LONG-TERM POLICY

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 55, Issue 3928, 19 July 1937, Page 7

LONG-TERM POLICY

AID TO FARMING. London, May 29. The British Government has a new long-term agricultural policy. Its estimated cost is £3,500,000 a year. Its main points are:— The Government will pay fifty per cent, of farmers’ requirements of lime and twenty-five per cent, of requirements of basic slag at a total cost of £1,000,000. A price of 8s a cwt—the ruling price to-day—on a basis of 6cwt an acre sold, is guaranteed for oat farmers in a scheme similar to that for wheat. A price for barley is guaranteed at the same rate per acre as for oats (ruling price for barley is around 10s a cwt.) In view of the prices fetched at present the scheme will not operate unless they fall. The scheme in operation would cost £1,750,000 in that event. Growers already benefiting under the Wheat Act are ineligible. The wheat total ranking for subsidy is to be raised from 6,000,000 to 8,000,000 quarters. A big move is to be started to eradicate cattle disease at a cost of £600,000. Land drainage is to be encouraged by a grant of £140,000, which will enable local authorities 'to spend £450,000 in any one year.

The Defence Aspect. Mr. W. S. Morrison, Minister of Agriculture, in announcing the new policy, said: — “In regard to defence, I should like at the outset to stress the following considerations. The two objectives —of producing the maximum quantity of food to meet our requirements in time of war, on the one hand, and of the efficient development of our agriculture in time of peace, on the other—not only demand very different methods but, to a material extent, are opposed to each other. “In particular, a drastic policy of food production for war purposes would entail the ploughing up of an extensive area of our grassland for the purpose of growing cereals and other crops for human consumption. In peace time, however, livestock husbandry, which is the .foundation of our agriculture, is naturally based on a grassland system on account of the physical and climatic advantages which favour it. The Government has had to determine where, between these two objectives, the path lies which, on balance, it would be wise to follow. “In the opinion of the Government, to put agriculture on a wartime footing, with all its regulations, the regimentation of the farming community, and the heavy costs that it would unavoidably involve, would not be practicable at the present time; nor in their opinion is the situation such as to require the adoption of this course in time of peace. An Artificial Situation. “The Government are equally satisfied that considerations of national defence would not justify a policy in peace time of stimulating agricultural production to such a pitch that the country would be faced with a highly artificial situation which would, sooner or later, have to be liquidated if the emergency did not arise. .Such a policy would be costly to build up and costly to close down.

“Having regard to these considerations, the Government is satisfied that the best course, in the general national interest, is to continue its efforts to improve the general prosperity and efficiency of home agriculture, and in particular to promote an increase in the fertility and productivity of our soil. “The proposals are so designed that, should an emergency arise, we should be in a position immediately to take advantage of improved fertility, but, should it not arise, we should be increasing the productivity of our land and stock by means which are consistent with, and not opposed to, the ntumal development of our agriculture on economic lines in time of peace ”