METHODS OF FARMING

Te Awamutu Courier, Volume 68, Issue 5943, 15 May 1944, Page 3

METHODS OF FARMING

CASE BEFORE LAND SALES COMMITTEE DECISION RESERVED Decision was reserved by the Land Sales Committee on Thursday when J. T. Leaman sought the consent of the Board to sell to one Elliott, a property of 637 acres at Wharepuhunga. The Board consisted of Messrs N A. Ching (chairman), H. 0. Mellsop, J. J. Stallue, with Mr J. B. Rowe as Crown representative. Mr S. S. Preston appeared for the vendor.

Mr Preston, in outlining the case for the vendor, said Leaman had purchased it in 1920 for £5 per acre. He now desired to sell it at £5 10s an acre, a total price of £3503 10s, as against the Crown valuation of £2745, a difference of £728. The chief causes of variance between the vendor and the Crown seemed to be the methods of farming and the quantities of manure. Assuming that two cwt of manure with t.wo cwt of lime was used, it would carry 800 ewes and a herd of 25 cows, and it was the most economical way for a man with a reasonable amount of capital to farm the land in question. There was a new cowshed with the plant driven by a water wheel put in by the vendor, so there would be no shed expenses. With proper manuring and stock the property would do what it was claimed without difficulty. The purchaser Elliot was a serviceman who was being put into the property by his father.

If a detailed valuation was given it would be found that that figure would be considerably in excess of the purchase price. 2301bs of fat per cow should be allowed, for there was some ideal flats for dairying purposes. They differed in that the Crown provided for cattle and sheep. Wharepuhunga was at one time in discredit on account of ragwort, but was rapidly coming into favour. F. J. Bertram, land agent and valuer, gave evidence as to making a thorough inspection of the property, which he valued at £6 per acre. He detailed the value of the improvements. His budget was based on 800 ewes and 25 cows with 2cwt super and 2cwt lime. He had no doubt but it would carry that amount of stock. The manure he laid down was the minmum for that class of country. He gave a detailed budget with the outgoing expenses. One man could do the farm work with casual labour. All but 80 acres could be grassed. To Mr Rowe: He valued the house at £642 10s, which was in fair order; the shearing shed at £150; the cowshed at £l5O. Those values were at 1942 prices. The plantation trees he valued at 10s each for timber purposes. He outlined the replacement of« stock and prices. He would keep the sheep for two years, sell and replace. The pastures were in good order and could be brought back in 12 months if the manure was put on. He allowed £8 per sheep for wool, and was satisfied he could get 600 fat lambs away. He valued the fencing at £2 per chain, and considered the buildings adequate for the size of the farm.

Sidney Pratt gave corroborative evidence.

To Mr Rowe the witness said the farm was well looked after. Shortage of manure and lack of capital were factors for its present state. Robert Elliott, a farmer of Waharoa, gave evidence as to his farming experience in breaking in similar class of country. He had no doubt but that his son would make a success of the place. He was quite satisfied with the price. Arthur John Baxter, a valuer for the State Advances Corporation, said it was not a paying proposition in its present state. He considered it would carry 30 cows at 1801bs fat, 500 ewes of 81bs wove type, 175 replacements, and 29 25-year steers. The latter were necessary in order to keep the pasture in order for the sheep. It would take 35 years to bring the property back into maximum production. He gave a detailed valuation of the buildings. He knew the farm had not been well farmed. In December, 1942, it carried 400 ewes with 80 per cent lambs, 26 dairy cows and 14 yearling heifers. The pasture was very deficient in clover. To Mr Preston: He based his budget on the present way it was being

farmed. He would breed his own sheep. J. T. Maclean, an Inspector for the Lands Department, and J. G. McKenzie, District Appraiser, gave evidence. The latter said he had known the property since 1936. He considered Baxter’s estimate of the carrying capacity a flattering one.

Mr Preston said the Crown very nearly wiped off the value of improvements, and yet they in doing similar work at thousands of pounds caused a huge national loss. Seven thousand acres were being brought in by the Crown at costs that far exceeded that of private costs, a statement agreed to by Mr McKenzie, who said he did not consider costs and development synonymous.

Mr Preston, in seeking permission to recall S. Pratt, said he was frankly worried about the evidence of the Crown in regard to the state of the fences in view of his own observations. Mr Pratt said he had heard the Crown valuation of the fences at 16s a chain. There was only one fence that was not in good order. There were nine tons of fencing wire, barbed and plain, on the property, and the only thing that lacked in some cases was battens. All the posts were of totara and averaged 35 to the chain. Two thousand battens would make all the difference. He considered £2 a chain a very conservative value.

Mr Rowe contended that the property was not producing anything like Mr Bertram said. The Crown contended it would take three years before full returns would be possible

Mr Preston, after reviewing the evidence, said Mr Elliot had searched a lot before finding the property suitable. He was prepared as a practical farmer to put capital behind his judgment. Bertram’s and Pratt’s figures could not be assailed. The Crown valuers were most inconsistent in that in valuing the cowshed referred to its lack of utility. Why did they not write up the dwelling as a utility value. The Government valuers were bound by a book of statistics. Manure would have made a vast deal of difference. It was not much encouragement to pioneers if the treatment suggested by the Crown was meted out. As stated* decision was reserved.