FARMING OR MINING

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 73, Issue 428, 20 November 1930, Page 10

FARMING OR MINING

WHICH IS IT TO BE? (Contributed) There are two classes of people occupying the land in this Dominion — namely, farmers and miners. Farmers are those who work their land to the utmost advantage consistent with maintaining soil fertility. Miners are those who make a practice of taking everything possible out of the land without regard to maintaining soil fertility — the former is the better citizen and invariably makes better profits. Low prices for primary products, such as are ruling at, present, make it diffi-

cult for the miner to succeed at farming, but to the farmer row prices merely mean lower profits. Profits in agriculture are dependent more upon the costs of production than upon the selling prices of produce. In this respect agriculture is in exactly the same position as any other industry. The primary producer who spends time seeking ways and means of raising the selling price of his produce—a factor over which he has little or no control —is beating the air, whereas he who spends time seeking ways and means, of reducing costs of production—a fac tor over which he has complete control —will find himself in a position to meet all competition. Concrete Cases Readers will say it is easy to talk generalities, but not so easy to quote actual applications of the theory concerning costs of production. It must be admitted that it is not easy to quote specific cases, merely because they are all too rare, and, besides, those who are most successful arc usually the most modest and do not talk loudly

about their affairs. However, we havej evidence of the effect of reducing production costs and even though we do uot quote New Zealand farmers and butterfat figures, we quote equally interesting details of an investigation that, might just as easily have been applied to any phase of agriculture. In a recent issue of The American Fertiliser, there appears a report of, “A .Survey of the Farm J'roblcm’’i with particular reference to wheat pro-, duction costs by Mr Horace Bowker. In, all some 3,300 farmers sent in reports' concerning their wheat-growing oper-l at ions and a summary of the whole position shows that one cla v ' of pro-j ducers, namely, the farmers, produced 1 an average of 28-V bushels per acre at an average cost of 19.22 dollars per acre or at an average cost, of 67 cents per bushel. The other class, the miners, produced an average yield of 12 bushels per acre at an average cost of 13.73 dollars per acre or an average cost of 114 cents per bushel. With wheat selling at one dollar per bushel the farmer shows a. profit of 33 cents, equal to 50 per cent., whilst the miner shows a lo>s of 14 cents, equal to 7 per cent. Wiherein Lies the Difference The above particulars do not tell the whole story as they do not show the origin of the profit on the one hand and the cause of the loss on the other. In the same report appears in detail the costs as allocated by one farmer whose experiences wore fainy Typical of the 3.300 interviewed. This man sowed two acres of wheat on adjoining fields, one was treated the farmer xvay, and one the miner wav. with the following results: Costs of ploughing, preparing seed bed. harvesting, stocking, seed, land rental and depreciation of machinery 1 wore exactly the same, viz-, 9.16 dollars per acre in earli case. In the case of

No- 1 twine cost 30 cents, threshing, etc., 2 dollars and fertiliser, 1.64 dollars per acre, making a total cost of 13.10 dollars per acre. No. 2 area cost, twine 15 cents and threshing, etc-, 1 dollar, making a total of 10.31 dollars per acre. No. 1 yielded 20 bushels per acre, whilst No. 2 yielded 8 bushels. Now can we see wherein lies the difference.' An expenditure of .1.64 dollars on fertilisers was responsible for an increase in yield to the extent of 12 bushels per acre, which in turn increased the cost of twine and threshing, but left all other charges exacfly the same. Actually on this particular farm each dollar invested in fertiliser returned six and three-quarter dollars — a 675 per cent, investmentThe Moral The question is—docs this lesson apply to New Zealand conditions? The reply is—undoubtedly. liven on our dairying country to-day one can find numerous instances of men curtailing production by cutting out fertilisers, the actual effect of which is to keep up or even increase the cost of producing'in butterfat. The real farmers of the community arc nor doing this, but it is more or Jess common amongst, those who arc really “miners” at heart. Whore production figures are kept down to loOlbs of butterfat per acre, Is pey lb is below the cost of production, but where the output reaches 2501bs per acre, there ir still a profit in dairying at 9d per lb for butterfat. There are areas which arc capable of producing round about 1501bs of butterfat per acre without the aid of fertilisers, but with an outlay of from 10s to 15s would just, as easily prod nee 2501bs per acre. At no lime in our dairying history was ii so necessary 1o use fertilisers as it is at present; no matter wh;ii the state of the market the prodm iug cost must be under the

selling price or there Is no profit in it. When the selling price goes so low as to require superhuman efforts to get under it, then the producer must retaliate with another “super” effort. It is all a question of whether or nut you choose to work your property as a “ farm ” or as a “mine.” Mines arc good payors nf dividends when things are booming, but it is the farms of the Dominion that will see us safely through the slump.