RURAL ECONOMICS.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIV, Issue 19731, 2 September 1927, Page 14

RURAL ECONOMICS.

Sir,— Replying to Mr. R. McKenzie in your issue of August 31, I still am- ox opinion that the inflated value of some land sold during the late boom is not the sole or the principal cause of the present unrest among some farmers.' The bad effects of the boom were purely local; following the boom, the slump in-cattle, sheep and • wool had far more widespread results. The above episodes were disastrous to some and made others rich, but they belong to the past. The question now is; What is wrong with the present? I concluded my last letter by saying it was largely pessimism. v _ Mr. McKenzie replies that the average fanner is neither a pessimist nor a fool. "With this I entirely agree, but I would not call Mr. McKenzie's letter optimistic, nor that cf Mr. Frank Colbeck. Would either of these letters have a favourable influence on the directors of an institution who were considering lending money to farmers ? Regarding Mr. Frank Colbeck's letter While I agree with him that inflated land values are not the cause of all the farmers' troubles, I disagree very much with his comparative statement of farming costs in 1913-14 and 1926-27. First, it is unfair to bring in butter-fat values <>-. 1926-27, as we know it was an abnormal year, prices being depressed by the British mining strikes,, etc. The previous year's values, or an average of the last three years, would have been fairer. Then, beside his error in the interest charge as pointed out by Mr Roland Kidd, his charges for 1926-2? are. I consider, much over-stated. One item—cost of seed—certainly is. He makes the seed for 100 acres in 1926-27 cost £175, as against £77 10s for 1913-14, an increase, say, of two and a-quarter times. On looking up actual records I find a mixture of seed suitable for a dairy nastnre cost 23s per acre in 1913-14 and 27s 3d per acre to-day Thai is an increase of 4s 3d per acre onlv. E.' Yates.