THE FARM

Northern Advocate, 15 September 1934, Page 14

THE FARM

The. Profit. ; There are two ways to' make a profiffirst is, of course, selling goopls. : 'at. a high price compared to CQst‘ of production; the, other is tojfowerthei cqst of production. It is a sounder practice, to increase the profits by lo.wering cqsts than by raising prices. Pric a:\increase invites competition, cost decrease _is pure profit. Fortunately. for; them, many farmers are realising that : cutting their costs is imperative. And they are commencing their economy campaign where they should commence it —on the farm. They are realising that it is not in milling-more ;cows that they will improve their, position, but in milking only . good i cows, -and in doing theSe good ones better. And that managing pigs, f 'in.,"an intelligent,, manner, to obtain; the full return, from milk produced,. will give revenue that has been foo long. neglected. .. And even the progressives who are meeting the position in, this sane'manner have a good way to go yet. It is npt creditable that so , many farmers purchase for home use vegetables grown by chinamen, and that meat and even eggs are purchased in the village, store. The farmer and his family- should be able to live on the fat of the land, and that for practically nothing, but the old-fashioned farmer, when the table groaned with the good things, the farmer and his family could offer city guests, is gone and the present generation are becoming more specialists in the production of butter-fat and wool. .

The Beef Trade.

The world trade in beef is faced ,-with, serious problems. While the chilling process is rapidly displacing the freezing process and the improved method of oversea transport has given the Home consumer a better quality meat it has not led to an improved consumption of beef. On the other hand, the world demand for beef is declining (in favour of mutton, lamb .and . pork) just when the Dominions and South American republics are increasing their beef production. In Britain the average consumption of beef and veal was 721 b a head in 1925, and by 1933 it was down to 631 b. It is not only the Argentine where beef; production is expanding, but Uruguay and Brazil are planning big extension of beef production, while South Africa and Australia are seeing in the improvements in the chilling process a plausible reason for extending the breeding of cattle.

- The most serious immediate phase in • the problem is the way in which Continental- countries are excluding beef '’imports;, forcing the big beef producing co'uhtries to regard Britain as their only customer. The importation of frozen meat into Germany is now practically prohibited by a heavy duty and stringent veterinary regulations. •Imports’into Italy and Belgium have "also been substantially reduced by the imposition of heavy duties, and in the latter country; imports of frozen meat are also subject to a license. Both France and Holland have adopted 'quota systems to .govern imports; and the United States four years ago doubled the substantial tariffs on both beef and live cattle imports.

, A comparison of the 1925 and . 1933 . imports of beef and veal indicate the .effects of those regulations. Germany in the former year; -imported 160,300 tons and in the latter year 600 tons. ;< During the same period imports into Italy dropped from 101,800 tons to ■ 88,300 tons; France from 97,900 tons to -23,000 tons, and Belgium from 61,100 tons to 26,700 tons; while imports into U.S.A. fell from 62,600 tons in 1929 to .12,200. tons last year.

Chemist and Weed Destruction.

Increasing attention is being directed in Europe to the part fertilisers can play in weed destruction. In referring •to this fact in an article in the Fertiliser Journal, H. C, Long, B.Sc., . writes as follows:—“We no’.v know the ; influence of sulphate of ammonia in .improving grassland and reducing the weed flora; we know that finelyground kainit dusted over charlockinfested cereals will largely destroy the charlock and other weeds; we -have learned that sulphate of ammonia will also act as a direct weedkiller when used as a spray either or in mixture with copper sulphate; that calcium cyanamide applied well in advance of sowing, seed ’6r. when cereals are three or four -inches high, will prove very effective in'directly destroying various weeds, while providing the crop with a valuable stimulus by reason of the nitrogen it contains; that in recent years there has been a very great increase in our knowledge of the effect of sulphuric acid for destroying many weeds—especially crucifers—in cereals; that sodium chlorate is often very effective in destroying annuals, and various perennials, but if considerable quantities are used the land may need to lie idle for some months before a hew crop is taken; and that there is every prospect of ammonium thiocyanate (sulphocyanide) coming into regular use as a weed-killer, while also providing a nitrogenous fertiliser.

“All this means that fertilisers and ' other chemicals will in future provide

a new interest ■ for farmers and the chemical trade alike. It should prove of benefit to both groups to go into the whole question of weed destruction and control by these materials, and ensure that adequate research shall be carried out to enable specific recommendations to be made. In the writer’s view, ' the interested parties are not taking the weed question sufficiently seriously; farmers as a body ought to deal with weeds as our forefathers did with, wolves, and there seems to be no good reason why research should not determine and point the way.”

Complete Fertilisation. . Perhaps the most misleading . work that, has ever. been>. .done .iff ..attempts to guide the farnler in- regard fo the best fertiliser practice has been the testing of one class of fertiliser against another. The worst blunder that comes to mind is where in the early days of the use of nitrogen in this country one “expert” applied nitrogen to one field and superphosphate to another field, to see which would give the better result. Fortunately, the farmer’s knowledge of fertilisers has advanced very much since that time. It is now more generally known that complete fertilisation ’is necessary, that each of the main fertilising agents has a particular part to play and only when all ,the elements are present and in their right proportion is the maximum result.obtained.

A noted French authority, Dr, A. Demolor, Chief Inspector of the French Agricultural Experimental Stations, has emphasised the mistake of omitting one of the main fertilising ingredients from a mixture in conducting tests designed to instruct the farmer. He says the only variation between different applications should be in the amount applied of the different ingredients. When choosing the varfbus compounds Dr. Demolon recommends the observation of a few general rules which are important. In the case of phosphoric acid, the geologic origin of the soil plays only an insignificant role. It is more important to ascertain how the soil has been treated in the past. The more phosphoric acid fertilisation has been neglected in the past the larger must be the portion used of soluble phosphoric acid. The necessity of having a reserve of phosphoric acid in the soil renders it imperative not to eliminate phosphoric acid altogether in any of the compounds. The potash portion of a compound depends directly upon the proportion of nitrogen. Nitrogen -is always indispensable. The proportion of the latter depends upon the conditions obtaining each year and particularly upon the fact whether soil conditions are favourable or unfavourable to bio-chemical processes. In recent years American work has shown that potash was giving no result in potato trials, but that when some magnesium was used the response to potash applications was out-

standing. In repeated experiments in this country the best results from nitrogen have been obtained where potash has also been used.