SCHEME OUTLINED

Manawatu Standard, Volume L, Issue 115, 11 April 1930, Page 2

SCHEME OUTLINED

TO STIMULATE PRODUCTION. COMPETITION AMONG FARMERS. COMMITTEES SET UP. An important conference of dairy farming interests was held in Palmerston North yesterday to consider a scheme initiated by tne department of Agriculture to stimulate increased production on economic lines. Mr R. P. Connell represented the department, and delegates were PJ®" sent from the Manawatu A. and ifAssociation, Chamber, of Commerce, Herd Testing Association, West Coast Dairy Company’s Association, Dairy Farmers’ Union and the Farmers Union. ~ , ~ Mr N. Campbell, who presided, said that the scheme proposed was in its infancy, and this would be the first time it had been tried out in Palmerston North. The Manawatu was one of the finest districts for dairying and it was to the speaker’s mind, particularly suited to the adoption of such a scheme. Matters relating to farmers were in a critical state at the present stage, owing to the world-wide adjustment of prices. It was a time when all had to co-operate to achieve success, and if this were done Manawatu would be the last to fall in time of stress. Part of the loss could be savod by tho adoption of the scheme. The project aimed at stimulating production by competition, for which a prize would lie given. The prize would be allotted on proper returns, not on face-value returns. In a period of depression the farmer was tiro first to feel the pinch, and the commercial man last. But the commercial man felt it longest. “Now is the time to get together and by adopting the scheme keep flourishing, and be an example to all,” said Mr Campbell.

VALUE OF INCREASED PRODUCTION. Mr Connell said that there was no use in having greater production if it could not be carried out profitably. If it had been said nine years ago that production could have been doubled, the statement would have been accepted with doubt. However, the number of sheep in this period had increased by 5,000,000 and the dairy output had more than doubled. Dr. Cockayne had said, in Wellington recently, that “with normal prices the present value of grassland products exceeds £50.000,000, a figure that could quite easily be doubled by better appreciation and application of scientific grassland management. The value of such management and all that it stands for is fast becqming recognised not only by the farming community, but. also by commercial, political and scientific interests.” This statement was the view of the department. If prices were poor the doubling i.p would take! place sooner than possible. Researches in Palmerston North showed that by improving the feeding of cows production could be improved by 25 or 30 per cent. TWO ESSENTIAL TASKS. Explaining the details of the competition, Mr Connell said that the promoters believed that there was much to be gained by attracting general attention to all possible ways of increasing farming efficiency, and that a competition on the lines contemplated would be a sure means of stimulating the public interest that was so desirable. To-day certain farmers were outstanding in respect to the results they were obtaining. A competition would bring these men into the pror minenco which should rightly be theirs, and would induce others to study the methods which had given them success. Such study could not but have a beneficial effect on the general standard of farming. Tho two main essential tasks were: (1) The fixing of the lines upon which farms entering the competition would bo placed in order of merit j that is, the basis of judging. (2) Tho obtaining of worth while prize-money and the framing of competition conditions to attract a satisfactory number of the desired type of entries.

Probably the fixing of the lines of judging the competition was the most difficult and most important part of the initial work. The proposed competition had already evoked much criticism which had been concerned mainly with tlxe qualifications which would make a farmer eligible as a competitor, and the way in which the judging would he carried out. “Probably it would prove best, sooner or later, to divide the farms into a number of definite classes according to their size and their xype of production, and to have a separate competition for each class. Whether this classification should be done at the outset is for the conference to decide. It might-bo as well to start in a relatively small way with the competition only and extend it in future years as experience and support justify, If the suggestion of one initial competition is adopted, I would suggest, further, that it be limited to farms of 30 acres or more iii area, of which at least 50 per cent of the income is derived from dairy products which include milk, butterfat, pig and poultry products, calves and stock bred in connection with dairying. _ “The limitation of the competition to farms of this type is suggested ‘ merely for the purpose of providing a concrete proposal which will receive careful consideration before its .adoption. The limiting of the competition as suggested will make it essentially a dairy farmers’ one, but will open it in a way which is very desirable to farmers who are exploiting in a substantial manner other farming lines such as sheep, pigs and poultry. ’ TURNOVER NOT INCOME. In this connection it would be well to make it clear from the outset that farm turnover was not farm income, said the speaker. For example, a man might buy and sell several lots of sheep or pigs during the year. In such a case the total receipts from sales ’ would not represent the income from the pigs or sheep. In connection with the basis of judging, it might be well to consider first or all certain lines of judigng which superficially seem desirable but which should not be adopted. “For instance, on the face of it, it seems a good idea to judge farms according to the net return per £IOO invested. This method might, at times, involve placing a premium on parsimony rather than on true economy. It might favour one who was negligent for the period of the competition in respect to such matters as fwicing, shelter, drainage and building up quality stock for the future. It might * for instance, favour the farmer using a £5 bull ahead of the farmer using a £IOO bull. The same objection may be raised to the somewhat similar idea of counting as the best farm that which shows the greatest profit per acre. It would not be sound to award the prize to the farm showing highest production per acre, and three hundred pounds of fat may not be as desirable as 2501bs of fat to the acre,

