BRITISH AGRICULTURE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2102, 7 June 1894, Page 8

BRITISH AGRICULTURE.

(Fbom Oxm English Agbicultdbal CohbeSPONDENT.") London, April 21. It would be difficult for the oldest farmer to recall a season more satisfactory The Spring on the whole than the present Outlook. one, so far as it has gone. There was a splendid time for fallowing the land in the autumn, and for sowing the wheat afterwards; while the winter for the most part was mild and dry, and the spring has been one of the most sunny and genial ever experienced up to the present time. There was a splendid time for the sowing of spring corn and the planting of potatoes, and just when farmers began to lament that the dry weather had lasted too long, showery weather set in, setting all their fears as to another short hay crop at rest. At present everything looks well except where the clovers planted badly owing to last year's drought, the wheats are vigorons and sufficiently forward, and spring corn has come up thick in plant and of a healthy colour, while the pastures have now made a good start, and forage crops oa arable land are doing well. The rainy weather came just in time for the sowing of mangels, the land having been too dry before the present week. In short, prospects on the farm, taking them all round, are as good as I have ever known them at this period of the year. The worst of it is that when farmers have grown good crops they aro worth hardly anything in the markets. ' A short debate was forced on the House of Commons last week by a memA Debate on ber for an agricultural conAgriculturftl stituency, who moved the adDepression, journment of the House in order to have his say. He censured the Government for not having done anything to relieve the severe distress now prevailing among the agriculturists of most parts of England. Sir William Harcourt, on the part of the Government, pleaded that the session had begun not much more than a month, and that there had not been time to do anything. This, however, was a mere excuse, because he knows perfectly well that the Government had no intention of introducing a measure of any considerable consequence for the relief of agriculture. There is a miserable little bill relating to railway charges, but it is utterly insufficient to redress the farmers' grievances in this respect. Sir William Harcourt said that the Government would be glad to consider any practical proposal ; but when anything is proposed he or other members of the Government declare it to be not practical, no matter whether it is a plea for reducing the burdens on land, keeping cattle disease out of the country, marking foreign produce or otherwise preventing it from being sold as British, stopping the sale of margarine as butter, or preventing the railway companies from giving special advantages to foreign producers by preference rates on imported commodities — the reply always is that redress is not practicable. Moreover, by the Budget introduced on Monday last it is proposed to increase the burdens on land by equalising .what are called the death duties, which have hitherto been to the advantage of succeFsors cf real estate as compared with persons who succeed to personalty. It would be quite right to equalise these duties if it were not that local rates are paid entirely out of real property. So long as this anomaly exists, ifc 18 unfair to do away with tho other. Farmers also object to the proposed increased duties of Gil a barrel on beer aud 61a gallon en spirits, us they believe that ifc will dimmish tlie demand for barley. The vexed question of the effect; of a cow'a food upon the richness of her milk Cons' Food was the subject of a trial with and tho two lots of cows, eight in one Quality of and seven in the ether, for 10 Slilk. weeks, at the Ontario Agricultural College last season. The most striking trial was one in which eight cows were fed for a month upon pasture and lib of bran each, given simply to induce them to come into their stalls ; and for a second month, while still going into the pasture, upon lib each of bran, peas, and wheat during the first week, double quantities in the second week, and treble in the third and fourth weeks.

