Net Produce.

Having drawn up his estimates of the value of agricultural and of pastoral produce, Mr Hayter adds £e two totals together and gives the result as the value of the produce of rural industry; but, though I am unwilling to differ from so high an authority—and one whom I have often suspected of being wrong, and in every case but this found to be right, I consider that before adding the totals we ought to deduct the value of the produce that is consumed by animals. The farmer does not make both the value of the hay and the value of the bullock that is fed upon it; he only makes the value of the bullock. This is so plain that Mr Hayter takes no account of the value of grass, because it is included in the value of stock. On the Other hand, probably the bulk of the oats and a considerable proportion of the hay are sold off the farm, and consumed in towns or exported. The problem now is, how much of this produce are we to consider as being consumed on the farm, and therefore counted in pastoral produce? We have no data for deciding this, and we are further hampered by the comparison with Victoria, where the production of hay is such a large and disproportionate item. The best I can do is to suggest that we should consider one-quarter of the oats and one-half of the hay to be consumed on the page 14 farm, together with all the green forage (though a good deal of that must be sold), and the whole of the "other root crops," which will be consumed by sheep and cattle. On this basis I will estimate the net produce of rural industry, and if the process be objected to we can fall back upon the original table of gross produce for the purpose of comparing New Zealand with Victoria. The result of the comparison is to show a net produce of over millions in New Zealand, and over 14¼ millions in Victoria. To arrive at an idea of what this means to the farming interest, we must divide it by the number of persons engaged in the production. The numbers for New Zealand are taken from the census; the numbers for Victoria are from Mr Hayter's estimate Year Book, 1886-7, page 57. The result of the calculation shows a produce per head of £149 in New Zealand against £104 for Victoria. If we adopt Mr Hayter's system, and take the gross product of both industries, we get the result of £161 in New Zealand and £118 in Victoria. Whichever calculation we take, the produce of New Zealand in proportion to the number of workers is far greater than that of Victoria. Low as our prices are, our produce is so vastly greater that its money value exceeds that of Victoria by the large amount thus shown. Under these circumstances, and in spite of the great efforts that have been made to stimulate manufacturing industries in Victoria, it may appear peculiar that there is a larger proportion of agriculturists in that colony than here. The class "Engaged in Pastoral Pursuits and Agriculture" contained in New Zealand 11.3 per cent of the population, and in Victoria 13.8 per cent. But this disproportion is really only apparent itself. It is caused by a peculiarity which has constantly to be taken into account in this comparison—viz., our large families: if we deduct the "domestic" class from the total populations, and so get something more nearly approaching to, though still exceeding, the number of persons whose produce we can take into account, we find about 32 per cent engaged in rural industries in New Zealand against about 30 per cent in Victoria.

If the further question be raised of how is it that prices are higher in Victoria, I suppose the general answer would be, because there is a larger town population to consume the products of agriculture, The fact is, however, that it is not a question of town population; the whole population are consumers of page 15 agricultural produce, and instead of being more numerous in proportion to producers than in this colony they are less so, as is shown by the proportion of 11.3 per cent of agriculturists in New Zealand against 13.8 in Victoria. The cause of higher prices is therefore not the superiority in number of the consumers. The real cause plainly is, that in Victoria more labour is required to produce a given amount of agricultural produce. The higher prices are simply the result of the lower rate of production.

The last point in this connection is that if the farmers and stock raisers suffer from the low prices, the rest of the colony must gain. The farmer, in the long run, cannot gain much from the superior productiveness of his land. Higher prices for freeholds or rents for tenancies, and lower prices for produce are the invariable result, but though the farmer may not be greatly the gainer, the community is, and the country which gets the largest return to a given amount of labour is the country which, other things being equal, must be the most prosperous in the long run.

In addition to this there is all the produce of gardens under one acre in extent, as to which we have no data, though the value must be considerable.