COSTS OF PRODUCTION.

Otago Witness, Issue 3442, 2 March 1920, Page 10

COSTS OF PRODUCTION.

There is one thing very clear and outstanding in the mirage of uncertainties of the future, and that is that costs of production are to be higher than in pre-war days. It is obvious to all of us that tha prices of soil products have risen very appreciably since 1914. What the increase is no man can well calculate, but assuredly many farmers of rural lands are no better off to-day, nor the man who has taken up

high-priced pastoral acres, than before the present comparative high prices ruled. One perhaps would not go so far as to say that the class of labour offering is of lower grade than formerly, but it is not so conscientious. Truly, the man who goes in for cereal growing has need of a big heart and skilled farming knowledge, as well as a long purse. We have come to the time when the meaning of the saying, "cultivate less acres and grow more com," is brought home to us. It is the day when big average yields per acre must be secured. In the Homeland the yields per acre hitherto have ruled high, due in a great measure—apart from farming knowledge—to cheap manual labour. Since the war £he price of labour has gone considerably, and there is not such a vast difference in rates at Home and abroad and the out-lying portions of the Empire. This will doubtless prove a big factor in maintaining high rates for all primary products, as it is a sure thing that if the cost of production is universally on the present anti-war basis, farmers must secure world prices; in other words, a free market for their products. In truth, a farmer, to-day must study his acres from the business viewpoint; and whether he owns pastoral or rural lands he cannot afford to harbour inferior stock on scanty herbage"/ or sow inferior seed on in-differently-worked,' unmanured soil. The sooner agriculturists and pastoralists give voice to the present greatly increased 'cost of production, and acquaint our townspeople of the facts, the sooner will there be true settlement and—what is so necessary if the cost of living is to get easier-—greater production of raw products. We cite Dr E. J. Russel, Director of the Rothamsted Experimental Farm in England, instructive evidence regarding the remarkable increase that has taken place in the costs of production. They are English figures certainly, but they are none the less of value to us. He showed that at Rothamsted the sum expended in .growing a crop of wheat amounted in pre-war days to £5 6s lid an acre. For 1918-19 the estimate was" £l4 an acre. In respect to other crops Mr Russel submitted the following figures : —Oats have risen from £6 3s lid to £l2 (estimated) {in acre; and potatoes from £2l Is Id to £55- (estimated) in the same years. The actual expenditure on labour has risen from £1 13s (1913-14) to £3 19s 8d (1917-18) an acre in the case of wheat; from £1 16s Id to £2 10s sd, oats; and from £7 10s to £ls 6s 9d potatoes in the same period. The total expenditure on labour has increased rather more than the average rate of weekly wage, indicating, in the view o£ Dr Russell, some falling off in the efficiency of labour. The net balance of receipts over expenditure was: Wheat, £1 15s lOd (1913-14), and £7 5s 9d (1917-18); oats, Is 8d (1913-14), and £2 7s (1917-18); and potatoes £2 5s lid (1913-14), and a deficit of £1 17s 8d (1917-18). The cost of production of all arable crops is increasing at a much greater rate than that of the cost of managing grass land, and it would seem that, if arable farming is to continue, some means must be devised for relieving the farmer of part of the risk involved in grain growing. On the assumption that costs of production remain much the same as at present, Dr Russel was of the opinion that he could grow wheat at a profit under 80s per quarter. What is farming after all ? Common sense would indicate that farming is the business of producing for a profit certain kinds of food, with such by-pro-ducts as wool, hides, etc., in contra-dis-tinction to a commercial undertaking, having as" its main aim the profit of the holders of ordinary shares. Yet it is, we are told, essential that production be increased. However great the patriotism of farmers may be, it cannot be expected that they are going to be the only class inadequately remunerated. The future of agriculture is in the lap of the gods. The farmer mu6t have some assurance against loss if he embarks'on a mode of farming against his desire, the labourer must be guaranteed a living wage, and as a necessary corollary, the Slate must see to it that farmers have opportunities of farming on the best and most scientific lines. ,