Now, in Che conclusions derived from the results, it is said that there was practically no difference in the proportions of butter fat in the milk given by the cows in the two periods, and this is true ; but it is quite a mistake to suppose that this proves that the food made no difference, as a close analysis of the results shows. It is stated that dry weather and consequent poor pasturage caused the quantity of milk to shrink during the second period. This and a clear underestimate of the value of good pasturage for the production of rich milk explain one of the many misapprehensions which have been common in relation to the question at issue. In the last week before the cows were turned out of their sheds, where they had been for the winter and spring, the average percentage of butter fat in their milk was 3 51, whereas, for the first week .on pasture, it was 4- 22. Here we have a clear demonstration of food makiDg a difference to the richness of milk, the quantity of milk having been, at the same time, greatly increased. No doubt the most nutritious grasses were eaten bare before the second period (on corn and pasture) began, and the corn barely made up for this loss. Yet, in spite of the pasture getting worse and worse, the richness of the milk increased slightly with the increase of corn, the average percentage of fat being 3 82 for the last week of the second period, as compared with 3*62 for the first. Again, in the last period of a fortnight, when the cows had all the green peas and oats they could eat, still running on pasture, the percentage of fat in their milk increased from 3*82 to 4*ol. So far as this trial goes, it clearly indicates that food makes a material difference to the richness of milk, but that theories as to the descriptions of food which might have been expected to make the difference have been erroneous. About the only new subject that has been "brought before the Royal Comtiantblin? mission on Agriculture is the in the system of gambling in the marMarkets, kets under the guise of what are called "options" or "futures." This is really a very important question for farmers in all parts of the world, because anyone who has studied the question with an impartial mind canoot have failed to have become convinced that the system in question has had a very great effect in lowering prices. The other day Mr C. W. Smith, author of " Commercial Gambling," who, himself connected with the system which he denounces for many years as a produce broker at Liverpool, was examined for a whole day before the Royal Commission. At first some of the members were disposed to make fun of his arguments ; but befora long they became so impressed with the force of the evidence which he brought before them that they not only heard bis long statement with great interest, but afterwards ordered it to be printed immediately for their mature consideration, with a view of recalling him for re-examination. He shows clearly enough (1) that by means of the option system the markets are flooded with fictitious produce, thus creating an impression of enormous abundance, which has the effect of lowering prices. It is said that 100 times the quantity of wheat produced in a year in the United States is offered in the markets of that country within a year, while the process is continued to a smaller extent in Liverpool, London, and a few continental markets. (2) That the system is almost exclusively one of gambling, differing only in form from betting upon price quotations, as it is clearly proved that the delivery of produce nominally dealt with in an option or a future hardly ever takes place. (3) That the system works greatly to the advantage of those professional dealers in options who are almost constantly scheming to run prices down, only occasionally planning for a temporary rise in order to enable them to sell afresh in preparation for a fresh campaign of depreciation, which gives them their profits — that is to say that if a man sells wheat nominally for delivery three months hence at a certain price, the lower the price falls below the price fixed the better it is for him, because, as he could buy wheat for less than the price at which he sold 'it to deliver to the purchaser, and the settlement is only one of difference in prices, the purchaser has to pay him the difference between the price when the contract matures and the price named in the contract. (4) That the most disreputable tricks are practised by large operators and syndicates in order to manipulate the markets to suit their purposes. (5) That the price quotations of the great Amerioan markets, which influence the prices of the whole world, are the outcome of this gambling system. (6) That in consequence of the introduction to the markets of swarms of impecunious gamblers, defaulting is an everyday occurrence, while panics are frequent, so that a constant sense of insecurity is generated, depressing the markets and scaring capital out of them. The American farmers and their representatives are trying to get this infamous system suppressed in the United States, and if we could nip it in the bud in this country, it would greatly strengthen the hands of our American friends, who have great interests arrayed against them. There is no doubt that wheat is one of the cheapest foods for stock, if not Wheat us Food the cheapest of all, at the pre» for Stock, sent time, though it needs to be given with care. An American farmer of extensive experience, in a paper read the other day before on agricultural association, said he had used wheat for pigs for 15 years, and found it profitable when the prioe was nearly double what it is now. In one year his pigs returned him 53 6d a bushel for wheat when the animals were sold at 21s per 1001b live weight. On another occasion he gave wheat to 150 pigs during part of the period of fattening, and realised the same prioe as he could have obtained in the market, or 5s a bushel. In 1892, when the market price cf wheat was only 63c a bushel, and sometimes less, pigs which were sold at 5c a pound live weight returned Blc a bushel for the wheat they consumed. He found it best and safest to steam the wheat. What other food he gave ho does not distinctly state, but apparently the animals bad a grass run and possibly some other bulky food in addition to gras3, In thu course of the last few years co-operative buttsr-rnaking has made great t'o-oporntho prr>givb& in Ireland. Mr It. A. s>iurying in Anderson, organising agent of Ireliutd. the Irit.h division of the Coopsrativo Union, has issued a report on the working of 27 co-operative creameries in Irelaud in 1893. The production was 1273 tons 7cwt of butter from 7,354,536 gal of milk, or lib from 2"sßgal — a very good average for a whole year. How small the profit of butter-making is may be imagined from the . fact that the farmers were paid only 3 91d per gallon for their milk, but they had the separated milk and the buttermilk back free, making their receipts practically over 5d a gallon, and they shared, or will share, in any dividend paid out of the profits. The capital invested is £133,101, and the net profit on the year was £14,041. The working expenses, not including depreciation of buildings and plant, amounted to 10*24 per cent, of the returns. The average

price made of butter was 11'57d per lb. This price is much higher than the average of Irish butter for the year in question. In fact, this creamery butter generally stands first in the price list for Irish butter. It is strange to find in some quarters an utter misunderstanding of the marMargarine, garine question. For example, a correspondent of a daily paper displays a curious idea of argument in defence of the illegitimate trade in margarine as butter, when he declares that a year's consumption of that commodity in England represents the milk of 300,000 cows. Although ho does not say so, he apparently means that it would be advantageous to encourage the manufacture of margarine in this country, in order that British and Irish dairy farmers may supply the milk required in the making. His estimate, though it cannot be better than a rough guess, aa no one knows what is the average proportion of butter in margarine, is that the milk of 300,000 cows is used in its manufacture. Assuming that to be the case, it would, no doubt, be of advantage to the farmers of the United Kingdom to supply the milk, instead of having the bulk of it supplied by foreigners. But the writer does not show how the encouragement of the margarine trade would cause the quantity made in this country to increase, and the quantity imported to diminish. Besides, there is another .way of looking at the matter. To say that the margarine consumed annually in this country represents the milk of 300,000 cows is to make a great understatement. Last year we imported 145,603,6961b of margarine. How much was made in the United Kingdom is not known ; but the imported article alone took the place of the butter of 728,000 cows, producing 2001b each, less whatever proportion of butter was contained in the mixture. Probably the total quantity consumed displaced the butter of fully 800,000 cows, allowing for the milk churned with oleomargarine in making margarine. It is a little too much, then, to expect our dairy farmers to submit cheerfully to the sale of margarine as butter on account of the proportion of butter which is contained in the imitation commodity.