MACHINERY AND FARMING.

Putaruru Press, Volume XI, Issue 252, 18 May 1933, Page 1

MACHINERY AND FARMING.

PRODUCTION SPEEDED UP. I . Less Labour on the Land. . In 1898 Sir William Crookes said: ■ “ England and all civilised nations , stand in deadly peril of not having : enough to eat. As mouths multiply, food resources dwindle. 1 ’ j In 1933, Sir John Russell, Director jof the Rothamsted Experimental Station, in his latest book, writes: “ There is no uncertainty about the future need for food, but there is considerable uncertainty as to who will produce it.” An English Example. The reason for these opposing viewpoints, writes Dr. I. W. Weston, of Canterbury Agricultural College, lies in the great developments that have since taken place in manuring, plant and animal breeding, crop rotation and management, and, last but not least, machinery. For England, Sir John Russell quotes a Norfolk farm of 900 acres of arable land, on which up to 1928 40 men were employed, and 5s 4d per bushel was required to make wheat pay. When the price of wheat fell, the farm was sold to a mechaniser, who now employs only four men, and it is esti- ! ma ted that he can sell wheat at 3s |2d per bushel. Of the 36 men dis- j i placed, 10 obtained other work, 13 are on relief work, nine are unemployed or temporarily employed, and of these three are old-age pensioners, two are rat catching, and two are dead. Even after making allowance for costs of maintenance of the men displaced, a saving is still made by the use of the mechanical methods. Men are now being displaced not only in agriculture, but in other industries. Men Cannot be Absorbed. The present position is complicated ! by the fact that we are going j through a period of adjustment in n- I dustry, which, up to date, is similar to the period of depression following on the Napoleonic wars. Sir John Russell, however, points out that there is this difference: “Industry in the earlier days of the industrial revolution absorbed the farm hands displaced, whereas at present industry is itself also displacing labour.” He sums up the situation in England by the statement that increased efficiency in agriculture does not increase employment and the unemployed cannot be absorbed in indus-

try owing to the decline of export markets and to tariffs abroad, nor by emigration, since emigrants are returning to the Homeland. Progress lies in less men in agriculture. In Eastern countries it takes four men engaged in agriculture to feed one man in industry, but in Western countries one man in agriculture can feed four men in industry, and these can be, and normally are, engaged in providing for the comforts and luxuries of life. Therefore, if the standard of living is to rise and actual production is to approach its potential capacity, a better long-run solution of the problem must be found than that of

merely duplicating production capacity. Decline in Total Farmers. These temporary attempts at solving the problem are world-wide, and the adverse effects are cumulative. As early as 1922 the Secretary for Agriculture in the United States of America concluded, after an examination of all the available evidence, that more than sufficient farmers were already engaged in farming to provide all the food that would be required for the next 100 years, and from 1922 to 1929 the numbers engaged in farming did decline. In New Zealand, although produc-

tion and population greatly increased, the number of people engaged in farming showed a slight decline for each year from 1922 to ) 1929. But in 1932, in spite of still ! further improvements in production | in America, England, the Continent, 1 New Zealand and elsewhere, the j numbers engaged in farming, includ- | ing subsistanee farming, have in- ' creased.