THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1926. THE FARMING OUTLOOK.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIII, Issue 19456, 12 October 1926, Page 8

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 1926. THE FARMING OUTLOOK.

The series of articles on farming conditions and prospects which have appeared in the Herald during the past week challenge the attention of those who are concerned in the prosperity of New Zealand's chief industry. A little earlier a commentator, apparently speaking for an organisation of farmers, said bluntly, "Everyone knows farming nowadays does not pay." Everyone has been told that, but it has generally been simple assertion, unaccompanied by concrete evidence. Even the apparent evidence of abandoned holdings or farmers facing their creditors is not enough. Before it is safe to argue from such particular instances to the general thesis that farming cannot be made to pay, it is necessary to know much more than is generally revealed about them. In the articles published an attempt was made to discard the evidence of extreme cases on either side, to find how it fares with the average man on the land, to discover why one man lives comfortably and reduces his mortgage, while another finds life a continual struggle with the interest bill. Some of the things discovered and stated are worth underlining. Before doing so it must be emphasised that the articles were no mere ex cathedra pronouncements based on what might be rather than on what was. The facts given and opinions quoted come from men who are themselves farmers, or are bound, by the nature of their business, to be in close touch with the man on the land. The results of inquiry may not please those who make a hobby of pessimism. They do not suggest that farming gives an easy living without effort. But they do suggest there is a reasonable mean between these two extremes.

The specific instances quoted deal almost entirely with dairying. This must be so for the Auckland Province, seeing how completely that branch of farming dominates the situation within its boundaries. They all point the one way, that careful management of pastures, and equally careful management of the herd, are essentia] to that increase in yield which will transform an apparently hopeless proposition into a payable business. In other words, the case suras itself up in two phrases which have grown very familiar, topdressing and herd-testing accompanied by culling. These two things have been emphasised until they might tend to become wearisome. At this stage, however, it is useful to consider why they are so often heard. They appear to have application solely to the farming industry, but in their essence, have theyfc When the farmer top-dresses his pastures, is he not making just that provision against depreciation, and for renewal, that every business man who operates on sound principles makes as a matter of course? His operation may include more than that, but its essence is there. When he culls an unprofitable cow, to replace it by one giving a greater yield for an equal consumption of food, is he not reducing his overhead expenses relative to output? These two operations are a commonplace in other forms of business. It is no mere coincidence that in the most striking instances quoted of success gained on the land it has been won in this manner. To be a successful farmer calls for specialised knowledge, but it also demands application of those basic business principles proved by experience to be the foundation of success in other enterprises. That, surely, is the outstanding lesson of the specific instances quoted, though top-dressing and herd-testing are the terms used. The tendency to judge the issues of success or failure in farming by the same criteria as those applied to other industries is strengthened j when it is suggested that the hope- i less cases are those where valua- j tions remain at the artificial level general some time ago. It is nothing new in any branch of industry or commerce to find a capital liability too great for the productive capacity of an enterprise keeping it below the I profit-making level. One of two j things must then happen. Either a j portion of the capital is written off, j or the concern is wound up. The series of articles postulates just this happening in rural industry. Where, j because of the obduracy of the mortgagee or for any other reason, valuations have not been reduced, the farmer has walked off his holding, or is struggling against having to take that course. There is no use in refusing to recognise the existence of such circumstances among farmers to-day. It is equally unsound to argue from it that farming as a whole is not a payable proposition. It is doubtful whether those who contend that farming in the general sense is not prospering and cannot prosper realise the logical conclusion of their proposition. It merely amounts to an assertion that the Dominion is hopelessly bankrupt, and cannot be rescued from such a condition. Does anyone soberly suggest this to be true of it? The summing up of all evidence, that gained by the investigations under review and all other general evidence, is surely this: in the economic turmoil which followed the war, farming like other industries suffered reverses. All felt the pinch, some were squeezed out of existence, by the pressure of adverse circumstances. The time of readjustment has come, but the process has not yet been completed. Until it is, more will be heard of the difficulties and failures than of the quiet work which wins success. If the old qualities of industry and determination are maintained and business principles are followed, the farmer will demonstrate the essential soundness of himself and his calling.