HORSES v. TRACTORS

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume LXXXII, Issue 19443, 31 October 1925, Page 23 (Supplement)

HORSES v. TRACTORS

RESPECTIVE MERITS COMPARED. i The comparative merits of horse and tractors for providing power for farm ’ operations was discussed before a meet- , iug of the Ellesmere branch of the N.Z. Farmers’ Union, held at Leeston, by , Air. W. W. Alulholland, of Darfield. There was a good attendance of I farmers, and keen interest was taken. ; Air. Alulholland said that he con- ; sidered the study of the most economi- . cal means of using power on the farm ' offered the greatest possibilities for in- • creasing farm income of any of the sciences relating to agriculture. By . means of a graph it was shown that on small farms the agency of the horse as a power unit was greater as the size . of the farm increased, but this was only to a certain point. If a six-horse team, for instance, was sufficient to work a. 500-acre farm, and that farm was increased to 600 acres, the agency of the team unit w’ould be decreased, because more horses would require to be added j in order to cover the work. In fact, it : i would probably be’ necessary in order ! . io farm the extra 100 acres to double I the strength of the teams. This would 1 mean that 10 to 12 horses were ■work- ; ing only one-fifth more land than six horses alone could do—obviously a decrease- in efficiency. The size of the ! farm was therefore an important fac- ! tor in respect to the agency of teams. I From the point of view of farm income, ! the farmer, in valuing the agency of ; ; the team, s.lwuld consider not only what ! I work it alone could do, but what was | the difference between the agency of ; i the two methods—teams and tractors— | I on th© yield.

i Another factor which had a great ; ■ deal to do with the efficiency of the I I team was the time in which the work ! ■' was required to be done. The team’s! capacity for work could be regarded I as the same at all times of the year, therefore, if a heavy amount of work was to be carried out in two or three months, it followed that at one time the team would be fully occupied, and at another season it would be doing little or no work. But during the whole period the team had to be fed, whether working or not, and the cost of its upkeep while idle was probably as great as when it was in work. According to figures compiled by Air. Fawcett, of the Department of Agriculture, the cost of upkeep per annum on an average farm of a six-horse te.am was £550, ineluding implements, or £460 without implements. In working this cost out per day the number of actual working I days per year would have to be conI sidered. The cost for 150 working ' days would equal £3 18s Id per day; j for 200, £2 19s 8d; for 250, £2 7s 4d; and for 275, £2 3s Id. This went to <l.e team as fully occupied as possible, lor teams were the cause of a great deal of waste expenditure to their I owners. With hindrances on accoiAit i of weather and other causes, it was seldom for teams to be employed for more

I than 250 working days per year, leav- ' ing 60 working days idle. This was one of the chief disadvantages of team power. It was obviously of advantage to distribute the work of the farm as evenly as possible over each month when teams were employed, and in the speaker’s experience most farmers appeared to recognise this. One of the chief points in favour of the team as a source of farm power, and one which was keeping it on the farms of Canterbury to-day, was the fact that it could be divided into its component parts as the particular work in hand might require, using one, two. three, or more horses as the need should be. This could not be done in the case of the tractor. Air. Mulholland quoted the results of an investigation into the merits of tractors conducted in the United States some six years ago. Although some of the findings still held sound to-day, improvements had been made in the construction of the machines since then, and these all weighed in their favour. It was generally agreed to-day, that the tractor was at least no more expensive than the team, and in many cases wag found considerably cheaper. The actual cost of any particular operation was not a deciding factor as to whether or not the tractor was an efficient power unit. The deciding factor had to be based on farm income over a whole year. The cost of the working of tractors compared very favourably with that of horse teams, and even if, in a few cases, it was higher, there was a compensating increase in returns in the case of the former which had to be taken into consideration. In this connection it was well to remember that most of the feed given to horses could be grown on the farm and was not paid for in cash, but this was not so in the case of the tractor. One of the strongest points in favour of the tractor was the flexibility which it gave to farm management. A farm I operated by a team was tied down to a certain routine which the capacity of. the team made necessary, but with the tractor the farm was not so tied down, because the tractor had more than suffi cient pow’er to get through the work on time, and when necessary it could be worked any number of hours per day. With the team, on the other hand, the farmer had to map out the cropping programme so as to fill the whole 12 months evenly with work, while with the tractor it was possible to so modify the cropping programme that a great proportion of the work would fall in only two or three months. Just as the farmer operating a team did everything possible to minimise the weaknesses of the team and take every possible advantage of its strong points, the same should be done in operating a

tractor. The tractor offered excellent facilities for belt work. Up till recently he had not considered this factor as a matter of much moment under New Zealand farming conditions, but now he went so far as to believe that the tractor might possibly solve the threshing cost problem, but he would not state this definitely until he had tried it for himself. For haulage purposes the tractor served well when fitted with the proper gear, and for use in drawing the binder it scored over horses in .its ability to maintain a uniform speed. It was not possible to generalise as to whether tractors or teams were the most economical under

all conditions, but it was for farmers to study the question as it affected them, and to decide whether an invest ment in a tractor would be payable. A question referred to the difficulty sometimes encountered in ploughing a paddock with tractor power where there were low, damp places. The tractor could not get over these so readily as horses. Mr Alulholland said that this was an admitted drawback with the tractor. While the team had a.-very considerable reserve power, the power of the tractor was limited.