RATIONAL FARMING
By H. D. WALSTON
T F the British farmer is to satisfy the consumer he must produce j more food ; to satisfy the farm-worker he must pay higher wages ; to satisfy himself and his bank manager he must at least maintain his present profits. That is the problem that faces the agricultural industry. The only way it can be solved is by increasing the efficiency of the industry—in the words of the economists, by step- ping up its PMH.* This can be done either by mechanisation or by increasing the skill of the workers in the industry. A machine will enable a man to produce more than he could on his own, but it is extravagant to employ a machine for only a few months or a few weeks in the year and let it stand idle for the rest of the time. The economic argument against mechanisation is that it entails heavy capital expediture and high standing charges by way of interest on capital and depreciation. These are only justified if the machine is in constant use. With a seasonal occupation like farming it is not easy to ensure that this happens. T F the British farmer is to satisfy the consumer he must produce j more food ; to satisfy the farm-worker he must pay higher wages ; to satisfy himself and his bank manager he must at least maintain his present profits. That is the problem that faces the agricultural industry. The only way it can be solved is by increasing the efficiency of the industry—in the words of the economists, by step- ping up its PMH.* This can be done either by mechanisation or by increasing the skill of the workers in the industry. A machine will enable a man to produce more than he could on his own, but it is extravagant to employ a machine for only a few months or a few weeks in the year and let it stand idle for the rest of the time. The economic argument against mechanisation is that it entails heavy capital expediture and high standing charges by way of interest on capital and depreciation. These are only justified if the machine is in constant use. With a seasonal occupation like farming it is not easy to ensure that this happens.
The same holds good equally of capital equipment other than machinery—buildings, water-supplies, fences. This is particularly important in stock-farming. Stock-farming differs from arable- farming not only in that the crops grown are different, but that the lay-out of the fields is different also. In arable-farming the larger the field the better, whereas in stock-farming it is necessary to par- tition the fields off into small units to ensure good grazing and to give shelter to the cattle. Each of these small fields should have its own water-supply. The cost of this is considerable—in some parts of the country it may well amount to Lt5 an acre. Such an expen- diture is justified if each acre so fenced and watered is to be used constantly for stock. If, however, a mixed rotational system of farming is practised, this means that the field, in spite
* Output per man-hour. of being fenced and watered for stock, will for at least five years out of ten, and possibly for ten years out of fifteen, be used for arable production and have no stock in it.
In other words, to keep a given head of stock tinder such a system of farming means that at least twice as many acres, and possibly three times as many, must be fenced and watered. The capital required for fencing and watering under such a system will be two or three times as great as if the farm concentrated on stock- keeping. In the old days, when by far the larger proportion of pro- duction-costs was taken up by wages and feeding-stuffs, and standing charges accounted for only a minute percentage of the total costs, this argument was of little importance, but as wages increase the necessity for labour-saving devices becomes greater. In order to reduce standing charges these devices must be put to the fullest possible use. The same argument holds good with machinery. In the old days the only source of power on the farm was the horse, which could be used for a variety of operations throughout the year. Now the source of power is the tractor, but there is a far greater variety of tractors than there was of horses, some being suitable for heavy work, such as ploughing, and others for light haulage work. A light hatilage tractor is uneconomical if used for ploughing, and a ploughing tractor is uneconomical for use on the lighter jobs. Here, too, for efficient production each implement must be used for the maximum possible time for the job to which it is best suited.
Labour is only another aspect of the same problem. Rising wages make it ever more necessary to get the maximum output from each man. This means that a man experienced in one form of farming should be encouraged to make the fullest possible use of that experience and not waste his time on other jobs which require a different form of skill. A good cowman should not spend half his time carrying muck or hoeing mangolds, while a good tractor-driver should not have to get off his tractor to help with the milking. To those unacquainted with farming the answer would seem obvious—farms must be arranged in large units so as to give full scope for specialised equipment of all kinds and special- ised labour. However advisable such a course may be in theory, in practice it is not practical politics. Agriculture in this country is composed of small-farms ; approximately 8o per cent. of the total holdings are under roo acres in size. It is manifestly impossible to combine ten or twenty of such holdings into one large unit, scrap- ping most of the equipment and machinery and dispossessing most of the farmers. The only practical solution is a complete reversal of the war-time Government policy of mixed rotational farming. Instead, a firm lead must be given by the Ministry of Agriculture towards specialisation. We can only retain the existing social structure of our agriculture and at the same time increase its out- put per man (which, as has been said, is the only way of satisfying the legitimate requirements of consumer, farmer and farm-worker) by adopting a policy of specialisation. This will allow even small holdings of 3o or 4o acres, and certainly those of too to 15o acres, to increase their output, to reduce their costs and to compete with industry in wage-levels.
This can be shown by taking as an example a 150-acre farm operated (a) as a mixed farm according to the present accepted scheme, and (b) as a specialised farm. In the first case, all 150 acres of this farm would have to be fenced and watered for stock, although not more than 5o at one time would be down to grass. There would be 12 to 15 milch cows with young stock, a couple of horses and a few pigs. There would be one medium-sized general- purpose tractor, a drill and a binder, each costing about Lroo, and each being used for a maximum of ten days in the year, 6o to 70 acres of corn, to to 15 acres of clover and the balance roots and green fodder for the cattle. The size of the farm would not warrant a tractor large enough to do the heavy jobs economically, yet it would have to be used for ploughing, being the only tractor on the farm.. It would, therefore, have to be too large to be able to do the light work economically, and much of this would be done by horses. The dairy herd would be too small to warrant a first-class full-time cowman, but- if he were to have any time off at all his place would be taken by an even less skilled man. The rest of the livestock on the farm also would be looked after by non-specialists. There would not be enough work to keep the tractor-driver fully occupied on his tractor, so much of his time would be spent doing other jobs.
If, on the other hand, this were a specialised dairy farm, it could carry a herd of 5o milch • cows and young stock, and would be almost entirely a grassland farm. A few acres would be under arable crops, but these would be entirely for home consumption by the dairy herd. Heavy work, such as the ploughing necessary for growing these crops, would be done by an outside contractor with the most suitable machinery, and he would also harvest them. The light work on the farm, including hay-making, hoeing and haulage, would be done either by horses or a light, specialised tractor. Thus such machinery as there was would be in more or less constant use, and the labour would be employed the whole time on specialised jobs. This would lead to a really efficient production, so that it would be possible to pay higher wages than on the mixed farm, and at the same time it would be economical to put more capita; into fixed equipment
It is true that there are some difficulties associated with this type of farming, but they are drawbacks that can be overcome by Government action. The chief of these is the risk of disposing of the produce. If you have a variety of things to sell it is not so important if some of them cannot find a ready market. If you have only one commodity, it is essential that you should know that there is a market for it, and what the price will be. Long- term contracts for agricultural produce can meet this difficulty. Disease is another potential source of trouble, but modern re- search, coupled with an extension of the present panel system of veterinary service, and supplemented if necessary by some form of livestock insurance, will do away with most of the risk from this source. In any case, specialisation must not be confused with monoculture. A specialised arable farm will grow wheat, oats, barley and certain root crops ; a market garden will have many different forms of vegetables, as well as flowers ; a dairy farm, besides selling milk, will sell young stock and perhaps keep pigs to dispose of the surplus milk. We do not want the single-crop farmer ; we want the specialist in place of the Jack of all Trades.
Previous page
