FARMING IN NEW ZEALAND.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XII, Issue 4297, 21 August 1875, Page 1 (Supplement)

FARMING IN NEW ZEALAND.

To the iSlitor of the Herald. Sib, —In your weekly ißsue of July 24, [ see that " Cincinnatuu" makes a most unjustifiable attack upon my letter in the previous number on the above subject, over the signature "Juanito," which he calls an "extraordinary effusion." We will see tvhether his may not more properly be called iy that name. In the first place, whether there is or is not " 600 acres of suitablo jrain land from the Flat Bush to Razorback" [which has nothing to do with the question, is I did not refer to any particular locality), [ again assert as iuy opinion that farming is in too small a scale, generally speaking, with xx) much manual labour in proportion to the icreage. But the pretended quotations from ny letter are a caution. Twice he quotes as ;ollowa :—" Take all you can out of the land, md then leave it." Now, he asserts posiavely that I said this, giving the extract bwice in the course of his remarks. Perhaps le will be obliging enough to tell us where ;he words are to be found, there being no iuch sentence in the whole of my letter. I lid not intimate such a thing as "leaving," much IeBS said it. I plainly said, " Work lalf yonr land a few years, then, if manurng be not practicable, summer fallow or iay down in pasture, meanwhile working ;he other portion; and this to be only l temporary arrangement, giving way in lue time to a more scientific system jf farming." I am still of opinion that there is a great deal of new rich land in the province, which would give three or four jrops of grain before there would be any lrgentneedof manure. Why not take a :rop or two out of virgin soil which will bear t without being exhausted ? But as for the loctrine, " take all you can out of the land ind then leave it, which " Cincinatus" sredita me with, and upon which he builds lp the whole series of remarks upon my " effusion," the sentence is not mine. 4gain, he quotes me as saying from my .'alifornian personal experience '' fanners •aise their twenty to fifty bushels of grain to ;he acre, on thousands of acres annually jut in. Small farms pay nowhere on the plains," &c. Now, Mr. Editor, if you refer io my letter, it will be seen that in it there is io sentence as quoted above, nor is there >ne word about any number of bushels to the icre. The subject was not touched upon, loreven hinted at. " Cincinnatus" affect! ■o treat with contempt any experience 1 maj i»ve had either in California or elsewher*

(by the way, he does not say where or how he gained his extremely valuable stock of experience), and says " the farming country of California and America is as different from the province of Auckland as it well can be." New, I say that some parts of California is not " as different as it well can be," particularly the coast from Monterey on the sooth to Cape Mendocino on the north, which resembles this province in climate and productions more than it does any of the larger wheat-growing sections, both being semitropical, where the orange, lemon, and even the banana can be grown in some sheltered positions, together with the peach, apple, and other fruits of a more temperate climate. Who has not heard of California vegetables? Can these be grown in the large wheat-growing sections I Decidedly not; for there it is utterly impossible to raise any crop but wheat or barley in the most favourable season, but in the coast country alluded to any kind of vegetables can be raised in choice situations without irrigation. But it is folly for me to compare this province to some parts of California with regard to farming; what gross absurdity must it be for any one, even "Cincinnatus" (who not only compares, but gives in a quotation regarding lowa and Nebraska, and applies it to California), to California with lowa and Nebraska, from either of which it is as different as it well can be. What with the severe winters of lowa in particular, and the insect pests referred to in his quotations, viz., grasshoppers, which are so numerous that the Indians catch and clry them in great quantities for food; how can these States be compared with California, where the winters are so mild that snow was never seen in the Sonoma, Napa, Sacramento, and other valleys since the American occupation until the winter of 1573, and which is notoriously free from all iusect pests, even the common cabbage blight never being seen till some four or fire years ago. I can say I did not see a single grasshopper, cricket, or locust of any description during three seasons, and never heard of them being west of the Sierras Nevada. Again,l am misquoted as follows:—"Where land will give four or five crops without manure, why take it; then let the land lie," &c. Here is the sentence referred to: — " I£ the land is new, and will give four or five consecutive grain crops ; take them, then summer fallow," i.e, if manuring be impracticable on account of haulage, &c. This brings us to the question of Maori cultivations. I know quite as well as " Cincinnatus" that the natives are good judges of land, and select the most eligible situations, but I think he makes a curious remark when he says that they " by their scratching have naturally let out the sourness from the soil" I happen to know land from which they have taken some eight or ten crops ; if this was only letting the sourness out, we might conclude the soil, if worked, would rival the very richest of California land. However, I only brought forward the question of aban- ' doned cultivations to show that land will "recuperate itself by rest," which "Cincinnatus" allows. Now, I quote from him : " What would be the effect if the fanners here were to act upon the advice given so off-hand by ' Juanito,' and which is, ' take all you can out of the land, and then leave it.' '' This would be the picture: a farmer buys a piece of land, crops it again and again, lives on the profit of the produce, obtains a character and position from the returns of the virgin soil, and when he begins to find a falling off, resorts to a very usual custom of borrowing money on mortgage of his farm; goe3 on until he has nearly robbed the land of its vitality, and then "jacks it up" (to use a homely and well-understood phrase), &c. As I did not give the above advice a quite contrary effect would be produced by acting upon my advice, viz., " When he begins to find a falling off" he (the farmer) will either manure or summer fallow, and so prevent all possibility of the advent of such a train of evils as is pictured by " Cincinnatus." Now, what are we to think of " Cininnatus" and his pretended extracts from the letter of "Juanito?" If he is usually as exact in his quotations and as particular in his associations, what a precious repository of agricultural statistics we have in the " Country Chit-chat!" Does it not seem as though he had deliberately misquoted me to serve his purpose ? If such be the case, of what value are his assertions ? Possibly his . mode of argument partakes somewhat of the principle of the following extract from the "Nasby Papers":— " ' I hev,' sez he, 'the plan of the campane fixt. Fustly, we must oppose the holesail voting by niggers.' 'But,' sez I, 'no nigger votes in Ohio.' ' Nasby,' sez he, a-putting his thorn to his nose, 'a man of straw is the eeziest knoct down, espicially if yoo hev set him up yerself fer the perpus of knockin uv him down.' " To conclude, if '' Cincinnatus" has anything more to say of me or my "effusion," it is to be hoped that he will lay aside his nomme de plume and let the public see that he dares to be responible for his assertions. —I am, Ax., J. W. Carter. Mangapai, August 5, 1575.