FARMERS’ COMPETITION’

Taranaki Daily News, 23 April 1932, Page 19 (Supplement)

FARMERS’ COMPETITION’

CONSIDERATION AT OAKURA. INVESTIGATION BY COMMITTEE. The advisability of holding a farms competition on the lines of the competition in the Manawatu district last year was discussed at the annual meeting of the Oakura branch of the Farmers’ Union on Thursday evening. _ One of the main objects of the competition was to discover the cost per pound of producing butterfat on the different farms. Mr. J. M. Smith, of the Department of Agriculture, gave some details of the competition in the Manawatu. He said the competition was open to farms of 30 acres, or more, of which at least 50 per cent, of the income was derived from dairv products,' including milk, butterfat, pig and poultry products, calves and . stock bred in connection with dairying;! • farms in which at least 80 per cent, of the dairy stock were on the farm all the year round. The system of judging was by a committee of three, consisting of a practical farmer, an accountant and a representative of the Department of Agriculture. This committee carried out all valuations which would be necessary, and the farms were visited at least four times during the currency of the competition. The scale of points was as follows-: — (a) Cost of production, allotted 35 per cent, of total points. The cost of production of butterfat would be worked out- The monetary results of other lines such as pigs, sheep or poultry would be debited or credited to the butterfat ac-‘ count as demanded by the nature of these results. (b) Total farm -production per £lOO invested, allotted 35 per cent, of total points. . - , . , (c) Stock allotted. 20 per cent, of total points. In this section aJll types of stock are considered, and particular attention given to such matters as their yields, their breeding and their herd test-

■mi. in iii»i i min — ing and the provision made for additions. (d) Farm goods and equipment allotted 10 per cent, of total points. Under this section falls farm buildings, yards, water provision—their suitability and upkeep, implementa, suitability and care; reserves of silage, hay, roots, etc. Success did not necessarily go to the farm which was “model” in layout, upkeep and appearance. ' Money spent in obtaining “model” characteristics would be a handicap rather than an advantage in the competition unless the expenditure was adequately reflected in the returns. The competition did not aim to foster overhead non-productive expenditure. Success did .not go necessarily to farms consisting of high quality soil. Careful farm valuation would be made. This would have a direct bearing on the cost of production and the total, production per £lOO invested—two items which weighed so heavily in the scale of points. It was quite conceivable that the winning farms would be well farmed ones on relatively poor country. Succeiss did not go necessarily to the farms with the best producing herds. —the high herd production might be obtained at too great a cost. Success did not go necessarily to the farm showing lowest cost of production because this might be secured, by undue restriction of output and at the expense of total possible net profit. Increasing the cost of production might increase the total profit, and thia was usually more desirable than, mere low cost of production. Success did not go necessarily to farms showing highest production per acre. This might be obi tainod at too great a cost. Success would go to the fanm which was best economically, having regard to the returns of the current and future seasons. Messrs. Harris, Knight, Morris, Gray a.nd Brown were appointed a committee to go fully into the question.