HORSE AND THE TRACTOR.

Waikato Times, Volume 102, Issue 17242, 29 October 1927, Page 22 (Supplement)

HORSE AND THE TRACTOR.

QUESTION OF COSTS. ADVANTAGE OF SPEED. The question whether wheat can be more economically produced by the use of tractors Hum if horses are employed in Hie cultural work is frequently discussed by farmers. Some hold one opinion and some another according to individual experience, and when the pros and cons are weighed it is found that “honours are easy.” A bulletin on wheat-growing by Mr E. S. Clayton, H.D.A., senior agricultural instructor, recently issued by the New South Wales Department of Agriculture, states ttiat while tractors are certainly capable of working longer hours and at a faster speed than horses they do not cheapen the cost of production in the field. Figures lately collected by the United Stales Department of Agriculture illustrate the position at the present time in the great winter wheat belt of America. Those figures show that for every field operation connected with wheat-growing, including ploughing, •cultivating, drilling and harvesting, with both reaper and binder and harvester, the horse is slightly cheaper than the tractor. These stalistics also indicate that tractors are only used to a limited extent in wheat-growing, and have not supplanted the draught horse to anything like the extent that might have been expected. The results of a three-days’ economic conference of wheat-growers recently held in Oregon (U.S.A.) are also most interesting in this connection. This conference, which was attended by 500 delegates, was looked upon as one of Hie most important rneclings of wheat-growers held in the last decade. The Production Committee in its recommendations to the general conference stated that “under average conditions wheat farms having less than 1000 acres of cultivated land a farm produced wheat at less cost an acre and a bushel with horses than with tractors, and hence found horse-power operation more profitable than tractorpower operation.” The committee also found: that “under average conditions wheat farms having more than 1000 acres in cultivation produce wheat as cheaply in many cases at lower cost an acre and a bushel with tractor operation (combined with horses) than with horses alone.” It was also stated that “even on large farms horse operation is efficient and need not necessarily he converted to tractor operation.” Another conclusion was that “horse-drawn combines harvest wheat ut less cost than tractor-drawn combines.”

'Piie initial cost of Lie tractor and the cost ol the l’fiel are much greater in New Zealand than in the United States, also Lie price of horse feed is cheaper here than in America. These facts are ail in favour of the horse in New Zealand. As farmers are growing wheat primarily for profit, until tractors are capable of performing field work a I lower cost than horses, ihev cannot he recommended for ihe small wheatgrower. Even the farmer who is growing wheat on a large scale will find it

more profitable to depend chiefly on horses for his power. He may, however (if he is working on a sufficiently large scale to warrant the expenditure), find it convenient, and possibly economical, to keep a powerful tractor to be used only at rush periods such as harvesting, to supplement bis horse teams.

Mr Clayton’s remarks support what lias frequently been pointed out, that horses will never be entirely superseded on tiie wheat farm. Under certain conditions tractors are satisfactory. It is not claimed that they do the work more economically than horses, but when there is a pressure of work they are invaluable. Very few farmers can afford to purchase a tractor as a hobby, and the fact that hundreds of wheat-growers have them makes it appear that they have their uses no matter what may be said to the contrary.