because of the excessive cost of getting the extra 50Jbs of fat. would it be sound to make the oost of production the sole consideration in judging. This is exemplified by considering two 50-acro farms, one of. which produces 7500U>s fat at 12Jd cost per lb, s while tho other produces 10,000 at 13d cost per lb. With butterfat selling at Is 3d the farm with the higgler cost of production is the better financial proposition, to the extent of £5 4s 2d. FACTORS IN JUDGING. Giving points which should be considered jointly in judging the best farm, Mr Connell said there were four aspects which should be considered, as follows : —Cost" of production, allotted 40 per cent, of the points. In dairy farm competition the cost of production of butterfat would be worked out. The results of other lines, such as pigs, sheep, or fowls, would be debited or credited to the butterfat account as occasion demanded. Total farm production per acre, would bo allotted 25 per cent, of the total points. Regarding farm maintenance and development, the speaker said this would incorporate the character and maintenance of pastures, provision of shelter and plantations, management of forage crops, their adequacy and the efficiency in raising, also suitability, layout, and upkeep of fences. Stock would be allotted 25 per cent, of the total points, the points to be considered being dairy cows, bulls, pigs, poultry, horses and sheep breeding, yields, provision, for replacements and additions, and herd testing. Ten per cent, of points would be allowed for the suitability and upkeep of farm buildings, yards, and water provision, implements, reserves of hay, ensilage and roots. By allotting points on this basis, tho economic character of the competition would be fully preserved, and the main factors of sound and permanent farming would be considered. Tho competitors would have to supply the committee with information regarding their production, holdings and stock. All information would be treated, as confidential, and it oould be placed before the judges without the names being known, The judges would comprise a committee, which would consist of farmers, and perhaps one business man. DIFFICULTIES TO FACE. The scheme had many difficulties. One was the valuation of property and stock, the allocation of purchase money for manures and seeds. These matters had been overcome in other competitions, however, and could no doubt be adjusted in Palmenston North. Careful discrimination would have _to be mode between capital and working expenditure. Mr . Connell suggested setting up two special committees, one to consider ways apd means of raising prize moneys, and the other to draw up details of the rules of the competition, both committees to report to the general meeting in a fortnight’s time. The competition should be commenced by June. Suggestions aimed at improving the details of the scheme were made freely at the conclusion of Mr Connell’s address. Replying to Mr Dawson Mr Connell stated that it would be highly desirable to make public the facts and figures at the end of the competition. Mr Dawson: How do you propose to do that with confidential information ? Mr Connell: We will have to secure permission to publish the names of the winners. The opinion was. expressed by Mr J Boyce that the competition should be spread over two or more years. Mr Connell said the point was an important one and was worthy of consideration by the committee. A comEetition similar to the one mooted had een run in Southland for five or six years on the 6ame lines. For years they had been conducted in England. Stating that it was from unimproved farms that the greatest extra production would come, Mr L. Poupard suggested that the best way of running a competition would be with lands that had not been topdressed. Mr Oram: Does the competition aim at finding out which farm is the best, or the farm that is utilising ite resources the best? Mr Connell: The best farm, viewed from all aspects. To award the prize for' improvements would be to reward a man for past years of bad farming. ' Mr Boyce: Then you will get only the men with first-class farms, to enter. Mr Connell said it should be made clear that the cost of jiroduction wae the dominant factor. Mr Mason favoured the scheme, which he considered would help farmers to secure the greatest returns from their farms. ' Mr Connell said it was the working of a farm that would tell. -In criticising the scale of points suggested by Mr Connell, Mr Craig advised allotting at least 60 or 70 points for cost of production. It was decided on the motion of Messrs Croucher and Dear, that the principle of the competition bo accepted, pending a special committee set up being able to formulate a workable scheme, and that it be suitable to the various associations. The following committee was set up: —Messrs Dear (Farmers’ Union) Oram (Chamber of Commerce), Campbell (Dairy Farmers’ Union), Croucher (Pig Breeders’ Association), Gimblett (Herd Testing Association), Collis (A. and P. Association), Hansen (West Coast Dairy Factories’ Association) Mason (Pure Breeds’ Association) and Connell (Department of Agriculture).