no departure from the rules of good husbandry, which can fairly be interpreted as having been formulated for the preservation of the fertility of the land, as well as to safeguard the reasonable rights of the owneis. The owner, if he sees fit, is at liberty to disregard any fundamental princple that does not affect neighbours, and nw that much of the land is owned by its occupiers the old rules are exposed to severe and unfortunate risks of neglect.

NECESSITY. In fairness to occupying owners, or others who may be manifesting scant respect for proved and effective pro cedure, it should be mentioned that the rules of good husbandry are disregarded only from necessity. In the case in point, the farmer, a man of wide experience and shrewd observation, is perfectly conscious of the risks he is taken with, the traditional system and recognises no other as competent to replace it as a basis for successful and sustained crop production. But the changed circumstances of the time, combined with personal considerations, have inducec. him to adopt a policy which, he declares, or implies may be suitable “for the rest of my life.” He accord ingly proposes to farm deliberately on the lines sometimes suspected, in the case of departed tenants, and take out of the land what a superficial and inexpensive system will make it produce. It must be emphasised that the farmer in question proposed to farm as indicated because procedure on the old principles is no longer practicable for anyone who has to make his living from his farm. When he and others state that ’’the wages kill them” they imply no reflection upon their workers. They only wish they could afford to pay a higher wage. The ground of their complaint, like the source of their trouble, lies in other countries. The lower wages paid, and the longer hours worked abroad, especially on the Cntinent, are the cause of their financial difficulties. They have to compete in their own markets with the products of labour paid on an entirely different scale from their and it is this injustice that compels this East Anglian farmer, and many like him, “to sell his straw and buy artificials.”

ABSOLUTE NEED OF ANIMALS. The course of action suggested may be temporarily -advantageous, since the labour of carting the famyard manure on to the land will be saved, or greatly reduced, and the crops grown may, for a time, be even increased by the substitution of concentrated for vegetable manure. The system of farming without the fertilising ■ and balancing influences of manure from the farmyard, however, is not generally advised. There have been a few examples of remarkable achievements in farming without the aid of animals, but the weight of opinion is against it. There is a wide range of methods whereby arable and stock farming can be united in one system, but the land that is denied contact with, or the presence of, livestock is liable, in the long run, to be reduced in fertility and productive capacity. The “gravel-pit” farming of the United States is an extreme example of the excessive draining of land; nothing of the kind would be tolerable here, but the principle remains and has to be guarded against. Regard for “the rules of good husbandry,” so long the basic principle of British farming, merits a continued place in the management of land. Sound teaching, and prudent adjustments marketing circumstances, will ensure their observance for all time, but, as in this case in East. Anglia, disorganisation in the operation of governing conditions may disturb correct relationships and in this way lead to developments which, however suitable in a temporary sense, are destined to impoverish the land, to lower the standard of production, and ultimately, to make the nation more and more dependent upon oversea sources for the necessary food of the people.