AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT’S REPORT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2323, 16 October 1908, Page 1

AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT’S REPORT.

COSTLY, BUT OF LITTLE VALUE.

ITS DEFICIENCIES IIEVIEWED

It may bo doubted (says the “Dominion”) if t-bo large amount of the tax. pavers’ money spent on tho annual production of tlio Agricultural _Dc~ partmont’s report is well invested. Much of that report is devoted to a review of the past and too little information for the luturp. To a iarmor thirsting for knowledge of how to increase his crops tho reviews ot the past, to which hundreds of pages of the report are devoted, must appear very efry reading. Possibly all tins ttninteresting mass of matter might he worth typing and pigeon-holing in tho Minister’s office, but m part of a document printed at a great pub he expense for distribution to benefit the farmers of tho country it is obviously overdone. The “Dominion” lias, on former occasions pointed out the need of more practical work, but, unfortunately, tho Minister "does not appear to possess the utilitarian spirit so neces-_ sary in tho head of a great and costly Department. The report tells of laborious experiments conducted on the experiment'’ farms, but lor want of tho specialist Ip , draw tlie deductions and build up Tiiteresting and instructive articles on them, from which the farmers could learn something, tho enormous expense involved in tho maintenance, of these stations is largely wasted. , These experiment farms must show their fruit through tho Departmental reports or not at all. For, out of reach as they are from most of tho farmers, they cannot be said to exist to bo visited and looked at. The investigators niay discover diamonds of knowledge on these costly Departmental establishments, but unless discoveries are presented through the Department’s literature in a maimer that will take hold .of tlio farmer’s mind, those diamonds will benofit practically nobody but the experimenters themselves. The records, as.they appear in the annual report, are doubtless proper records for farm overseers, etc., to present to tlieir specialists. But they are mainly the raw" material on which the specialist should write. Much of their contents have no right in their raw state to a place in an expensive annual report. A NOTORIOUS CIRCULAR.

The Minister’s. policy in this respect is rather perplexing. The policy initiated with “Circular 333” is destined, in the future, to be regarded as, perhaps, one of the most curious of the administrative acts of the present Parliament. Circular 333 in effect dispelled all the Departmental experts out of the experiment farms. The State biologist, bhomist, veterinarian, dairy commissioner, or viticulturist lias no right to put a foot upon any one of the experiment farms without the special * permission of the general Director of Experiment Farms. .Tlio country imagines that these farms exist for the purpose of carrying oil important and highly technical experiments, but the error of such an impression .in tho light ot Circular 333 becomes at once apparent. The highly .technical experiments are being carried on by unskilled, farm foremen, under a system of red-tapeism. Under this system the biologist, viticulturist, or other si>eeial.ist is obliged to communicate direct with the worker engaged in carrying his experiments. Circular 333 must- hang like a millstone about tho neck of every divisional head of the Department, stilling every attempt to do work of real value to the farmers. It is not intended to imply that there should, be no director of experiments, but that a policy, which makes the State specialists intruders when they visit the farms, should be swept out of existence QUESTIONS UNANSWERED. It is therefore not surprising that tlio records of the farm experiments are composed of so much that is posy and iininstructivc. The report, however, fails in other directions. Throughout its lialf-thousand pages oho finds too few articles that aim to answer the many poignant questions that are always occurring in. the l course of fanning practice. And it is rather singular that the most important biranahes of'tho industry scam to bo those which arc the most neglected in this respect. The great outcry last season for guidance in providing against periods of drought ill the future lias met with very feeble response in the annual report, and farmers who. are anxious to provide abundance of feed will do well 1 tc> seek instruction on this branch of farming elsewhere. In regard to the general management of stock, and the starting of farms by beginners, • wlio are so numerous in New Zealand, the most suitable varieties of animal or crops for different soils and climates of the country, and improved .methods and liew discoveries affecting tlie' various' branches of . agriculture, the report is distressingly silent, or lias its' information buried in ail improper setting. Tho scheme of the whole report shows a- deplorable lack of journalistic and commercial instinct. The monthly bulletins issued by tlie State Departments, of Australia contain much brighter reading, and must cost much less to produce. THE VALUE OF EDITING. ,

Tlie deficiency of the New Zealand report is emphasised by the following extract from the United States “Experiment Station Record” for May last:— . •

“The need of careful editing seems manifest. The transformation of a mass of origin'll data into a printed report requre®, in many cases, technical :knowledge and' constructive ability of the same high order as the, investigation itself. Without such editing a finished product ought rid more to be oxpected than from haphazard methods of inquiry. To neglect in tlio manuscript- the rules which have been scrupulously -adhered to in title field oi* ■in the laboratory may be needlessly to imperil the usefulness of the investigation.”