The Fate of the Experimental Farms
Apart from Pope’s criticisms in 1912, the first serious appraisal of the work being undertaken by the experimental farms was produced by the Board of Agriculture early in 1916, one of the tasks that Massey had suggested two years earlier (Supplement to AJHR 1916). In many respects the Board’s report amounted to an endorsement of Pope’s views though there was no reference to them, hardly surprising in the light of the Board’s attitude to him.
Most significant was the comment that "the objective and policy of these farms has never been clearly laid down and there have been so many Ministers with various views as to what should be attempted that constant changes have left much ground for criticism". No particular changes that had proved so unsettling were mentioned, nor whether they had been pushed by any one Minister. The lack of response a few years earlier to Pope’s analysis might have indicated that changes had been too few and that complacency was really to blame.
The Board saw the farms as having three purposes — demonstration; experimental and scientific; and educational. Guarded approval of what had been accomplished in the demonstration sphere was given in the report though the number of farmers who actually visited any of the farms was limited. There is also little to suggest that management techniques were in any way superior to those of neighbouring farmers. As far as experimental work was concerned, the Board set out its views in stronger terms, "it is no use conducting experiments on lines that can never prove of possible advantage to New Zealand agriculture. Neither is it any use doing anything on lines that are already widely known and universally adopted. Improvements in existing New Zealand methods of farming, and the introduction of improved methods, must always be the object in view. There is, too, a matter of extreme importance — viz, plant breeding which includes the improvement of our various grains and fodder plants by of selection or cross fertilisation, and this work must be extended. The carrying out of ordinary commercial farming on any of the well known and widely adopted lines should not be the work of an experimental farm". Though this approach might limit the scope for demonstration work, it did put paid to the idea that the farms should "pay their way".
In its comments on individual institutions, the Board was fairly cautious. The lack of proper records meant that few conclusions could be drawn about past experimental work. Those at Weraroa had been lost. Managers were required to obtain approval from Wellington for all non-regular types of expenditure, and even for purely management decisions involving no extra spending. The disposal of Waerenga was recommended, but Ruakura’s topdressing experiments were commended; little worthy of praise was seen at Weraroa and it was suggested that half the property be sold. A reduction in the area at Moumahaki was also proposed but the plant breeding work that Atkinson, Hill and Beverley had begun there was praised. The latter two did not stay very long with the Department and their programme probably suffered from the inclusion of too many species nor did it seem to have produced any results. Members of the Board included some stud breeders and the Department’s sheep and dairy cattle came in for fairly strong criticism.
Little need was seen for the Department to be involved in this activity at all; pedigree breeders were meeting the country’s needs adequately. The possibility of a dairy school at Weraroa was canvassed, an idea that had been around since the 1890s. Presumably while this latter portion of the report was being prepared the Department was finalising plans to establish its Central Development Farm at Weraroa. The Board made no mention of such a scheme which conveys the impression that there was not much interaction between the two organisations.
Three years later, in 1919, the Board again looked at the experimental farms in its report to the Minister (Supplement to AJHR 1919). It considered that Te Kauwhata (the balance of Waerenga) should be sold, that Tauranga continue for another five years and that a reformed Moumahaki carry on with rape and turnip trials and expand those with lucerne. The Department followed a rather different course, closing Tauranga and Arataki in 1922 and selling off Moumahaki in 1925. Weraroa survived until 1929.
A brief reference was made in the Board’s 1925 report on agricultural instruction to Ruakura’s limited capacity for teaching; though 40 students were enrolled there, the place being under the direction of a recently appointed instructor, Percy Smallfield.
An idea of the problems facing Ruakura in the educational field and the Department’s lack of commitment was given by Sir Frank Heath the following year in his report to Government on the organisation of scientific research in New Zealand. He pointed out that there were no science laboratories though there was nominally instruction in science. From the early 1920’s, leading up to Massey University’s opening in 1928, debate moved away from the experimental farms and the work of those left receded into the background. Over a period of more than 25 years, their achievements had been meagre and, apart from some trials at Ruakura, had little impact on farming practice. Latterly they had devoted some attention to training farm workers — hardly farm managers — but those taking such courses faded from the scene also though they must, at least, have picked up some knowledge.
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
