THE GRUMBLING FARMER'S FAILURE.

Otago Witness, Issue 2664, 5 April 1905, Page 9

THE GRUMBLING FARMER'S FAILURE.

■ — Only Himself to Blame. — I once asked 500 farmers by post why they refused to adopt a simple course which I proved would be to their profit 'and advantage. The answers were varied, i>ut "the trouble" was practically the excuse. The average farmer, even when the Tight of way is made easy for him, will not fellow it. My object in these remarks is to show how British farmers may avoid many of the losses which they somehow manage to Bistain. But it may be asked, To what losses do you refer? There are some which are owing to carelessness, some to neglect, some to illiberality, and soms to want of knowledge. L take the precaution, however, as one who has met or addressed farzners in 'almost every English county, to point out that if there are large numbers to whom my remarks apply, there is a splendid minority' who comprise the cream cf the -agriculturists of the whole carth — rien who are up to date, highly skilled as ■breeders and growers, and who practically never fail to achieve success in one or every department to which they devote their attention. " ""■

— Kioh Harvests. — I deal first with losses in crop-growing. If a laJbouier desire*- to fatten his pig for the butcher, he supplies it liberally with suitable food. Tf a dairy farmer would obtain abundant milk from his cows, he recognises that he must feed them with liberality. If a corn farmer would 1 obtain a rich harvest, he must feed, his land; but _ this is precisely what many thousands do not. Pla its feed, and, in an old country like our own, quickly impoverish the soil in the process. Unless, therefore, something" containing plant-food is put into it,' thtj land refuses to produce profitable crops, that something should be. and how much of it, it is the farmer's province to learn both, from experience and scieme ; and Jiever were the facts so easily obtainable- as to-day. The two forms of manure employed io feed or fertilise the land are animal manure and artificials. Millions of money are ■wasted by the bad management of the former, and millions are lost to us by the illiberality of the farmers in regard to th- latter. "But is this true?" you ask. ~i us see. Animal manure has two values — a mechanical value, for it improves the texture of soil and warms it in addition; and a feeding value — as it is rich ia the materials which plants require, anrl .which they, absorb, so readily, nitrogen, phosphoric acid, and potash, each with its market price per pound. By caralessness, neglect, and want cf Knowledge, this manure — the gold-dust of the farmer— is probably half wasted- "When heaped' it L^ats, and its nitrogen, the most ccstly constituent, escapes as ammonia; while expossd to rain, the mineral constituents are washed out, finding their way into the ditches and the horse pond, from iwhich we are told the oows prefer to drink. To replace the lost nitrogen, the farmer must pay £10 a ton for nitrate cf soda; while to replace the lost minerals, he may pay 55s to 65s a ton. In justice to himself he should not only preserve his farm manure on one of the well-known methods, but he should supplement it liberally with artificials. What, however, is the practice? To manure the Eoil oi.ee in four years with animal manure at the rate of 12 to 20 tons to the acre — an average of three to five tons per annum — as against 40 tons which many market gardeners find it necessary to use. The result is waste, loss of profit, capital, !atoour, and temper. —Other Sources of Loss. — If. however, we accept the result of ■Professor Voorhees's ' experiment on the iand in New Jersey, w© find that the actual toss of crops year by year is in proportion to the salvage of the manure of the farm, liquid as well as solid — and! the former is usually wasted wholesale. The losses owing to impure seeds can Scarcely be estimated. The Canadian Department of Agriculture has demonstrated that where the precaution is taken to save B&ed on the principle of selection of the 'Attest, the- practice is followed by a gradual snerease In the yield, instead of by as gradual a decline where the farmer saves (bis own seed year by year without selection. In England it is not uncommon to find the farmers sow the unsaleable corn or the ©Epepmss from a hay barn— \geeds included

— -while the hay and weed seeds from the stable and the cattio sheds quite commonly go to the manure heap and grow with some luxuriance in the corn. No wonder that sj much land is prolific with the poppy, the dock, and the thistle. The losses owing to the adulteration of manures and feeding stuffs are considerable, j and yet when the Government parses a ' law by which every farmer can protect himself, he refuses to do so. In some counties not a . single farmer obtains an analysis in a whole year ; in others, they are numbered by units. Losses occur, also, owing to the habit of going too often to- market with nothing to buy "or sell, leaving tho workmen without control. Th's leads to the ploughing, the sowing, the hosing, and the harvesting bein,r late, irnd the late farmer is the unsuccessful farmer, whose land is foul, hedges untrimmed, yards untidy, and his crops small. Tho poultry yard should be fostered, the best swine fed on the offal of the grain crop, while the equipment of the farm tools an<l tackle should be labour-saving and up-to-date. Farmers, lastly, should co-operate and buy in tho cheapest mirkets. I speak only to those who are -not following the be^t methods, and who know it, though they grumble just the same.— Peofessoe Jambs I Long, in the London Daily Mail.